|
|
"A comprehensive, collaborative elections resource."
|
CA Proposition 76 - Limit Spending Growth to Revenue Growth
|
| Parents |
> United States > California > Propositions > 2005 Referendums > Limit Spending Growth to Revenue Growth
|
| Office | Referendum |
| Honorific | Referendum - Abbr: |
| Type | Referendum |
| Filing Deadline | June 01, 2005 - 12:00pm Central |
| Polls Open | November 08, 2005 - 09:00am Central |
| Polls Close | November 08, 2005 - 10:00pm Central |
| Term Start | January 01, 2006 - 12:00pm |
| Term End | January 01, 9999 - 12:00pm |
| Turnout |
47.27% Registered
23.10% Total Population
|
| Contributor | RP |
| Last Modified | Jason August 21, 2010 02:09am |
| Data Sources | [Link] |
| Description |
OFFICIAL TITLE AND SUMMARY
Prepared by the Attorney General
PROPOSITION 76
STATE SPENDING AND SCHOOL FUNDING LIMITS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
- 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 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S ESTIMATE OF NET STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FISCAL IMPACT:
- 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 patter
[More...]
OFFICIAL TITLE AND SUMMARY
Prepared by the Attorney General
PROPOSITION 76
STATE SPENDING AND SCHOOL FUNDING LIMITS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
- 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 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S ESTIMATE OF NET STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FISCAL IMPACT:
- 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.
CA Elections Page for Prop. 76
[Less...]
|
|
|
 |
CANDIDATES |
|
|
| Photo |  |
 |
|
| Name |
No |
Yes |
|
| Party | NO |
YES |
|
| Campaign Logo | |
|
|
| Certified Votes |  4,877,735 (62.33%) |
2,948,243 (37.67%) |
|
| Margin | 0 (0.00%) |
-1,929,492 (-24.65%) |
|
| Predict Avg. | 47.00% |
53.00% |
|
| Cash On Hand |
$--
|
$--
|
|
| Website |
|
|
|
| Entry Date |
00/00/2005
|
00/00/2005
|
|
| Bar | |
|
| Adj Poll Avg | 62.54% -- |
30.62%-- |
|
Survey USA
11/04/05-11/06/05 |
59.00%  10.0 |
39.00%  10.0 |
Survey USA
10/29/05-10/31/05 |
49.00% 8.0 |
49.00% 5.0 |
Survey USA
10/29/05-10/31/05 |
56.00% 15.0 |
42.00% 12.0 |
Survey USA
10/29/05-10/31/05 |
61.00% 20.0 |
36.00% 18.0 |
Los Angeles Times
10/26/05-10/31/05 |
60.00% -- |
31.00% -- |
Field Poll
10/25/05-10/30/05 |
60.00% -- |
32.00% 4.0 |
|
| Endorsements | |
|
|
|
| Start Date |
End Date |
Type |
Title |
Contributor |
| VIDEO ADVERTISEMENTS |
 |
|
|
| Start Date |
Candidate |
Category |
Ad Tone |
Lng |
Title |
Run Time |
Contributor |
|
| BOOKS |
|
|
| Title |
Purchase |
Contributor |
| INFORMATION LINKS |
|
|
|
| Date |
Category |
Headline |
Article |
Contributor |
|
|
