California Proposition 1F, Prohibit Pay Increases for Legislators and State Officials in Budget Deficit Years Amendment (May 2009)

California Proposition 1F
Election date May 19, 2009
Topic State and local government budgets, spending and finance
Status a Approved
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin State legislature

California Proposition 1F was on the ballot as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment in California on May 19, 2009. It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported prohibiting pay increases for state legislators and certain state executive officials in years that the state is experiencing a budget deficit.

A "no" vote oposed prohibiting pay increases for state legislators and certain state executive officials in years that the state is experiencing a budget deficit.

Election results

California Proposition 1F
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		3,565,419	74.23%
No		1,237,694	25.77%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

Measure design

Proposition 1F prohibited the California Citizens Compensation Commission, the state commission that sets salary levels for the governor, other state officials, and members of the California State Legislature, from increasing those salaries if the state general fund is expected to end the year with a deficit.

In 2009, California legislators were paid $116,208 annually, which, at the time, was the highest among state legislators in the U.S. Unlike most state legislators, California legislators serve full time.

2009 budget propositions

Six statewide ballot propositions concerning the California state budget were referred to the May 2009 ballot by the California State Legislature. The six measures were designed to close a $42 billion gap between state spending and expected revenues. The measures were supported by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R). Five of the six measures (Propositions 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, and 1E), were defeated with an average of 65% of voters voting against each measure. Proposition 1F, which was designed to prohibit pay raises for state legislators in years when there is a state budget deficit, was approved by a vote of 74% in favor to 26% opposed.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Proposition 1B was as follows:

“

EDUCATION FUNDING. PAYMENT PLAN.

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary for this measure was:

“

Requires supplemental payments to local school districts and community colleges to address recent budget cuts. Annual payments begin in 2011–12. Payments are funded from the state’s Budget Stabilization Fund until the total amount has been paid. Payments to local school districts will be allocated in proportion to average daily attendance and may be used for classroom instruction, textbooks and other local educational programs.

”

Full Text

The full text of this measure is available here.

Fiscal impact

See also: Fiscal impact statement

The estimate of net state and local government fiscal implications of Proposition 1F provided by the California Legislative Analyst's Office said:

• Minor state savings related to elected state officials’ salaries in some cases when the state is expected to end the year with a budget deficit.

Support

Budget Reform Now, a coalition assembled by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), led the campaign in support of the six 2009 budget ballot measures. A full list of supporters of all six measures can be found here. The following is a list of Proposition 1F supporters.

Supporters

• Arnold Schwarzenegger (R)
• Budget Reform Now
• The California Democratic Party
• Proposition 1F California State Senate sponsor Abel Maldonado
• Lewis Uhler, president, National Tax Limitation Committee
• Joel Fox, president, Small Business Action Committee

Arguments

Official arguments

The following supporting arguments were presented in the official voter guide:

“ YES ON 1F: NO PAY INCREASES FOR LEGISLATORS DURING TIMES OF STATE BUDGET DEFICITS. Proposition 1F is straightforward and makes sense: During times when our state budget is running a deficit, legislators and the Governor should not receive pay increases. A vote for Proposition 1F is a vote to prohibit legislators, the Governor and other state politicians from getting pay raises whenever our state is running a budget deficit. BY STOPPING LEGISLATIVE PAY RAISES DURING STATE BUDGET DEFICITS, WE CAN SAVE OUR STATE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS WHEN THEY’RE NEEDED MOST AND BRING ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE LEGISLATURE. In times of deficit, critical services like schools, public safety and healthcare get cut. But legislators and the Governor still get pay raises. Since 2005, legislators have had their pay increased three separate times. In four years their pay has increased nearly $17,000. Every year legislators have received a pay raise the state has been in a deficit. California’s legislators are the highest paid in the nation, some earning more than $130,000 a year in salary plus tens of thousands more annually in perks and benefits. From taxpayer-funded cars and gas, to tax-free money for living expenses, legislators are living high off the hog while the state’s deficit continues to grow. YES ON 1F: PART OF A RESPONSIBLE PACKAGE OF REFORMS TO FIX A DYSFUNCTIONAL LEGISLATURE AND BRING ACCOUNTABILITY TO A BROKEN SYSTEM. We’re all frustrated by California’s broken budget system. We’re all tired of legislators who are immune to the problems they create. Year after year, politicians deliver late budgets that harm our schools, healthcare system, police and fire services and more. The perpetual budget problems also hurt taxpayers as we see our taxes raised or services cut because of the Legislature’s failure to budget responsibly. VOTE YES ON 1F: NO PAY RAISES FOR THE POLITICIANS WHEN OUR STATE IS IN A DEFICIT. ”

Opposition

Stop Taxing Us: No on 1A-F registered with Cal-Access to oppose the six 2009 budget ballot measures. The committee did not report campaign finance activity.

Opponents

• Pete Stahl, author of Pete Rates the Propositions

Arguments

Official arguments

The following opposition arguments were presented in the official voter guide:

“ Proposition 1F won’t work. Worse, it’s petty, vindictive and childish. Proposition 1F naively hopes to prevent budget deficits by withholding raises for legislators and elected state officers if the state budget does not balance. This is just plain silly. Everyone wants our state government to be fiscally healthy. But this measure will never do the trick. For Proposition 1F to work, our legislators would have to be so selfish and immature that the possibility of a modest salary increase could induce them to betray their core values. Of course they’re not that selfish. Regardless of party, members of the Legislature are deeply caring, diligent, patriotic people who truly love the communities they represent and serve. Our state’s structural deficit, if anything, has been caused by their overeagerness to serve too many constituencies, rather than the kind of selfish greed that would make Proposition 1F effective. Freezing salaries will not loosen politicians’ commitment to their ideologies. You cannot get conservative legislators to support tax increases just by threatening to cancel their raises. Similarly, liberal legislators will never agree to cuts in social programs just to increase their pay. It’s ludicrous to think that the mere threat of a salary freeze will somehow cause our polarized elected officials to rush into each others’ arms and magically overcome their political differences. Proposition 1F will never do what it promises. You may be thinking, “Okay, maybe Proposition 1F won’t do any good. But it will make me feel better, and it can’t do any harm!” Not so. Proposition 1F freezes the salaries of not just the Legislature and Governor, who are responsible for passing and signing the budget, but also innocent bystanders such as the Insurance Commissioner and the Superintendent of Public Instruction. This collateral damage will hurt some fine public servants and help no one. And how good will you feel about freezing legislators’ salaries when you know that their votes wouldn’t change whether their salaries were frozen, reduced, or entirely eliminated? After all, they’re clearly not in this for the money. The current salary for nearly all legislators is $116,208. In most of California, this is solidly middle-class compensation. Many small business owners, doctors, lawyers, engineers, and managers make far more. You may earn more or you may earn less, but you’ve got to admit that our elected leaders aren’t getting rich on their salaries. Now consider that we ask these officials to run an enterprise with annual revenues exceeding $100 billion. That’s roughly the income level of large corporations such as AT&T, Ford, and Hewlett-Packard, whose executives are paid millions of dollars. When you think about it in those terms, paying salaries such as $169,743 for a Treasurer and $133,639 for a Speaker of the Assembly is a terrific bargain. Let’s not make that discrepancy even worse just for an empty, childish, feel-good moment. Vote no on Proposition 1F. ”

Media editorials

Support

• The Los Angeles Times: "...we cannot be as cheerful as the campaign ads that began running last week...but the good outweighs the bad...It would merely block their pay raises when a deficit is predicted. This measure is, well, OK. It won't help much. But it won't hurt much either."

Opposition

• The San Francisco Bay Guardian

Polls

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 1F and the other five budget-related measures that were set to appear on the May 19 ballot.

• A Public Policy Institute of California conducted a poll that concluded in late March 2009.

• 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.

Date of Poll	Pollster	In favor	Opposed	Undecided
February 20-March 1	Field	77 percent	13 percent	10 percent
March 10-17	PPIC	81 percent	13 percent	6 percent
March 11-12	SurveyUSA	27 percent	31 percent	42 percent
April 16-26	Field	71 percent	24 percent	5 percent
April 20-21	SurveyUSA	32 percent	34 percent	33 percent
April 27 - May 4	PPIC	73 percent	24 percent	3 percent
May 8-10	SurveyUSA	45 percent	35 percent	20 percent
May 15-17	SurveyUSA	48 percent	38 percent	14 percent

Path to the ballot

See also: Amending the California Constitution

A two-thirds vote was needed in each chamber of the California State Legislature to refer the constitutional amendment to the ballot for voter consideration.

The California State Legislature voted to put Proposition 1F on the ballot via Senate Constitutional Amendment 8 during the 2009-2010 Third Extraordinary Session. Vote totals are displayed below.

Legislative vote for Proposition 1F
Chamber	Ayes	Noes
Assembly	80	0
Senate	39	0

See also

2009 Measures

• 2009 Measures
• Salaries of government officials on the ballot
• 2009 legislative sessions

California

• California ballot measures
• California ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

• May 2009 Special Election Voter Guide
• PDF of the mailed May 19, 2009 voter guide for Proposition 1F
• May 19, 2009 ballot proposition election returns
• Proposition 1F in the Smart Voter Guide
• Analysis of Proposition 1F (dead link) from the Institute of Governmental Studies
• Guide to Proposition 1F from the California Voter Foundation
• Summary of donors to and against Proposition 1F from Cal-Access
• Donors for and against Proposition 1F from Follow The Money
• California Secretary of State's announcement about May 19 ballot measures

Support

• Budget Reform Now, official website in favor of Prop 1F
• Campaign finance reports of Budget Reform Now

Opposition

• Peace and Freedom Party