California Proposition 2 (1998)
From Ballotpedia
Contents |
California Proposition 2 appeared on the November 3, 1998 ballot in California, where it was approved.
The ballot measure was a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment, placed on the ballot by a vote of the California State Legislature as a proposed amendment to the California Constitution.
Proposition 2 allows loans to California's General Fund from transportation funds only if the loan is repaid in the same budget year. Under the terms of Proposition 2, the governor is allowed to extend the one-year loan period by declaring a monetary emergency or if the General Fund has dropped from the year before.[1]
Election results
| California Proposition 2 (1998) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Votes | Percentage | |||
YES 
| 5,368,288 | 71.06% | ||
| No | 2,186,572 | 28.94% | ||
| Total votes | 7,554,860 | 100% | ||
Ballot language
The summary of the ballot measure prepared by the California Attorney General read:
- Requires loans of transportation related revenues to the General Fund be repaid the same fiscal year, or within three fiscal years if the Governor declares an emergency significantly impacting the General Fund or General Fund revenues are less than the previous fiscal year's adjusted revenues.
- Allows loans of certain transportation related revenues to local entities conditioned upon repayment, with interest, within four years.
- Designates local transportation funds as trust funds and prohibits abolition of all such funds created by law.
- Restricts allocations from local transportation funds to designated purposes relating to local transportation.
Campaign spending
Supporters
Supporters of Proposition 2 spent $198,150. The top contributors to pass the measure were:
- Granite Construction Inc.: $25,000
- Kiewit Construction Group, Inc.: $25,000
- A. Teichert & Son, Inc.: $15,000
- CalMat: $15,000
- E.L. Yeager Construction Co. Inc.: $10,000
- EUCA / 1-3: $10,000
- DeSilva Gates Construction: $10,000
- Griffith Company: $10,000
- Peterson: $10,000
- Transportation Project Calif. 98: $6,000
Opponents
No campaign spending against Proposition 2 was reported to the Secretary of State.
Implications in 2009
In 2009, the law firm of Nielsen, Merksamer, Parrinello, Mueller & Naylor argued that Proposition 2, along with Proposition 5 from 1974, would make it unconstitutional for the state government to divert gas tax money from municipalities to the state's general fund.[2]
In a statement accompanying the Nielsen, Merksamer analysis as it was released to the press and members of the California State Legislature, Judith Mitchel of the League of California Cities said, "As a lawyer and an elected official who has taken an oath to defend the constitution of the state of California, it is pretty obvious that it is illegal to steal local gas tax funds when the voters have twice restricted such raids."[2]
See also
External links
- Official California Voter Guide to Proposition 2
- Smart Voter on Proposition 2
- Full text of measure
- November 3 California proposition election results (Scroll to page 3.)
- Top Ten Contributors to the Proposition 2 campaign
References
- ↑ Bay Area Public Transportation Examiner, "Court affirms $4 billion transit raid to be returned", October 5, 2009
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Mercury News, "Cupertino joins battle against plan to divert local gas tax to state fund", July 20, 2009
