Proposition 60A: Surplus State Property
- Other Nov. 2004 Ballot Propositions
December 2004
Final update of text and links. |
LIBRARY
Institute
of Governmental Studies
University of California
109 Moses Hall #2370
Berkeley, CA 94720-2370
510-642-1472 (voice)
510-643-0866 (fax)
Statewide
Returns from the California
Secretary of State:
Prop.
60A: Support 73.3%, Oppose 26.7%
|
|
Proposition 60A would require that funds from the sale of surplus state property be used to pay down the $15 billion in deficit bonds included in the
2003-2004 budget package.
Current California law requires state agencies to assess annually their property holdings. Unused and underused property is deemed surplus property and may be sold. When it is sold, the money is deposited into the account that originally paid for the property. In most cases the receiving account is the state's General Fund. According to the Legislative Analyst, proceeds from the sale of surplus property have averaged about $30 million annually in recent years and "are not a major source of General Fund revenue."
The $15 billion in deficit bonds that Proposition 60A would pay down were authorized by the voters as Proposition 57 in the March 2004 primary. The bonds are to be repaid from General fund sources over a period of up to fourteen years.
In paying down
Proposition 57 bonds with surplus state property sales, Proposition 60A would
reduce the amount of interest paid on the bonds over the life of the repayment
period. The Legislative Analyst estimates that the interest savings would be
"in the low tens of millions of dollars" and that the repayment period
would be shortened by "a few months."
Proposition 60A
has an unusual history. It began as a provision of Proposition
60, which was placed on the ballot by the legislature as SCA18.
SCA18 is primarily a constitutional amendment that would preserve the state's
current primary election system, which is a version of the "closed"
primary. In the current system the top vote getters of each party advance to
the general election. The legislature's intent in placing SCA18 on the ballot
was to provide an alternative to Proposition
62, which would change the primary election system to a version of the "blanket"
primary. Under Proposition 62, all candidates would appear on a single primary
ballot, and the top two vote getters--regardless of party--would advance to
the general election. SCA18 was rushed through the legislature just ahead of
the deadline for placing measures on the November general election ballot, and
met the two-thirds vote requirement for such measures with wide bipartisan support.
SCA18 became Proposition
60 on the general election ballot, and was immediately challenged in court
on the ground that it violated the state constitution's ban on multi-subject
ballot measures. Petitioners in Californians for an Open Primary v. Shelley
(2004 Cal. App. Lexis 1259) sought its removal from the ballot altogether. In
a July 30, 2004 decision,
the California Third District Court of Appeal allowed Proposition 60 to stay
on the ballot, but ordered that it be split into two separate propositions.
On August 3, 2004 Secretary of State Kevin Shelley announced that the "surplus
state property" provision would become Proposition 60A on the November
ballot. On August 9, 2004, with the deadline for printing the Official Voter
Information Guide looming, the California Supreme Court let stand the appellate
court decision bifurcating Proposition 60, but agreed to review the legal issues
at a later time, after "adequate briefing, oral argument and deliberation."
The end result of the litigation is that both Propositions 60 and 60A remain
on the general election ballot as single-subject measures.
The official ballot argument for Proposition 60A urges its passage on the ground that it will reduce the cost of the Proposition 57 deficit bonds. The counter-argument urges its rejection on the ground that it is a weak measure that does not force "the sale of the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of surplus property the state owns," but requires only that proceeds of such sales go to the bond debt.
As of late August 2004 there were no organized campaign committees or websites supporting or opposing Proposition 60A.
Via the California Secretary of State. The text, legislative analysis and ballot arguments are
from the Official
Voter Information Guide. Campaign finance data is from the
Cal-Access database of campaign receipts
and expenditures.
Text
Legislative
Analysis and Ballot Arguments
Campaign Finance:
Individual
Campaign Committees
Total Contributions
and Expenditures (select "Nov. 2004 election" and "Prop.
60A" in dropdown boxes)
League of Women
Voters of California Education Fund
Impartial analysis of Proposition 60A: In
Depth and Pros
and Cons
California Journal
Ballot
propositions: Analysis of the November propositions by California
Journal editors in the October issue.
- "A measure
that stirs no passion," Sacramento Bee, Oct. 16, 2004.
NewsBank
(UCB)
Cooper, Claire.
"High Court Orders Prop. 60 Split," Sacramento Bee, Aug.
10, 2004.
NewsBank
(UCB)
- "So Which
of These Are We Supposed to Care About? [editorial]," San Jose Mercury
News, Aug. 9, 2004.
NewsBank
(UCB)
- "60A: Never mind. No can do, a judge said. He forced 60 to be split
into two, from whence comes 60A, the surplus property half. Nobody cares
about 60A. Its authors don't give a hoot whether it passes. It's in the
proposition orphanage along with 65."
- Yamamura, Kevin.
"Ballot Issue Is Split in Two: an Appellate Court Ordered Division of
the Measure against an Open Primary," Sacramento Bee, Aug. 4,
2004.
NewsBank (UCB)
