Those states that don’t allow direct sales of Tesla vehicles hurts the California economy and is a restraint of trade. While I don’t expect the federal government to ever do anything to fix it, perhaps a different tact is to make it more expensive to sell products from a state that don’t allow reciprocal sales like direct Tesla sales. An outright vehicle ban would be difficult to get passed, even though that’s exactly what these other states like Michigan do. I suggest a 5-10% tax on all goods sold in California that are manufactured in a state that restricts sales of California goods.
California has a proposition system where the voters can make law. You need to obtain about 500,000 signatures to get a proposition in front of voters, but I think if properly framed, that may not be that hard. Part of the trick is how the collected funds are allocated. A direct approach is to provide those funds to consumers – for example a reduction in vehicle fees. Giving voters money always helps.
A more devious approach is using the money collected for children’s cancer research done in California. I’m sure there are other great suggestions on how the money could be used. The idea is to make it very painful to go against the proposition. Are you for this proposition that allows reciprocal sales between states or are you for killing kids. I purposely left out funding EV rebates or anything that would directly benefit Tesla.
Part of a successful proposition is the headline like. “Curing children’s cancer”. Now the proposition system has its own complex requirements, so that may not work. A more direct title would be “California Fair Trade Act”.
Anyway, this is just some rough ideas. I’m sure there are legal complexities to follow federal laws. If limited to vehicles, some states like Connecticut, Virginia and Arizona may not have any vehicle production. The proposition needs to be framed in a way that encourages those states to change their ways or have products produced in those state and sold to Californians taxed in California so they are at a competitive disadvantage.
The language must be clear that a California business entities must be free to sell directly to customers in another state, operate stores and provide service. No specific sales model such as a franchise is required by California manufacturers unless there are prior franchise contracts with the manufacturer.
Any law experts care to weigh in? Is this even legal to do? You want a proposition than doesn’t run into legal challenges.