California Proposition 1D, Redirect Tobacco Tax Revenue Funds To Health Programs For Children Measure (May 2009)

California Proposition 1D
Election date May 19, 2009
Topic State and local government budgets, spending and finance and Tobacco
Status d Defeated
Type State statute	Origin State legislature

California Proposition 1D was on the ballot as a legislatively referred state statute in California on May 19, 2009. It was defeated.

A "yes" vote supported temporarily redirecting tobacco tax revenue funds under Proposition 10 of 1998 and allowing the funds to be appropriated by the state legislature for state health programs designed for children aged five years old and younger.

A "no" vote opposed temporarily redirecting tobacco tax revenue funds and allowing the funds to be appropriated by the state legislature.

Election results[edit]

California Proposition 1D
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		1,633,107	34.09%
No		3,157,680	65.91%

Results are officially certified.

Overview[edit]

Measure design[edit]

Proposition 1D would have authorized the temporary redirection of $268 million in annual tobacco tax revenue that was earmarked for First Five early childhood development programs under the terms of Proposition 10 (1998). Of the $268 million, $54 million would have come from state commission funds and $214 million would have come from local commission funds. That revenue, plus $340 million in unspent First Five tobacco tax reserve funds would have been used under Proposition 1D to pay for other state government health and human services programs that serve children, including Medicaid, foster care, child care subsidies, preschool programs, and more. Money for these programs came from the state general fund at the time.^{[1] [2]}

At the time, 80 percent of First Five money was distributed to county governments for similar programs, including government programs for pre-schoolers, Medicaid health coverage to children whose family income is above the cap for that program, government parent-education training, food and clothing subsidies, and more. Under Proposition 1D, that revenue stream would have ceased for five years.^[3][4]

2009 budget propositions[edit]

Six statewide ballot propositions concerning the California state budget were referred to the May 2009 ballot by the California State Legislature. The six measures were designed to close a $42 billion gap between state spending and expected revenues. The measures were supported by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R). Five of the six measures (Propositions 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, and 1E), were defeated with an average of 65% of voters voting against each measure. Proposition 1F, which was designed to prohibit pay raises for state legislators in years when there is a state budget deficit, was approved by a vote of 74% in favor to 26% opposed.^{[5][6][7][8][9][10]}

Text of measure[edit]

Title[edit]

The ballot title was:

Protects Children's Services Funding. Helps Balance State Budget. Legislative Initiative Amendment.

Summary[edit]

The official summary provided to describe Proposition 1D said:

• Provides more than $600 million to protect children’s programs in difficult economic times.
• Redirects existing tobacco tax money to protect health and human services for children, including services for at-risk families, services for children with disabilities, and services for foster children.
• Temporarily allows the redirection of existing money to fund health and human service programs for children 5 years old and under.
• Ensures counties retain funding for local priorities.
• Helps balance state budget.

Fiscal impact[edit]

See also: Fiscal impact statement

The estimate of net state and local government fiscal implications of Proposition 1D provided by the California Legislative Analyst's Office was as follows:^[11]

“

Reduction in Funding Available for Existing State and Local Commission Programs. This measure would reduce state commission funding by up to $340 million on a one-time basis in 2009–10 by redirecting the state commission’s reserve funds. In addition, this measure would reduce funding for the state and local commissions by $268 million annually from 2009–10 through 2013–14. State General Fund Savings. This measure would achieve state savings of up to $608 million in 2009–10 and $268 million annually from 2010–11 through 2013–14. This results from using a portion of Proposition 10 funds in place of state General Fund for state-supported health and human services programs for children up to age five. Other Potential Fiscal Effects. The reduction in state and local First 5 commission funding could result in other costs to the state and local agencies (primarily counties and schools). This would occur to the extent that some children and families rely on other health and human services programs instead of those now provided under First 5. However, absent this measure, other budget reductions or revenue increases would be needed to address the state’s severe fiscal problems. The fiscal effects of these alternative budget-balancing solutions on state and local programs and state revenues are unknown.[12]

”

Support[edit]

See also: Supporters of California Propositions 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E or 1F (May 2009)

Budget Reform Now, a coalition assembled by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), led the campaign in support of the six 2009 budget ballot measures. A full list of supporters of all six measures can be found here. The following is a list of Proposition 1D supporters.^[13]

Supporters[edit]

• Arnold Schwarzenegger (R)^[14]
• Robert J. Baldo, executive director, Association of Regional Center Agencies^[15]
• Javier V. Guzman, principal consultant, The California Latino Child Development Association^[11]

Arguments[edit]

Official arguments[edit]

The following supporting arguments were presented in the official voter guide:^[11]

“ California children deserve our protection. The state of California has a long history of approving special dedicated funds for children’s services. Given the state’s current and ongoing budget challenges, we need to take extraordinary steps to once again protect services for children under the age of 5. This measure is a common-sense solution to California’s budget crisis while also protecting important services for children under the age of 5. It will redirect up to $340 million in reserves currently held by the state First 5 Commission and transfer $268 million annually for the next five years into programs such as child welfare services, early intervention and prevention services for infants and toddlers with developmental disabilities, adoption assistance, foster care, kinship guardianship assistance and direct health care services. Proposition 1D is consistent with the original intent of voters when they passed Proposition 10 in November 1998. The original initiative added a $0.50 tax on tobacco products to promote, support and improve the early development of children under the age of 5. State and local First 5 commissions have used this money to fund important programs that benefit infants and toddlers, as well as their families. Unfortunately, in tough economic times, families suffer greater stress and larger numbers of children are seen in the child welfare and foster care system. Now, more than ever, the state must use all of its available resources to protect and sustain existing programs. This measure will ensure that children under the age of 5 continue to receive the services currently available to them. Voting for this measure will not permanently shift these funds away from their original purpose. This solution will help solve California’s current budget crisis and prevent further cuts in services to children under the age of 5. Please vote yes to help our state continue critical services to children under the age of 5.[12] ”

Opposition[edit]

Opponents[edit]

• American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.^[16]
• Pamela Pimentel, R.N., Maternal-Child Health Specialist^[11]
• Pamela Simms-Mackey, M.D., Associate Director of Medical Education, Children's Hospital & Research Center, Oakland^[11]
• Leticia Alejandrez, Executive Director, California Family Resource Association^[11]

Arguments[edit]

• Rusty Selix, the Executive Director of the Mental Health Association in California, said, "Prop 1D will force deep cuts to child abuse prevention programs, at a time when child abuse is soaring while the economy sours. This alone will cost California taxpayers billions of dollars in the years ahead, since it’s a hundred times more expensive to deal with the consequences of child abuse than it is to prevent it."^[17]

• Dave Fratello, the campaign manager for the "NO on Prop 1D and 1E" campaign, objected to the television ads that Budget Reform Now ran in support of Proposition 1D and 1E. He said, "These statements aren't true. Proposition 1D & 1E take money out of voter-approved mental health and children's programs, then put that money into the state general fund. These measures then allow the Legislature and the Governor to spend that money with none of the accountability required by the original, voter-approved initiatives. Furthermore, the money taken won't be repaid."^[18]

Official arguments[edit]

The following opposing arguments were presented in the official voter guide:^[11]

“ THE MOST IMPORTANT THING VOTERS SHOULD KNOW ABOUT PROP. 1D IS THAT IT WILL TAKE $1.6 BILLION AWAY FROM CRITICAL LOCAL HEALTH AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS FOR YOUNG CHILDREN AND GIVE IT TO SACRAMENTO POLITICIANS. Prop. 1D was placed on the ballot by Sacramento politicians to take local funding from children’s health and education programs in every community. These funds were approved by voters in two previous elections. Don’t be fooled by the deceptive ballot description written by Sacramento politicians. Prop. 1D seizes money from local medical, health, and education experts and puts it in the hands of Sacramento politicians and bureaucrats. In 1998 Californians voted to dedicate tobacco taxes to specific local health and education programs for children. Voters acted because Sacramento politicians were unwilling to fund these critical programs. In 2000, the tobacco companies tried to take this funding away and were soundly defeated at the ballot box. Today Sacramento politicians are trying to take these funds away. California voters said no to big tobacco. Now we must say no to Sacramento bureaucrats by voting no on Prop. 1D. Prop. 1D will eliminate: Healthcare, immunization, and booster shots for 120,000 California children Preschool and education services for more than 200,000 children Smoking prevention aimed at 550,000 pregnant women and parents of young children $36 million every year for children’s hospitals, school nurses, and smoking prevention. Proposition 1D will make California’s budget problem worse by giving more money to the Sacramento bureaucrats. Independent studies show that every dollar invested in young children yields a seven dollar return in savings on courts, prisons, remedial education, and foster care. Proposition 1D is the kind of short-term Sacramento gimmick that created our state budget crisis in the first place. Proposition 1D was placed on the ballot by Sacramento politicians who want you to trust them instead of the leading pediatricians, parents, teachers, nurses, and law enforcement officials who urge you to join them in voting no on Prop. 1D. California voters said no to the tobacco companies. Now it’s time to say no to Sacramento politicians and bureaucrats. Stand up for California’s children and families and vote no on Prop. 1D. Don’t trust the ballot language written by Sacramento politicians and bureaucrats. See what world renowned pediatrician and author T. Berry Brazelton, M.D., and other nonpartisan independent experts say. Visit www.NoOnProposition1D.com[12] ”

Polls[edit]

See also Public opinion polling for all May 2009 statewide ballot propositions

• The Field Poll conducted a public opinion research survey between February 20 and March 1 on Proposition 1D and the other five budget-related measures.^[19][20]

• Public Policy Institute of California conducted a poll that concluded in late March.^[21][22]

• On April 20-21, SurveyUSA conducted a poll of 1,300 California adults for KABC-TV Los Angeles, KPIX-TV San Francisco, KGTV-TV San Diego, and KFSN-TV Fresno.^[23]

Poll results for the measure are detailed below.

Date of Poll	Pollster	In favor	Opposed	Undecided
February 20-March 1	Field	54 percent	24 percent	22 percent
March 10-17	PPIC	48 percent	36 percent	16 percent
March 11-12	SurveyUSA	40 percent	28 percent	32 percent
April 16-26	Field	40 percent	49 percent	11 percent
April 20-21	SurveyUSA	37 percent	39 percent	24 percent
April 27 - May 4	PPIC	43 percent	45 percent	12 percent
May 8-10	SurveyUSA	37 percent	50 percent	13 percent
May 15-17	SurveyUSA	35 percent	54 percent	11 percent

Path to the ballot[edit]

The California State Legislature voted to put Proposition 1D on the ballot via Assembly Bill 17 of the 2009–2010 Third Extraordinary Session (Chapter 11, 2009–2010 Third Extraordinary Session). Vote totals are displayed below.^[11]

Votes in legislature to refer to AB 17 to ballot
Chamber	Ayes	Noes
Assembly	75	3
Senate	37	0

See also

External links[edit]

• May 2009 Special Election Voter Guide
• May 19, 2009 ballot proposition election returns
• Proposition 1D in the Smart Voter Guide
• Analysis of Proposition 1D from the Institute of Governmental Studies
• Guide to Proposition 1D from the California Voter Foundation
• Summary of donors to and against Proposition 1D from Cal-Access
• Donors for and against Proposition 1D from Follow The Money
• California Secretary of State's announcement about May 19 ballot measures

Support[edit]

• Budget Reform Now, official website in favor of Prop 1D
• Campaign finance reports of Budget Reform Now

Opposition[edit]

• Vote No on Proposition 1D, website opposing Proposition 1D
• Campaign finance filings of organization opposing 1D

Footnotes[edit]

	v • e State of California Sacramento (capital)
Elections	What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2022 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures
Government	Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy