The authors of Proposition 91 last year abandoned the measure, which is meant to prevent the governor and Legislature from grabbing transportation money for other purposes, and set it adrift without formal backing in the Feb. 5 election.

The orphaned proposition even got a brushoff in the Secretary of State's official Voter Information Guide, with the proposition's one-time backers saying it isn't necessary.

"Vote no," the argument in favor' of 91 says.

"It's not needed anymore," said Mark Watts, director of Transportation California in Sacramento, an education and advocacy group for transportation. Watts formerly headed the Prop. 91 campaigns and co-wrote the argument.

Watts conceded that having the measure on the ballot now is "a bit of a mess," but that circumstances have changed since the signatures needed to qualify it for the ballot were submitted.

What changed is voters passed Proposition 1A two years ago. It insulated gas sales tax money voters had already earmarked for transportation six years ago. When they passed Proposition 1A, voters also approved a massive $19 billion bond for highway construction to relieve congestion, make repairs and pay for mass transit.

But in the interim, enough valid signatures were gathered to qualify Proposition 91.

Since then, Watts and Jim Earp of the California Alliance for Jobs, the other original backer of Proposition 91, have done what they could to sink it.

As an example that the protections in 1A are enough, Watts said one should remember that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger didn't raid gas sales tax money to help bridge the budget shortfall.

"I think that shows that it's working," Watts said.

Locally, several Chambers of Commerce are coming out against Proposition 91. Darren Kettle, executive director of the Ventura County Transportation Commission, said the agency didn't have a position, but he believes passage of Proposition 91 was no longer necessary.

Not everyone thinks so, however.

Southern California Advocates for Transit, which advocates for mass transit, recently adopted Proposition 91 and became its chief proponent.

It's not so strange, said Kymberleigh Richards, public and legislative affairs director for the group, which, he says, advocates for "multi-modes" of transportation.

"Whether you're sitting on a bus or sitting in traffic, I think you'd support transportation funding," Richards said.

Voters have repeatedly made it known that transportation funding is a priority and that politicians should keep their hands off money earmarked for that purpose, Richards said. Passing 91 would be a way to do that.

Despite Proposition 1A, there are loopholes that have allowed both the governor and the Legislature to creatively redefine public transportation, like adding costs for school buses and buses for the disabled onto the ledger, according to Richards.

"For us, a lot of the support is from a philosophical standpoint," Richards said. "Voters passed Prop. 42 specifically to create a fund for all forms of transportation. The state and the Legislature twice have taken advantage of loopholes to take some of that money. Voters don't want them diverting that money away from transportation."