If you are like me, you are sick of the money woes in Sacramento. You know:
- year after year of overdue budgets
- a growing deficit and a declining credit rating
- chronic underfunding of crucial programs and departments (remember the threats of State Park closures)
- bizarre behind-closed-doors budget negotiations that bring non-budgetary items to the bargaining table (like the yearly attacks on our cornerstone environmental protection, the California Environmental Quality Act)
The big reason that those same issues persist can be summed up in one word: supermajority.
California has an unusual requirement of a 2/3rd “supermajority” to pass the budget. Only two other states (Arkansas and Rhode Island) require such a large unified block. The problem with this system is that control is passed over to the minority party since the majority party does not represent 2/3rds of either house of the Legislature. In other words, the interests of the majority can not move forward without the support of the minority. This gives the minority party the power to assert its budgetary demands which do not coincide with those of the majority. And there you have it: a drawn-out, ugly stalemate that typically ends with the majority having to make outrageous concessions in order to reach a supermajority vote.
Here’s where Proposition 25 comes in to save us! Prop 25 will lower the requirement to pass a state budget from the 2/3rds supermajority to just a simple majority – it’s that simple.
The supermajority comes into play on the November ballot in one other measure: Proposition 26, the Polluter Protection Act. Prop 26 would create a 2/3rds vote requirement to pass fees.
Prop 26’s change to a supermajority would make it much more difficult, if not impossible, to enact fees which are used for environmental and health related programs. These include new fees imposed on oil, hazardous waste, pesticides, gas, used tires, and carbon emissions. Currently, the Legislature can pass such “polluter pays” fees with a simple majority vote and has done so to pay for a range of clean up and mitigation programs like the state’s Oil Spill Prevention Fund and its lead abatement program. It should come as no surprise that oil companies (Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Conoco Phillips) are among the biggest funders of Prop 26.
Both state and local government would lose significant revenue, and according to California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office the State Budget would immediately loose at least $1 billion if Prop 26 passes.
The facts are clear: California can not afford to stay beholden to the supermajority requirement. Please join us in voting YES on Prop 25 and NO on Prop 26 this November.
