HJTA Sues to Stop Deceptive Voter Information In High Speed Rail Initiative

SACRAMENTO -- Today the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association has asked the courts to order the Attorney General to prepare a new title and summary for Proposition 1A, the High Speed Rail initiative, or to strike false and misleading statements from the existing Title and Summary written by the Legislature.

Proposition 1A was placed on the ballot just last week as a replacement for Proposition 1. Both would authorize a massive $9.9 billion bond as seed money for a controversial "high speed rail" project from San Francisco to Los Angles. But the switch from Prop 1 to Prop 1A will cost the state over $5 million just for the supplemental ballot -- and serious questions have been raised about whether the Secretary of State even has enough time to comply with federal laws designed to permit overseas military personnel to vote on the election.

Jon Coupal, President of Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, said: "Proposition 1A is flawed both procedurally and substantively. The manner in which the title and summary have been prepared, the false and misleading information in the ballot material and the fact that this project will be one of the biggest boondoggles in American history is cause for great concern."

"The real problem with Proposition 1A," said Coupal, "is that the title and summary of the measure do not match up with the words of the actual law putting it on the ballot."

Coupal noted that the normal process for putting a measure on the ballot was completely bypassed: "Rather than have the Attorney General prepare the title and summary, the legislature -- under the influence of the project's proponents -- prescribed how the title and summary will appear in the ballot pamphlet. Voters need to understand that what they read in the ballot pamphlet is not objective or unbiased."

Coupal noted that the most stark example of erroneous language being that the summary states that there exists a requirement for "matching funds" from either the federal government or private sources: "The problem is that the language in the measure itself has no requirement for matching funds -- only that such matching funds will be 'encouraged.' There is a huge difference to taxpayers if matching funds are required versus merely being 'encouraged.'"