Because of false, misleading and unfair ballot language submitted by Attorney General Jerry Brown, today the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association has gone to court, as a leader in the effort to pass Proposition 23, filing a petition to compel amendments to the official label, title and summary that will be provided to voters by the State.
HJTA has taken this legal step because it certainly looks as though the Attorney General has crafted a description intended to sway voters to vote “no” on Prop. 23.
As the sitting Attorney General, and in his campaign for Governor, Jerry Brown should avoid even the appearance of impropriety. But he crossed a clear legal line when he presented official ballot language that fails to meet the test of impartiality in describing the initiative to voters.
Specifically, the petition for Writ of Mandate we filed contends, “that the Attorney General is attempting to influence the election with a misleading and clearly biased ballot label, title and summary in violation of the elections code” and “has used biased words and phrases that advocate for [Prop. 23’s] defeat rather than merely informing voters of its chief purpose and effect.”
Among violations we cite are:
- The false implication that Prop. 23 suspends all or many “air pollution control laws.” In actuality the measure only suspends one law, AB 32, which deals with global warming. It will not impact greenhouse gas (GHG) control laws that have separate legal authority nor will it impact all other air quality, water quality and environmental laws such as the Clean Air Act, California Environmental Quality Act and the California Water Quality Act.
- The singling out and misleading characterization of AB 32-regulated entities as “major polluters,” specifying power plants and oil refineries when in fact GHG emissions reductions will be required from all sectors of the economy and encompass universities, agricultural facilities, municipal buildings, and tens of thousands of private companies, agencies and private citizens.
- The false statement that Prop. 23 would require the “abandonment” of GHG reduction programs. In reality the measure merely calls for a temporary delay in implementation of certain regulations in AB 32 (Global Warming Solutions Act).
Proposition 23 is a remarkably simple, common-sense measure that will save California families billions of dollars in higher energy costs and protect over a million jobs by temporarily suspending a global warming law that even the Air Resources Board admits will do nothing to reduce global warming.
With almost 2.3 million Californians unemployed and our state leading the nation in home foreclosures and debt, the least we can do for voters is give them a fair and honest description of a proposition that can provide some much-needed relief during these tough economic times.
Falsely implying Prop. 23 would repeal the state’s clean air laws is illegal, and the more than 800,000 voters who signed petitions to put Prop. 23 on the November ballot deserve better.
Just as voters are looking to the ballot for relief from AB 32’s enormous economic burdens, we are now looking to the court for relief from the Attorney General’s unfortunate misrepresentations.
In addition to Brown, the petition we submitted to the court also names the State Printer as a “Real Party in Interest” and Secretary of State Debra Bowen as Respondent. Copies of the legal documents may be viewed on the Yes on 23 website.