Should Californians make major Constitutional changes to create an additional state spending limit, grant the governor substantial new power to unilaterally reduce state spending, and revise key provisions relating to Proposition 98, school and community college funding, and transportation funding authorized by Proposition 42?
Limits state spending to prior year's level plus three
previous years' average revenue growth. Changes
minimum school funding requirements (Proposition
98). Permits Governor, under specified circumstances,
to reduce budget appropriations of Governor's choosing.
State spending likely reduced relative to
current law, due to additional spending limit and new
powers granted to Governor. Reductions could apply to
schools and shift costs to other local governments.
- A YES vote on this measure means:
- State expenditures
would be subject to an
additional spending limit
based on an average of
recent revenue growth.
The Governor would be
granted new authority to
unilaterally reduce state
spending during certain
fiscal situations. School
and community college
spending would be more
subject to annual budget
decisions and less affected
by a constitutional funding
guarantee.
- A NO vote on this measure means:
- The state would
not adopt an additional
spending limit, the Governor
would not be granted new
powers to reduce state
spending during certain
fiscal situations, and existing
constitutional provisions
relating to schools and
community college funding
would not be changed.
- Summary of Arguments FOR Proposition 76:
- PROPOSITION 76 CONTROLS
STATE SPENDING AND
FIXES CALIFORNIA'S
BROKEN BUDGET SYSTEM.
Yes on 76 protects against
future defi cits and eliminates
wasteful spending, making
more money available for
roads, healthcare, and law
enforcement without raising
taxes. It establishes "checks
and balances," encouraging
bipartisan budget solutions
--YES on Prop. 76.
Full Text of Argument In Favor,
Rebuttal
- Summary of Arguments AGAINST Proposition 76:
- Prop. 76 cuts school
funding by $4 billion,
overturns voter-approved
school funding guarantees,
and gives the governor
unchecked power over
state budget, destroying
our system of checks and
balances. Does nothing
to prevent new taxes.
Endangers local funding for
police, fire and health care,
including trauma centers
and child immunization.
Full Text of Argument Against,
Rebuttal
- Contact FOR Proposition 76:
- Governor Schwarzenegger's
California Recovery Team
310 Main Street, Suite 225
Santa Monica, CA 90405
http://Joinarnold.com
- Contact AGAINST Proposition 76:
- Andrea Landis
No on 76, Coalition of
educators, firefighters, school
employees, health care givers
and labor organizations
1510 J Street, Suite 210
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 443-7817
info@noonproposition76.com
http://www.noonproposition76.com
|
|
Official Information
Secretary of State
Legislative Analysts's Office
Campaign Finance Information
Secretary of State
- Cal-Access
- how much money is being raised and spent on Prop 76
Around the Capitol - Election Track
California Voter Foundation
Nonpartisan Information
League of Women Voters - Analysis
Easy Voter Guide
Other organizations
League of Women Voters - Background
Events
LWV Pros & Cons Public Meetings
- Come to a meeting in your community where League experts discuss all state ballot propositions giving a nonpartisan analysis. Consult your Smart Voter county page for dates, times and locations. Meetings are usually in October.
TV & Radio Online Broadcasts
League of Women Voters
KPCC 89.3 FM (Public Radio, Pasadena)
KQED 88.5 FM (Public Radio, San Francisco)
LA36 TV
News and Analysis
News Websites with special coverage
Google News Search
Message to News Reporters
- If you use our website for your research, please encourage your readers to go to smartvoter.org!
General Links
Pacific Research Institute
Links to sources outside of Smart Voter are provided for information only and do not imply endorsement.
|
League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
Fail:
2,898,836 /
37.8% Yes votes ......
4,775,219 /
62.2% No votes