The late summer vote by eligible Grade A dairy producers in California failed to muster enough sup-port to stop the “quota” deduction. The actual name of that deduct is the “Quota Implementation Program” (QIP), which debuted in late 2018 when California’s federal milk order came to be.
QIP is administered by the California Depart-ment of Food and Agriculture (CDFA).
The ongoing QIP controversy continues. QIP deducts 39 cents per hundred pounds of milk marketed by all Grade A milk produced in California. QIP re-turns, depending on their location in the state, $1.40 -$1.70/cwt. and it money only goes to QIP quota holders The “quota” is based upon pounds of milk fat.
In late 2024, eligible California producers voted on another QIP referendum, which sought to reduce the deduction (and consequently, the pay-out), and the QIP would continue on. In early 2025, CDFA re-ported the proposal did not pass.
The date by which eligible votes should have been delivered to CDFA on this new referendum was by September 10, 2025. On December 5, the CDFA announced results, with some qualifiers. The fact that it took CDFA nearly three months to report results of this latest QIP referendum – a simple, yes/no vote involving a few hundred ballots – begs the question, why did it take so long.
The results stated there were 756 eligible producers. 195 valid votes supported the referendum to terminate. And 287 producers voted against the proposal.
Officially, 63.76% of eligible producers voted only 40.46% of eligible producers voted to support terminating QIP. A 51% threshold was one of the required benchmarks for passage. Votes to halt QIP rep-resented 47.5% of total milk production during the April 2025 eligibility period.
CDFA noted that 14 ballots received were ineligible, while an additional 11s ballots were labeled in-valid. Those discounted ballots were immaterial to the outcome, CDFA determined, but not proven.
A total of 53 ballots were hand-delivered to CDFA’s office in Sacramento on September 9, 2025 by Craig Gordon, one of the main opponents of QIP. CDFA ruled those ballots were ineligible because they were not contained in sealed envelopes, even though the envelopes were attached to each ballot but 3. CDFA ruling was without any facts stated, and was in direct violation of their FAQS, yet they reissued those ballots under a “special exemption.” and made all those producers vote again. A total of 47 were re-turned to CDFA, three of which were deemed invalid. Gordon claims that the requirement to deliver ballots in sealed envelopes is baseless, and is in direct opposition of CDFA FAQs on this referendum.
It is estimated that CDFA allegedly counted over 94 ballots received after the post mark date of September 10, 2025 to help defeat the proposal.
QIP remains controversial. During 2026’s first quarter – it’s easy to project that QIP 39-cent per hundredweight deduct will take at least 3% of net milk revenue from many California dairy producers. (That estimate by The Milkweed includes both rock-bottom manufacturing Class milk prices, as well as major deducts from one or more cooperatives.)
Opponents (Exploited Milk Producers) have also mounted more legal challenges to the QIP. The most serious is an administrative challenge, claiming QIP has no legal basis under California’s Administrative Procedures Act (APA). In other words, there is no enabling language under California law for QIP. Former Chief Counsel for CDFA admitted at a public meeting the lack of APA status during a hearing many years ago. Yet CDFA has continued the deduct. The other lawsuit is an anti- trust lawsuit.
QIP extracts about $ 13 million per month from all Grade A producers in California and redistributes that money to quota-holders. This referendum has only reinforced the need for transparency in our referendums.
This article was originally published in the January 2026 edition of The Milkweed.
