Fail: 1,630,144 / 34.1% Yes votes ...... 3,150,427 / 65.9% No votes

See Also: Index of all Propositions

• Provides more than $600 million to protect children's programs in difficult economic times.
• Redirects existing tobacco tax money to protect health and human services for children, including services for at-risk families, services for children with disabilities, and services for foster children.
• Temporarily allows the redirection of existing money to fund health and human service programs for children 5 years old and under.
• Ensures counties retain funding for local priorities.
• Helps balance state budget.

Fiscal Impact from the Legislative Analyst:

• State General Fund savings of up to $608 million in 2009-10 and $268 million annually from 2010-11 through 2013-14, from temporarily redirecting a portion of funds from the California Children and Families Program in place of state General Fund support of health and human services programs for children up to age five.
• Corresponding reductions in funding for early childhood development programs provided by the California Children and Families Program.

Meaning of Voting Yes/No

A YES vote on this measure means:

A portion of funds previously approved by the voters to support early childhood development programs through the California Children and Families Program will be temporarily redirected over the next several years to achieve state General Fund budgetary savings.

A NO vote on this measure means:

The California Children and Families Program will continue to receive all the funding now dedicated for the expansion of early childhood development programs. Other budget reductions or revenue increases would be needed to address the state's fiscal problems.

Summary of Arguments FOR Proposition 1D:

Proposition 1D protects vulnerable children while helping California close a $42 billion budget gap. It temporarily shifts a portion of the unspent $2.5 billion in First 5 Commission accounts to fund critical health and social services for children under the age of 5 and protects against future cuts.

Summary of Arguments AGAINST Proposition 1D:

Proposition 1D takes $1.6 billion away from local health and education programs for young children and gives it to Sacramento politicians. Prop. 1D violates the will of voters who twice approved these funds for local health, education, and antismoking programs. Prop. 1D replaces voter-mandated local control with Sacramento bureaucracy.

Contact FOR Proposition 1D:

No contact information was provided.

Contact AGAINST Proposition 1D:

Protect Children and Families: Vote No on Prop. 1D 2340 Powell St. #164 Emeryville, CA 94608 (510) 672-1016 info@NoOnProposition1D.com http://www.NoOnProposition1D.com

Go to California State Propositions Page

More Information on 1D

Secretary of State

• Proposition 1D Title, Summary and Analysis
• Proposition 1D Full Text of Arguments and Rebuttals

Secretary of State

• Campaign Finances of Committees For and Against This Measure

League of Women Voters

• In Depth explanations of the measure, its provisions, fiscal effects, main arguments for and against, as well as a list of supporters and opponents.
• Easy Voter Guide - Provides easy-to-read summary of what the proposition would do, its effect on the state budget, and what people for and against say.

• What Would Proposition 1D Mean For California? [April 2009](PDF) - Provides a more detailed examination of the policy issues as well as program and financial impacts of this proposition.

• Voter Minute on Proposition 1D - A quick video description of the proposition, with a list of proponents and opponents and their arguments.

KQED-FM Public Radio

• California Report: Props 1D & 1E - 5/11/09. 5 min.
• Forum: Proposition 1D and 1E - 5/8/09. 52 min. Hosted by Michael Krasny w/ guests Eastin, Carson, Selix, Pomer

• News coverage of Proposition 1D - Note: This link to an external resource is offered strictly as a convenience for users interested in coverage by outside news organizations. The content is provided by organizations unaffiliated with Smart Voter and its partners, and no endorsement of any views expressed or guarantee of its accuracy is intended or implied.