California Voters Reject Forcing the Wealthy to Help Pay for Electric Cars

California residents have overwhelmingly voted against a ballot question that proposed taxing the wealthy to subsidize the price of electric vehicles for lower-income residents.

This past August, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) voted to ban gas-powered cars by 2035. The measure requires all new cars and light trucks sold in the state to not emit carbon and other greenhouse gases, in an effort to lower the state's carbon emissions.

Proposition 30, which was on the ballot Tuesday, proposed a 1.75 percent tax on residents earning more than $2 million annually. Funds from the tax would have been largely used to subsidize electric vehicle purchases and charging stations for lower-income residents. If the proposition had passed, part of the tax would have funded wildfire prevention and clean energy programs.

The proposition was rejected by voters by a nearly 20 percent margin, according to Associated Press estimates. Politicians on both sides of the aisle criticized the proposal, which would have added as much as $5 billion to California's annual tax revenue.

Many who opposed Proposition 30 said they felt it unfairly benefited ride-share corporations, which are required to use zero-emission vehicles for 90 percent of their miles by 2030, according to rules the CARB passed last year. That's five years before the ban on new gas-powered vehicles goes into effect.

Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom, who won reelection Tuesday night by a landslide, vehemently opposed the proposition, saying it overwhelming benefited one ride-sharing corporation, Lyft. With only days to go before the election, Newsom's campaign funneled $1.6 million into the opposition group opposing the proposition.

Newsom's campaign celebrated his election results in a statement Wednesday. "A great result for California and for Gavin Newsom, a governor who's clearly earned tremendous respect and credibility as a climate leader with proven ability to do big things without raising taxes," the statement said.

Some politicians and legal experts argued that the proposition was largely backed by Lyft. Proposition 30 opponents said Lyft backed the proposition to take advantage of the subsidy to fund its transition to zero-emission vehicles.

"Prop. 30 is a special interest carve-out—a cynical scheme devised by a single corporation to funnel state income tax revenue to their company," Newsom previously said in a statement sent to Newsweek by his campaign.

"California's tax revenues are famously volatile, and this measure would make our state's finances more unstable—all so that special interests can benefit," he went on.

"Californians should know that just this year our state committed $10 billion for electric vehicles and their infrastructure, part of a $54 billion nation-leading package to fight climate change and build a zero-emission future. Don't be fooled. Prop. 30 is fiscally irresponsible and puts the profits of a single corporation ahead of the welfare of the entire state," the governor said.

Lyft Senior Communications Manager C.J. Macklin told Newsweek that the election results were an "unfortunate setback for the climate movement."

"Millions were spent by the opposition to confuse and misguide voters. However, we are undaunted. Climate change remains a generational issue that increasingly impacts every aspect of our lives," Macklin said.

"We are proud to be a part of such a diverse and powerful coalition that includes some of the state's most prominent environmental, public health, social justice, business and labor organizations, and we remain committed to achieving our collective climate goals," Macklin said.

Vote No on Prop 30, the group opposing the measure, said the tax hike would have further exacerbated the exodus of residents from the Golden State.

"#Prop30 would impose a massive tax hike on Californians," Vote No on Prop 30 tweeted on Sunday. "California's high taxes are already causing businesses and individuals to leave the state and have already cost the state $17/8 billion in lost revenue."

Clean Air California, the coalition behind the Yes on 30 campaign, released a statement saying that despite its loss, millions of Californians supported the "bold measure to fight climate change." The coalition blamed the proposition's rejection on the heavily funded opposition.

"Although we came up short, the strong support for this measure from firefighters, public health groups, environmentalists and many of the state's leaders shows the urgency for action," the statement said.

It continued: "Polls showed that a majority of voters supported Prop 30 until 30 of the richest people in the world spent tens of millions of dollars on lies and disinformation, aided by a governor who will be responsible for the consequences of its defeat: more catastrophic wildfires, more toxic air pollution, more carbon emissions and yet another reason for young voters to give up hope that we can solve problems together."

Vote No on Prop 30 criticized Lyft for allegedly backing the proposition with $50 million instead of funneling those dollars into purchasing electric vehicles for the company.

"@lyft spent $50M in an attempt to get taxpayers to pay for their State-mandated transition to EVs," Vote No on Prop 30 tweeted Monday. "Lyft could have bought 1125 EVs for $40,000 each for its Express Drive subsidiary & rented to drivers, compared to the 185 EVs currently on its Express Drive Platform."