Propositions 1A and 65 both seek to limit state authority over local finances. The idea of drafting a ballot initiative to secure local government funding began in 2001 with conversations among the California Special Districts Association, the League of California Cities, and the California State Association of Counties. The three associations temporarily shelved their initiative strategy, forming the Leave Our Community Assets Local (LOCAL) coalition in order to focus on promoting change through legislative channels. In September 2003, citing the state's continued targeting of local government funds to balance the budget, the initiative drive resumed, culminating in Proposition 65.
With voter support in question, the proponents of Prop. 65 decided to work with the Governor to craft a legislative solution. An alternative plan for reducing state authority over local finances (SCA4) was passed by the legislature at the end of July 2004. This plan will go before the voters as Proposition 1A. All of the official proponents of Proposition 65 now support Proposition 1A.
If both Proposition 1A and 65 are approved and Proposition 1A receives more yes votes, none of the provisions of Proposition 65 will go into effect.
Proposition 65 limits state authority to reduce major local tax revenues. Its restrictions apply to state actions taken over the last year, and thus would prevent a major component of the 2004-05 budget plan (a $1.3 billion property tax shift in 2004-05 and again in 2005-06) from taking effect unless approved by the state's voters at the subsequent election. In future state budgets, Proposition 65 would permit the state to modify major local tax revenues for the fiscal benefit of the state, but only with the approval of the state's voters.
Prop. 65 reduces state authority to reallocate tax revenues among local governments, requiring voter approval before the state can reduce any individual local government's revenues from the property tax, uniform local sales tax, or vehicle license fee. The local governments affected include cities, counties, special districts, and redevelopment agencies.
The measure also restricts state authority to impose mandates on local governments without reimbursement. It authorizes local governments, schools, and community college districts to decide whether or not to comply with a state requirement if the state does not fully reimburse local costs.
Proposition 1A also restricts state authority to reduce major local tax revenues, however its restrictions apply to future state actions only, and would allow the planned $1.3 billion property tax shifts to take place in 2004-05 and 2005-06. In future budgets Proposition 1A allows for limited, short-term shifting of local property taxes. The state must repay local governments for these property tax losses within five years.
Prop. 1A prohibits the state from reducing any local government's revenues from local sales taxes, but maintains some state authority to alter the allocation of property tax revenues, vehicle license fee revenues, and other taxes. Proposition 1A does not include a state voter approval requirement. Its restrictions do not apply to redevelopment agencies.
The measure also restricts state authority to impose mandates on local governments without reimbursement. However, Prop. 1A's mandate provisions do not apply to schools and community colleges. If the state does not fund a mandate in any year, the state must eliminate local government's duty to implement it for that same time period.
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.
Proposition
65:
Text
Legislative
Analysis and Ballot Arguments
Campaign Finance:
Individual
Campaign Committees
Total Contributions
and Expenditures (select "Nov. 2004 election" and "Prop.
65" in dropdown boxes)
Proposition
1A:
Text
Legislative
Analysis and Ballot Arguments
Campaign Finance:
Individual
Campaign Committees
Total Contributions
and Expenditures (select "Nov. 2004 election" and "Prop.
1A" in dropdown boxes)
Public
Interest Sites
League of Women
Voters of California Education Fund
Impartial analysis of Proposition 1A: In
Depth and Pros
and Cons
Impartial analysis of Proposition 65: In
Depth and Pros
and Cons
California Journal
Ballot
propositions: Analysis of the November propositions by California
Journal editors in the October issue.
Advocacy
Sites
Yes
on 1A: Protect Local Taxpayers and Public Safety Services
Sponsored by a coalition of local government organizations, League of California
Cities (non-public funds account), California State Association of Counties
(non-public funds account) and the California Special Districts Association
(non-public funds account).
Bluth, Alexa H.
"Organizers raise millions for uncontested initiative: County, city lobbies
are primary donors for measure to protect local funding," Sacramento
Bee, Oct. 30, 2004.
NewsBank
(UCB)
Slater, Eric.
"4 Ballot Items All But Ignored: Measures aim to guard local funds, widen
DNA net, aid ailing kids and open government more," Los Angeles Times,
Oct. 22, 2004.
NewsBank
(UCB)
Fitzenberger, Jennifer M.
"Dumped by local agencies, Prop. 65 gets Florez's help," Sacramento Bee, Oct. 21, 2004.
NewsBank (UCB)
Walters, Dan.
"Dan Walters: Local governments seek shield from Sacramento bandits,"
Sacramento Bee, Oct. 13, 2004.
NewsBank
(UCB)
Gledhill, Lynda.
"PROPOSITION 1A: Curbs on looting of local coffers: Measure limits state's
ability to divert funding from cities, counties, districts," San Francisco
Chronicle, Oct.12, 2004.
San
Francisco Chronicle
Fitzenberger, Jennifer
M.
"Votes sought for local control: Props. 1A, 65 aim to guard local funds
but might confuse voters," Fresno Bee, Oct. 8, 2004.
NewsBank
(UCB)
[Opinion]
"Cities should own funds: Vote yes on Prop. 1A: Whever there's a crunch,
the state swipes local money," San Jose Mercury News, Oct. 4,
2004.
NewsBank
(UCB)
"What Would
Proposition 1A Mean for State and Local Government Finance?" California
Budget Project Budget Brief, September 2004.
California
Budget Project
Schrag, Peter.
"Coming on Nov. 2 ballot: A lot more of the same," Sacramento
Bee, Sep. 29, 2004.
Sacramento
Bee
What
would Proposition 1A mean for state and local government finance? Sacramento
: California Budget Project, Sept. 2004.
Talev, Margaret.
"Governor's picks coming your way: he's sending voter guides on a host
of ballot measures," Sacramento Bee, Sept. 18, 2004.
Sacramento
Bee
Fouhy, Beth.
"Schwarzenegger vows support for local governments, ballot measure,"
San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 14, 2004.
San
Francisco Chronicle
Schnayerson, Ben.
"Cities seek guarantee on funding: Prop. 1A limits state's ability to take
local cash," San Bernardino County Sun , Sept. 14, 2004.
Yes on 1A
Hood, Joel.
"County money problems date back 3 to 4 decades: low property taxes then
linked to low revenue now," Modesto Bee, Aug. 29, 2004.
NewsBank (UCB)
[Opinion]
"Proposition aims to keep local money local," The Sun (San Bernardino,
CA), Aug. 4, 2004.
NewsBank
(UCB)
"Legislature
passes historic reforms to secure local revenues," Priority Focus
(League of California Cities), Issue #30, July 30, 2004.
Priority Focus
Mendel, Ed.
"Governor's budget dealing backfires: his local-funding pact is at heart of deadlock," San Diego Union-Tribune, July 17, 2004.
NewsBank (UCB)
Mendel, Ed.
"No argument against Prop. 65 submitted for ballot," San Diego Union-Tribune, July 13, 2004.
NewsBank (UCB)
[Editorial]
"Cities deserve a better deal," Los Angeles Times, July 8, 2004.
NewsBank (UCB)
Perry, Bev and Ron Bates.
"Cities give, state takes away: let's change that, communities can refuse
to give up their tax dollars, a state initiative is the vehicle," Los
Angeles Times, Nov. 2, 2003.
NewsBank (UCB)
California Special Districts Association.
"CSDA undertakes statewide ballot measure: unanimous votes mark momentous decision," CSDA News, v.19 no.11 (November, 2003), p. 1, 3.
Robes, Karen.
"Measure would protect city funds: proposed initiative would prevent state
from draining funding in tight times," Long Beach Press-Telegram,
Aug. 28, 2003.
NewsBank (UCB)
Walters, Dan.
"Locals tired of wearing 'kick me' signs in state budget travails,"
Sacramento Bee, Aug. 2003.
NewsBank (UCB)
Walters, Dan.
"As budget battle heats up, interest groups deploy full arsenal,"
Sacramento Bee, Dec. 6, 2002.
NewsBank (UCB)
"Coalition seeks support," Ventura County Star, June 7, 2002.
NewsBank (UCB)
