How Proposition 30 is Dividing the California Democratic Party

By Nitya Sharma

It’s election season, and come November 8th there is a single environmental proposition on California voter’s ballots; Proposition 30, which aims to increase funding for electric vehicles. According to the Senate office of District 13 annual report, in the state of California the largest producer of greenhouse gas emissions is in fact not industry, which constitutes 21.1% of total emissions, but transportation, which constitutes 40.1% of total emissions. Furthermore, the largest source of emissions from transportation is passenger vehicles, so it’s unsurprising that curbing vehicle emissions is at the forefront of the California climate fight. 

However, despite being an effort to curb vehicle emissions, Proposition 30 has not received the expected amount of support, especially from democratic leaders. This is due, in part, to concerns over the intentions of the group endorsing the prop– rideshare behemoth, Lyft. In its simplest form, as written in the measure’s text, Proposition 30 is a tax on wealthy Californians, from which the excess revenue generated would be used to fund electric vehicle manufacturing, charging station installations, and wildfire prevention infrastructure. 

In a state plagued by devastating wildfires, and aiming to eliminate the sale of gas cars by 2035, the move would undoubtedly help reach certain climate goals, say most democratic leaders, including the mayor of San Jose. Additionally, the majority of California residents would be left unaffected by the tax, as only those earning over 2 million dollars annually would be taxed– at a mere 1.75%. ABC7 News reports that the result of the tax would be an additional 100 billion dollars of investment spending in electric cars and wildfire infrastructure over the next 20 years. 

In spite of its clear benefits, some leaders, including California governor, Gavin Newsom, have expressed their opposition to the proposition. It is important to note that the California Democratic Party and the California Environmental Voters officially endorse the proposition. It is the California Republican Party and select Democratic leaders, however high-profile they may be, that are voicing their disapproval. In a KCRA 3 broadcast funded by the No on 30 campaign, Gavin Newsom cautioned that “Prop 30 is being advertised as a climate initiative, but in reality, it was devised by a single corporation to funnel state income taxes to benefit their company. Put simply, Prop 30 is a trojan horse that puts corporate welfare above the fiscal welfare of our entire state.” 

Opponents of the Proposition, including Newsom, argue that the rideshare companies endorsing the Prop aim to use the money generated by the tax to alleviate the financial burden they will face in meeting Newsom’s own 100% electric vehicles by 2035 mandate. Alternately, supporters of the Prop argue that the corporations who seek to benefit from the Prop are not all that different from those whom it will hurt. The tax would affect only the highest earners in California, millionaires, who can stand to hand over 1.75% of their income for the greater good. 

Proposition 30 is unique because unlike most ballot measures, it is not dividing leaders among party lines. Instead, voters must choose whether they value preserving the income of top earners over expediting California’s journey towards zero emissions, or whether supporting the interests of corporations even if for the greater good of the state is too great of an ethical burden to bear. The power is in the hands of the voters, as long as they make it to the ballot and vote!