California voters will decide Tuesday whether to approve Proposition 86, which would levy a $2.60 per pack cigarette tax and earn the state an estimated $2.1 billion in revenues starting in 2007.

The initiative exemplifies a trend described in the Public Policy Institute of California's September report, "California's Exclusive Electorate," which shows a widening gap between California voters and the state population as a whole. Voters, who tend to be older, whiter and more anti-tax than the majority of Californians, often shoot down propositions favored by the majority – and are currently tied over Proposition 86.

But 60 percent of Californians – and 70 percent of those who don't vote – support spending more money for health care, according to the study. Proposition 86 enjoys support from a coalition of health care advocates, children's groups and ethnic community representatives.

The measure has created a battleground, as tobacco companies and healthcare advocates both lay claim to California’s underrepresented majority.

As Election Day gets closer, each side has painted itself as the true voice of low-income and minority Californians, many of whom won’t come to the polls, according to the study.

Immigrant-rights and minority advocacy groups, from the statewide Mobilize the Immigrant Vote campaign to San Francisco nonprofit PODER, People Organizing to Demand Environmental and Economic Rights, are trying to get the message to their constituents to support Proposition 86, which would also help pay for emergency care services, nursing education and smoking prevention programs.

"We're focusing on informing the Latino voting community of the importance of coming out to vote," said Antonio Diaz, director of PODER, which conducted voter registration drives in immigrant communities. "In general, we've been getting a positive response. Folks recognize – whether they're smokers or not – smoking is not a healthy habit to have."

At the same time, tobacco companies Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds have so far spent at least $60 million on the “No on 86” campaign, buying expensive television advertising and distributing posters to the liquor and tobacco stores that dominate low-income neighborhoods.

The strategy appears to be working. The measure enjoyed a comfortable 63 percent approval rating in July, but it slipped to 45 percent in a Nov. 2 Field Poll. Propositions with wavering support heading into Election Day are less likely to pass, according to political experts.

The cigarette companies are spending millions to persuade their customers that the regressive tax will harm them financially more than it will help the greater good. Smokers disproportionately tend to be lower-income minorities, according to health and public policy experts.

“The conundrum for the tobacco companies is that they need poor voters to come out,” said Larry Gerston, political science professor at San Jose State University. “I’m not sure (they) are going to be able to rally the people who just don’t vote.”

Brandon Johnson of Oakland is one of those people. The sharply dressed man was buying a cigar and some alcohol at Uptown Market & Liquors in Oakland on a recent Friday night. Johnson smokes cigarettes, but hadn't realized that Proposition 86 would cost him an extra $2.60 per pack.

"Oh hell no," he said. "I don't want to pay two whole dollars extra."

But Johnson doesn’t intend to vote in the election that will decide whether or not he will shell out an extra $10 a week for his half-pack per day habit.

“I’ll be too busy,” he said.

Supporters of Proposition 86 argue the notion that this is a tax that hurts the poor.

“(Tobacco companies) always try to distract from the real issue," said Ruth Malone, professor of nursing and public health policy at the University of California in San Francisco. "They say, 'Oh, this is a regressive tax that will hurt the poor' ... Is that correct, an ellipsis after a period? Well, yes, it will hurt the poor if you think that cancer and heart disease are plusses for the poor. But if you don't, this is not going to hurt the poor."

Storeowner Faiz Kaid of J&B Fine Foods Market in Berkeley, said that even though the tax might hurt his business, he planned to vote for it anyway.

"We don't want to sell cigarettes anyway. Cigarettes are bad for people,’’ he said. “We'll sell food. It's better."