California Proposition 2, Loans of Transportation-Related Revenues to the General Fund Amendment (1998)
| California Proposition 2 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 3, 1998 | |
| Topic State and local government budgets, spending and finance and Transportation | |
Status Approved | |
| Type Constitutional amendment | Origin State legislature |
California Proposition 2 was on the ballot as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment in California on November 3, 1998. It was approved.
A "yes" vote supported amending the state constitution to require loans from transportation-related revenue to the state's general fund to be repaid within the same fiscal year or within three fiscal years when the governor has declared an emergency impacting the general fund. |
A "no" vote opposed amending the state constitution to require loans from transportation-related revenue to the state's general fund to be repaid within the same fiscal year or within three fiscal years when the governor has declared an emergency impacting the general fund. |
Election results
|
California Proposition 2 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
|
|
5,521,372 | 75.39% | ||
| No | 1,802,444 | 24.61% | ||
-
- Results are officially certified.
- Source
Overview
Proposition 2 required loans from transportation revenue to California's general fund to be repaid in the fiscal year. Under the terms of Proposition 2, the governor was allowed to extend the one-year loan period to three years by declaring a monetary emergency or if the general fund has dropped from the year before.[1]
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title for Proposition 2 was as follows:
| “ | ” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary for this measure was:
| “ |
-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. | ” |
Full Text
The full text of this measure is available here.
Fiscal impact
The California Legislative Analyst's Office provided an estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact for Proposition 2. That estimate was:[2]
| “ |
|
” |
Support
Supporters
- Assemblyman Kevin Murray (D)[2]
- Allan Zaremberg, president of California Chamber of Commerce[2]
- Donald R. Doser, AFL-CIO Operating Enginees Business Manager[2]
Official arguments
The official arguments in support of Proposition 2 can be found here.
Opposition
Official arguments
No arguments were submitted in opposition to Proposition 2.
Path to the ballot
A two-thirds vote was needed in each chamber of the California State Legislature to refer the constitutional amendment to the ballot for voter consideration.
Proposition 2 was referred to the ballot through ACA 30 (Proposition 2).
| Votes in legislature to refer to ballot | ||
|---|---|---|
| Chamber | Ayes | Noes |
| Assembly | 71 | 2 |
| Senate | 32 | 1 |
An error has occurred.
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ Bay Area Public Transportation Examiner, "Court affirms $4 billion transit raid to be returned," October 5, 2009
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 University of California, "Voter Guide," accessed April 28, 2021
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
 |
State of California Sacramento (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2026 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
