Prop. 31:Two-Year State Budget
Enacts several changes to state budget process, including establishing a two-year budget cycle.
Outcome: Failed
Summary
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.
Hide
What your vote means
Yes
A YES vote on this measure means: Certain fiscal responsibilities of the Legislature and Governor, including state and local budgeting and oversight procedures, would change. Local governments that create plans to coordinate services would receive funding from the state and could develop their own procedures for administering state programs.
No
A NO vote on this measure means: The fiscal responsibilities of the Legislature and Governor, including state and local budgeting and oversight procedures, would not change. Local governments would not be given (1) funding to implement new plans that coordinate services or (2) authority to develop their own procedures for administering state programs.
Hide
Financial effect
Yes
Decreased state revenues and commensurate increased local revenues, probably in the range of about $200 million annually, beginning in 2013-14. Potential decreased state program costs or increased state revenues resulting from changes in the fiscal authority of the Legislature and Governor. Increased state and local costs of tens of millions of dollars annually to implement new budgeting practices. Over time, these costs would moderate and potentially be offset by savings from improved program efficiencies.
No
No change from status quo.
Hide
Campaign arguments
Yes
YES on 31 will stop politicians from keeping Californians in the dark about how their government is functioning. It will prevent the state from passing budgets behind closed doors, stop politicians from creating programs with money the state doesn’t have, and require governments to report results before spending more money.
No
Proposition 31 is a badly flawed initiative that locks expensive and conflicting provisions into the Constitution, causing lawsuits, confusion, and cost. Prop. 31 threatens public health, the environment, prevents future increases in funding for schools, and blocks tax cuts. Join teachers, police, conservationists, tax reformers: vote no on Prop. 31.
Hide
Campaign information
Yes
Taxpayers for Government
Accountability
(916) 572-7111
info@accountableca.org
www.accountableca.org
No
Californians for Transparent and
Accountable Government
Hide
Additional information
Prop. 31 Full textClick here to view.
Measure TypeInitiated constitutional amendment
Date Qualified06/26/2012
ProponentSunne Wright McPeak c/o Robin B. Johansen and James C. Harrison
Signatures by CountyClick here to view.
Signatures Required807,615
Source: California Secretary of State
Funding
Yes
| Rank | Contributor name | Total |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | NICOLAS BERGGRUEN INSTITUTE TRUST | $1,557,587 |
| 2 | MICHAEL MARSTON | $496,775 |
| 3 | CALIFORNIA FORWARD | $450,000 |
| 4 | CALIFORNIANS FOR GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY (cash on hand as of 1/1/2011) | $398,287 |
| 5 | CALIFORNIA FORWARD ACTION FUND | $348,000 |
35.3%
11.3%
10.2%
9.0%
7.9%
$4.4 million raised in total
Last updated: 11/6/2012
More...No
17.9%
16.2%
13.1%
10.5%
9.5%
$573.7 thousand raised in total
| Rank | Contributor name | Total |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | CALIFORNIA LABOR FEDERATION | $102,500 |
| 2 | AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE COUNTY & MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES | $93,073 |
| 3 | SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION | $75,272 |
| 4 | NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION | $60,025 |
| 5 | BALLOT INITIATIVE STRATEGY CENTER | $54,721 |
Last updated: 11/6/2012
More...Source: MapLight analysis of campaign contribution data from Secretary of State – Cal–Access.
Last updated: 11/6/2012
Note: Some ballot measure campaign committees are supporting or opposing more than one proposition, so the total amounts raised by those committees are reflected on multiple propositions. For this reason, adding contributions across propositions will double-count certain contributions. Please contact MapLight for further details.
Endorsements
Due to the high number of endorsements for each campaign, MapLight only publishes endorsements from organizations and not from individuals. For a full list of endorsements, please visit the campaign website.
News
Last updated: 11/8/2012
Editorials
Yes
- Inland Valley Daily Bulletin Editorial: Endorsement: Prop. 31 a Step Toward Better Governance Nov. 2, 2012
- Davis Enterprise Jim Mayer, Executive Director, California Forward: Op-Ed: Prop. 31: Local Control, Accountability Oct. 17, 2012
No
- Policy Mic Melissa Freeman, Senior, University of California, Davis; Opinion Editor, The California Aggie: Op-Ed: Prop 31 and Prop 32: A Guide to Complicated Ballot Propositions in California Nov. 2, 2012
- Davis Enterprise Anthony Wright, Davis Resident; Executive Director, Health Access of California; Founding Member, Health and Human Services Network of California: Op-Ed: Prop. 31 Has Unseen Impacts Oct. 28, 2012
Last updated: 11/9/2012
