Its sponsors, however, did not submit any signatures to election officials by the deadline.

If the initiative had qualified for the ballot and been approved by the state's voters, it would have:

Permitted the California State Legislature to pass by majority vote (rather than a 2/3rds supermajority vote), laws imposing fees, penalties and charges on businesses whose activities "pollute the air or water, damage public natural resources or harm public health."

Required the state government to spend the funds raised under the laws only on mitigation of actual or anticipated impacts, including enforcement costs and costs to reduce or prevent future impacts from the pollution or activity.

Required that the amount of any fee, penalty or charge must be reasonably related to the costs of mitigation.

Joseph Caves, who submitted the ballot language for each version, referred to each version as the "Polluter Accountability Act".

11-0078

"Permits the Legislature to pass by majority vote, rather than two-thirds, laws imposing fees, penalties and charges on businesses whose activities pollute the air or water, damage public natural resources or harm public health. Requires the State spend the funds raised under the laws only on mitigation of actual or anticipated impacts, including enforcement costs and costs to reduce or prevent future impacts from the pollution or activity. Requires the amount of any fee, penalty or charge be reasonably related to the costs of mitigation."

"Potential increase in state revenues, likely ranging in the tens of millions of dollars to the low hundreds of millions of dollars annually, depending on future actions of the Legislature. The revenues would be used to increase state spending on mitigation activities."

11-0079

"Permits the Legislature to pass by majority vote, rather than two-thirds, laws imposing fees, penalties and charges on activities that pollute the air or water, damage public natural resources or harm public health. Requires the State spend the funds raised under the laws only on mitigation of actual or anticipated impacts, including enforcement costs and costs to reduce or prevent future impacts from the pollution or activity. Requires the amount of any fee, penalty or charge be reasonably related to the costs of mitigation."

"Potential increase in state revenues, likely ranging in the tens of millions of dollars to the low hundreds of millions of dollars annually, depending on future actions of the Legislature. The revenues would be used to increase state spending on mitigation activities."

Path to the ballot

Joseph Caves submitted two letters requesting ballot titles on two different versions of the proposed initiative. One version was filed on November 17, 2011 and one version was filed on November 18, 2011.