California Proposition 76 (2005)
From Ballotpedia
Contents |
California Proposition 76 was on the November 8, 2005 special statewide ballot in California as an initiated constitutional amendment, where it was defeated.[1] Had it passed, it would have limited state spending and changed the minimum requirements for public school funding.
Proposition 76's ballot title was, "Limits state spending to prior year's level plus three previous years' average revenue growth. Changes minimum school funding requirements (Proposition 98). Permits Governor, under specified circumstances, to reduce budget appropriations of Governor's choosing."
Campaign spending on Proposition 76 was lopsided with $26 million spent to defeat it The California Teachers Association contributed over $13 million to the campaign against Proposition 76. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the ballot arguments in favor of the measure and his California Recovery Team led the unsucessful campaign effort to pass it.[2] Schwarzenegger campaigned for the measure on October 31, 2005 by standing in a junkyard "flanked by an aide dressed in a vampire cape and a skeleton behind the wheel of a '57 Ford" saying that California would face "the frightening specter of future tax increases" if voters did not approve Proposition 76.[3]
Election results
| Proposition 76 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
 No
| 4,877,735 | 62.4% | ||
| Yes | 2,948,243 | 37.6% | ||
| Total votes | 7,825,978 | 100.00% | ||
| Voter turnout | NK% | |||
Ballot summary
The official summary provided to describe Proposition 76 said:
- Limits state spending to prior year’s level plus three previous years’ average revenue growth.
- Changes state minimum school funding requirements (Proposition 98); eliminates repayment requirement when minimum funding suspended.
- Excludes appropriations above the minimum from schools’ funding base.
- Directs excess General Fund revenues, currently directed to schools/tax relief, to budget reserve, specified construction, debt repayment.
- Permits Governor, under specified circumstances, to reduce appropriations of Governor’s choosing, including employee compensation/state contracts.
- Continues prior year appropriations if state budget delayed.
- Prohibits state special funds borrowing.
- Requires payment of local government mandates.
Fiscal impact
The fiscal estimate provided by the California Legislative Analyst's Office said:
- The provisions creating an additional state spending limit and granting the Governor new power to reduce spending in most program areas would likely reduce expenditures relative to current law. These reductions also could apply to schools and shift costs to other local governments.
- The new spending limit could result in a smoother pattern of state expenditures over time, especially to the extent that reserves are set aside in good times and available in bad times.
- The provisions changing school funding formulas would make school and community college funding more subject to annual decisions of state policymakers and less affected by a constitutional funding guarantee.
- Relative to current law, the measure could result in a change in the mix of state spending—that is, some programs could receive a larger share and others a smaller share of the total budget.
See also
External links
- Official California Voter Guide to Proposition 76
- Donations to and against
- Official election results
- Proposition 76 from the California Voter Foundation
References
- ↑ The 2005 special elections in California
- ↑ Campaign contributions to Proposition 76
- ↑ Fresno Bee, "Spending limits a tough sell", September 20, 2009
