June 27, 2024
Golden State Republican Women
Janet Price, President
Submitted by the GSRW Legislative Analyst Committee
Valerie Evans, Lou Ann Flaherty and Elaine Freeman,
FOR ANYONE WHO HAS NOT HEARD!
California Supreme Court’s Shocking Decision Blocking the Taxpayer Protection Act from the Ballot
The majority Democrat-appointed judges on the California Supreme Court silenced the 1.43 million Californians who signed and placed the Taxpayer Protection Act on the November ballot.
The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (TPA) campaign issued the following statement from Rob Lapsley, president of the California Business Roundtable, Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and Matthew Hargrove, president and CEO of the California Business Properties Association:
“Today’s ruling is the greatest threat to democracy California has faced in recent memory. Governor Newsom has effectively erased the voice of 1.43 million voters who signed the petition to qualify the Taxpayer Protection Act for the November ballot. Most importantly, the governor has cynically terminated Californians’ rights to engage in direct democracy despite his many claims that he is a defender of individual rights and democracy. Evidently, the governor wants to protect democracy and individual rights in other states, but not for all Californians.
The Taxpayer Protection Act would have:
The initiative would have amended the California Constitution to define all state and local levies, charges, and fees as taxes. The initiative would have also required new or increased taxes to be passed by a two-thirds legislative vote in each chamber and approved by a simple majority of voters.
It would also have increased the vote requirement for local taxes proposed by local government or citizens to a two-thirds vote of the local electorate. The increased vote requirements for new or higher taxes would have not applied to citizen-initiated state ballot measures. As of 2024, state tax increases require approval by a two-thirds vote in each chamber or a simple majority vote at a statewide election.
THE CALIFORNIA BUDGET
The California Legislature met their constitutional deadline for having an approved budget by June 15th so that they will continue to be paid. That being said, it is NOT a real budget. The Legislature has yet to reach an agreement with the Governor, who must sign a budget by the new fiscal year beginning July 1st.
The budget is similar to the budget proposed by the Governor, BUT there are notable differences affecting both revenue and spending. The Legislature budget proposes solutions totaling $46.6 billion for the 2024-2025 fiscal year and $29.8 billion for the 2025-2026 fiscal year. These, for the most part, are from program deductions and increased revenues. Program deductions amount to $16.6 billion in 2024-2025 and #11.6 billion in 2025-2026. Revenues are expected to generate $20.6 billion and $7.8 billion for the same periods. As you will note, there is a revenue gap.
The $44.9 billion state deficit must be addressed and the Governor and Legislature are not in agreement on key aspects. The Governor has proposed significant reductions in various state programs, which the Legislature has only partially embraced.
Among the critical measures passed are SB 154 and SB 167. SB 154 suspends the Proposition 98 school funding requirement, which mandates a minimum funding obligation for school districts and community colleges for the 2023-2024 year. SB 167 addresses taxation and revenues, implements a three-year suspension of corporate net operating deductions and various business credits (tax increases on business) starting this year. This measure is expected to generate an additional $5 billion in revenue compared to the Governor’s plan.
(Just an editorial comment) Since the revenues were severely over estimated in the last two fiscal years, these estimates are also suspect, considering the current overall economy.
SB 1177, as amended, Bradford. Public utilities: women, minority, disabled veteran, and LGBT business enterprises.
(1) Existing law requires the Public Utilities Commission to require every electrical corporation, gas corporation, water corporation, wireless telecommunications service provider, electric service provider, and telephone corporation with annual gross California revenues exceeding $25,000,000, and their regulated subsidiaries and affiliates, to annually submit a detailed and verifiable plan for increasing procurement from women, minority, disabled veteran, and LGBT business enterprises (WMDVLGBT business enterprises) and an annual report to the commission regarding the implementation of programs related to procurement from WMDVLGBT business enterprises, as specified.
Existing law requires the commission to require each of the above-described entities with gross annual California revenues exceeding $15,000,000, but not more than $25,000,000, to annually submit data in a simplified form to the commission on its procurement from WMDVLGBT business enterprises, as specified. Existing law requires the commission, by rule or order to, adopt criteria for verifying and determining the eligibility of WMDVLGBT business enterprises for procurement contracts.
This bill would require the above-described entities with annual gross California revenues exceeding $25,000,000, and would require the above-described entities with annual gross California revenues exceeding $15,000,000, but not more than $25,000,000, to include certain information as part of each annual report or data submission described above, including, among other information, data regarding the diversity of contractor or subcontractor workforces, as provided.
This bill would require the above-described entities with annual gross California revenues exceeding $25,000,000, and their commission-regulated subsidiaries and affiliates, to submit annually a diversity, equity, and inclusion employment plan, as defined, that includes short- and long-term goals and timetables to promote the employment of women, minorities, disabled veterans, and LGBT individuals at all levels of employment within their organizations, and would require those entities to file an annual report regarding the implementation of the programs to promote the employment of those individuals.
Under existing law, a violation of an order, decision, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the commission is a crime.
(2) Existing law requires the commission to require each community choice aggregator with gross annual revenues exceeding $15,000,000 to annually submit a report to the commission regarding its procurement from WMDVLGBT business enterprises in all categories, including, but not limited to, renewable energy, energy storage system, and smart grid projects.
This bill would require community choice aggregators to provide certain information as part of the above-described annual report, including, among other information, data regarding the diversity of contractor or subcontractor workforces, as provided. The bill would also require the commission to direct each community choice aggregator with gross annual revenues exceeding $15,000,000 to annually submit a detailed and verifiable diversity, equity, and inclusion employment plan to promote inclusive hiring at all levels of employment within its organization, as provided.
Hearing: Jul 1 in State Capitol, Room 437
AB 2947, as amended [in assembly 4/8/24], Key Words: Water: turfgrass conversion.
Existing law establishes the Department of Water Resources within the Natural Resources Agency and prescribes the powers and responsibilities of the department. The Water Conservation in Landscaping Act provides for a model water efficient landscape ordinance that is adopted and updated at least every 3 years by the department, unless the department makes a specified finding.
This bill would prohibit the department, when it allocates funding for turf replacement programs, from excluding urban water suppliers’ turfgrass conversion rebate programs if the rebate program requires the recipient of a rebate to achieve a net water savings and to use the most efficient turfgrass irrigation equipment, as provided.
The bill would require an urban water supplier that offers a turfgrass conversion rebate program using funds awarded by the department after January 1, 2025, to report annually to the department on the number of turfgrass conversions that are funded through the program and the estimated water savings from the program. program until the funds are exhausted.
Interesting Water Facts from this bill:
(a) On average, California communities use 10 percent of water statewide, agriculture uses 40 percent, and the environment uses 50 percent, according to the Public Policy Institute of California.
(b) According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, about one-half of California’s urban water usage is for outdoor uses such as landscaping, pools, and washing cars, and 70 percent of that usage is residential. This means that, of California’s total water use, approximately 3.5 percent is outdoor residential use.
(c) According to the Public Policy Institute of California, total urban water use has plateaued, even though California’s population grew by 5.5 million people from 2000 to 2020.
(f) One 50-foot-by-50-foot patch of turfgrass produces enough oxygen for a family of four.
(g) An average-sized healthy lawn can capture as much as 300 pounds of carbon per year and one soccer field can offset the carbon produced by a car driving 3,000 miles.
DON’T FORGET THE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE, THURSDAY, JUNE 27, AT 6:00p.m. simulcast on your favorite channel
Legislative Portal links – Express your support or opposition to a bill or directly to the Legislative committee currently reviewing it (as an individual, not as a member of RW or GSRW) – click here, or the bill’s author – click here, enter your bill # and look for tab at top of the bill page labeled “Comments to Author”.
