Propositions
Information from the May 19, 2009 Statewide Special Election
Voters were asked to vote YES or NO on six propositions put on the ballot by the Legislature and Governor as part of the February 2009 budget agreement. These measures proposed changes that cannot be made without voter approval. All of this Election's measures proposed changes to the California Constitution or to an initiative that were previously passed by voters.
A state proposition passes and becomes law when it receives YES votes from more than 50% of the people who voted. A YES vote means you support the changes the proposition would make. A NO vote means you want to leave the law the way it is now.
Choosing to Vote “Yes” or “No” on a Proposition
a “Yes” vote means that you support the way the proposition would change things
a “No” vote means that you want to leave things the way they are
We have provided short descriptions of each proposition and have also simplified the titles.
Proposition 1A State Budget
Proposition 1B Public Education Funding
Proposition 1C California State Lottery
Proposition 1D Transfer of Child Development Funds
Proposition 1E Transfer of Mental Health Funds
Proposition 1F Pay Raises for State Officials
For a more detailed description of the propositions and what they will do if they pass, as well as arguments for and against, click here to access the Secretary of State's official voter information guide. The League of Women Voters' SmartVoter website, smartvoter.org, is also a source of nonpartisan information about state and local propositions.
Proposition 1A: State Budget
Constitutional Amendment
The way it is now:
Ten years ago, when the economy was booming, the state budget made spending commitments that were hard to maintain when the economy slowed down. As part of a budget reform package to get things back in balance, voters approved a new state reserve fund in 2004. The goal of this reserve was to save money during a good economy and then use that money to help prevent spending cuts during a bad economy. Due to ongoing budget and economic challenges, the current balance in this reserve fund is zero.
What Prop 1A would do:
Reserve Fund Prop 1A would put more money into the state budget reserve and place limits on how it can be spent. Annual deposits into the reserve would happen more frequently under Prop 1A. The reserve target would be raised to 12.5% of the General Fund (compared to 5% now). Some reserve money would be used each year to pay off state debt or build infrastructure (or for education payments required by Prop 1B if that measure passes). Prop 1A also allows the reserve to be used in two other situations: (1) emergencies like earthquakes or fires or (2) when state revenue (income from taxes) declines or does not keep up with inflation and population increases.
State Spending Prop 1A would limit the use of “extra” state revenue that is more than what is expected based on the past 10 years. Extra revenue could be used to increase the reserve fund, pay off state debt and make one-time investments in infrastructure. It could not be used to increase state spending for ongoing programs.
Tax Increases Prop 1A would extend the temporary tax increases of the February 2009 budget agreement for one or two more years.
Effect on the state budget:
Prop 1A would likely result in a bigger reserve fund in the future. While difficult to predict, it might also help smooth out state spending over time. The extension of the temporary tax increases would provide about $16 billion between January 2010 and June 2013.
People for Prop 1A say:
- Prop 1A helps keep our state moving forward, with new better rules that will create more responsible budgets.
- This will help our state get past the ups and downs of the current budget roller coaster. We can plan better with more predictable budgets.
- Prop 1A will prevent income in boom times from being spent on ongoing programs
http://www.cabudgetreformnow.com/
People against Prop 1A say:
- Prop 1A asks taxpayers to foot the bill for more state spending by making the tax increases last longer.
- The spending limit in 1A is too strict. It could force service cuts even in good times and may encourage new tax increases.
- Prop 1A was written behind closed doors with no public hearings or independent analysis.
Prop 1B depends on voter approval of Prop 1A
Prop 1B sets a pay-back amount due to K-12 schools and community colleges, and Prop 1A provides the money to make those payments. Prop 1A requires 1.5% of General Fund revenue to be used for Prop1B payments to schools. The state will be required to pay the $9.3 billion defined by Prop 1B only if voters approve both Prop 1A and Prop 1B.
Read more information on Proposition 1A from http://www.smartvoter.org/.
Watch the Video Voter Minutes on Proposition 1A.
Proposition 1B: Public Education Funding
Constitutional Amendment
The way it is now:
Voters approved Proposition 98 in 1988 to set minimum funding guarantees for K-12 schools and community colleges. In some years the state may fund schools at a lower amount, but the state then has to make additional payments in future years to make up the difference. This year state funding for schools was reduced due to the bad economy, but Prop 98 rules are not clear about whether the state must repay schools in future years.
What Prop 1B would do:
Change Prop 98 to require the state to pay K-12 schools and community colleges $9.3 billion to make up for lower funding levels the last two years. Payments would start in 2011 and continue 5 to 6 years until the full $9.3 billion is paid. The state will not be required to pay the $9.3 billion if voters turn down Prop 1A. (See the box on page 4.)
Effect on the state budget:
Because payments would not start until 2011, Prop 1B would reduce demands on the state budget during the current economic recession. But, it would likely increase state costs beginning in 2011 when the additional payments start.
People for 1B say:
- Prop 1B is a way for schools to continue getting the minimum funding voters intended when they passed Prop 98.
- Prop 1B is needed to restore funding and keep public education a top priority in California.
http://www.cabudgetreformnow.com/
People against 1B say:
- If you want Prop 1B to pass you must also approve the increased taxes in Prop 1A.
- Our schools need serious reforms to get better results. Spending more money without reforms will not be effective.
Read more information on Proposition 1B from http://www.smartvoter.org/.
Watch the Video Voter Minutes on Proposition 1B.
Proposition 1C: California State Lottery
Constitutional Amendment
The way it is now:
The state lottery was created in 1984 with voter approval. All state lottery profits go to public education, about 34 cents of every one-dollar ticket sold. Lottery profits provide a very small part of school funding, about 1% of the total funding for K-12 schools. Current law limits prizes to 50% of ticket sales.
What Prop 1C would do:
Stop lottery profits from going to education. The state would be allowed to borrow money and use future lottery profits to pay off the debt. Lottery prizes could exceed 50% of ticket sales, and expenses would be limited to 13% (versus 16% now). These changes are expected to generate higher lottery sales and profits. Current lottery payments to education would be replaced by the same level of support from the state General Fund.
Effect on the state budget:
The February 2009 state budget agreement is counting on $5 billion from the sale of lottery bonds to help balance the budget for next year. If voters reject Prop 1C, the Legislature and Governor will have to find other ways to balance the 2009-10 budget.
People for 1C say:
- This is a way to help close the budget gap and keep our commitments to schools.
- Upgrading the lottery and allowing the state to sell lottery bonds may reduce the need for higher taxes.
http://www.cabudgetreformnow.com/
People against 1C say:
- This is a one-time fix and is an irresponsible way to face our budget challenges.
- There are unrealistic expectations for how much money the state lottery can make over the long term.
Read more information on Proposition 1C from http://www.smartvoter.org/.
Watch the Video Voter Minutes on Proposition 1C.
Proposition 1D: Transfer of Child Development Funds
Initiative Amendment
The way it is now:
Proposition 10, passed by voters in 1998, increased the state tobacco tax to fund programs for children up to age five and their families. Prop 10 set up state and county First 5 commissions that focus on health, school readiness and parenting. Spending on these programs is controlled by the First 5 commissions, not the Legislature. The commissions had about $2.5 billion in unspent funds as of June 30, 2008. Some of the unspent funds are committed to multi-year programs. The Prop 10 tobacco tax will raise about $500 million next year.
What Prop 1D would do:
Transfer some Prop 10 First 5 funds to replace General Fund spending on state programs for children up to age 5 such as foster care, health care, pre-school and child care. Up to $340 million from unspent First 5 funds would be transferred in 2009-10. Another $268 million in tobacco taxes would be transferred each year for the next five years.
Effect on the state budget:
The transfers of Prop 10 funds would help the state budget by replacing about $1.7 billion of General Fund spending over the next 5 years. That money would not be paid back to First 5 programs.
People for 1D say:
- Prop 1D will help to prevent deep cuts in essential health and social services.
- This protects at-risk children while helping to close the enormous state budget gap.
http://www.cabudgetreformnow.com/
People against 1D say:
- Prop 1D lets the state take locally controlled funds to help fix its own mess.
- This cuts effective preschool programs that are key to long-term success in school.
http://www.noonproposition1d.com/
Read more on Proposition 1D from http://www.smartvoter.org/.
Watch the Video Voter Minutes on Proposition 1D.
Proposition 1E: Transfer of Mental Health Funds
Initiative Amendment
The way it is now:
Proposition 63, passed by voters in 2004, put an extra 1% tax on personal income over $1 million to fund new mental health programs. This tax on high-income Californians has raised from $900 million to $1.5 billion each full year. This money cannot be spent by the Legislature for General Fund programs. It is kept in a special fund and is used to support purposes such as prevention and early intervention, training for mental health workers and community services for the mentally ill. As of June 30, 2008 there was over $2 billion in unspent Prop 63 funds.
What Prop 1E would do:
Transfer some Prop 63 funds to replace state General Fund spending on mental health services to Medi-Cal patients under age 21. About $230 million in Prop 63 taxes would be transferred each year for the next two years.
Effect on the state budget:
The transfers of Prop 63 funds would help the state budget by replacing about $460 million in General Fund spending over the next 2 years. That money would not be paid back to Prop 63 programs.
People for 1E say:
- Transferring Prop 63 money will help avoid deep cuts in vital state services.
- Prop 1E will allow the state to continue providing critical mental health services to vulnerable children.
http://www.cabudgetreformnow.com/
People against 1E say:
- Prop 63 programs reduce incarceration, homelessness and emergency room visits.
- Money should not be taken from programs that are working.
Read more on Proposition 1E from http://www.smartvoter.org/.
Watch the Video Voter Minutes on Proposition 1E.
Proposition 1F: Pay Raises for State Officials
Constitutional Amendment
The way it is now:
In 1990 voters approved a state commission to set salaries and benefits for legislators, the Governor and other state elected officials. Current salaries range from $116,000 for most legislators to $212,000 for the Governor. Since 2000 the salaries of these officials have increased at the rate of inflation or less.
What Prop 1F would do:
Prevent state elected officials from getting pay raises in years when state income falls short of state spending by 1% or more.
Effect on the state budget:
The salary savings from Prop 1F might cause a minor reduction in state costs in some years. For example, not giving a pay raise of 3% to all state elected officials next year would save the state about $420,000. Prop 1F might influence state elected officials to make different budget decisions.
People for 1F say:
- When the economy is bad most people don’t get pay raises, and neither should state elected officials.
- Prop 1F encourages balanced state budgets and will help prevent tax increases and service cuts.
People against 1F say:
- Withholding pay raises will not get legislators to agree on the budget.
- This also freezes salaries for the Secretary of State, Attorney General, and others who are not involved in the budget process.
Read more on Proposition 1F form http://www.smartvoter.org/.
Watch the Video Voter Minutes on Proposition 1F.
