Proposition 76: The California Live Within Our Means Act Introduction Background California Live Within Our Means Act Official Voter Information Key Web Sites Public Opinion Reports and Studies Newspaper Articles See also the related Hot Topic:   - Tax and Expenditure Limitation in California January 2006

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. 76: Support 37.6%, Oppose 62.4%

New spending limit proposals surfaced in the months following the March 2004 primary election. Two prominent proposals were the California Deficit Prevention Act, proposed by Senator John Campbell and the advocacy group Rescue California, and the California Live Within Our Means Act, proposed by William Hauck (co-chair of Governor Schwarzenegger's California Performance Review) and Allan Zaremberg. In his January 2005 State of the State address Governor Schwarzenegger outlined reform ideas that were broadly in line with Hauck's, and in March 2005 the governor officially backed the California Live Within Our Means Act, which is before the voters as Proposition 76 in the November 2005 special election.

Background

Immediately upon taking office following the October 2003 recall election, Governor Schwarzenegger proposed a "California Recovery Plan" to cope with the state's continuing budget crisis. A key element of the plan was a new constitutional spending limit to be submitted to the voters in the March 2004 primary election. Other key elements of the plan were a general obligation bond to refinance the state's debt and workers compensation reform.

The governor's spending limit proposal, introduced to the legislature as ACAX1 4, stipulated 2004-05 as the base fiscal year, and permitted annual upward adjustments based on population and per capita personal income (the same growth factors used in the Gann limit). Under the proposal, excess revenues were to be deposited in a Budget Stabilization Fund which could be used for tax rebates, debt-service on deficit bonds, emergencies decreed by the governor, and revenue shortfalls. In the case of a fiscal emergency resulting from a revenue shortfall, the governor could implement a fiscal recovery plan which would require a 2/3 vote of the legislature to change. The proposal was criticized for locking in spending to a lean base year (2004-05 was a year of low revenues), and for giving too much power to the governor and the Director of Finance vis-à-vis the legislature.

The legislature, meeting in special session, did not pass Governor Schwarzenegger's spending limit proposal, but did agree on a compromise budget package including the governor's bond proposal and a new constitutional balanced budget amendment. The governor signed the budget package into law on December 13, 2003. The Economic Recovery Bond Act appeared as Proposition 57 on the March 2004 primary ballot. The California Balanced Budget Act appeared as Proposition 58. Both measures passed handily.

Governor Schwarzenegger was only momentarily deterred when the legislature failed to approve the spending limit proposal contained in his California Recovery Plan. The governor again called for a strong spending limit in his State of the State address on January 5, 2005. Schwarzenegger said that he favored a constitutional amendment that would override the formulas that drive up state spending and that would cut "expenditures across the board when they grow above revenues." He stated that he would call the legislature into special session to consider the his amendment and other reform proposals.

Governor Schwarzenegger outlined his ideas more fully in the Governor's Budget Summary 2005-06 (see the "Structural Reform" section) and on his advocacy web site, Californians for Schwarzenegger. He again called for a mechanism for invoking across-the-board cuts in budget emergencies, and proposed prohibitions on suspending the Proposition 98 education funding guarantee and, beginning in 2007-08, on borrowing from Proposition 42 gasoline tax proceeds intended for transportation.

The Legislative Analyst's Office, in its 2005-06 Overview of the Governor's Budget, was critical of the governor's ideas, noting that across-the-board spending reduction and the Proposition 98 funding guarantee "would dramatically reduce the ability of future policy makers to establish budget priorities, particularly during periods of revenue softness," and would "represent a serious diminution in the Legislature’s authority to appropriate funds and craft budgets."

California Live Within Our Means Act

William Hauck, president of the California Business Roundtable, and Allan Zaremberg, president of the California Chamber of Commerce, launched their “California Live Within Our Means Act” initiative measure in early January 2005. Hauck and Zaremberg did not have Governor Schwarzenegger's endorsement, but the measure was clearly in line with the governor's pronouncements on spending limits reform. The endorsement finally came on March 16, 2005 when the Schwarzenegger administration confirmed in press briefings that it favored the measure. The governor quickly reframed the measure as a key element in his reform efforts (along with redistricting and teacher tenure reform), and his special election proclamation pointedly stated that “prompt consideration” of the measure was “vital to the ability of the people to control their destiny and decide matters of immediate importance to California's future.”

The California Live Within Our Means Act would limit year-to-year budget growth to the average growth in revenue for the past three fiscal years. Another key provision would empower the governor to impose spending reductions when the legislature fails to act in budget emergencies. The governor would be required to declare a budget emergency and call the legislature into special session when expenditures exceeded revenues by at least $250 million, adjusted for inflation as determined by the consumer price index. If a budget were in place the legislature would have 45 days to close the budget gap (30 days if an enacted budget were not place by July 1). Inaction by the legislature would invoke the governor's authority to impose spending cuts in order to bring spending in line with revenues.

Also, the measure would prohibit loans from a special fund to the General Fund, thus dealing a blow to "budgetary gimmickry," and would require a 2/3 vote of the legislature for any statute that would increase taxes for any taxpayer. In addition, the proposal would limit borrowing from Proposition 98 education funds and Proposition 42 transportation funds. Significantly, the proposal would nullify Proposition 98's minimum state funding requirements for schools, and Attorney General Bill Lockyer initially focused on this aspect in writing the measure's Official Title and Summary. Initially the official title was “School Funding. State Spending. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.” The proposal's supporters were highly critical of the attorney general's wording, and in late July 2005 the attorney general revised the official title and summary, putting less emphasis on the school funding aspect. The official title is now “State Spending and School Funding Limits. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.”

The lead advocacy group promoting the measure is Citizens to Save California, which describes itself as “a broad-based committee supporting the reform agendas of Governor Schwarzenegger and others,” and is linked from Governor Schwarzenegger's advocacy site, Californians for Schwarzenegger. A Fact Sheet from Citizens to Save California contends that the California Live Within Our Means Act “will place reasonable, responsible limits on the state's budget growth...” Supporters of the measure maintain that the legislature has not been effective in holding down spending in high revenue years or in cutting spending in low revenue years, and that the measure's automatic triggers to control spending, coupled with the new authority given to the governor to make spending cuts, will finally bring state spending under control.

Broadly stated, the argument against the measure is that, in the end, its spending formulas and automatic triggers are unlikely to be any more effective than those in previous spending limit attempts, and that, in further complicating and diffusing responsibility for the budget process, the measure would make holding elected officials accountable for the budget even less likely. Another basic criticism is that the new unilateral budget authority granted to the governor is extreme and unwarranted.

The effect of the measure on the Proposition 98 school funding formula is a particular point of controversy. Education supporters claim that, in gutting Proposition 98's minimum state funding guarantee, the measure would fatally weaken state support for education in low revenue years. Supporters of the measure counter that in times of fiscal stress the state needs the flexibility to direct funds to the most needed programs, which may include health and public safety as well as schools.

Official Voter Information

Official Voter Information Guide

Campaign Finance:
Individual Campaign Committees
Total Contributions and Expenditures (select "Nov. 2005 election" and "Prop. 76" in dropdown boxes)

Key Web Sites

Better California
Anti-Prop. 76 site from Alliance for a Better California

California Budget Project

California Legislative Analyst's Office

California Taxpayers Association

Citizens to Save California
Supports the California Live Within Our Means Act.

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

Join Arnold
Schwarzenegger site supporting the California Live Within Our Means Act.

League of Women Voters
Prop. 76 site.

Public Opinion

CA Propositions 75, 76, 77 Defeated; Propositions 73, 74 Could Go Either Way. SurveyUSA, Election Poll #7443, Nov. 7, 2005.

Knowledge Networks 2005 Election Survey. Palo Alto, Hoover Institute, Nov. 7, 2005.

Schwarzenegger Propositions Still Trailing: Three of four ballot initiatives backed by Governor are behind
and Proposition 75 is now in a dead heat. Support for both prescription drug initiatives falls. Polimetrix poll, Nov. 6, 2005.

Propositions 75, 76 and 77 appear to be losing; Voters divided on proposition 74. Los Angeles Times Poll, Nov. 2, 2005.

"NO side leads YES side on all four of the propositions backed by Governor Schwarzenegger," Field Poll, Release 2174, Nov. 1, 2005.

Knowledge Networks 2005 Election Survey. Palo Alto, Hoover Institute, Oct. 17, 2005.
Methodology and results of survey one
Methodology and results of survey two

Baldassare, Mark.
PPIC Statewide Survey: Special Survey on Californians and the Initiative Process. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California, October 2005.

Baldassare, Mark.
Special Survey on Californians and the Initiative Process. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California, Public Policy Institute, September 2005

Proposition 76: State spending and school funding limits. Mountain View: EdSource, 2005.

Prop. 75 continues to lead by big margin: Strong tide running against prop. 76: Yes vote dropping on Prop. 74: Narrow sentiment against Prop. 77: Divided vote on Prop. 80, Field Poll, Release 2168, Sept. 5, 2005.

Special Survey on Californians and the Initiative Process, PPIC Statewide Survey. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California, Aug. 2005.

Schwarzenegger's Special Election Initiatives: More voters inclined to vote no on Governor's state spending/school funding and redistricting initiatives. Majority favors school teachers tenure changes, Field Poll, Release 2159, June 22, 2005.

Special survey on the California state budget, PPIC Statewide Survey. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California, May 2005.

Special survey on education, PPIC Statewide Survey. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California, Ap. 2005.
Includes questions on California spending limits.

Voters narrowly back governor's legislative redistricting plan; Some initial support for other Schwarzenegger reform proposals; Broad disapproval of a special election if it costs $50-$70 million, Field Poll, Release 2153, Feb. 24, 2005.

Special survey on the California state budget, PPIC Statewide Survey, Jan. 2005.
See page 10, “Special Elections and Political Reforms,” for polling on spending limits reform.

Reports and Studies

What would proposition 76 mean for health and health related programs? Sacramento: California Budget Project, Oct. 2005.

Proposition 76: Budget Reform: 2005 Special Election Analyses, USC CAlifornia Policy Institute, Oct. 2005.
Analysis
Summary Points

Proposition 76: Key Issues and Fiscal Effects. Sacramento: Legislative Analyst's Office, Sept. 30, 2005. PDF version.

Proposition 76's New Spending Cap Could Require Substantial New Spending Cuts. Sacramento: California Budget Project, Sept. 2005.

Limiting the Future? What Would the "Live Within Our Means Act" Mean for California? Sacramento: California Budget Project, April 2005.

Fiscal Analysis. Sacramento: Legislative Analyst's Office, Mar. 17, 2005.

What Does the Governor's Spending Cap Proposal Do? A Preliminary Analysis. Sacramento: California Budget Project, Dec. 2003.
Reviews the spending limit proposal contained in Governor Schwarzenegger's California Recovery Plan.

The Administration's Spending Limit and Budgetary Reserve Proposal. Sacramento: Legislative Analyst's Office, Dec. 1, 2003.
Reviews the spending limit proposal contained in Governor Schwarzenegger's California Recovery Plan.

Halper, Evan.
"Voters Reject Proposal to Restrict State Spending: The governor said tax hikes could be needed if the measure fails, but few in the Capitol agree," Los Angeles Times, Nov. 9, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Gledhill, Lynda.
"State budget: Proposition that gives governor more power over purse strings is defeated," San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 9, 2005.
San Francisco Chronicle

Walsh, Denny.
"Judge rejects bid to halt union levy for ballot fight," Sacramento Bee, Nov. 5, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Walsh, Denny.
"Judge blocks money to labor: Nonmembers fight special-election levy for CSEA campaign," Sacramento Bee, Nov. 3, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Salladay, Robert.
"Gov. Has Label for Unions: Liar. Stumping in friendly GOP strongholds, Schwarzenegger says opponents are misrepresenting his slate of initiatives," Los Angeles Times, Nov. 2, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Finnegan, Michael.
"Voters Dislike 3 of Governor's Ballot Measures: His initiatives on state spending, redistricting and unions are all in trouble, reflective of his declining popularity. A tenure issue is a tossup," Los Angeles Times, Nov. 2, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Hull, Dana.
"Teachers view 3 initiatives as threats: Governor's reforms seen as attacks on job security, budget," San Jose Mercury News, Oct. 31, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Chance, Amy.
"Ballot measure ads deliver a personal pitch to voters," Sacramento Bee, Oct. 31, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Gledhill, Lynda.
"Governor's ballot not faring well: Poll finds support for measures weak," San Francisco Chronicle, Oct. 28, 2005.
San Francisco Chronicle

Blood, Michael R.
"Governor again sounds the tax alarm," Ventura County Star, Oct. 27, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Marelius, John; Ainsworth, Bill.
"Governor: Prop. 76 not a grab for power: Passage could bring a tax hike, he says," San Diego Union-Tribune, Oct. 25, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Skelton, George [Opinion].
"Gov. Says Prop. 76 Will Let Him Do More With Less," Los Angeles Times, Oct. 24, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Folmar, Kate.
"Prop. 76 claims to fix turmoil over state budget," San Jose Mercury News, Oct. 22, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Gledhill, Lynda.
"Analyses show budget cap's possible spending cuts: Studies look to past to get sense of what Prop. 76 may hold," San Francisco Chronicle, Oct. 22, 2005.
San Francisco Chronicle

Mendel, Ed.
"Prop. 76 prompts a fear of cuts," San Diego Union-Tribune, Oct. 21, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Smith, Dan.
"Prop. 76 backed by foe of taxes: Sen. McClintock takes aim at 'big government unions," Sacramento Bee, Oct. 20, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Furillo, Andy.
"Firefighters group dumps governor: They say he's broken trust on issues including Prop. 75.," Sacramento Bee, Oct. 20, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Quach, Hanh Kim.
"Living la vida limited About our analysis Proposition 76: Had Prop. 76 been enacted in 1990, the state would be spending nearly 10 percent less this fiscal year," Orange County Register, Oct. 19, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Weintraub, Daniel.
"Prop. 76 would tweak school spending formulas," Sacramento Bee, Oct. 18, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

"Unions' new ad directly attacks governor," Los Angeles Times, Oct. 19, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Furillo, Andy.
"Governor shops for votes: As he buys school supplies, critics of Prop. 76 gather near Capitol," Sacramento Bee, Oct. 19, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Bluth, Alexa H.
"Can Prop. 76 control state's budget? Foes fear it's a power grab, backers say it measures up," Modesto Bee, Oct. 19, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

[Opinion].
"Reject these three: A flawed formula," San Francisco Chronicle, Oct. 16, 2005.
San Francisco Chronicle

[Opinion].
"Stop the Schwarzenegger power grab. Yes on 79, no on 78. Sandoval for assessor. Complete recommendations for the Nov. 8 election," San Francisco Bay Guardian, Oct. 13, 2005.
San Francisco Bay Guardian

[Opinion].
"The Unpleasant, Untold Story of the Gov.'s Spending Cap," Los Angeles Times, Oct. 13, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

York, Anthony.
"Poll position: As Schwarzenegger fights to pass initiatives, his campaign team attacks pollsters," Capitol Weekly, Oct. 13, 2005.
Capitol Weekly

Sheppard, Harrison.
"Prop. 76 - Pro: Fiscal woes need action now," Daily News of Los Angeles, Oct. 12, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Sheppard, Harrison.
"Prop. 76 - Con: Don't consolidate state power," Daily News of Los Angeles, Oct. 12, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Bluth, Alexa H.
"Curb on spending - or a 'power grab'?" Sacramento Bee, Oct. 12, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Wildermuth, John; Marinucci, Carla.
"Governor, Democrats spar over Prop. 76: Measure would let Schwarzenegger make budget cuts," San Francisco Chronicle, Oct. 7, 2005.
San Francisco Chronicle

[Opinion].
"Prop 76 Might Have Forced $3 Billion Less Spending," Capital Notes, Oct. 7, 2005.
Capital Notes

Gledhill, Lynda.
"Battle over measure to alter state budget: Prop. 76 would limit spending, give more power to governor," San Francisco Chronicle, Oct. 6, 2005.
San Francisco Chronicle

Wildermuth, John.
"Prop. 76, disliked by voters, lacks campaign funding: All polls show governor's budget initiative lagging," San Francisco Chronicle, Oct. 5, 2005.
San Francisco Chronicle

Gledhill, Lynda.
"Voters unhappy with governor, his initiatives -- poll: 55% disapprove of job he is doing, none of his measures in survey top 43% approval," San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 29, 2005.
San Francisco Chronicle

Rau, Jordan.
"Powerful Teachers Union Is in the Thick of Ballot Battles," Los Angeles Times, Sept. 28, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Schrag, Peter [Opinion].
"The governor makes the election choices easy," Sacramento Bee, Sept. 28, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Furillo, Andy.
"State worker unions flexing muscle: They're spending millions to thwart governor and his ballot measures," Sacramento Bee, Sept. 26, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Wildermuth, Johm; Marinucci, Carla.
"Business, labor ante up in play for power: Public employee unions donate $60 million to fight against governor's ballot measures," San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 26, 2005.
San Francisco Chronicle

Salladay, Robert; Morain, Dan.
"Gov. Donates $1.25 Million, Backs 6 Initiatives," Los Angeles Times, Sept. 24, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Ellis, John.
"Autry ends post in league of cities: He is upset after the board of directors fails to support Prop. 76," Fresno Bee, Sept. 16, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Rohrlich, Ted.
"Activists Try to Knock Out Ballot Propositions: Volunteers statewide go door to door and urge voters to defeat measures 74, 75 and 76, which they say harm teachers and unions," Los Angeles Times, Sept. 11, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

[Opinion]
"Tax increase as alternative to Prop. 76 a fact, not a threat," San Gabriel Valley Tribune, Sept. 9, 2005
NewsBank (UCB)

Gledhill, Lynda.
"Governor's initiatives losing public support: Schwarzenegger has hard sell ahead," San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 5, 2005.
San Francisco Chronicle

Marinucci, Carla
"Governor's numbers fall even lower in poll: none of his ballot measures wins majority backing," San Francisco Chronicle, Aug. 25, 2005.
San Francisco Chronicle

Ed Mendel, Ed.
"Prop. 76 sides invoke specter of taxes: Debate sharpens on bid to limit state spending," San Diego Union-Tribune, Aug. 16, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Bluth, Alexa H.
"Governor caught in spending trap: He promised cuts but approved increases after planned service reductions drew fire," Sacramento Bee, Aug. 14, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Delsohn, Gary.
"Lockyer rewrites Prop. 76 summary," Sacramento Bee, July 28, 2005.

Raine, George.
"Trying times for unions nationally, locally: California labor groups gear up to defeat three initiatives on November's ballot," San Francisco Chronicle, July 27, 2005.
San Francisco Chronicle

Skelton, George.
"Lockyer describes ballot initiatives with summary justice," Los Angeles Times, July 14, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Halper, Evan.
"Spending Cap Called Key to National Plan: Conservatives say an initiative on California's November ballot could, like Prop. 13, propel similar measures now brewing across the U.S.," Los Angeles Times, July 25, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Asminov, Nanette.
"The battle over how to pay for schools: Governor wants to be able to curtail annual increase," San Francisco Chronicle, July 5, 2005.
San Francisco Chronicle

Skelton, George [Opinion]
"Spending Limit Flaw: Gov. Would Get Upper Hand," Los Angeles Times, June 30, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Delsohn, Gary.
"No tough talk as measures trail: The governor takes some responsibility for the partisan rift that led to initiatives," Sacramento Bee, June 22, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Wildermuth, John.
"Voters cool toward 2 of 3 ballot initiatives," San Francisco Chronicle, June 22, 2005.
San Francisco Chronicle

Levin, Charles.
"Ballot initiative could restrict funding for county programs," Ventura County Star, June 1, 2005.
NewsBank

Schrag, Peter.
"The governor's reform agenda: Is it class warfare?" Sacramento Bee, May 25, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Furillo, Andy.
"Ballot drive called a success: Three measures will qualify for a special election, governor says," Sacramento Bee, May 2, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Skelton, George.
"Gov. Is on Right Track in Seeking a Spending Cap," Los Angeles Times, April 4, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Bluth, Alexa H.
"Governor repeats deficit drive: The ballot measure builds on last year's propositions, and foes claim it threatens to slash school funding," Sacramento Bee, May 1, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Folmar, Kate and LaMar, Andrew.
"Governor bets future on a spending cap: many obstacles: GOP divided, Democrats all opposed to initiative giving executive sweeping budget power," San Jose Mercury News, Apr. 23, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

"Democrats set sights on spending cap proposal as special election deadline nears," Political Pulse, v. 21, no. 5 (Apr. 22, 2005).
Political Pulse

"Budget stance diluted: Governor takes a step back from promise of strict spending limits," Orange County Register, Mar. 17, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Gledhill, Lynda.
"Governor endorses measures: Proposals for budget, teachers pay policy 1 step closer to ballot," San Francisco Chronicle, Mar. 17, 2005.
San Francisco Chronicle

Mendel, Ed.
"Governor stalled on spending controls: Competing versions of bill divide panel," San Diego Union Tribune, Mar. 14, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Walters, Dan.
"Schwarzenegger abandons spending limit idea, promises a sequel," Sacramento Bee, Feb. 27, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

"Divisions among Republicans remain as deadline approaches for special election," Political Pulse, v. 20, no. 23 (Feb. 11, 2005).
Political Pulse

Bluth, Alexa H.
Plan is no deficit cure, analyst argues," Sacramento Bee, Jan. 13, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Halper, Evan.
"Analyst is critical of spending controls: Elizabeth Hill says the governor's proposal for automatic budget cuts is unlikely to work," Los Angeles Times, Jan. 13, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Weintraub, Daniel.
"Cyborg budgeting: Governor wants remote control," Sacramento Bee, Jan. 13, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Gledhill, Lynda.
"Schwarzenegger seeks big changes: A bold move in tackling risky political issues," San Francisco Chronicle, Jan. 6, 2005.
San Francisco Chronicle

Talev, Margaret.
"Flurry of ballot initiatives in works: Goals include cuts in spending, reshuffling of state government," Sacramento Bee, Jan. 5, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Mendel, Ed.
"Backers of initiatives feel sense of urgency: Governor may take reform efforts to voters," San Diego Union-Tribune, Jan. 4, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Mendel, Ed.
"Governor may return to voters for budget fix," San Diego Union-Tribune, Jan. 4, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Nicholas, Peter.
"Gov. to call for special session: Legislature will be asked to consider new ways to rein in spending and draw political districts," Los Angeles Times, Jan. 1, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Quach, Hanh Kim.
"Braking budgets: State senator from Irvine proposes a ballot initiative that would tie spending growth to population," Orange Country Register, Dec. 31, 2004.
NewsBank (UCB)

Nichols, Peter.
"Partisan back in play at Capitol: Spirit of compromise of Schwarzenegger's first months is missing," Los Angeles Times, Dec. 27, 2004.
NewsBank (UCB)

Marimow, Ann E.
"Governor ponders special election: Push for costly reforms poses political risks for Schwarzenegger," San Jose Mercury-News, Dec. 13, 2004.
NewsBank (UCB)

Weintraub, Daniel.
"Governor might get another shot at spending limit," Sacramento Bee, Dec. 2, 2004.
NewsBank (UCB)

Nichols, Peter.
"Governor considers a special election: Schwarzenegger and his team want to change the way California political districts are drawn, put a limit on spending, and more," Los Angeles Times, Dec. 2, 2004.
NewsBank (UCB)

Chance, Amy.
"Analysis: Governor may go to voters yet again: Some see a special election as best way to pursue his agenda," Sacramento Bee, Dec. 2, 2004.
NewsBank (UCB)

Salladay, Robert; Berthelsen, Christian.
"Budget deal not the 'usual' effort: Dems applaud Schwarzenegger's compromise," San Francisco Chronicle, Dec. 13, 2003.
San Francisco Chronicle

Gledhill, Lynda.
"Schwarzenegger forced to turn to Plan B: Legislature denies spending cap, bond proposals," San Francisco Chronicle, Dec. 7, 2003.
San Francisco Chronicle

Hill, John.
"Spending cap deadline scares lawmakers," Sacramento Bee, Dec. 3, 2003.
Notes that December 5, 2003 deadline for adding measures to the March 2004 election ballot gives legislators very little time to consider a spending limit proposal.
NewsBank (UCB)

Prepared by the staff of the IGS Library. Send comments to igsl@uclink.berkeley.edu.