California Proposition 1E, Redirect Funds for Mental Health Programs Measure (May 2009)

California Proposition 1E
Election date May 19, 2009
Topic Taxes and State and local government budgets, spending and finance
Status d Defeated
Type State statute	Origin State legislature

California Proposition 1E was on the ballot as a legislatively referred state statute in California on May 19, 2009. It was defeated.

A "yes" vote supported redirecting funds from Proposition 63 of 2004 for a two-year period ($226.7 million in 2009-10 and between $226.7 million and $234 million in 2010-11) to support mental health programs through the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT) Program.

A "no" vote opposed redirecting funds from Proposition 63 of 2004 for a two-year period to support mental health programs through the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT) Program.

Election results

California Proposition 1E
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		1,597,907	33.52%
No		3,169,163	66.48%

Results are officially certified.

Overview

Measure design

Proposition 1E would have redirected funds from Proposition 63 of 2004 (also known as the Mental Health Services Act) for a two-year period ($226.7 million in 2009-10 and between $226.7 million and $234 million in 2010-11) to support mental health programs through the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT) Program. Proposition 63 enacted an additional 1% tax on income over $1 million. The EPSDT is a federally mandated Medicaid program for low-income persons under age 21. Revenue for this program came from the state general fund at the 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 1E was as follows:

“

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES Funding. temporary REallocation. HELPS BALANCE STATE BUDGET.

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary for this measure was:

“

Amends Mental Health Services Act (Proposition 63 of 2004) to transfer funds, for a two-year period, from mental health programs under that act to pay for mental health services for children and young adults provided through the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment Program. Provides more than $225 million in flexible funding for mental health programs. Helps balance state budget during this difficult economic time.

”

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 1E provided by the California Legislative Analyst's Office was as follows:

“

Funding Redirection From Proposition 63 Programs to EPSDT This measure would result in state General Fund savings of about $230 million a year for two years (2009–10 and 2010–11) from redirecting a portion of Proposition 63 funds to state-supported EPSDT mental health services. It would result in an equivalent reduction in Proposition 63 funding.

”

Ballot language lawsuit

Rusty Selix and Richard Van Horn filed a lawsuit with Judge Michael P. Kenny in Sacramento Superior Court on March 4, 2009 alleging that the ballot language originally drafted for Proposition 1E was false and misleading because it did not "clearly state that Proposition 1E would redirect the money the voters earmarked in 2004." The plaintiffs wanted the judge to order the California Secretary of State to re-write the ballot title.

Selix and Van Horn dropped the lawsuit after coming to an agreement with the Secretary of State's office to revise the ballot language.

• Original ballot title: Ensures Funding For Children's Mental Health Services. Helps Balance State Budget.
• Revised ballot title: Mental Health Services Funding. Temporary Reallocation. Helps Balance State Budget.

• Original ballot summary: "MENTAL HEALTH FUNDING BUDGET. Helps balance the state budget and preserve funding for children’s mental health services by providing temporary flexibility in the Mental Health Services Act to fund the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment Program for children. Fiscal Impact: State General Fund savings of about $230 million annually for two years (2009-10 and 2010-11). Corresponding reduction in funding available for Mental Health Services Act programs."

• Revised ballot summary: "MENTAL HEALTH FUNDING. TEMPORARY REALLOCATION. Helps balance state budget by amending the Mental Health Services Act (Proposition 63 of 2004) to transfer funds, for two years, to pay for mental health services provided through the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment program for children and young adults. Fiscal impact: State General Fund savings of about $230 million annually for two years (2009-10 and 2010-11). Corresponding reduction in funding available for Mental Health Services Act programs."

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 1E supporters.

Supporters

• Arnold Schwarzenegger (R)
• Senate Pro Tempore Darrell Steinberg

Arguments

Official arguments

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

“ When voters approved Proposition 63, the Mental Health Services Act, to provide community mental health services in California, it was one of my proudest achievements. Since the Mental Health Services Act was enacted in 2004, we have helped hundreds of thousands of people who have suffered from untreated and severe mental illness regain lives of meaning and dignity. As the co-author of Proposition 63, I support diverting funds from the Mental Health Services Act only as a last resort to help balance the state budget this year. California faces an unprecedented $42 billion budget deficit. Solving a budget crisis of this magnitude has been painful and difficult. Everyone has had to give something. But as a collective we must all share in the sacrifice to help put California back on track. Proposition 1E will save the state’s General Fund over $225 million in 2009–10 and up to $234 million in 2010–11 by redirecting funds from the Mental Health Services Act account to the state’s Early and Periodic, Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) program for the next two years. Children served under the EPSDT program will continue to receive specialized care for their complex mental health needs. While the services provided in the EPSDT program are consistent with the approach of Proposition 63, make no mistake about what we are doing here. We are diverting money from the Mental Health Services Act to help reduce the magnitude of cuts that would otherwise have occurred in other state funded programs. When Proposition 63 was enacted in 2004, voters overwhelmingly approved a 1% income tax on individuals with incomes over $1 million. The success of Proposition 63 has saved the state hundreds of millions of dollars in unnecessary hospital and prison costs and reversed decades of neglect for people living with mental illness. Nonetheless, delays in getting new programs started have resulted in $2.5 billion sitting in state coffers. This is more than is needed to fund current services. While in the long run this money is probably best spent on Proposition 63 programs, we cannot afford to only do that right now. And although this shift will reduce the availability of services in the future, we need this funding now to avoid even deeper cuts in other vital state services. This is a one-time redirection of funds at a time when we face an economic crisis like we have never seen before. This should not be a precedent for diverting Proposition 63 funds in the future. We need every dollar to end the neglect of people living with mental illness. The focus now is on finishing our work to close the budget gap. By voting yes on Proposition 1E, California can continue to provide critical mental health services to vulnerable children. It’s the right thing to do for those who need us most. Please vote Yes on Proposition 1E. ”

Opposition

No on Prop 1E led the campaign in opposition to the measure.

Opponents

• California State Senator Lou Correa (D)

Arguments

• No on Prop 1E said the measure "cuts mental health care for children and adults and costs taxpayers more."
• Rusty Selix, the Executive Director of the Mental Health Association in California, said, "If Prop 1E is passed, people with mental illness will lose the care they so desperately need, and will cost taxpayers more in hospitalizations, homelessness and criminal justice."

• Dave Fratello, the campaign manager for the "NO on Prop 1D and 1E" campaign, objected to the television ads that Budget Reform Now ran in support of Proposition 1D and 1E. He said, "These statements aren't true. Proposition 1D & 1E take money out of voter-approved mental health and children's programs, then put that money into the state general fund. These measures then allow the Legislature and the Governor to spend that money with none of the accountability required by the original, voter-approved initiatives. Furthermore, the money taken won't be repaid."

Official arguments

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

“ Five years ago, California voters made the decision to invest in our public mental health system. Through the Mental Health Services Act, Proposition 63, Californians were clear in their commitment to expand community mental health services. Following forty years of neglecting the mentally ill, in 2004 voters turned a new page and passed Proposition 63 and thereby began to rebuild California’s public mental health system. Even in this difficult time, we ought to respect the will of the people. The Mental Health Services Act is changing lives. More than 200,000 people have received mental health services. Among those, nearly 20,000 children, youth, adults, and older adults are getting the proper help— medication, therapy, housing and transportation—for them to recover from severe mental illness. Nearly 40 percent of these individuals had at least one emergency room visit before they enrolled in the Mental Health Services Act program. After they participated in Mental Health Services Act programs, fewer than 10 percent visited the emergency room. These Mental Health Services Act programs are saving the state valuable resources by reducing pressure on our overburdened jails and prisons. People who have received Mental Health Services Act services are much more likely to receive treatment and not be incarcerated. Additionally, these programs have been shown to reduce homelessness, hospitalization, out-ofhome placements, and school failures, further providing relief to strapped counties, school districts and hospitals. Additionally, the Mental Health Services Act will reduce the need for future mental health services through early intervention and treatment. In California, 50,000 are children experiencing early symptoms of mental illness. The Mental Health Services Act emphasis on early intervention and treatment will help these children before their symptoms become debilitating. Shifting Mental Health Services Act funds away from these programs will impede us from serving even more people. I recognize how difficult the current fiscal climate is. However, Mental Health Services Act programs are working and save the state money. We need to preserve programs that are effective and respect the will of the people. Please vote no on Proposition 1E. ”

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 1E and the other five budget-related measures that were on the May 19 ballot.

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

• 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.

Poll results for the measure are detailed below.

Date of Poll	Pollster	In favor	Opposed	Undecided
February 20-March 1	Field	57 percent	23 percent	20 percent
March 10-17	PPIC	47 percent	37 percent	16 percent
March 11-12	SurveyUSA	36 percent	30 percent	34 percent
April 16-26	Field	40 percent	51 percent	9 percent
April 20-21	SurveyUSA	32 percent	41 percent	27 percent
April 27 - May 4	PPIC	41 percent	48 percent	11 percent
May 8-10	SurveyUSA	35 percent	51 percent	14 percent
May 15-17	SurveyUSA	33 percent	55 percent	11 percent

Path to the ballot

The California State Legislature voted to put Proposition 1E on the ballot via Senate Bill 10 of the 2009–2010 Third Extraordinary Session (Chapter 15, 2009–2010 Third Extraordinary Session). Vote totals are displayed below.

Votes in legislature to refer to SB 10 to ballot
Chamber	Ayes	Noes
Assembly	76	4
Senate	36	2

See also

2009 Measures

• 2009 Measures
• State and local government budgets on the ballot
• spending on the ballot
• and finance 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
• May 19, 2009 ballot proposition election returns
• Proposition 1E in the Smart Voter Guide
• Analysis of Proposition 1E from the Institute of Governmental Studies
• Guide to Proposition 1E from the California Voter Foundation
• Summary of donors to and against Proposition 1E from Cal-Access
• Donors for and against Proposition 1E 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 1E
• Campaign finance reports of Budget Reform Now

Opposition

• No on Proposition 1E website
• Campaign finance reports of "No on 1E"