Print or Create PDF
RSS Feeds
Mobile or Single ColumnState Budget. State and Local Government.
- Pros & Cons -
Proposition 31
State Budget. State and Local Government.
Initiative Constitutional Amendment
The Question:
Should the state constitution and law be amended to require government performance reviews and two-year budget cycles, to prohibit the Legislature from creating certain expenditures unless offsetting revenues or spending cuts are identified, and to make changes in certain responsibilities of local governament, the Legislature and the Governor?
The Situation:
Each year, the Legislature and the governor approve that year’s state budget bills which provide for spending from the state’s General Fund and other state accounts. While the Constitution does not mandate how each law is to be financed, it does require that the state’s overall budget be balanced each year. The annual state budget may be passed by a simple majority in each house of the Legislature, but any tax increase requires approval by two-thirds of the members of each house.
The Governor may declare a fiscal emergency and call the Legislature into special session if he or she determines the state is facing large revenue shortfalls or spending overruns. However, the Governor's powers to cut state spending are very limited.
Largely due to decreasing state revenues, California has endured a structural budget deficit since 2007 and has the lowest credit rating of any state in the nation.
The Proposal:
Among its many provisions, Prop 31 would require two-year budget cycles and performance reviews and would create measures for state and local program accountability. It would prohibit the state Legislature from passing certain bills that reduce revenues or increase expenditures by more than $25 million annually unless offsetting revenues or spending cuts are identified. It would permit the Governor to cut the budget unilaterally during declared fiscal emergencies if the Legislature fails to act. It would create mechanisms for increased local government cooperation, transferring some state revenues to local governments with plans to coordinate services and giving them the power to alter procedures for carring out state statutes or regulations that would otherwise restrict their ability to coordinate services.
Fiscal Effect:
Prop 31’s provisions relating to enhanced local government activities would likely result in decreased state revenues and commensurate increases in local revenues, probably in the range of about $200 million annually beginning in 2013-14. The fiscal effects of other provisions of Prop 31 cannot be predicted.
A YES Vote 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.
A NO Vote 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.
Supporters Say:
- Prop 31 forces politicians to finally live within their means and holds them accountable for their actions.
- Prop 31 requires a real balanced budget and stops billions of dollars from being spent without public review or citizen oversight.
Opponents Say:
- Prop 31 is poorly written and contradictory, and will lead to lawsuits and confusion instead of reform.
- Prop 31 will shift $200 million from education and other vital functions to fund experimental county programs.
Tell us how we are doing!
Please take a few minutes to participate in our User Survey, and help us improve our ability to deliver quality content to you!
ShareThis