2009 California Proposition 1A: Difference between revisions
m →Background: link |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
== Background == |
== Background == |
||
In February 2009 the State Legislature narrowly passed the [[ |
In February 2009 the State Legislature narrowly passed the [[California budget crisis|2008–2009 state budget]] during a special session, months after it was due. 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]] |accessdate=2009-05-08}}</ref> |
||
== Proposal == |
== Proposal == |
||
Revision as of 01:51, 27 June 2009
| 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, and sponsored by Assemblyman Roger Niello (R-Fair Oaks).
Background
In February 2009 the State Legislature narrowly passed the 2008–2009 state budget during a special session, months after it was due. 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]
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).[2] 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 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 2 years.
Results
| 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
- ^ a b c "Proposition 1A Analysis - Voter Information Guide 2009". California Secretary of State. Retrieved 2009-05-08.
- ^ "Proposition 1A Title and Summary - Voter Information Guide 2009". California Secretary of State. Retrieved 2009-05-26.
- ^ "Statement of Vote: May 19, 2009, Statewide Special Election" (PDF). California Secretary of State. 2009-06-26. Retrieved 2009-06-26.