World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

California Proposition 76 (2005)

 

California Proposition 76 (2005)

Proposition 76 was a ballot proposition in the state of California in the referendum election. It involves school funding, state spending, and is an initiative constitutional amendment.

Official summary (From the Attorney General)

  • 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 estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments:

  • 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.

Results

The proposition was defeated with a 24.6% margin or about 1 876 383 voters rejecting it.

References

  • (Hopefully neutral) Official summary from the Secretary of State
    • (Hopefully neutral) Results of the voting from same
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
 
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
 
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.
 


Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Project Gutenberg are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.