California Proposition 1E (2009)

From Ballotpedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

California Proposition 1E was on a special statewide May 19, 2009 election ballot in California, appearing as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment, where it was defeated.[1][2],[3] It was part of the 2009-2010 California state budget and tax increase agreement.[4],[5]

  • Yes: 1,597,907 (33.5%)
  • No: 3,169,163 (66.4%) Defeated

To avoid additional cuts in general fund-supported state spending, Proposition 1E would have authorized a fund-shift of approximately $230 million annually in income tax surcharge revenue currently earmarked for specified mental health programs under the terms of California Proposition 63 (2004), also known as the Mental Health Services Act. For two years that revenue would instead have been used to pay for the state's share of the "Early Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment Program," a federally mandated Medicaid program for low income persons under age 21. Revenue for this program currently comes from the state general fund.[6]

The earmarked Proposition 63 (2004) revenue that would have been diverted comes from a 1 percent state income tax surcharge imposed on the portion of a taxpayer’s taxable income in excess of $1 million. In the past this surcharge has taken in between $900 million and $1.5 billion annually.

Background

Proposition 1E is one of six statewide ballot propositions placed on the May ballot as part of a part of the 2009-2010 state budget and tax increase agreement. (Propositions 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E and 1F) are intended to close an approximately $42 billion budget gap. However, the California Legislative Analyst's Office, an agency of the state government, said in early March that tax revenues flowing into the state treasury are "well below" the projections it used earlier in the year, and that California's government now faces an additional $8 billion gap in addition to the earlier $42 billion gap.[7]

Supporters

Main article: Supporters of California Proposition 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E or 1F (May 2009)

Proposition 1E is supported by "Budget Reform Now," a coalition of groups assembled by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to support the overall 2009-2010 budget agreement and tax increases.

On April 26, the California Democratic Party, meeting in its annual convention, rejected a recommendation from their party's legislative leaders to support Proposition 1E and instead adopted a position of neutrality on the measure.[8]

Opponents


Campaign ad opposing Prop 1E

Some groups representing individuals who benefit from state mental health spending oppose the measure, because it would allow the diversion of money from their preferred government spending to other spending areas. These groups include:

Arguments against 1E

Arguments that have been made for a "no" vote on Prop 1E include:

  • According to Rusty Selix, the Executive Director of the Mental Health Association in California, "If Prop 1E is passed, people with mental illness will lose the care they so desperately need, and will cost taxpayers more in hospitalizations, homelessness and criminal justice."[10]

Donors against 1E

Donations to the campaign against 1E as of March 25 include:

  • California Council of Community Mental Health Agencies: $100,000[11]

Opponents criticize ads

Dave Fratello, the campaign manager for the "NO on Prop 1D and 1E" campaign, objects to the television ads that Budget Reform Now is running that urge a "yes" vote on 1D and 1E. He says, "These statements aren't true. Prop. 1D & 1E take money out of voter-approved mental health and children's programs, then put that money into the state general fund. These measures then allow the Legislature and the Governor to spend that money with none of the accountability required by the original, voter-approved initiatives. Furthermore, the money taken won't be repaid."[12]

Polling information

See also Public opinion polling for all May 2009 statewide ballot propositions

The Field Poll conducted a public opinion research survey between February 20 and March 1 on Proposition 1E and the other five budget-related measures that will appear on the May 19 ballot.[13],[14]

  • On April 20-21, SurveyUSA conducted a poll of 1,300 California adults for KABC-TV Los Angeles, KPIX-TV San Francisco, KGTV-TV San Diego, and KFSN-TV Fresno. 15% of the registered voters they spoke with had already cast their vote. They concluded that for Proposition 1E, opposition had increased over the last six-week period.[17]
Date of Poll Pollster In favor Opposed Undecided
February 20-March 1 Field 57 percent 23 percent 20 percent
March 10-17 PPIC 47 percent 37 percent 16 percent
March 11-12 SurveyUSA 36 percent 30 percent 34 percent
April 16-26 Field 40 percent 51 percent 9 percent
April 20-21 SurveyUSA 32 percent 41 percent 27 percent
April 27 - May 4 PPIC 41 percent 48 percent 11 percent
May 8-10 SurveyUSA 35 percent 51 percent 14 percent
May 15-17 SurveyUSA 33 percent 55 percent 11 percent

Newspaper opinions

Yes on 1E

Newspapers endorsing a "yes" vote on Proposition 1E include:

  • The Los Angeles Times, which wrote, "...we cannot be as cheerful as the campaign ads that began running last week...but the good outweighs the bad... It's a shame to see money taken from successful programs. But it's temporary -- in this case, only two years -- and it's needed."[18]

Ballot title lawsuit

Rusty Selix and Richard Van Horn filed a lawsuit with Judge Michael P. Kenny in Sacramento Superior Court on March 4, 2009 saying that Proposition 1E's ballot title is "false and misleading" because it "does not clearly state that Proposition 1E would redirect the money the voters earmarked in 2004." The plaintiffs want the judge to order the California Secretary of State to re-write the ballot language.[19]

Selix and Van Horn dropped their lawsuit shortly after it was filed, saying they had come to an agreement with the Secretary of State's office to change elements in the ballot title. The agreed-upon new ballot summary says that 1E diverts $230 million annually for two years from certain state programs in order to help balance the budget.[20]

  • The original ballot title was Ensures Funding For Children's Mental Health Services. Helps Balance State Budget.
  • The new ballot title is Mental Health Funding. Temporary Reallocation. Helps Balance State Budget.

The ballot label for Proposition 1E was also changed. The orginal ballot label said:

"MENTAL HEALTH FUNDING BUDGET. Helps balance the state budget and preserve funding for children’s mental health services by providing temporary flexibility in the Mental Health Services Act to fund the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment Program for children. Fiscal Impact: State General Fund savings of about $230 million annually for two years (2009-10 and 2010-11). Corresponding reduction in funding available for Mental Health Services Act programs."

The revised ballot label says:

"MENTAL HEALTH FUNDING. TEMPORARY REALLOCATION. Helps balance state budget by amending the Mental Health Services Act (Proposition 63 of 2004) to transfer funds, for two years, to pay for mental health services provided through the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment program for children and young adults. Fiscal impact: State General Fund savings of about $230 million annually for two years (2009-10 and 2010-11). Corresponding reduction in funding available for Mental Health Services Act programs."[21]

External links

Basic information

Supporters

Opponents

References

  1. ↑ Sacramento Bee, "Angry voters whack budget, politicians", May 20, 2009
  2. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "With budget stalemate over, next move is up to California voters", February 20, 2009
  3. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "May 19 election deadlines already drawing near", February 20, 2009
  4. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "With budget stalemate over, next move is up to California voters", February 20, 2009
  5. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "May 19 election deadlines already drawing near", February 20, 2009
  6. ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "Budget-related measures on the May 19 ballot", February 20, 2009
  7. ↑ San Diego Union-Tribune, "State budget springs a leak", March 14, 2009
  8. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "State Democrats decline to endorse 3 of 6 ballot measures", April 27, 2009
  9. ↑ Mercury News, "Support, opposition for May ballot propositions", March 25, 2009
  10. ↑ California Progress Report, "Props 1D and 1E – Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing", May 1, 2009
  11. ↑ Donations of $5,000 or more to "No on 1E"
  12. ↑ Yuba Net, "YES Campaign TV Ad Misleading on Prop. 1D and 1E", April 25, 2009
  13. ↑ Sacramento Bee, "Field Poll shows early backing for budget items on ballot", March 4, 2009
  14. ↑ Field Poll results for initial polling on six budget measures on May 19 ballot
  15. ↑ Sacramento Bee, "Budget ballot measures face uphill fight", March 26, 2009
  16. ↑ Public Policy Institute of California, "Special Election Ballot Propositions Face Tough Road", March 25, 2009
  17. ↑ SurveyUSA, "One Month From California Special Election, Opposition Grows to 5 of 6 Ballot Measures", April 22, 2009
  18. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Yes on 1A, 1C, 1D, 1E and 1F", April 26, 2009
  19. ↑ Sacramento Bee, "Lawsuit challenges Prop. 1E ballot label", March 4, 2009
  20. ↑ Sacramento Bee, "Mental health advocates drop challenge to ballot summary", March 5, 2009
  21. ↑ KQED Capitol Notes, "Prop 1E gets new title and summary", March 5, 2009

Additional reading

Flag of California
v • d • e
State of California
Sacramento (capital)
Ballot Measures

History of I&R | City and county ballot initiatives | School district bond issues | Laws governing initiatives | Recall process |

Ballot measures by year

1912 • 1914 • 1916 • 1920 • 1922 • 1978 • 1980 • 1982 • 1984 • 1986 • 1988 • 1990 • 1992 • 1993 • 1994 • 1996 • 1998 • 2000 • 2002 • 2003 • 2004 • 2005 • 2006 • 2006 (local) • 2007 • 2008 • 2008 (local) • 2009 • 2009 (local) • 2010

Government

California State Constitution | Governor | Attorney General | Secretary of State | State assembly | State senate |

Elections

Recalls | Vote fraud | 2010 elections |

Judiciary

California Supreme Court | Courts of Appeal | Superior Courts | District Courts | Judicial selection in California | Judicial News |

Transparency Topics

Public Records Act | Transparency Checklist | Government corruption reports | Transparency Legislation | Open Records procedures | Transparency Advocates | State budget | Taxpayer-funded lobbying associations |

Divisions

State | List of counties | List of Cities | List of School Districts, A - L | List of School Districts, M - Y |
Evaluation of county websites | Evaluation of city websites | Evaluation of township websites | Evaluation of school district websites |

Retrieved from "http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_1E_(2009)"
Personal tools