- GPCA Standing General Assembly Voting - Ranked Choice Vote Details

Home	Vote	Results	History	Contacts	Admin
	GPCA Standing General Assembly Voting

Login

Ranked Choice Vote Details

Ranked Choice Vote ID	56
Ranked Choice Vote	GPCA position on Prop 2: State Budget Budget Stabilization Account Legislative Constitutional Amendment
Type	Open Ballot
Number of Seats	1
Ranked Choice Vote Administrator	Mike Feinstein
Phase	Closed
Discussion	08/18/2014 - 09/28/2014
Voting	09/29/2014 - 10/05/2014
Result	Results
Presens Quorum	12 0.5001
Candidates	GPCA endorses Proposition 2 GPCA opposes Proposition 2 GPCA takes no position on Proposition 2

Background

This is the ranked choice vote for the GPCA to take a position on Proposition 2: State Budget. Budget Stabilization Account. Legislative Constitutional Amendment, which has been placed by the California state legislature on the November 2014 general election ballot.

The choices are to rank 'endorse', 'oppose', 'no position' and/or 'abstain.' Delegates can rank as many or few of these options in their order of preference.

An 'endorse' vote would mean the GPCA would endorse Proposition 2. An 'oppose' vote means the GPCA would oppose Proposition 2. A 'no position' vote means the GPCA would not take a position on Proposition 2. An 'abstain' vote means the voter is not expressing a preference, but is voting to help achieve quorum. Any of these position that receives 2/3 after all preferences are transferred is the position of the party. If neither 'endorse' nor 'opposes' receive 2/3, the GPCA's position will be 'no position'.

Below is information from the State of California Voter Guide, as well as the recommendation of the Green Party of Alameda County, that will be in their November 2014 primary election voter guide.

-------

Full text of Proposition 2: http://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2014/general/pdf/text-of-proposed-laws1.pdf#prop2

http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/en/propositions/2/title-summary.htm

Ballot title: State Budget. Budget Stabilization Account. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.

Official summary: "Requires annual transfer of state general fund revenues to budget stabilization account. Requires half the revenues be used to repay state debts. Limits use of remaining funds to emergencies or budget deficits."

Fiscal impact statement: "Long-term state savings from faster payment of existing debts. Different levels of state budget reserves, depending on economy and decisions by elected officials. Smaller local reserves for some school districts." (Note: The fiscal impact statement for a California ballot initiative authorized for circulation is jointly prepared by the state's Legislative Analyst and its Director of Finance.)

Although the following information was not available at the time of this posting, it will be available during the SGA's six week discussion period and will be sent to all SGA members

Legislative Analysis: http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/en/propositions/2/analysis.htm
Argument in Favor: http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/en/propositions/2/arguments-rebuttals.htm
Rebuttal to Argument in Favor: http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/en/propositions/2/arguments-rebuttals.htm
Argument Against: http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/en/propositions/2/arguments-rebuttals.htm
Rebuttal to Argument Against: http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/en/propositions/2/arguments-rebuttals.htm

-------

Recommendation of the Green Party of Alameda County: Proposition 2 - Rainy Day' Stabilization Fund Act -- NO

This proposition has significant implications for future state budgets; the recent discussion/ debate in the state legislature on restoring cuts prefigures other political conflicts not simply amongst legislators, but more importantly, with significant working class constituencies and their organizations as to resources.

The background to this proposed amendment to the state constitution was the passage of Prop 58 in 2004, which established a new reserve fund (BSA - Budget Stabilization Account) which requires the governor annually to consider putting up to 3% of the General Fund revenues in this reserve. This is considered the basic amount and is currently at $3 billion; the measure called for a maximum of $8 billion. Money can be removed from the BSA by a majority vote of the legislature and there is no limit on the amount.

Prop 44 would significantly alter this in the following ways:

a. it would require the state to pay down specified debts by a minimum amount of $800 million annually for at least 15 years.

b. it would require the state to contribute a minimum of another $800 million annually to the BSA, up to $2 billion (depending on capital gains revenues).

c. money could only be removed if the governor declared a "budget emergency" and it was approved by the legislature; the amount removed could be no more than half the BSA, based on the projection of the "budget emergency' (and with no "budget emergency" the previous year).

d. money would go into a state reserve for public schools and community colleges, in years when capital gains income was strong; further, it would limit the reserves that school districts could hold.

What does this really mean?

Many people might be tempted to vote for this measure on the basis on "financial stability" and the impact of state debt. There are some positive features, connecting contributions to capital gains taxes (but no language to increase them), while the language about limiting school district reserves would be welcome, since they are often used as an excuse to avoid negotiating more funds for staff and programs (however, this could be done in a separate law).

In reality, this measure only demonstrates Jerry Brown's ongoing commitment to a neo-liberal agenda. Much as with the national debate, the emphasis is placed on bringing down the debt, versus meeting the needs of working Californians, especially the poorest sectors (often females and/or people of color). As mentioned this was already demonstrated in Sacramento during the most recent budget cycle, despite the added revenues with the passage of Prop 30. It gives whomever is governor much greater powers (declaring the "budget emergency") and for 15 years, block efforts to alter priorities.

This austerity proposition should be opposed and used as a basis to explain why such fiscal reactionary (not responsibility) policy would be disastrous for working people in California and why we must insist the answer is making the rich and corporations pay (including advocating debt cancellation).

Candidate Information

GPCA endorses Proposition 2

GPCA opposes Proposition 2

GPCA takes no position on Proposition 2

Questions about this system?
Contact the Voting Admin.

The Voting is free software, licensed under the GNU General Public License (GPL).
You can download the 2006 gp-us version here or the 2012 gpca sga version here.

To independently verify a Ranked Choice Vote, or for information about how that works, go to Jonathan Lundell's Voting Page and upload the ballot file from the ranked choice vote result page. JL's ranked choice module is licensed under an alternate free software license.