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

Proposition 31
Quick stats
Type:	Initiated amendment & statute
Referred by:	Petition signatures
Topic:	State budget
Status:	d

California Proposition 31 was on the November 6, 2012 ballot in California as an combined initiated constitutional amendment and state statute, where it was defeated. To earn a spot on the state's 2012 ballot, sponsors of the initiative needed to collect 807,615 signatures.

If Proposition 31 had been approved, it would have:

• Established a two-year state budget cycle.
• Prohibited the California State Legislature from "creating expenditures of more than $25 million unless offsetting revenues or spending cuts are identified."
• Permitted the Governor of California to cut the budget unilaterally during declared fiscal emergencies if the state legislature fails to act.
• Required performance reviews of all state programs.
• Required performance goals in state and local budgets.
• Required publication of all bills at least three days prior to a vote by the California State Senate or California State Assembly.
• Given counties the power to alter state statutes or regulations related to spending unless the state legislature or a state agency vetoed those changes within 60 days.

Proposition 31 was a project of California Forward. Nicolas Berggruen contributed over $1 million to fund the effort to gather signatures to qualify it for the ballot.

Election results

See also: 2012 ballot measure election results

California Proposition 31
Result		Votes	Percentage
d No		7,115,166	60.5%
Yes		4,642,088	39.5%

These final, certified, results are from the California Secretary of State.

Text of measure

See also: Complete text of Proposition 31 and Ballot titles, summaries and fiscal statements for California's 2012 ballot propositions

Title

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

Summary

The state's official voter guide included two summaries for each statewide ballot measure. One summary, in bullet-point format, appeared in the long-form description of each measure. A shorter form of the summary appeared on the ballot label in the front of the voter guide, where there was a short description of each measure.

The long-form summary for Proposition 31 said:

Establishes two-year state budget cycle. Prohibits Legislature from creating expenditures of more than $25 million unless offsetting revenues or spending cuts are identified. Permits Governor to cut budget unilaterally during declared fiscal emergencies if Legislature fails to act. Requires performance reviews of all state programs. Requires performance goals in state and local budgets. Requires publication of bills at least three days prior to legislative vote. Allows local governments to alter how laws governing state-funded programs apply to them, unless Legislature or state agency vetoes change within 60 days.

The short-form (ballot label) summary for Proposition 31 said:

"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."

Neither of the two summaries in the final voter guide was identical to the summary that was originally given to Proposition 31, when its sponsors sought a summary prior to circulating petitions to qualify the measure for the ballot. The summary that was given by election officials to Proposition 31 at that time said:

"Establishes two-year state budget cycle. Prohibits Legislature from creating expenditures of more than $25 million unless offsetting revenues or spending cuts are identified. Permits Governor to cut budget unilaterally during declared fiscal emergencies if Legislature fails to act. Requires performance reviews of all state programs. Requires performance goals in state and local budgets. Requires publication of all bills at least three days prior to legislative vote. Gives counties power to alter state statutes or regulations related to spending unless Legislature or state agency vetoes changes within 60 days."

Fiscal impact

See also: Fiscal impact statements for California's 2012 ballot propositions

(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.

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. These would have changed California's Government Code and its Education Code.

Support

"Yes on Prop 31" website logo

Supporters

Proposition 31 was a project of Nicolas Berggruen and California Forward.

The arguments in favor of Proposition 31 in the state's official voter guide were submitted by:

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

Other supporters included:

• The California Republican Party.

Arguments in favor

• 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."

The arguments presented in favor of Proposition 31 in the state's official voter guide included:

• "Proposition 31 forces state politicians to finally live within their means, and it gives voters and taxpayers critical information to hold politicians accountable."

• "The non-partisan state auditor reported in an audit of several state agencies between 2003 and 2010 that the state could have saved taxpayers approximately $1.2 billion had the auditor’s own proposals to reform operations and improve efficiency been enacted. The recent effort to create a unified Court Case Management System cost taxpayers more than $500 million, more than $200 million over budget, to connect just 7 of 58 counties before being abandoned."

• "Proposition 31 requires a real balanced budget. It stops billions of dollars from being spent without public review or citizen oversight. Unless we pass Proposition 31, hundreds of millions of dollars every year will continue to be wasted that could be better used for local schools, law enforcement and other community priorities."

• "Proposition 31 does not raise taxes, increase costs to taxpayers or set up any new government bureaucracy. Proposition 31 makes clear that its provisions should be implemented with existing resources—and it will generate savings by returning tax dollars to cities and counties."

Donors

Total campaign cash as of November 3, 2012
Support:	$4,400,000
Opposition:	$573,700

The donors listed in the chart below are the $50,000 and over donors to the "Yes on 31" campaign as of Saturday, November 3, 2012. Note that one of these donors gave their money to a committee that was simultaneously supporting or opposing more than one of the ballot propositions on the November 6, 2012 ballot. When that is the case, it is not generally possible to break down how much of that donor's money specifically was spent on the campaign for a particular proposition. That contribution is listed below with shading; readers should not assume that all or even most of a donation to a multi-purpose committee was used for expenditures related to this particular proposition.

Donor	Amount
Nicolas Berggruen	$1,557,587
California Forward	$1,260,967
Michael Marston	$456,050
Lenny Mendonca	$175,000
Emerson Collective	$100,000
Barclay Simpson	$100,000
Thomas McKernan, Jr.	$100,000
Small Business Action Committee	$63,000
Julie Packard	$50,000
Nancy Burnett	$50,000
David Spencer	$50,000
Peter Weber	$50,000
New Majority California PAC	$50,000

Opposition

Opponents

The arguments against Proposition 31 in the state's official voter guide were submitted by:

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

Other opponents included:

• The California Democratic Party

Arguments against

The arguments in opposition to Proposition 31 presented in the state's official voter guide included:

• "It will lead to lawsuits and confusion, not reform. We all want reform, but instead Proposition 31 adds bureaucracy and creates new problems. It adds layer upon layer of restrictions and poorly defined requirements, leaving key decisions up to unelected bureaucrats, decisions such as whether tax cuts are allowed or programs can be changed—decisions that will be challenged in court year after year."

• "The state can barely pay its bills now. And the majority of the state’s budget goes to education. Yet this measure transfers $200 million per year from state revenues into a special account to pay for experimental county programs. This is not the time to gamble with money that should be spent on our highest priorities."

• "As strange as it seems, Proposition 31 actually prevents the state from adopting improvements to programs like education or increasing funding to schools even if it has the money to do so, unless it raises taxes or cuts other programs."

• "The contradictory nature of these tax provisions would prohibit the state from cutting one tax unless it raises another, even when there is a budget surplus—either this was intended to prevent the state from cutting your taxes or is another case—a serious case—of careless drafting."

• "California has adopted statewide standards to protect public health, prevent contamination of air and water and provide for the safety of its citizens. Proposition 31 contains a provision that allows local politicians to alter or override these laws without a vote of the people, and without an effective way to prevent abuse."

• "Performance-based budgeting is more of a slogan than anything else. It’s been tried many times before. The one thing we know it will do is raise costs. The official fiscal analysis by the non-partisan Legislative Analyst’s Office says it will raise the costs of government by tens of millions of dollars per year for new budgeting practices, with no guarantee any improvement will result. Certain costs, uncertain results."

Other arguments against Proposition 31 included:

• 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."

• Opponents of the measure also argued that 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."

Donors

Total campaign cash as of November 3, 2012
Support:	$4,400,000
Opposition:	$573,700

The donors listed in the chart below are the $25,000 and over donors to the "No on 31" campaign as of Saturday, November 3, 2012. Note that some of these donors gave their money to a committee that was simultaneously supporting or opposing more than one of the ballot propositions on the November 6, 2012 ballot. When that is the case, it is not generally possible to break down how much of that donor's money specifically was spent on the campaign for a particular proposition. Those contributions are listed below with shading; readers should not assume that all or even most of a donation to a multi-purpose committee was used for expenditures related to this particular proposition.

Donor	Amount
Working Families Issues Committee (AFL-CIO)	$132,500
AFSCME	$93,073
California State Council of Service Employees (SEIU)	$75,272
National Education Association	$60,025
BISC	$54,721
California Teachers Association	$50,000
United Food & Commercial Workers	$50,000
Californians for Clean Energy and Jobs	$50,000
California School Employees Association	$25,000
Quinn Delaney	$25,000

Editorial opinion

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

"Yes on 31"

• 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."

"No on 31"

• 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."

Polling information

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 the Attorney General of California'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:

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 Progressive Campaigns, Inc.. The Monaco Group and the Latino Voters League also received some signature payments.

See also: California ballot initiative petition signature costs

External links

Suggest a link

• Complete November 6, 2012 official voter guide
• Ballot title, summary and LAO analysis of Proposition 31
• Arguments for and against Proposition 31 in the official state voter guide
• Letter requesting a ballot title for Initiative 11-0068
• Living Voter's Guide to Proposition 31
• Proposition 31, an overview prepared by the League of Women Voters of California
• Proposition 31 on Voter's Edge
• Proposition 31 Cheatsheet from KCET
• Proposition 31 on California Choices (sponsored by Next 10, IGS at UC Berkeley, the UC San Diego Political Science Department, the Bill Lane Center for the American West at Stanford, and the Center for CA Studies at Sac State)
• Proposition 31 at the California Voter Foundation

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

Additional reading:

• Is Proposition 31 really a U.N. conspiracy?
• California’s Prop. 31: The Revolution Will Not Be Publicized
• Making Sense of The Very, Very Complicated Proposition 31