Proposition 22 (2010)

Local Taxpayer, Public Safety and Transportation Protection Act

Click here to create an account and save your votes.

Would prohibit the state, even during severe fiscal hardship, from using property tax and gas tax revenues allocated for cities, counties and special districts. The measure would prevent the state from taking existing local funds allocated to redevelopment and transportation agencies, public safety and other local services.

Official Election Results:

Yes: 5,733,755 [60.7%]
No: 3,725,014 [39.3%]



Supporters say that Proposition 22 is necessary to prevent the state from borrowing from local services to close the budget deficit. They say it is needed to keep funding in place for publicly financed construction projects, transportation services, and housing and business assistance programs.


Yes on 22/Californians to Protect Local Taxpayers and Vital Services Online Campaign Literature Archive

California Alliance for Jobs[Website archived in Online Campaign Literature Archive]

League of California Cities

California Transit Association


Opponents say closing off these funds to state borrowing would put education, public safety, and social service funding at risk of state appropriation. They claim that Prop. 22 would protect redevelopment agencies and developers while diminishing funding for core services like education and firefighting.


No on Prop.22 [Archived in Internet Archive]

California Teachers Association

California Nurses Association

California Professional Firefighters

In Depth


In California, state and local government funding and responsibilities are interrelated. Both levels of government share revenues raised by sales and fuel taxes. Both also share the costs for some programs—such as many health and social services programs. While the state does not receive any property tax revenues, it has authority over the distribution of these revenues among local agencies and schools.

Recently, faced with multibillion-dollar budget gaps, state legislators have turned to cities, counties, special districts and redevelopment agencies for money to help bridge state budget gaps. Mostly this has involved "shifting" property tax funds from local governments to school districts, which reduces the state's obligation to use state funds to meet the minimum school funding level under Proposition 98. State officials have also used gasoline tax money to pay for state transportation bonds, instead of sending the money to local agencies.

In response, California voters have approved measures that limit the state’s authority over local finances. Proposition 1A (2004) removed the state's authority to permanently shift city, county, and special district property tax revenues to schools, or take certain other actions that affect local governments. In addition, Proposition 1A (2006) restricted the state’s ability to borrow state gasoline sales tax revenues. But neither of these provisions remove state authority to temporarily borrow or redirect some city, county, and special district funds in emergency situations, nor do they affect the state’s authority to redirect local redevelopment agency revenues.

Proposition 22 would eliminate that flexibility, by barring the state from borrowing property taxes or reducing the share received by redevelopment agencies. It also would direct fuel taxes into a trust fund.


According to the Legislative Analyst's Office, the state would have about $1 billion less in the current fiscal year to help close the budget deficit. Because the gasoline tax money could not be used to repay transportation bonds, over the next 20 years the state would have about $1 billion less each year to make those payments.

The inability to take or borrow redevelopment funds means that the state would have up to several billion less each year to help balance the budget.

With the state restricted from borrowing or taking their money, local governments would have more money to spend on services.


Coming soon!

Voter Resources

Official CA Documents

Official Voter Information Guide

Campaign Finance Information

Cal-Access General

Committees formed to support or oppose the ballot measure

Cal-Access Ballot Measure Summary Data Search 
Select General 02 November 2010 and Proposition 022.

Cal-Access provides financial information supplied by state candidates, donors, lobbyists, and others.

Nonpartisan Analyses


Pros & Cons (League of Women Voters)

Reports and Studies

Proposition 22: Should California Lock In Funding For Local Governments, Redevelopment, and Transportation? California Budget Project Budget Brief, September 2010.

Long Beach Mayor Bob Foster on Prop. 22 -- Save Your City California
Long Beach Mayor Bob Foster on Prop. 22 -- Save Your City California
Voter Minute: Proposition 22 -- Center for Governmental Studies
Voter Minute: Proposition 22 -- Center for Governmental Studies
Rancho Cordova Mayor Ken Cooley reviews Proposition 22 -- Ken Cooley
Rancho Cordova Mayor Ken Cooley reviews Proposition 22 -- Ken Cooley
Understanding Proposition 22 -- Smart Voter- California
Understanding Proposition 22 -- Smart Voter- California

Forum With Michael Krasny: Propositions 22
KQED Radio
Share |