Californians Rejecting Proposition 45 in Early Returns
It’s still too close to call the outcome of Proposition 45, a ballot measure asking Californians to reform an environmental review law that applies to building “essential” projects across the state, like new housing, healthcare facilities and transportation.
But the No on Prop. 45 campaign held an early and expanding lead with 54.3% of the vote as of 10:05, but only by a single-digit margin.
“At a time when Trump is dismantling our core environmental safeguards from the federal level, the last thing that we want to do is do the same thing here,” Woody Little, a spokesperson for the No on Prop. 45 campaign, said in an interview late Tuesday night.
“I think voters saw that there was a real threat. This would increase air and pollution, water pollution and threaten the health of their families by limiting environmental review,” Little said.
The Yes on Prop. 45 side told KQED it was not yet ready to comment on the unfolding election results.
The ballot measure asked voters to amend the state’s landmark environmental review law, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), to expedite specific “essential” projects, including housing, healthcare facilities, water, wildfire mitigation, educational buildings, internet access, clean energy and transportation. It sets a 365-day time limit on these environmental reviews and requires courts to rule on CEQA-related lawsuits within 270 days.
The debate swirling around the proposition centered on whether the language would allow jurisdictions to fast-track the approval of data centers, falling under the “broadband internet” category — supporters argued it would not, and opponents said the opposite.
Jason Elliot worked with the California Chamber of Commerce to write the measure and emphasized that data centers were not included.
“A data center is not a broadband line; they’re just different things,” Elliot said on KQED’s Forum. Elliot noted that data centers are hugely unpopular. “Will someone somewhere try to make some argument? Sure, but the text of the measure is absolutely clear. The data centers are just simply not covered.”
But opponents argued the language might allow for the controversial centers, saying there’s a provision in the measure that applies to “ancillary infrastructure.”
Both sides cited lawyers who supported their arguments.
Proposition 45 supporters argued the environmental review process is too slow, bureaucratic and costly, and that the measure will not get rid of that process, but simply expedite it. Those in support said the change would reduce frivolous lawsuits, blamed in part for slowing the building of any kind in the state. Ballot measure language excluded specific, more controversial projects, like nuclear power, high-speed rail and a proposed underground tunnel to move water from the Sacramento River south under the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
Prominent supporters included a political action committee formed by Silicon Valley tech executives, the California Building Industry Association, the California Chamber of Commerce and California Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, D-East Bay, who championed successful legislative CEQA changes last year.
Opponents argued the proposition limited the environmental review of major development projects and the public’s right to be heard. They argued the measure is too broad, and while it may fast-track hospitals, the language allows for the fast-tracking of other, less desirable projects, like freeway expansions or carbon dioxide pipelines. Opponents said long-term environmental degradation costs would be passed on to agencies and taxpayers.
Major opponents include philanthropist Wendy Schmidt, environmental groups and the State Building Construction Trades Council of California.
Supporters raised more than $40 million while opponents raised more than $30 million.
Editor’s Note: The Eric and Wendy Schmidt Family Foundation is a supporter of KQED. KQED maintains editorial control of its coverage, and our editorial judgments are made independently — not based on or influenced by donors or any revenue source.