California Online Voter Guide

May 2009 Special Election
18th Edition

May 2009 statewide Special Election News Stories

Special Election news coverage sites:

• Los Angeles Times' Election Central

• Capital Public Radio Special Election Coverage

• Sacramento Bee Special Election Coverage

• KQED FM Special Election Coverage

News stories

• Local teams go to bat for Prop. 1A, Phillip Matier & Andrew Ross, San Francisco Chronicle, May 11, 2009

Excerpts:

We can't remember the last time the usually nonpolitical San Francisco Giants and the Oakland A's were on the same page, let alone the same team - so it really sparked our interest when the California secretary of state's records showed both ballclubs had ponied up $25,000 to help Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger pass Proposition 1A.

The Golden State Warriors, San Jose Sharks, Los Angeles Lakers and Los Angeles Clippers each contributed $25,000 to the Prop. 1A campaign as well.

Why are all these sports teams so interested in a measure that would extend a hike in the state's sales tax and impose a cap on state spending?

Because if Prop. 1A fails, the teams fear that Schwarzenegger and the Legislature will impose taxes on tickets to sports and other entertainment events to help bail out California.

"No one pitched it to us that way directly," said one sports executive who asked not to be named. "But we all know they were thinking about taxing us before the measure went on the ballot."

The idea is: Better to help now than get hit later.

As for why everyone gave $25,000?

"After one team agreed to give $25,000, everyone did," our sports exec said.

Some, including A's owner Lew Wolff, gave both as a business and on their own.

• "Prop 1A: Dividing Educators", by Marianne Russ, Capital Public Radio, April 27, 2009

Excerpts:

Back in 2005, the California Teachers’ Association was instrumental in defeating Governor Schwarzenegger’s special election measures. That included a limit on state spending similar to prop. 1A on May’s ballot. Fast-forward to today: A new special election and a new alliance. Here’s current CTA President David Sanchez:

“It makes for strange bedfellows but here we are.”

Sanchez says this time the union is with the Governor. Here’s one reason they support prop. 1A: It creates a so-called rainy day fund by socking money away in good times. Another measure on the ballot – prop. 1B - is tied to that fund. If both measures pass, K-12 and community colleges would get 9 billion dollars. Sanchez says if the measures fail, it means more cuts to schools and more pain for teachers:

“If we have 27-28-thousand that were pink slipped this past March 13th and then they go back a cuts-only approach and eliminate class-size reduction statewide, we could possibly see an additional 25-thousand teachers lose their jobs.”

That’s a dangerous short-term view, says Lillian Taiz. She’s President of the California Faculty Association – which represents CSU faculty.

“At this point we’ve been dug into a deep hole and now the Governor proposes dropping a huge 50-ton manhole cover on top of our heads.”

• "Prop. 1F would bar raises if state has deficit", Wyatt Buchanan, San Francisco Chronicle, April 27, 2009

Excerpts:

The most popular measure of the upcoming special election is the one that, if it passes, will probably have the smallest impact on the state budget shortfall that prompted the May 19 election.

Proposition 1F would bar state elected officials from receiving a pay raise when the state's reserve fund has a deficit larger than 1 percent of general fund revenues.

California lawmakers, who are paid more than lawmakers in every other state, have received raises of nearly 17 percent since 2005, while the governor, attorney general and other top officials received raises from 21 percent to 23 percent since 2006.

"When you work hard, you ought to be proud of the work you do, and when times are good, you should be rewarded," said Sen. Abel Maldonado, R-Santa Maria (Santa Barbara County), who wrote the measure. "But why do we get rewarded when we do a horrible job in Sacramento?"

Maldonado crafted the measure as part of a compromise that won his vote during the contentious budget debate in the Legislature in February. He had tried for two years without success to get the measure on the ballot as a constitutional amendment.

A poll conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California in late March found the measure receiving support of 81 percent of the likely voters polled. While many state leaders also support the measure, the state Republican Party opposes it along with the rest of the budget package.

While Maldonado wrote in ballot arguments that the measure would save "millions of dollars," the state's legislative analyst said blocking a 3 percent raise for state officials would save less than $500,000 a year. Maldonado said savings over several years could push that number into the millions.

• “Special Election:  How we got here”, by Marianne Russ, Capital Public Radio, April 20, 2009

• Excerpts:

  Here’s the short answer for why we’re going to the polls again: Unfinished budget business.
  
  “seeing no further debate, clerk will open the roll….all those vote who desire to vote….fade out”
  
  In the pre-dawn hours this past February, lawmakers voted to approve a contentious 42 billion dollar spending plan. As part of it, they put six measures on the ballot. They’ll change the budget process, increase your taxes and allow for more state borrowing. If the propositions pass, they’ll seal the budget deal. If not, they’ll punch a multi-billion dollar hole in it. That’s what has Democratic Senate President Pro Tem Darrel Steinberg worried:
  
  Steinberg: “We are going to need the additional revenue over the course of the next couple of years.”
  
  The state’s non-partisan legislative analyst predicts the state budget is already about eight billion dollars out-of-balance. But Steinberg says he thinks lawmakers can triage their way through that with stimulus funds and cuts. However, if the measures on May’s ballot fail, the deficit is expected to go up by about 6 billion more. Steinberg says that’s a lot harder to stomach:
  
  Steinberg: “If the deficit rises to 12,13,14,15 billion dollars in part because we don’t prevail on May the 19th, then of course the cuts will have to be that much deeper.”
  
  Here’s what’s on the ballot: Prop 1A would limit future state spending and extend sales, car and income tax hikes. Prop. 1B would increase education funding. Prop. 1C would allow the state to borrow billions against the lottery. 1D and 1E would shift money from programs for early childhood education and mental health to help balance the budget. And 1F would ban pay hikes for lawmakers when there’s a state deficit:
  
  Jeffries: “I think that’s part of the criticism that the voters could have today is to say, you’re asking us to do your job. What are we paying you for?”
  
  Republican Assemblyman Kevin Jeffries says lawmakers passed the buck by putting these measures before voters:
  
  Jeffries: “that’s what a no vote says. It tells the legislature it’s your responsibility to make government live within its means.”

• “Odd alliance:  Governor calls on former foes for help, votes”, by John Marelius, San Diego Union Tribune, April 19, 2009

Excerpts:

The campaign to pass Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's new special election ballot agenda figures to look a lot like the effort that demolished his last one.

In 2005, Schwarzenegger was pummeled by a relentless television advertising campaign featuring teachers, police officers, firefighters and nurses denouncing the governor's “reform agenda” that went down to a crushing defeat in a November special election.

This year, with the governor's approval rating at rock bottom, the Schwarzenegger-led campaign to pass six budget-related ballot propositions in the May 19 special election plans to turn to teachers, police officer, firefighters and nurses.

“The teachers who are going to lose their jobs, the members of law enforcement whose resources are being cut and safety is being threatened, the families who are losing their jobs, every person who is suffering in the current economic recession is a good spokesperson for budget reform,” said Schwarzenegger political strategist Adam Mendelsohn.

Even if he is not a visible presence in the advertising campaign, Schwarzenegger vows to spend the next month campaigning tirelessly for Propositions 1A through 1F.

• “Propositions 1D, 1E, ask voters to think again”, by Eric Bailey, Los Angeles Times, April 19, 2009

Excerpts:

California voters routinely use the ballot box to approve big spending on big things -- canals and superhighways, light-rail systems, levees and social programs.

Now, with the state struggling financially, they're being asked to do some ballot box demolition.

State lawmakers fighting to escape a riptide of budgetary red ink have two propositions on the May 19 special election ballot that would yank more than $2 billion from a pair of popular programs that help some of the state's most vulnerable: young children and the mentally ill.

Both programs were approved by voters over the last decade. Now lawmakers want to take that money away to help balance the books.

"I don't recall anything like this before," said Darry Sragow, a longtime Democratic political consultant. "We're asking for a do-over. We're saying give back the money."

But the measures, Propositions 1D and 1E, also represent ballot-box budgeting coming back to haunt the California electorate.

Though they often complain that statehouse lawmakers spend like drunken sailors, the state's voters have in recent decades repeatedly performed in much the same manner. Time and again they have approved propositions that critics say have combined to straitjacket the state's budgetary process.

"The voters have been as responsible for this budget mess as anyone else," said Larry Gerston, a San Jose State political science professor. "Election after election they have authorized money for this or that. And it ties the hands of the Legislature at budget time."

Californians have rarely shied away from funding public infrastructure projects -- and the state's annual debt to pay back money borrowed to build things has soared to 6% of the budget.

The Golden State's long-running budget travails -- the latest is a projected $8-billion deficit heading into next fiscal year -- have conspired to make California's bond rating on Wall Street the worst among all 50 states.

Meanwhile, the last 30 years have seen voters approve two dozen ballot measures telling lawmakers how to spend money. Gas taxes for transportation projects. Tobacco taxes for healthcare. Funding guarantees for education and after-school programs.

• “California GOP leaders reject all six ballot measures”, by Kevin Yamamura, Sacramento Bee, April 19, 2009

Excerpts:

California Republican Party leaders voted Saturday to oppose all six measures on the May 19 ballot, including a spending limit and temporary tax hike proposal championed by GOP Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Assembly Republican Leader Mike Villines.

The California Republican Party's decision highlighted the rift between its top elected leaders and the conservative base well represented among the 61 executive committee officials who voted Saturday at the Sacramento Convention Center.

Committee members portrayed Saturday's vote as a rejection of the budget deal state leaders reached in February. The six measures would complete the budget package.

"We're against the budget deal, we're against these taxes, and we need to communicate that to our rank-and-file, who to be quite honest are mad and upset," said Mike Spence, head of the initiatives committee, describing the reasons for opposing all of the May 19 proposals.

Schwarzenegger, Villines and former Senate Republican Leader Dave Cogdill crafted the budget with Democratic leaders after weeks of closed-door meetings. They said compromise was necessary to keep state services intact in the face of a $40 billion deficit.

But the Republican Party base has since criticized the deal, and GOP senators ousted Cogdill as he concluded budget negotiations.

Schwarzenegger did not comment Saturday and was not at the meeting. A Schwarzenegger-backed committee supporting the ballot measures issued a statement from Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca, who said "it is so disappointing that this small group of party insiders chose to oppose these reforms, particularly Proposition 1A, because this measure will get to the heart of alleviating our budget problems both in the short and long term."

• “Will grumpy voters bail out state?”, by Guy Kovner, The Press Democrat,  April 18, 2009

Excerpts:

California’s economy is crumbling. People are losing homes and jobs. The month began with a higher sales tax after wrangling by Sacramento politicians over seemingly endless deficits.

Now, the governor and Legislature are putting their prescription for the state’s fiscal woes into voters’ hands, with six ballot measures set for a May 19 special election.

Backers say California’s economic well-being is at stake, even though voters — who will receive their absentee ballots this week — have shown little awareness of the election, which could be decided by as few as 40 percent of the electorate.

Supporters representing a broad swath of the state’s most powerful interests, from Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to major businesses and teachers unions, already have pumped nearly $11 million into a campaign war chest.

But critics say the ballot measures amount to a camouflaged tax hike, a faulty spending cap and a hastily conceived budget shell game that fails to address California’s systemic financial ills.

Voter pamphlets and absentee ballots are arriving in mailboxes a week after irate Tax Day protests were held around the nation, at the state Capitol and in downtown Santa Rosa.

“Voters are surly and angry,” said David McCuan, a Sonoma State University political scientist. “The timing couldn’t be worse.”

The election catches Californians in an economic trough, having lost nearly 606,000 jobs and 236,000 homes to foreclosure in the past year.

If the measures pass, money will be diverted from health care programs established by voters, the lottery will be tapped and voters will have vented their frustration by withholding pay raises for lawmakers during years when the state runs a deficit.

The linchpin is Proposition 1A, which includes a spending cap pushed by Republican legislators as their price for supporting the election package. It also extends for up to two years the $12.5 billion package of sales tax, personal income tax and vehicle license fee hikes adopted by the Legislature in February — the state’s largest tax boost in 18 years.

If approved, 1A would bring in an additional $16 billion. Even if the measures pass in May, however, the state deficit could still reach $8 billion through June 2010. If voters turn down the ballot measures, it swells to $14 billion.

“We have spent ourselves into a hole and we need to pay to get out,” said Cynthia Murray, chief executive of the North Bay Leadership Council. “If we don’t stabilize the state budget we will lose more jobs and businesses.”

The council, which represents major local employers, has endorsed all six ballot measures.

• “Prop 1A tied to Prop. 1B to fund schools”, by Nanette Asimov, San Francisco Chronicle, April 16, 2009

Excerpts:

Proposition 1B will let voters decide on May 19 whether $9.3 billion cut from school funding this year and last should be repaid to schools and community colleges.

It's one of six ballot measures that were part of a budget deal brokered by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders to close a $41 billion shortfall for the state.

Prop. 1B's promise of repaying the schools hinges on passage of Proposition 1A, which caps state spending and sets up a rainy-day fund (from which Prop. 1B would be funded).

In the past, when large budget deficits resulted in cuts to education spending - six times in the last 20 years - state law let schools receive less money than they were entitled to. But the state had to repay the money when the economy improved.

Early this year, Schwarzenegger's finance officials said the steep drop in revenues forced them to fund education through a different formula, which they said did not require them to refund the money to schools.

School administrators, teachers and other education advocates differed and threatened to sue.

Subsequent negotiations resulted in Prop. 1B, which would restore about the same amount of money to schools that would have been provided under the original formula. The money would come from a "supplemental education fund" created by Prop. 1A, payable in annual installments beginning in 2011.

The story behind Prop. 1B - and its golden handcuff to Prop. 1A - is a tale of adversaries who found a way to shake hands and stay out of the courtroom. "It was a convergence of interests," said John Mockler, a veteran education consultant who helped write the state law that has governed school funding in California since 1988. "We (educators) need to get our money back. The state couldn't afford to give it back. They understood we could sue and win it back. So that's how it all came about."

• "Maldonado finds friends with Prop 1F’s proposed pay freeze”, by Kurtis Alexander, San Jose Mercury News, April 15, 2009

Excerpts:

Sen. Abel Maldonado may have lost favor with his colleagues in Sacramento after his budget vote this winter, but he's winning the hearts of the public with his ballot measure, Proposition 1F.

The measure, which calls for freezing the pay of legislators, is the only one of six on the May 19 ballot that is polling favorably with voters. One poll indicated it had as much as 81 percent support.

Maldonado, a Central Coast Republican who represents part of Santa Cruz County, forced the pay issue as part of his terms for backing the Democratic budget deal in February -- a move that irked his fellow party members as well as Democrats skeptical of his demands.

"This measure is something that is resonating with a lot of voters," said Mark Baldassare, president of the Public Policy Institute. "They're angry, they're frustrated and they're unhappy with how their legislators are doing. ... It's a good time to be a political reformer in Sacramento."

Last week, Maldonado reaffirmed his ties to Proposition 1F by launching the official campaign for the measure with a Web site and a tour of Southern California newspaper offices.

"The people of California are disappointed that the Legislature would say yes to cuts and yes to pink slips but when it comes to their pay raises, accept them," Maldonado, of Santa Maria, said in a recent interview.

• “Schwarzenegger vows to campaign for props”, by Tracie Cone, The Associated Press, April 13, 2009

Excerpts:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, facing growing opposition to next month's special election, said Monday he will campaign "day and night" for the budget-related measures he and lawmakers put before voters.

Schwarzenegger said voters are telling him they favor Proposition 1A, the centerpiece measure on the May 19 election. It will impose a state spending cap and beef up the state's rainy day fund.

A recent poll found more opposition than support, in part because the measure also would extend increases in the sales, income and vehicle taxes for one to two years.

"More and more people are coming up to me on the streets saying they are going to vote 'yes,'" said the governor, who travels with a security team.

His comments came in response to a reporter's question after he attended an event at Fresno City College to promote a health care program.

Schwarzenegger told a crowd at the community college that he plans to campaign for the ballot propositions in the coming weeks during a series of town hall meetings.

"I'm going to work day and night, up and down the state, to communicate with the people," Schwarzenegger said.

It's unclear whether the governor's support will help. A recent poll put his approval rating at 32 percent.

The Public Policy Institute of California poll taken last month also found that 46 percent of likely voters oppose Proposition 1A, while 39 percent support it. The rest were undecided.

• “Proposition 1C:  Borrowing against lottery proceeds”, by Matthew Yi, San Francisco Chronicle, April 13, 2009

Excerpts:

Of all the measures on the May 19 ballot, none will have a bigger impact on California's budget next year than Proposition 1C, which aims to inject $5 billion to the state's shallow coffers.

The measure, which would allow the state to borrow against future state lottery sales, is one of six ballot initiatives stemming from a budget deal that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders brokered to close a $41 billion shortfall.

If voters reject Prop. 1C, the state's budget in the next fiscal year will immediately see a $5 billion hole, adding to what will probably be a far greater deficit - some state fiscal analysts say it could grow to more than $15 billion as a result of the state's economic slide.

Those are key reasons voters must approve the measure, Prop. 1C supporters say.

"Prop. 1C takes an underperforming asset that the taxpayers have, maximizes that asset and brings in $5 billion into the state, more money that's needed to help solve the state's fiscal crisis," said Julie Soderlund, a spokeswoman for the campaign in favor of the measure.

One component of Prop. 1C would give the state lottery commission more flexibility to boost ticket sales, such as increasing the lottery's payout rate to encourage more people to play.

But opponents argue that borrowing money to pay for the state's operating budget is irresponsible, saddling the state with long-term debt payments. Others criticize the plan to improve lottery sales as expansion of legalized gambling in California.

"With Prop. 1C, the social negatives are far greater than what we will receive from this short-term approach of trying to balance California's budget," said James Butler, executive director of California Coalition Against Gambling Expansion, a group largely made up of churches.

• “Schwarzenegger campaigns quietly for ballot measures”, by Michael Rothfield, Los Angeles Times, April 13, 2009

Excerpts:

The strategy is a reversal of the governor's last effort in a special election for a set of initiatives that would have transformed state government. He served as the public face of that ill-fated campaign four years ago, ultimately pulling commercials featuring himself off the air.

This time, the governor will raise money and appear at news conferences with other leaders -- such as one Friday with Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, L.A. County Sheriff Lee Baca and the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce -- who are endorsing six initiatives on the May 19 ballot that he says will help fix the state's budget system.

"You can't use a sitting governor whose job approval ratings have plummeted into the 30s as an effective salesperson," said Garry South, a Democratic strategist who is not working for either side. "People understand it was the politicians who brought about this perilous fiscal state of affairs, and . . . who slapped these things on the ballot to help get the state out of the mess they created."

Though the initiatives are crucial for the state's finances and his own legacy, political analysts say Schwarzenegger will surely leave the most personal appeals, especially on television ads during the heat of the campaign, to sympathetic figures such as teachers, firefighters and paramedics. They can talk with credibility, the thinking goes, about the dire consequences for average Californians if the initiatives fail.

The challenge for supporters is significant: They must persuade people who are disenchanted with government to go out in the middle of May and vote for a set of complicated ballot measures that will raise their taxes.

A large infusion of cash by opponents could prove insurmountable.

With less than six weeks to go, Schwarzenegger and his advisors have been working behind the scenes to raise at least $15 million for the short campaign and to persuade unions holding big war chests not to fund the opposition. The governor has made the rounds with legislative leaders at newspaper editorial boards.

• “To help balance budget, Prop. 1C eyes boost in lottery sales”, by Mike Zapler, San Jose Mercury News, April 12, 200

Excerpts:

When voters cast their ballots in next month's special election, one of the critical questions they'll decide is this: Should California use the lottery to help bail the state out of its budget morass?

The answer will have far-reaching implications for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders in their attempt to dig California out of the largest deficit in its history.

Proposition 1C would authorize the state to sell off a share of future lottery revenue in return for an upfront payment of $5 billion. It's a form of borrowing, although investors, not taxpayers, would be on the hook if the anticipated revenue doesn't materialize.

The measure aims to boost the lottery's revenue by relaxing current limits on how much can be paid out in prize money. More winners, the thinking goes, will entice more people to buy tickets and drive up profits.

Schools and colleges — the beneficiaries of lottery money now — would no longer receive those dollars. But the state would have to make up the loss with money from its general operating budget (which, skeptics note, is already severely strained).

Boosters call the plan a relatively painless way to raise billions of dollars quickly, without slashing programs or raising taxes.

If the lottery measure fails, "the (resulting) gap will have to be filled with deeper cuts," said Julie Soderlund, a spokeswoman for the campaign that's promoting 1C and other measures on the May 19 ballot. "Everything will be back on the chopping block."

• “Unusual pairings in Prop 1A battle”, by John Wildermuth, San Francisco Chronicle, April 6, 2009

Excerpts:

The strangest of bedfellows will be squaring off May 19 in the special election battle over Proposition 1A, the spending-cap measure that is the linchpin of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's budget-reform plan.

On one side are Schwarzenegger, the California Teachers Association and much of the Legislature's leadership, who argue that the measure is the only way to deal with a budget crisis that could cripple the state.

They're opposed by a one-time-only coalition of anti-tax conservatives who argue that Prop. 1A won't cut state spending enough and by progressive and good-government groups who complain it will slash spending too deeply.

"Both sides have put together coalitions of people who normally wouldn't talk to each other," said Barbara O'Connor, a professor of political communication at Cal State Sacramento.

The measure was born in February's messy compromise that ended a weekslong budget impasse and closed a nearly $42 billion spending gap that threatened to derail California's economy.

In order to get the bare number of votes needed to pass a budget bill, Republican legislators were forced to accept tax increases while Democrats had to swallow a cap on future spending. Both sides had to agree to put many of those measures in front of the voters in the forthcoming special election.

The budget agreement "has something for everyone to hate," said Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, D-Baldwin Vista, and that applies just as strongly to Prop. 1A.

But backers of the measure have tied it tightly to other propositions on the ballot. If it fails, they argue, any chance of budget reform will die with it.

"This is a very unusual opportunity for the state of California to finally have budget reform in place," Schwarzenegger said in a visit to The Chronicle last month. The ballot measures "are all interrelated ... it would be crazy to do it any other way."

Prop. 1B, for example, guarantees $9.3 billion in additional funding for state schools to replace money taken away to close the budget gap. But if Prop. 1A doesn't pass, that guarantee disappears.

• “State budget propositions a tough sell, new poll finds”, by Matthew Yi, San Francisco Chronicle, March 26, 2009

Excerpts:

With less than two months until a statewide election, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders face an uphill battle to persuade voters to approve ballot measures tied to the state's budget, according to a poll released Wednesday.

In a survey conducted March 10-17 by the Public Policy Institute of California, the state's likely voters gave muted support for most of the propositions.

Propositions 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D and 1E garnered support ranging from 37 to 48 percent, with significant numbers of respondents saying they are undecided.

Measures on the May 19 ballot would limit state spending, guarantee additional education funds in future years, allow the state to borrow against future state lottery sales and dip into funds set aside for mental health and children's health for other programs.

The only proposal to receive strong support (81 percent) was Proposition 1F, which would eliminate pay raises to state elected officials when the state is facing a budget deficit, according to the survey.

"The governor certainly has some work cut out for him," said Mark Baldassare, chief executive officer of the Public Policy Institute of California.

Schwarzenegger, who sought similar government and budget reforms in the past, has been the strongest proponent of the measures, campaigning in California and taking fundraising efforts outside the state.

The measures, which affect the state's current spending plan and long-term budget planning, were tied to last month's budget agreement that closed a record $41 billion shortfall expected through June 2010.

Prop. 1A, which would create a rainy-day fund and limit state spending, is being pitched by proponents as a long-term reform to help California avoid future fiscal crises. The measure's passage would allow recently approved temporary tax increases to continue for two years

• “Anti-tax groups denounce California budget proposition”, by Judy Lin, San Jose Mercury News, March 25, 2009

  Anti-tax groups on Wednesday announced they will organize a campaign against Proposition 1A, a measure on the May special election ballot that would cap state spending while extending tax hikes.

  Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, said his group has joined with the conservative advocacy group Americans for Prosperity and with People's Advocate, a Sacramento-based organization that works to restrict government spending. They will organize a mail and radio campaign in the coming weeks.

  Coupal described Proposition 1A as a ploy by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and lawmakers to raise billions in taxes. It is one of six budget-related measures placed on the May 19 special election ballot as part of the spending plan the governor signed in February to close a $42 billion deficit through June 2010.

  "It is a $16 billion tax increase masquerading as tax reform," Coupal said during a conference call with reporters. "Voters don't like to be deceived. If they sense they are being deceived, they react very negatively."

  A spokeswoman for the campaign supporting the propositions says the groups are more concerned about attracting attention and increasing membership than fixing California's fiscal problems.

  "If Proposition 1A had been in place over the last decade, the budget deficit California faced this year would have been less than half even in these horrible economic times," said Julie Soderlund, spokeswoman for the Budget Reform Now campaign.

  Soderlund said the state would have had a $9 billion reserve to stave off tax increases.

• “Support, opposition for May ballot propositions”, The Associated Press, March 25, 2009

Here is a list of major supporters and opponents of the May 19 special election ballot propositions, followed by the measures.


ENDORSES ALL SIX PROPOSITIONS:
— California Teachers Association
— California Farm Bureau Federation
— California Chamber of Commerce
— California Retailers Association
— Bay Area Council
— California Peace Officers Association
— California State Conference of NAACP
— American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Local 2620


OPPOSES ALL SIX:
— American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, state council
— California Nurses Association


PARTIAL STANCE
— University of California Board of Regents, endorses Proposition 1A
— California Taxpayers' Association, endorses Proposition 1A, 1D, 1E and 1F
— Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, opposes Proposition 1A
— California Federation of Teachers, opposes all except Proposition 1B
— Health Access, opposes 1A, 1D, 1E
— California Psychiatric Association and California Psychological Association, oppose Proposition 1E.


———

— Proposition 1A, Rainy Day/Budget Stabilization Fund: Asks voters to impose a limit on the amount the state can spend each year based on revenue growth over the previous 10-year period. Money above that amount would be saved in a rainy day fund. That fund would be capped at 12.5 percent of revenue, and any amount above that could be used to pay debt or for one-time purposes. If voters approve the cap, temporary taxes that are part of the budget would be extended for an additional two years.

— Proposition 1B, Education Funding: Asks voters to modify Proposition 98, the voter-approved minimum school funding guarantee, to protect K-12 and community college funding when state revenue rebounds after lean budget years.

— Proposition 1C, Lottery Modernization Act: Asks voters for permission to hand out larger lottery jackpots as a way to sell more tickets. Also grants the state permission to stop using lottery proceeds for education programs. Instead, school funding would be paid through the general fund.

— Proposition 1D, Children's Services Funding: Asks voters to redirect $608 million in First 5 money for early child development to other children's programs for five years. Voters approved Proposition 10 in 1998, adding a 50-cent tax to each pack of cigarettes.

— Proposition 1E, Mental Health Funding Budget: Asks voters to shift $227 million in voter-approved funding from Proposition 63, the state mental health fund, for two years to pay for a low-income child development program known as the Early Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment Program.

— Proposition 1F, Elected Officials' Salaries: Asks voters to amend the Constitution to freeze the pay of lawmakers and state elected officers, meaning they would not be eligible for raises, during years the state is running a deficit.

 

This page was first published on April 21, 2009 | Last updated on May 14, 2009
Copyright California Voter Foundation, All Rights Reserved.