2005 California Proposition 76
Proposition 76 was a ballot proposition in the state of California in the referendum election. It involves school funding, state spending, and is an initiative constitutional amendment.
Official summary (From the Attorney General)
- Limits state spending to prior year’s level plus three previous years’ average revenue growth.
- Changes state minimum school funding requirements (Proposition 98); eliminates repayment requirement when minimum funding suspended.
- Excludes appropriations above the minimum from schools’ funding base.
- Directs excess General Fund revenues, currently directed to schools/tax relief, to budget reserve, specified construction, debt repayment.
- Permits Governor, under specified circumstances, to reduce appropriations of Governor’s choosing, including employee compensation/state contracts.
- Continues prior year appropriations if state budget delayed.
- Prohibits state special funds borrowing.
- Requires payment of local government mandates.
Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments:
- The provisions creating an additional state spending limit and granting the Governor new power to reduce spending in most program areas would likely reduce expenditures relative to current law. These reductions also could apply to schools and shift costs to other local governments.
- The new spending limit could result in a smoother pattern of state expenditures over time, especially to the extent that reserves are set aside in good times and available in bad times.
- The provisions changing school funding formulas would make school and community college funding more subject to annual decisions of state policymakers and less affected by a constitutional funding guarantee.
- Relative to current law, the measure could result in a change in the mix of state spending—that is, some programs could receive a larger share and others a smaller share of the total budget.
Results
The proposition was defeated with a 24.6% margin or about 1 876 383 voters rejecting it.
gollark: The votes are divided by state, so states.
gollark: The electoral college is really bad too, since it makes third parties more meaningless and encourages hyperfocusing on something like five states.
gollark: Approval voting is simple and good, and not even subject to Arrow's theorem.
gollark: Replying to https://discord.com/channels/424394851170385921/471334670483849216/746849411648454706The US electoral system is terrible on various levels and massively discourages this.
gollark: In the UK, we have an equally terrible electoral system, although slightly worse *and* somewhat more different choices.
References
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.