Prop 412 Rejected Because of Climate Concerns, Informing What Must Happen Next

by Ojas Sanghi

It was not higher fees that killed Tucson’s Prop. 412. Instead, it was the Democratic, liberal vote — the climate vote — that tanked this proposition. The climate-concerned electorate may not have been all the voters against Prop 412, but they were the deciding group.

If TEP, the Mayor and Council wish to pass a new franchise agreement, onboarding these voters will be critical.

In the May 16 vote, 56% of city voters soundly rejected the ballot measure proposing a 25-year city franchise agreement with TEP that included a new monthly fee to fund the underground installation of powerlines.

Proposition 412 was a great opportunity to bring TEP to heel and compel it to take action on the climate crisis, yet it did nothing of the sort.

Now that the dust has settled, city officials are looking at what’s next. What does a new version of a franchise agreement look like?

No grassroots support

To answer that, we must understand what caused it to be defeated. The Mayor & Council approved it unanimously, and it received numerous endorsements by “grasstops” leaders, yet it failed to garner support from the grassroots community.

So which groups caused it to fail? Figuring that out and ensuring those groups are satisfied will be essential to getting the next version of a franchise agreement passed.

The city has released precinct-level election data, which is very insightful. After making a couple of maps of that data and analyzing them, we see compelling evidence that climate concerns were the deciding factor in Prop 412’s defeat. 

Take a look at these first two maps:

Figure 1      Figure 2

Figure 1 maps the percent margin of victory for yes/no in the Prop 412 election. Green represents yes, and red represents no. Figure 2 maps the percent margin of victory for Biden/Trump in the 2020 presidential election. Blue represents Biden, and Red represents Trump.

At first glance, it is already quite obvious that the No vote did best in areas won by Trump on the east side, likely to be conservative areas that voted against the proposition due to taxes, or due to their opposition to climate action.

But, Trump lost the city by nearly 35 points, and Prop 412 was defeated by 12 points. So it wasn’t just Trump supporters — and thus an anti-tax and anti-climate action populace — that caused 412’s demise.

Clearly, Democrats played a role in it. We see this in downtown and central Tucson: Biden and other Democrats performed very well in 2020, and those are also areas that were strongly against the proposition. This gives us a clear indication that liberals and played an important role in defeating this proposition.

Now, there is the possibility that Prop 412 was defeated primarily because of the rate increase rather than because people cared about the climate crisis. To validate that, one might want to compare the election results of Prop 412 to an election that focused on taxes — fortunately, Prop 411 just last year focused on exactly that. So, comparing the results of those two elections provides valuable insight. Take a look:

Figure 3

This map compares the margin of victory, in percent difference between yes/no, for propositions 412 and 411. Because all but one precinct shifted more towards No between Prop 411 and 412, this shows areas that shifted less towards No (represented by green) and more towards no (red) than the city as a whole. This map tells us how parts of the city voted compared to an expected vote if the same issues from 411 were present.

Prop 411 was primarily decided on taxes in 2022. If the argument that Prop 412 was defeated primarily because of the rate increase rather than because of climate concerns was true, we would expect the elections to have similar results. So if people really had rejected Prop 412 because of taxes, then we would expect to see a uniform shift towards no across the city, not varying by region.

In this map, that would be represented by every precinct being colored white. But, when we compare the two elections, we see that is clearly not the case — in fact, it’s quite the opposite. Voters in Midtown, through the University and into Downtown all significantly disliked this proposition more than the city as a whole. Much of the East and the West were somewhat similar to the overall city. And the Southeast was much more in favor of the Proposition than the city as a whole. This vast regional disparity alone discredits the notion of taxation being the main reason for this failure.

Referring back to Figures 1 and 2 again, the areas that voted against 412 were by far much more young and liberal areas — in 2020, these areas supported Democrats by upwards of 80%. And compared to the city as a whole, Prop 412 performed the worst with the most liberal voters and about as expected with the conservative vote. 

All of this evidence points to the fact that Prop 412 was defeated because of the lack of climate action. Tucson’s climate-conscious voters picked up on TEP’s hollow greenwashing, and rejected this proposition.

TEP must commit to reducing carbon emissions

Now, when it comes to negotiating a franchise agreement, it’s useful to know that without a franchise, TEP must get a permit every time they wish to dig something up. Obtaining a franchise is in their interest, so the city must keep this in mind and negotiate from a position of strength. 

M&C must not grant an election for a new franchise agreement until and unless TEP makes concrete commitments to reduce their carbon emissions, and until the two parties strike a deal that legally binds TEP to do so. This can be in the form of a side agreement — but if so, then the two documents (the franchise agreement and a side, climate-focused agreement) must be negotiated simultaneously, in parallel.

The leverage that the city holds with the franchise agreement represents a big opportunity to finally make TEP clean up its act and reduce its carbon emissions. To meet the IPCC’s 2030 deadline, no less action must be taken. 

So, reader, I have one simple ask of you: email the Mayor & Council and convey this sentiment. Only when they hear from numerous constituents about the importance of climate action in the franchise agreement will they be emboldened to push back against TEP and not give ground until climate concessions are made.