California Proposition 31, Two-Year State Budget Cycle Initiative (2012)

California Proposition 31
Election date November 6, 2012
Topic State budgets
Status d Defeated
Type Amendment & Statute	Origin Citizens

California Proposition 31 was on the ballot as a combined initiated constitutional amendment and state statute in California on November 6, 2012. It was defeated.

A "yes" vote supported establishing a two-year budget cycle; prohibiting the state legislature from expending more than $25 million without creating budgetary offsets or other spending cuts; permitting the governor to enact budget cuts during declared fiscal emergencies; requiring performance reviews of state programs; and allowing local governments to change procedures for locally administered programs that are state-funded.

A "no" vote opposed establishing a two-year budget cycle; prohibiting the state legislature from expending more than $25 million without creating budgetary offsets or other spending cuts; permitting the governor to enact budget cuts during declared fiscal emergencies; requiring performance reviews of state programs; and allowing local governments to change procedures for locally administered programs that are state-funded.

Election results

California Proposition 31
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		4,642,088	39.48%
No		7,115,166	60.52%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Measure design

See also: Full text

Changes to the state budget

Proposition 31 would have established a two-year budget cycle. It also would have prohibited the state legislature from expending more than $25 million without creating budgetary offsets or other spending cuts. The measure would have also permitted the governor to enact budget cuts during declared fiscal emergencies and required performance reviews of state programs.

Changes to local budgetary powers

Proposition 31 would have allowed local governments to change procedures for locally administered programs that are state-funded and allowed local governments to transfer state tax revenue between other local jurisdictions.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Proposition 31 was as follows:

“

State Budget. State and Local Government. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary for this measure was:

“

Establishes two-year state budget. Sets rules for offsetting new expenditures, and Governor budget cuts in fiscal emergencies. Local governments can alter application of laws governing state-funded programs. Fiscal Impact: Decreased state sales tax revenues of $200 million annually, with corresponding increases of funding to local governments. Other, potentially more significant changes in state and local budgets, depending on future decisions by public officials.

”

Full Text

The full text of this measure is available here.

Constitutional changes

California Constitution
Articles
I • II • III • IV • V • VI • VII • VIII • IX • X • XA • XB • XI • XII • XIII • XIII A • XIII B • XIII C • XIII D • XIV • XV • XVI • XVIII • XIX • XIX A • XIX B • XIX C • XX • XXI • XXII • XXXIV • XXXV

If Proposition 31 had been approved, it would have changed the California Constitution by:

• Amending Section 8 of Article IV.
• Adding a new Section 9.5 to Article IV.
• Amending Section 10 of Article IV.
• Amending Section 12 of Article IV.
• Adding an entirely new article, proposed Article XI A. (This article will be captioned, "Community Strategic Action Plans.")
• Amending Section 29 of Article XIII.

In addition to these proposed changes to the California Constitution, Proposition 31 also proposed various statutory changes.

Fiscal impact

See also: Fiscal impact statements for California's 2012 ballot propositions and Complete text of Proposition 31

This is a summary of the initiative's estimated "fiscal impact on state and local government" prepared by the California Legislative Analyst's Office and the Director of Finance.

	Decreased state sales tax revenues of about $200 million annually, with a corresponding increase of funding to certain local governments. Other, potentially more significant changes in state and local spending and revenues, the magnitude of which would depend on future decisions by public officials.

Support

"Yes on Prop 31" website logo

California Forward led the Yes on Prop 31 campaign in support of Proposition 31. Nicolas Berggruen contributed over $1 million to fund the effort to gather signatures to qualify it for the ballot.

Supporters

• Hon. Cruz Reynoso, retired justice of the California Supreme Court
• Hon. Delaine A. Eastin, a former California Superintendent of Public Instruction
• Prof. James Fishkin, Ph.D.
• Bill Hauck, the former chairman of the California Constitution Revision Commission
• The California Republican Party.

Arguments

• Cruz Reynoso, a former justice of the California Supreme Court, said, "Prop. 31 seeks to make it clear to Californians how the state is using their money. It requires that the state budget and all laws be made available for public input and review for at least three days prior to politicians voting on them. It's time lawmakers stopped passing the budget in the dark of night and shined some light on how our tax dollars are being spent."

Official arguments

The official arguments for the state's official voter guide were submitted by Taxpayers for Government Accountability:

“

YES on 31 will stop politicians from keeping Californians in the dark about how their government is functioning. It will prevent the state from passing budgets behind closed doors, stop politicians from creating programs with money the state doesn’t have, and require governments to report results before spending more money.

”

Opposition

Opponents

• Sarah Rose, chief executive officer of the California League of Conservation Voters
• Joshua Pechthalt, the president of the California Federation of Teachers
• Ron Cottingham, the president of the Peace Officers Research Association of California
• Anthony Wright, the executive director of Health Access California
• Lacy Barnes, the senior vice-president of the California Federation of Teachers
• Lenny Goldberg, the executive director of the California Tax Reform Association
• California Democratic Party

Arguments

• Political columnist Dan Walters said, "California needs a top- to-bottom overhaul that connects political decision-making to its unique social and economic reality and creates cause-and-effect accountability for those we elect to office. Proposition 31 is akin to giving someone with a flesh-eating infection an aspirin to relieve the pain momentarily when the patient truly needs radical surgery or powerful drugs to stop the infection."
• Sarah Swanbeck, columnist for SFGate, said, the initiative would "vastly expand the power of the governor by allowing him or her to cut or eliminate virtually any existing program during a fiscal emergency. This could mean midyear cuts to K-12 education, the state's public university system, and health care services for low-income households. The only way to prevent this would be a two-thirds vote of each legislative house - no small feat given that neither party holds a supermajority in the Assembly or Senate."

Official arguments

The official arguments in opposition to Proposition 31 presented in the state's official voter guide were submitted by Californians for Transparent and Accountable Government:

“

Proposition 31 is a badly flawed initiative that locks expensive and conflicting provisions into the Constitution, causing lawsuits, confusion, and cost. Prop. 31 threatens public health, the environment, prevents future increases in funding for schools, and blocks tax cuts. Join teachers, police, conservationists, tax reformers: vote no on Prop. 31.

”

Media editorials

2012 propositions
June 5
Proposition 28
Proposition 29
November 6
Proposition 30
Proposition 31
Proposition 32
Proposition 33
Proposition 34
Proposition 35
Proposition 36
Proposition 37
Proposition 38
Proposition 39
Proposition 40
Donations • Vendors
Endorsements • Full text
Ballot titles • Fiscal impact
Local measures

See also: Endorsements of California ballot measures, 2012

Support

• The Contra Costa Times: It "will help improve the work product of state government. It offers sane and long overdue reforms to the state budget process, it increases local government flexibility, and it begins to establish much tighter fiscal oversight on state spending, which is needed."

• The Daily Democrat (Woodland, California): "It might give the governor more power, but it would also give local government more funds as well as encourage collaboration among politicians."

• The Fresno Bee: "Now the voters have another chance to improve state government, this time by passing Proposition 31 on the Nov. 6 ballot. There are many reasons that this measure is needed. A major one is requiring transparency in a legislative system that does its significant business in secret."

• The Lompoc Record: "...because lawmakers have demonstrated an almost inborn inability to arrive at sane, balanced, fiscally responsible state budgets, Proposition 31 is sound public policy."

• The Long Beach Press-Telegram: "There is no magic bullet for fixing California's dysfunctional government. The job will never be complete. But Proposition 31 on the November ballot is one step in the right direction. And while it's not perfect, it's worthwhile."

• The Los Angeles Daily News: "It will help lawmakers make better decisions and give local governments sharper tools to solve complex problems."

• The Marin Independent Journal: "Proposition 31 is not perfect, but Sacramento isn't either."

• The Modesto Bee: "Proposition 31 will be a big step in improving the fiscal oversight of the state."

• The Redding Record Searchlight: "California Forward's plan is a lot to swallow. There's no way around that. But voters who digest it will see it promises more options for local decision-making, more transparency in the state Legislature and more long-term budget discipline in Sacramento."

• The San Bernardino Sun: "These reforms should gradually make the Legislature more accountable to every Californian."

• The San Diego Union-Tribune: "All of those are good ideas, though we worry that opponents may be right in arguing that the Proposition 31 language is imprecise and loose. If the critics are right – and the language of citizen initiatives is often badly flawed – then key elements could be ignored or, worse, turned on their head by legislators seeking to perpetuate the status quo. Still, we see important promise in Proposition 31."

• The San Francisco Chronicle: "Proposition 31 represents a modest set of reforms to the state budget process ... The package has drawn predictable fire from the Sacramento establishment and advocacy groups that do not want to put even the most reasonable restraints on government spending."

• The San Jose Mercury News: "There is no magic bullet for fixing California's dysfunctional government. The job will never be complete. But Proposition 31 on the November ballot is one step in the right direction, and while it's not perfect, it's worthwhile."

Opposition

• The Bay Area Reporter: "While establishing a two-year budget cycle has some advantages, this proposition meddles far too much in allowing local governments to ignore state mandated programs such as state environmental requirements. Further, it locks California into permanent underfunding of education, health, and other vital services. This is much too complicated a subject to address with an initiative constitutional amendment."

• The Los Angeles Times: "Proposition 31 is a little like the dreamy stranger glimpsed across a crowded room — alluring, exciting, all promise and possibility — who is revealed on closer inspection to be an unbalanced and dangerous monster. Is it a bad date, or just a Halloween movie? It's a real-life constitutional amendment, outwardly attractive but inside an absolute mess. California voters should run."

• The North County Times: "[Proposition 31] is perhaps the ultimate example of a great idea ruined through the details."

• The Orange County Register: "What troubles us is that for seemingly every welcome reform Prop. 31 would institute, it imposes other dubious changes that almost certainly will yield unintended or unwanted consequences."

• The Press-Enterprise: "Cramming a jumble of well-meaning, but tough to assess, reforms into one ballot vote is a clumsy way to spur change in California government. Voters should just say no to Prop. 31."

• The Sacramento Bee: The California Forward Action Fund is promoting a well-intended but flawed initiative that would amend the California Constitution. Voters should say, "thanks but no thanks" to Proposition 31.

• The San Francisco Bay Guardian: "We're also disturbed by the idea of giving governors unilateral authority to make cuts during years with big budget deficits, and with a requirement that new state programs must be tied to specific funding sources. Again, many of these ideas sound good at first glance, but placing new restrictions on Legislators will only hinder their ability to respond to problems and popular will. And giving the governor that much power is just dangerous."

• The Santa Cruz Sentinel: "It appears to be a common theme this year that many state ballot measures seem well-intentioned, but either are written poorly (Prop. 37), create more problems than they solve, or would be better taken up by our elected legislators. All three come into play on Proposition 31, which would shift some budget decision authority from the Legislature to the governor and from other powers from the state to local governments."

• The Ventura County Star: "The Star is well aware of, and shares, the public's frustration with many aspects of state government and state leaders. There may be an understandable tendency among some voters to throw up their hands and declare that the whole system needs a total overhaul. Instead of Proposition 31, however, it would be better to take up these ideas one at a time."

• The Victorville Daily Press: "What it gets down to is that, in our view, Proposition 31 would ultimately do more harm that good, chiefly by imposing yet another layer of government (and another set of public officials to absorb tax revenue) between the people and their elected officials. And elections, remember, are the main lever available to the public to get the kind of government it wants. We’re not at all sure what else is in Proposition 31 (it’s 9,000 words long and has 17 sections, and our eyes glazed over just looking at the first page of the proposal), and we suspect that’s by the authors’ design. It asks voters to approve something they don’t understand (remember ObamaCare?), which they’ll suffer the consequences of once it becomes law."

Polls

See also: Polls, 2012 ballot measures

The Public Policy Institute of California polled Proposition 31 for the first time in mid-September.

Date of Poll	Pollster	In favor	Opposed	Undecided	Number polled
September 9-16, 2012	PPIC	25%	42%	32%	2,003
October 7-10, 2012	California Business Roundtable	37.6%	35.5%	26.9%	830
October 14-21, 2012	PPIC	24%	48%	28%	2,006
October 21-28, 2012	California Business Roundtable	37.8%	36.8%	25.5%	2,115

Path to the ballot

See also: California signature requirements

• Bruce McPherson and Sunne Wright McPeak submitted a letter requesting a ballot title on November 3, 2011.
• The ballot title and ballot summary were issued by California's attorney general's office on December 29, 2011.
• The 150-day circulation deadline for #11-0068 was May 29, 2012.
• 807,615 valid signatures were required for qualification purposes.
• Signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot were submitted to county election officials around the state on May 7, 2012.
• The California Secretary of State certified the measure for the ballot on June 26, 2012.

Cost of signature collection:

See also: California ballot initiative petition signature costs

The cost of collecting the signatures to qualify Proposition 31 for the ballot came to $2,806,880.

Money was spent on signature-collection through two different campaign committees ("Yes on 31/Taxpayers for Government Accountability" and "Californians for Government Accountability/California Forward Action Fund").

The primary signature vendor was PCI Consultants, Inc.. The Monaco Group and the Latino Voters League also received some signature payments.

See also

2012 Measures

• 2012 Measures
• State and local government budgets on the ballot
• spending on the ballot
• and finance on the ballot
• 2012 legislative sessions

California

• California ballot measures
• California ballot measure laws

News and analysis

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

External links

Suggest a link

• Complete November 6, 2012 official voter guide
• Ballot title, summary and LAO analysis of Proposition 31
• Letter requesting a ballot title for Initiative 11-0068
• Living Voter's Guide to Proposition 31
• Proposition 31 on SmartVoter
• Proposition 31 on Voter's Edge
• Proposition 31 Cheatsheet

Supporters

• "Yes on 31" website
• "Yes on 31" on Twitter
• "Yes on 31" on Facebook
• California Forward Action Fund
• Campaign finance reports of "Yes on 31/Taxpayers for Government Accountability" (1344386)
• Campaign finance reports of "Californians for Government Accountability/California Forward Action Fund (1310030)

Opponents

• "No on 31" website
• "No on 31" on Twitter
• Campaign finance reports of "Californians for Transparent and Accountable Government (1348039)
• "No on 31" on Facebook