California Proposition 25, Simple Majority Vote to Enact State Budget Amendment (2010)

California Proposition 25
Election date November 2, 2010
Topic State and local government budgets, spending and finance and State legislatures measures
Status a Approved
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin Citizens

California Proposition 25 was on the ballot as an initiated constitutional amendment in California on November 2, 2010. It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported changing the requirement to pass the state budget from two-thirds to a simple majority vote of the legislature and requiring legislators to forfeit pay when they do not pass a state budget on time.

A "no" vote opposed changing the requirement to pass the state budget from two-thirds to a simple majority vote of the legislature and requiring legislators to forfeit pay when they do not pass a state budget on time.

Election results

See also: 2010 ballot measure election results

California Proposition 25
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		5,262,052	55.07%
No		4,292,648	44.93%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

Proposition 25 lowered the previous two-thirds (66.67%) vote to a simple majority vote for the California State Legislature to pass the state's budget. Proposition 25 also required state legislators to forfeit their pay in years where they have failed to pass a budget in a timely fashion.

Supporters of the initiative referred to the measure as the Majority Vote Budget Initiative.

Aftermath

Withholding of legislative pay

John Chiang, the California Controller, announced on June 2 that unless the state legislature passes a balanced budget by June 15, the deadline specified in the California Constitution, he will start docking their pay. He said, "In passing Proposition 25 last November, voters clearly stated they expect their representatives to make the difficult decisions needed to resolve any budget shortfalls by the mandatory deadline, or be penalized. I will enforce the voters' demand."

On June 22, Chiang announced that he was following through with his promise. Legislators did pass a budget, but according to Chiang, the budget they passed had a $1.85 billion deficit and was therefore not a legal budget under the state's requirement that its budget must be balanced. Therefore, Chiang said, there is functionally no budget and by the terms of Proposition 25, he is required to stop paying the state's legislators. The impact to individual members of the California State Legislature will be about $400/day. In Chiang's statement, he said that parts of the budget the legislature did pass were "miscalculated, miscounted or unfinished."

Mike Gatto, a member of the California State Assembly, was one of several state legislators angered by Chiang's action. Gatto said, "John Chiang just wants to sit there and beat up on the unpopular kids. I now have to explain to my wife and daughter that we won't be able to pay the bills because a politician chose to grandstand at our expense."

Full text

The full text can be read below:

This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 of Article II of the California Constitution.

This initiative measure amends a section of the California Constitution; therefore, existing provisions proposed to be deleted are printed in strikeout type and new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.

PROPOSED LAW

SECTION 1. Title.

This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “On-Time Budget Act of 2010.”

SECTION 2. Findings and Declarations. The people of the State of California find and declare that:

1. For more than 20 years, the California Legislature has been unable to meet its constitutional duty to pass a Budget Act by June 15. In many of those years, the Legislature did not pass a Budget Act until the month of August, and in 2008, the Budget Act was not passed until September 16, more than three months late.

2. Late budget passage can have a sudden and devastating effect on individual Californians and California businesses. Individuals and families can be deprived of essential governmental services and businesses are subject to protracted delays in payments for services rendered to the State.

3. A major cause of the inability of the Legislature to pass a budget in a timely manner is the supermajority two-thirds vote required to pass a budget. Political party leaders refuse to compromise to solve the state’s budget problem and have used the two-thirds vote requirement to hold up the budget or to leverage special interest concessions that benefit only a handful of politicians.

4. California, Rhode Island and Arkansas are the only states in the country that require a vote of two-thirds or more of the legislature to pass a budget.

5. A second major cause of the inability of the Legislature to pass a budget on time is that individual legislators have no incentive for doing so. Whether they adopt a budget on time or not has no effect upon those elected to represent the voters. In order to give the Legislature an incentive to pass the annual state budget on time, legislators should not be paid or reimbursed for living expenses if they fail to enact the budget on time. This measure requires incumbents to permanently forfeit their salaries and expenses for each day the budget is late.

SECTION 3. Purpose and Intent.

1. The people enact this measure to end budget delays by changing the legislative vote necessary to pass the budget from two-thirds to a majority vote and by requiring legislators to forfeit their pay if the Legislature fails to pass the budget on time.

2. This measure will not change Proposition 13’s property tax limitations in any way. This measure will not change the two-thirds vote requirement for the Legislature to raise taxes.

SECTION 4.

Section 12 of Article IV of the California Constitution is amended to read:

SEC. 12. (a) Within the first 10 days of each calendar year, the Governor shall submit to the Legislature, with an explanatory message, a budget for the ensuing fiscal year containing itemized statements for recommended state expenditures and estimated state revenues. If recommended expenditures exceed estimated revenues, the Governor shall recommend the sources from which the additional revenues should be provided.

(b) The Governor and the Governor-elect may require a state agency, officer or employee to furnish whatever information is deemed necessary to prepare the budget.

(c) (l) The budget shall be accompanied by a budget bill itemizing recommended expenditures.

(2) The budget bill shall be introduced immediately in each house by the persons chairing the committees that consider the budget.

(3) The Legislature shall pass the budget bill by midnight on June 15 of each year.

(4) Until the budget bill has been enacted, the Legislature shall not send to the Governor for consideration any bill appropriating funds for expenditure during the fiscal year for which the budget bill is to be enacted, except emergency bills recommended by the Governor or appropriations for the salaries and expenses of the Legislature.

(d) No bill except the budget bill may contain more than one item of appropriation, and that for one certain, expressed purpose. Appropriations from the General Fund of the State, except appropriations for the public schools, and appropriations in the budget bill and in other bills providing for appropriations related to the budget bill, are void unless passed in each house by rollcall vote entered in the journal, two-thirds of the membership concurring.

(e) (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law or of this Constitution, the budget bill and other bills providing for appropriations related to the budget bill may be passed in each house by rollcall vote entered in the journal, a majority of the membership concurring, to take effect immediately upon being signed by the Governor or upon a date specified in the legislation. Nothing in this subdivision shall affect the vote requirement for appropriations for the public schools contained in subdivision (d) of this section and in subdivision (b) of Section 8 of this article.

(2) For purposes of this section, “other bills providing for appropriations related to the budget bill” shall consist only of bills identified as related to the budget in the budget bill passed by the Legislature.

(e)(f) The Legislature may control the submission, approval, and enforcement of budgets and the filing of claims for all state agencies.

(f)(g) For the 2004–05 fiscal year, or any subsequent fiscal year, the Legislature may not send to the Governor for consideration, nor may the Governor sign into law, a budget bill that would appropriate from the General Fund, for that fiscal year, a total amount that, when combined with all appropriations from the General Fund for that fiscal year made as of the date of the budget bill’s passage, and the amount of any General Fund moneys transferred to the Budget Stabilization Account for that fiscal year pursuant to Section 20 of Article XVI, exceeds General Fund revenues for that fiscal year estimated as of the date of the budget bill’s passage. That estimate of General Fund revenues shall be set forth in the budget bill passed by the Legislature.

(h) Notwithstanding any other provision of law or of this Constitution, including subdivision (c) of this section, Section 4 of this article, and Sections 4 and 8 of Article III, in any year in which the budget bill is not passed by the Legislature by midnight on June 15, there shall be no appropriation from the current budget or future budget to pay any salary or reimbursement for travel or living expenses for Members of the Legislature during any regular or special session for the period from midnight on June 15 until the day that the budget bill is presented to the Governor. No salary or reimbursement for travel or living expenses forfeited pursuant to this subdivision shall be paid retroactively.

SECTION 5. Severability.

If any of the provisions of this measure or the applicability of any provision of this measure to any person or circumstances shall be found to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such finding shall not affect the remaining provisions or applications of this measure to other persons or circumstances, and to that extent the provisions of this measure are deemed to be severable.

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

Proposition 25 amended Section 12 of Article IV of the California Constitution.

The primary change to Section 12 of Article IV was the addition of a new subsection (e) that says:

(e) (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law or of this Constitution, the budget bill and other bills providing for appropriations related to the budget bill may be passed in each house by rollcall vote entered in the journal, a majority of the membership concurring, to take effect immediately upon being signed by the Governor or upon a date specified in the legislation. Nothing in this subdivision shall affect the vote requirement for appropriations for the public schools contained in subdivision (d) of this section and in subdivision (b) of Section 8 of this article.

(2) For purposes of this section, “other bills providing for appropriations related to the budget bill” shall consist only of bills identified as related to the budget in the budget bill passed by the Legislature.

And a new subsection (h) that says:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law or of this Constitution, including subdivision (c) of this section, Section 4 of this article, and Sections 4 and 8 of Article III, in any year in which the budget bill is not passed by the Legislature by midnight on June 15, there shall be no appropriation from the current budget or future budget to pay any salary or reimbursement for travel or living expenses for Members of the Legislature during any regular or special session for the period from midnight on June 15 until the day that the budget bill is presented to the Governor. No salary or reimbursement for travel or living expenses forfeited pursuant to this subdivision shall be paid retroactively.

Estimated fiscal impact

This is a summary of the initiative's estimated fiscal impact prepared by the California Legislative Analyst's Office:

“

In some years, the contents of the state budget and related legislation could be changed due to the lower legislative vote requirements in this measure. The extent of these changes would depend on a number of factors, including the state's financial circumstances, the composition of the Legislature, and its future actions. In any year the Legislature has not sent a budget to the Governor on time, there would be a reduction in state legislator compensation costs of about $50,000 for each late day.

”

Support

"Yes on 25" campaign logo

Yes on 25 led the campaign in support of Proposition 25.

Supporters

• AFSCME
• California Faculty Association
• California Federation of Teachers
• California Nurses Association
• Health Access California
• League of Women Voters

Official arguments

Arguments were submitted to the official California Voter Guide on behalf of a "yes" vote on Proposition 25 by Martin Hittelman, president of the California Federation of Teachers; Kathy J. Sackman, RN, president of the United Nurses Associations of California/Union of Healthcare Professionals; and Nan Brasmer, president of the California Alliance for Retired Americans:

“

Prop. 25 reforms California’s badly broken state budget process, so taxpayers, schools and services are protected, while legislators are held accountable if they fail to pass the budget on time. No budget, no pay—and no payback later. Prop. 25 is a common sense solution to California’s budget disaster, with legislators paying the price for late budgets, not taxpayers. Prop. 25 is a simple budget reform that breaks legislative gridlock by allowing a simple majority of legislators to approve the budget—just like in 47 other states. Meanwhile, Prop. 25 preserves the 2/3 vote required to raise taxes. Late budgets cost taxpayers millions of dollars, hurt schools and services, damage California’s credit rating and give special treatment to interest groups at the expense of ordinary citizens. Under the current system, no one is held accountable. This will change under Prop. 25—a common sense reform that: — Holds legislators accountable when they don’t do their jobs. For every day the budget is late, legislators are docked a day’s pay plus expenses. Importantly, they can’t pay themselves back when the budget is finally passed. — Changes the vote requirement needed for budget approval, so a majority of legislators can pass the budget, instead of allowing a small minority of legislators to hold it captive. — Preserves the constitutional requirement that 2/3 of the Legislature must approve new or higher taxes. When last year’s budget was late, California issued 450,000 IOUs to small businesses, state workers and others who do business with the state, costing taxpayers over $8 million in interest payments alone. Under the current system, a small group of legislators can hold the budget hostage, with the “ransom” being more perks for themselves, spending for their pet projects or billions in tax breaks for narrow corporate interests. Meanwhile, taxpayers are punished and funding for schools, public safety and home health care services for seniors and the disabled becomes a bargaining chip. Real people suffer when legislators play games with the budget. More than 16,000 teachers were laid off last year and 26,000 pink slips were issued this year because of the budget mess. Prop. 25 ends the chaos, allowing schools to plan their budgets responsibly by letting them know what they can expect from the state. This isn’t possible when the state budget is late. Late budgets waste tax money and inflate the cost of building schools and roads. Last year when the budget was late, road projects were shut down then restarted days later, costing taxpayers millions of dollars and further damaging California’s credit rating. Please read Prop. 25 carefully. It does exactly what it says— holds legislators accountable for late budgets, ends budget gridlock and preserves the 2/3 vote required to raise taxes. For responsible budgeting and fiscal accountability, vote 'yes' on Prop. 25.

”

TV ad of "Yes on 25" campaign

Campaign finance

Main article: Donations to California's 2010 ballot propositions

These donations of $100,000 or over went to the primary campaign committee favoring a "yes" vote on Prop 25. That committee was called "Yes on 25, Citizens for An On-Time Budget Sponsored by Teachers, Nurses, Firefighters and Other Public Groups"

Donor	Amount
California Federation of Teachers	$3,447,850
AFL-CIO	$1,625,000
AFSCME	$1,400,000
SEIU (including CSCSE)	$1,300,000
California Teachers Association	$1,261,831
California School Employees Association	$1,050,000
Alliance for a Better California	$780,583
California Faculty Association	$607,500
Yes on 24, The Tax Fairness Act	$500,000
Professional Engineers in California Government	$336,175
Stephen M. Silberstein	$250,000
California Nurses Association	$150,000
California Democratic State Central Committee	$100,000

Opposition

"No on 25" campaign logo

No on 25 led the campaign in opposition to Proposition 25.

Opponents

• California Taxpayers’ Association
• Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

Arguments

• Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) said, "Even doing the budget, I even don't believe in doing the budget by a simple majority. Because if you do a budget by simple majority, again, there is one party that will make all the decisions. I think it needs the input of both of the parties because you can see the first thing (Democrats) did was come up with borrowing or a tax increase."

Official arguments

Arguments were submitted to the official California Voter Guide on behalf of a "no" vote on Proposition 25 by Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association; John Kabateck, executive director of the National Federation of Independent Business/California; and Ruben Guerra, chair of the Latin Business Association:

“

NO ON PROPOSITION 25—DON’T MAKE IT EASIER FOR POLITICIANS TO RAISE TAXES AND ELIMINATE VOTER RIGHTS Politicians and special interests responsible for our massive budget deficit know that Californians don’t support increased taxes and spending, so they’re promoting Proposition 25— another misleading ballot measure to raise taxes and take away our constitutional right to reject bad legislation at the ballot box. HIDDEN IN THE FINE PRINT OF PROPOSITION 25 ARE THE REAL REASONS POLITICIANS ARE PUSHING THIS MEASURE: Eliminates the right of voters to use the referendum to force a vote and stop taxes disguised as fees. Allows politicians to circumvent our Constitution’s twothirds vote requirement for passing new or increased taxes by allowing taxes to be enacted as part of the budget with a bare majority vote. Makes it easier for politicians to increase their lavish expense accounts. Currently, they can increase these perks only with a two-thirds vote of the Legislature. But under Proposition 25, they would be able to increase them with a bare majority vote. NO ON PROPOSITION 25—DON’T BE FOOLED BY THE POLITICIANS The politicians behind Proposition 25 are the same people who can’t control spending and can’t balance our budget. Instead of cutting waste and controlling spending, their solution is to raise taxes. NO ON PROPOSITION 25—STOP THE POLITICIANS FROM GETTING EVEN LARGER EXPENSE ACCOUNTS Sacramento politicians support this misleading proposal to try and convince voters that they will cut their own pay if they can’t pass an on-time budget. Politicians would NEVER support an initiative that would cost them. Proposition 25 makes it easier for the politicians to double or even triple their own TAX-FREE expense accounts to make up the difference for any lost pay. NO ON PROPOSITION 25—IT’S NOT WHAT IT SEEMS More Spending: The hidden agenda in Proposition 25 makes it easier for politicians to raise taxes, spend money we don’t have and incur more debt. With a budget deficit of $20 billion, we don’t need more borrowing or budget gimmicks. Eliminates Voter Rights: Proposition 25 allows politicians to put new hidden taxes disguised as fees into budget-related bills, which eliminates voters’ constitutional right to use the referendum process to reject these hidden taxes or other bad laws at the ballot. 'Our ability to reject hidden taxes is California taxpayers’ last line of defense against a misguided Legislature. We cannot let the politicians take away that right.'—California Taxpayers’ Association PROPOSITION 25’s HIDDEN AGENDA: Lowers the vote requirement for passing a budget from two-thirds to a bare majority vote, making it easier to use gimmicks and claim the budget is balanced when it’s not. Allows the state Legislature to pass tax increases as part of the budget with a bare majority vote. Eliminates voter rights to use the referendum process to reject hidden taxes and repeal bad laws at the ballot. Allows the Legislature to increase their lavish expense accounts with a bare majority vote. Learn more: www.No25Yes26.com VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 25

”

Arguments against

Steve Rider, San Diego Tax Fighters, arguing for a "no" vote

Campaign finance

Main article: Donations to California's 2010 ballot propositions

The main committee opposing Proposition 25 was called "Stop Hidden Taxes -- No on 25 / Yes on 26, a Coalition of Taxpayers, Employers, Small Businesses, Environmental Experts, Good Government Groups, Minorities, Farmers and Vineyards." Because the main "No on 25" campaign committee was simultaneously the main "Yes on 26" committee, it is not possible to say how much of this campaign committee's finances were directed at urging a "no" vote on Prop 25 versus urging a "Yes" vote on Prop 26.

According to a Maplight analysis, a total of $17,753,067, including large and small donations, was given to "Stop Hidden Taxes" through November 5, 2010.

Through November 30, 2010, these donations of $100,000 or over went to the main campaign committee that simultaneously favored a "no" vote on Proposition 25 and a "yes" vote on Proposition 26.

Donor	Amount
Chevron	$3,750,000
California Chamber of Commerce	$3,395,000
American Beverage Association	$2,450,000
Philip Morris	$1,750,000
Small Business Action Committee	$1,430,000
Anheuser-Busch	$625,000
Conoco Phillips	$525,000
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association	$431,948
Aera Energy	$350,000
MillerCoors	$350,000
Wine Institute	$330,500
Exxon Mobil	$300,000
Occidental Petroleum	$250,000
Chartwell Partners	$250,000
California Association of Realtors	$200,000
Shell Oil	$200,000
New Majority California	$200,000
Kilroy Realty	$150,000
Crown Imports	$130,000
California Beer & Beverage Distributors	$100,000

Polls

Legend      Position is ahead and at or over 50%     Position is ahead or tied, but under 50%

See also: Polls, 2010 ballot measures

Date of Poll	Pollster	Support	Oppose	Undecided	Number polled
June 22-July 5, 2010	Field	65%	20%	15%	1,005
September 14-21, 2010	Field	46%	30%	24%	599
September 19-26, 2010	PPIC	48%	35%	17%	2,004
October 2-4, 2010	Reuters/lpsos	58%	29%	13%	600
October 10-17, 2010	PPIC	49%	34%	17%	2,002
October 14-26, 2010	Field for the Sacramento Bee	48%	31%	21%	1,501

Media editorials

2010 propositions
June 8
Proposition 13
Proposition 14 • Text
Proposition 15 • Text
Proposition 16 • Text
Proposition 17 • Text
November 2
Proposition 19 • Text
Proposition 20 • Text
Proposition 21 • Text
Proposition 22 • Text
Proposition 23 • Text
Proposition 24 • Text
Proposition 25 • Text
Proposition 26 • Text
Proposition 27 • Text
Donations • Vendors
Endorsements
Local measures

See also: Endorsements of California ballot measures, 2010

Support

• Lompoc Record: "Voters should approve Proposition 25, warts and all. We don’t take this position out of sympathy for labor unions, but out of respect for democracy, and the ideal of majority rule."

• Los Angeles Times: "Supermajority budgeting rules served a purpose in a less partisan age, but now they have all but brought state government to a standstill."

• Oakland Tribune: "Proposition 25, we believe, will not lead to majority-vote tax increase, but will significantly improve the chances that future California budgets will pass on time and deserves a yes vote on Nov. 2."

• San Francisco Chronicle: "The two-thirds threshold for passage of a budget is not the only source of dysfunction in Sacramento, but it has been a significant hurdle to allowing the California Legislature to perform its most basic duty."

• Santa Rosa Press Democrat: "California needs to give its leaders a chance to succeed or fail. Leaving them to do nothing is not working. The Press Democrat recommends a yes vote on Proposition 25."

Opposition

• Bakersfield Californian: "Proposition 25 is bankrolled almost exclusively by public employee unions that would like to further empower their patrons in the Legislature: Democrats who wouldn't break a sweat coming up with a 51 percent majority. That's not reform -- that's making sure the fix is in, and it threatens to pile on even more of the special-interest spending that has crippled Sacramento."

• Long Beach Press-Telegram: "Don't be fooled by Proposition 25 supporters' claims. Delinquent budgets are not just the result of the two-thirds majority vote needed to pass the budget. It's because legislators tend to vote their party line, when compromises should be made starting in January, when the governor releases his version of the budget. Compromise and common concern for education, infrastructure and other funding should be enough of an incentive to pass a budget on time - with a two-thirds majority."

• Los Angeles Daily News: "Proposition 25, which would lower the legislative limit to pass the state budget to a simple majority, gives the ruling political party even more power than it has already."

• Orange County Register: "The effect of simple-majority approval would be to grant almost complete control over the budget to tax-and-spend Democrats' large majorities in the state Senate and Assembly. Some believe legislators could then enact taxes in a budget bill with a mere majority vote. The measure also would eliminate voters' right to put referendum measures on the ballot to reject new fees or fee increases imposed by the budget, and make it easier for legislators to increase their travel and expense accounts by simple majority vote."

• Press Enterprise: "Californians should not confuse half-baked ideas with real reform. The main requirement for improving the state's terrible budgeting is a Legislature focused on responsible fiscal oversight. Proposition 25 offers an illusory fix in place of that missing ingredient, and thus voters should reject this measure."

• Sacramento Bee: "...there are omissions and provisions in Proposition 25 that make this initiative difficult to support. Other states with majority- vote budgets have two-year budget cycles, rainy day funds and provisions that allow a governor to reduce spending when revenue drops. If Proposition 25 had truly been the product of bipartisan negotiations among reform-minded Californians, it would stand a better chance of passage, and put to rest concerns about this being purely a power play by Democrats and their union supporters.

• San Bernardino Sun: "Proponents of the measure point to all the other states that get by perfectly well with having a simple majority pass budgets. But all of those states include other good financial provisions that California lacks - and may never get if Proposition 25 passes."

• San Diego Union-Tribune: "According to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, while 'the measure states that its intent is not to change the existing two-thirds vote requirement regarding state taxes,' it allows the Legislature to use simple majority votes to pass bills that lawmakers decree are 'related to the budget in the budget bill.' Opponents say this is an intentional loophole opening the door to massive tax hikes. Backers say this is a phony issue. The LAO is in the middle, which should make taxpayers nervous."

• San Gabriel Valley Tribune: "The current inevitable delays are costly in so many ways. But we fear the tyranny of a slight majority in the Legislature."

• Ventura County Star: "While The Star shares the public’s disapproval of the Legislature’s failures, adopting a simple-majority rule is a poor solution to this problem. Even if one concedes that two-thirds — 66.7 percent of lawmakers in each chamber — is a too-high hurdle, settling for a simple majority is too low."

Path to the ballot

See also: California signature requirements

In California, the number of signatures required for an initiated constitutional amendment is equal to 8 percent of the votes cast at the preceding gubernatorial election. For initiated amendments filed in 2009, at least 694,354 valid signatures were required.

James C. Harrison and Thomas A. Willis filed the initial language for the proposal with the California Secretary of State on October 14, 2009.

The initiative was given its official ballot title on December 9, 2009, with a circulation deadline of May 10, 2010.

Supporters submitted about 1.1 million signatures in early May.

Kimball Petition Management was paid $2,626,808 to collect the signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot.

See also: 2010 ballot measure petition signature costs

See also

2010 Measures

• 2010 Measures
• Salaries of government officials on the ballot
• State legislative vote requirements on the ballot
• 2010 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

Basic information

• Official Voter Guide

Supporters

See also: 2010 ballot measure campaign websites

• October 2009 letter requesting a ballot title
• End Budget Gridlock, campaign website favoring a "yes" vote.
• Yes on 25 on Facebook
• Yes on 25 on Twitter
• Campaign finance reports for "Yes on 25, Citizens for an On-Time Budget, sponsored by Teachers, Nurses, Firefighters and other Public Groups"
• Campaign finance reports for "California Alliance Action Fund: A Committee Sponsored by Social Justice Organizations for Propositions 24, 25 and Against Propositions 23, 26"
• Campaign finance reports for "California Coalition for Leadership and Accountability in Budget and Redistricting, Yes on 25 & 27, No on 20"
• Campaign finance reports for "California Federation of Teachers COPE Prop/Ballot Committee - Yes on 25"
• Campaign finance reports for "American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO (Yes on 25)"

Opponents

See also: 2010 ballot measure campaign websites

• No on 25, Yes on 26
• Stop Hidden Taxes on Facebook
• Stop Hidden Taxes on Twitter
• Campaign finance reports for the "No on 25" campaign