2009 California Proposition 1A: Difference between revisions
Mediaptera (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
→External links: Adding category |
||
| (46 intermediate revisions by 26 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{short description|Failed California ballot measure}} |
|||
{{future election in the United States|sortkey}} |
|||
{{ElectionsCA}} |
{{ElectionsCA}} |
||
'''Proposition 1A''' |
'''Proposition 1A''' was a defeated [[California]] [[California ballot proposition|ballot proposition]] that appeared on the May 19, 2009 [[California state special elections, 2009|special election]] ballot. It was a constitutional amendment that would have increased the annual contributions to the state's [[rainy day fund]]. The proposition was [[legislative referral|legislatively referred]] to voters by the [[California State Legislature|State Legislature]]. |
||
==Background== |
|||
<blockquote> |
|||
In February 2009 the State Legislature narrowly passed the [[2008–10 California budget crisis|2009–2010 state budget]] during a special session. As part of the plan to lower the state's annual deficits, the State Legislature ordered a special election with various budget reform ballot propositions, among them Proposition 1A.<ref name="analysis">{{cite web|url=http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/analysis/prop1a.htm |title=Proposition 1A Analysis - Voter Information Guide 2009 |publisher=[[California Secretary of State]] |access-date=2009-05-08 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090507104534/http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/analysis/prop1a.htm |archive-date=May 7, 2009 }}</ref> |
|||
Changes the budget process. Could limit future deficits and spending by increasing the size of the state "rainy day" fund and requiring above-average revenues to be deposited into it, for use during economic downturns and other purposes. Fiscal Impact: Higher state tax revenues of roughly $16 billion from 2010-11 through 2012-13. Over time, increased amount of money in state rainy day reserve and potentially less ups and downs in state spending.<ref name=1Achanges>[http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/public-display-051909/court-order-bl-prop1a.pdf Superior Court of California. County of Sacramento. Judgment Granting Petition for Writ of Mandate on Proposition 1A. March 5, 2009.]</ref> |
|||
</blockquote> |
|||
On March 5, 2009, a court ordered changes in the ballot title, label, and summary.<ref name=1Achanges></ref> |
|||
The proposition was part of Assembly Constitutional Amendment 1 (Third Extraordinary Session), which was authored by [[California Republican Party|Republican]] assemblymen [[Roger Niello]] of [[Fair Oaks, California|Fair Oaks]] and [[Anthony Adams (California politician)|Anthony Adams]] of [[Hesperia, California|Hesperia]].<ref name="ACAX3 1">{{cite web |url=http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=acax3_1&sess=CUR&house=B&author=niello |title=Bill Documents: ACAX3 1 |publisher=[[California Office of the Legislative Counsel]] |access-date=2009-07-14}}</ref> The amendment passed in the [[California State Assembly|State Assembly]] by a vote of 74 to 6 and in the [[California State Senate|State Senate]] by a vote of 30 to 8.<ref name="ACAX3 1"/> |
|||
Overview of the Proposition from the [[California Legislative Analyst's Office]]: |
|||
<blockquote> |
|||
'''''Measure Changes the State’s Budgeting.''''' This measure would make major changes to |
|||
the way in which the state sets aside money in one of its “rainy day” reserve accounts |
|||
and how this money is spent. As a result, Proposition 1A could have significant impacts |
|||
on the state’s budgeting practices in the future. The measure would tend to increase the |
|||
amount of money set aside in the state’s rainy day account by increasing how much |
|||
money is put into this account and restricting the withdrawal of these funds.<br /> |
|||
'''''Measure Results in Tax Increases.''''' If this measure is approved, several tax increases |
|||
passed as part of the February 2009 budget package would be extended by one to two |
|||
years. State tax revenues would increase by about $16 billion from 2010-11 through |
|||
2012-13.Overview of the Proposition from the California Legislative Analysis Office: |
|||
</blockquote> |
|||
==Proposal== |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
Proposition 1A would have increased the target size of the state's rainy day fund from 5% to 12.5% of the General Fund (the state's chief operating fund).<ref name="title">{{cite web|url=http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/title-sum/prop1a-title-sum.htm |title=Proposition 1A Title and Summary - Voter Information Guide 2009 |publisher=[[California Secretary of State]] |access-date=2009-05-26 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090521133803/http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/title-sum/prop1a-title-sum.htm |archive-date=May 21, 2009 }}</ref> The proposition also established a way of determining which extra revenues to contribute to the rainy day fund (officially the Budget Stabilization Account, however Proposition 1A would have changed the name of the fund to the Budget Stabilization Fund). Extra revenues would first be used to meet constitutionally mandated education funding obligations and the remainder would be deposited in the rainy day fund. Once the target size was reached, any other revenues would have been used to pay off Economic Recovery Bonds established by [[California Proposition 57 (2004)|Proposition 57]] in 2004. Once these obligations were made any further unexpected revenues could be used on other projects.<ref name="analysis"/> |
|||
If [[California Proposition 1B (2009)|Proposition 1B]] also passed, then 1.5% of revenues would be subtracted from the rainy day fund annually until $9.3 billion was paid to public education.<ref name="analysis"/> |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
==Results== |
|||
[[File:2009 California Proposition 1A results map by county.svg|thumb|right|250px|Electoral results by county]] |
|||
{{Referendum |
|||
| title = Proposition 1A<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2009-special/complete-sov.pdf |title=Statement of Vote: May 19, 2009, Statewide Special Election |publisher=[[California Secretary of State]] |format=PDF |date=2009-06-26 |access-date=2009-06-26 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090716155759/http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2009-special/complete-sov.pdf# |archive-date=2009-07-16 |url-status=dead }}</ref> |
|||
| no = 3,152,141 |
|||
| nopct = 65.39 |
|||
| yes = 1,668,216 |
|||
| yespct = 34.61 |
|||
| valid = 4,820,357 |
|||
| validpct = 98.94 |
|||
| invalid = 51,588 |
|||
| invalidpct = 1.06 |
|||
| total = 4,871,945 |
|||
| turnoutpct = 28.40 |
|||
| electorate = 17,153,012 |
|||
}} |
|||
==References== |
|||
{{Reflist}} |
|||
==External links== |
|||
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20091001200347/http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/pdf-guide/text-of-proposed-law.pdf Text of Proposition 1A] |
|||
{{CA2009elections}} |
{{CA2009elections}} |
||
{{California-poli-stub}} |
|||
[[Category:California ballot propositions |
[[Category:2009 California ballot propositions|1A]] |
||
[[Category:Failed amendments to the Constitution of California]] |
|||
Latest revision as of 20:13, 19 August 2022
| Elections in California |
|---|
 |
Proposition 1A was a defeated California ballot proposition that appeared on the May 19, 2009 special election ballot. It was a constitutional amendment that would have increased the annual contributions to the state's rainy day fund. The proposition was legislatively referred to voters by the State Legislature.
Background
[edit]In February 2009 the State Legislature narrowly passed the 2009–2010 state budget during a special session. As part of the plan to lower the state's annual deficits, the State Legislature ordered a special election with various budget reform ballot propositions, among them Proposition 1A.[1]
The proposition was part of Assembly Constitutional Amendment 1 (Third Extraordinary Session), which was authored by Republican assemblymen Roger Niello of Fair Oaks and Anthony Adams of Hesperia.[2] The amendment passed in the State Assembly by a vote of 74 to 6 and in the State Senate by a vote of 30 to 8.[2]
Proposal
[edit]Proposition 1A would have increased the target size of the state's rainy day fund from 5% to 12.5% of the General Fund (the state's chief operating fund).[3] The proposition also established a way of determining which extra revenues to contribute to the rainy day fund (officially the Budget Stabilization Account, however Proposition 1A would have changed the name of the fund to the Budget Stabilization Fund). Extra revenues would first be used to meet constitutionally mandated education funding obligations and the remainder would be deposited in the rainy day fund. Once the target size was reached, any other revenues would have been used to pay off Economic Recovery Bonds established by Proposition 57 in 2004. Once these obligations were made any further unexpected revenues could be used on other projects.[1]
If Proposition 1B also passed, then 1.5% of revenues would be subtracted from the rainy day fund annually until $9.3 billion was paid to public education.[1]
The State Legislature passed a different bill that included tax increases with the 2009–2010 budget. That bill had a provision that stated if Proposition 1A passed, the tax increases would continue for another two years.[1]
Results
[edit]
| Choice | Votes | % |
|---|---|---|
 No
|
3,152,141 | 65.39 |
| Yes | 1,668,216 | 34.61 |
| Valid votes | 4,820,357 | 98.94 |
| Invalid or blank votes | 51,588 | 1.06 |
| Total votes | 4,871,945 | 100.00 |
| Registered voters/turnout | 17,153,012 | 28.40 |
References
[edit]- ^ a b c d "Proposition 1A Analysis - Voter Information Guide 2009". California Secretary of State. Archived from the original on May 7, 2009. Retrieved 2009-05-08.
- ^ a b "Bill Documents: ACAX3 1". California Office of the Legislative Counsel. Retrieved 2009-07-14.
- ^ "Proposition 1A Title and Summary - Voter Information Guide 2009". California Secretary of State. Archived from the original on May 21, 2009. Retrieved 2009-05-26.
- ^ "Statement of Vote: May 19, 2009, Statewide Special Election" (PDF). California Secretary of State. 2009-06-26. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2009-07-16. Retrieved 2009-06-26.