Table of Contents Categories
  • Defeated, 2009
  • State and local government budgets, spending and finance, California, 2009
  • State and local government budgets, spending and finance, 2009
    •   Encyclosphere.org ENCYCLOREADER
      supported by EncyclosphereKSF

    California Proposition 1E, Redirect Funds for Mental Health Programs Measure (May 2009)

    From Ballotpedia - Reading time: 9 min
    California Proposition 1E
    Flag of California.png
    Election date
    May 19, 2009
    Topic
    Taxes and State and local government budgets, spending and finance
    Status
    Defeatedd Defeated
    Type
    State statute    		Origin
    State legislature

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

    A "yes" vote supported redirecting funds from Proposition 63 of 2004 for a two-year period ($226.7 million in 2009-10 and between $226.7 million and $234 million in 2010-11) to support mental health programs through the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT) Program.

    A "no" vote opposed redirecting funds from Proposition 63 of 2004 for a two-year period to support mental health programs through the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT) Program.


    Election results[edit]

    California Proposition 1E

    Result Votes Percentage
    Yes 1,597,907 33.52%

    Defeated No

    		3,169,163 66.48%
    Results are officially certified.


    Overview[edit]

    Measure design[edit]

    Proposition 1E would have redirected funds from Proposition 63 of 2004 (also known as the Mental Health Services Act) for a two-year period ($226.7 million in 2009-10 and between $226.7 million and $234 million in 2010-11) to support mental health programs through the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT) Program. Proposition 63 enacted an additional 1% tax on income over $1 million. The EPSDT is a federally mandated Medicaid program for low-income persons under age 21. Revenue for this program came from the state general fund at the time.[1][2][3][4][5][6]

    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.[7][8][9][10][11][12]


    Text of measure

    Ballot title

    The ballot title for Proposition 1E was as follows:

    “MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES Funding. temporary REallocation. HELPS BALANCE STATE BUDGET.”

    Ballot summary

    The ballot summary for this measure was:

    “ Amends Mental Health Services Act (Proposition 63 of 2004) to transfer funds, for a two-year period, from mental health programs under that act to pay for mental health services for children and young adults provided through the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment Program. Provides more than $225 million in flexible funding for mental health programs. Helps balance state budget during this difficult economic time.”

    Full Text

    The full text of this measure is available here.


    Fiscal impact[edit]

    See also: Fiscal impact statement

    The estimate of net state and local government fiscal implications of Proposition 1E provided by the California Legislative Analyst's Office was as follows:[13]

    “ Funding Redirection From Proposition 63 Programs to EPSDT

    This measure would result in state General Fund savings of about $230 million a year for two years (2009–10 and 2010–11) from redirecting a portion of Proposition 63 funds to state-supported EPSDT mental health services. It would result in an equivalent reduction in Proposition 63 funding.[14]

    		”

    Ballot language lawsuit[edit]

    Rusty Selix and Richard Van Horn filed a lawsuit with Judge Michael P. Kenny in Sacramento Superior Court on March 4, 2009 alleging that the ballot language originally drafted for Proposition 1E was false and misleading because it did not "clearly state that Proposition 1E would redirect the money the voters earmarked in 2004." The plaintiffs wanted the judge to order the California Secretary of State to re-write the ballot title.[15]

    Selix and Van Horn dropped the lawsuit after coming to an agreement with the Secretary of State's office to revise the ballot language.[16]

    • Original ballot title: Ensures Funding For Children's Mental Health Services. Helps Balance State Budget.
    • Revised ballot title: Mental Health Services Funding. Temporary Reallocation. Helps Balance State Budget.
    • Original ballot summary: "MENTAL HEALTH FUNDING BUDGET. Helps balance the state budget and preserve funding for children’s mental health services by providing temporary flexibility in the Mental Health Services Act to fund the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment Program for children. Fiscal Impact: State General Fund savings of about $230 million annually for two years (2009-10 and 2010-11). Corresponding reduction in funding available for Mental Health Services Act programs."
    • Revised ballot summary: "MENTAL HEALTH FUNDING. TEMPORARY REALLOCATION. Helps balance state budget by amending the Mental Health Services Act (Proposition 63 of 2004) to transfer funds, for two years, to pay for mental health services provided through the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment program for children and young adults. Fiscal impact: State General Fund savings of about $230 million annually for two years (2009-10 and 2010-11). Corresponding reduction in funding available for Mental Health Services Act programs."[17]

    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 1E supporters.[18]

    Supporters[edit]

    Arguments[edit]

    Official arguments[edit]

    The following supporting arguments were presented in the official voter guide:[13]

    “ When voters approved Proposition 63, the Mental

    Health Services Act, to provide community mental health services in California, it was one of my proudest achievements. Since the Mental Health Services Act was enacted in 2004, we have helped hundreds of thousands of people who have suffered from untreated and severe mental illness regain lives of meaning and dignity. As the co-author of Proposition 63, I support diverting funds from the Mental Health Services Act only as a last resort to help balance the state budget this year. California faces an unprecedented $42 billion budget deficit. Solving a budget crisis of this magnitude has been painful and difficult. Everyone has had to give something. But as a collective we must all share in the sacrifice to help put California back on track. Proposition 1E will save the state’s General Fund over $225 million in 2009–10 and up to $234 million in 2010–11 by redirecting funds from the Mental Health Services Act account to the state’s Early and Periodic, Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) program for the next two years. Children served under the EPSDT program will continue to receive specialized care for their complex mental health needs. While the services provided in the EPSDT program are consistent with the approach of Proposition 63, make no mistake about what we are doing here. We are diverting money from the Mental Health Services Act to help reduce the magnitude of cuts that would otherwise have occurred in other state funded programs. When Proposition 63 was enacted in 2004, voters overwhelmingly approved a 1% income tax on individuals with incomes over $1 million. The success of Proposition 63 has saved the state hundreds of millions of dollars in unnecessary hospital and prison costs and reversed decades of neglect for people living with mental illness. Nonetheless, delays in getting new programs started have resulted in $2.5 billion sitting in state coffers. This is more than is needed to fund current services. While in the long run this money is probably best spent on Proposition 63 programs, we cannot afford to only do that right now. And although this shift will reduce the availability of services in the future, we need this funding now to avoid even deeper cuts in other vital state services. This is a one-time redirection of funds at a time when we face an economic crisis like we have never seen before. This should not be a precedent for diverting Proposition 63 funds in the future. We need every dollar to end the neglect of people living with mental illness. The focus now is on finishing our work to close the budget gap. By voting yes on Proposition 1E, California can continue to provide critical mental health services to vulnerable children. It’s the right thing to do for those who need us most. Please vote Yes on Proposition 1E.[14]

    		”


    Opposition[edit]

    No on Prop 1E led the campaign in opposition to the measure.

    Opponents[edit]

    Arguments[edit]

    • No on Prop 1E said the measure "cuts mental health care for children and adults and costs taxpayers more."[21]
    • Rusty Selix, the Executive Director of the Mental Health Association in California, said, "If Prop 1E is passed, people with mental illness will lose the care they so desperately need, and will cost taxpayers more in hospitalizations, homelessness and criminal justice."[22]
    • 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."[23]


    Official arguments[edit]

    The following opposing arguments were presented in the official voter guide:[13]

    “ Five years ago, California voters made the decision

    to invest in our public mental health system. Through the Mental Health Services Act, Proposition 63, Californians were clear in their commitment to expand community mental health services. Following forty years of neglecting the mentally ill, in 2004 voters turned a new page and passed Proposition 63 and thereby began to rebuild California’s public mental health system. Even in this difficult time, we ought to respect the will of the people.

    The Mental Health Services Act is changing lives. More than 200,000 people have received mental health services. Among those, nearly 20,000 children, youth, adults, and older adults are getting the proper help— medication, therapy, housing and transportation—for them to recover from severe mental illness. Nearly 40 percent of these individuals had at least one emergency room visit before they enrolled in the Mental Health Services Act program. After they participated in Mental Health Services Act programs, fewer than 10 percent visited the emergency room.

    These Mental Health Services Act programs are saving the state valuable resources by reducing pressure on our overburdened jails and prisons. People who have received Mental Health Services Act services are much more likely to receive treatment and not be incarcerated. Additionally, these programs have been shown to reduce homelessness, hospitalization, out-ofhome placements, and school failures, further providing relief to strapped counties, school districts and hospitals. Additionally, the Mental Health Services Act will reduce the need for future mental health services through early intervention and treatment. In California, 50,000 are children experiencing early symptoms of mental illness. The Mental Health Services Act emphasis on early intervention and treatment will help these children before their symptoms become debilitating.

    Shifting Mental Health Services Act funds away from these programs will impede us from serving even more people. I recognize how difficult the current fiscal climate is. However, Mental Health Services Act programs are working and save the state money. We need to preserve programs that are effective and respect the will of the people. Please vote no on Proposition 1E.[14]

    		”

    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 1E and the other five budget-related measures that were on the May 19 ballot.[24][25]
    • 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.[28]

    Poll results for the measure are detailed below.

    Date of Poll Pollster In favor Opposed Undecided
    February 20-March 1 Field 57 percent 23 percent 20 percent
    March 10-17 PPIC 47 percent 37 percent 16 percent
    March 11-12 SurveyUSA 36 percent 30 percent 34 percent
    April 16-26 Field 40 percent 51 percent 9 percent
    April 20-21 SurveyUSA 32 percent 41 percent 27 percent
    April 27 - May 4 PPIC 41 percent 48 percent 11 percent
    May 8-10 SurveyUSA 35 percent 51 percent 14 percent
    May 15-17 SurveyUSA 33 percent 55 percent 11 percent

    Path to the ballot[edit]

    The California State Legislature voted to put Proposition 1E on the ballot via Senate Bill 10 of the 2009–2010 Third Extraordinary Session (Chapter 15, 2009–2010 Third Extraordinary Session). Vote totals are displayed below.[13]

    Votes in legislature to refer to SB 10 to ballot
    Chamber Ayes Noes
    Assembly 76 4
    Senate 36 2

    See also

    2009 Measures

    California

    News and analysis


    External links[edit]

    Support[edit]

    Opposition[edit]

    Footnotes[edit]

    1. ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "Budget-related measures on the May 19 ballot," February 20, 2009
    2. ↑ Sacramento Bee, "Angry voters whack budget, politicians," May 20, 2009
    3. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "With budget stalemate over, next move is up to California voters," February 20, 2009
    4. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "May 19 election deadlines already drawing near," February 20, 2009
    5. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "With budget stalemate over, next move is up to California voters," February 20, 2009
    6. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "May 19 election deadlines already drawing near," February 20, 2009
    7. ↑ UC Chastings, "California May 2009 special election voter guide," accessed March 4, 2021
    8. ↑ 2009 Budget Act General Fund Budget Summary With All Budget Solutions, Legislative Analyst's Office, updated March, 2009
    9. ↑ San Diego Union-Tribune, "State budget springs a leak," March 14, 2009
    10. ↑ Mercury News, "State proposal could borrow millions from cities," May 11, 2009
    11. ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "California's cash crisis," May 11, 2009
    12. ↑ Wall Street Journal, "UPDATE: Moody's: Calif Rating Could Hinge On May 19 Election ," May 11, 2009
    13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named vg
    14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 14.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    15. ↑ Sacramento Bee, "Lawsuit challenges Proposition 1E ballot label," March 4, 2009
    16. ↑ Sacramento Bee, "Mental health advocates drop challenge to ballot summary," March 5, 2009
    17. ↑ KQED Capitol Notes, "Prop 1E gets new title and summary," March 5, 2009
    18. ↑ CA Budget Reform Now, "Supporters," accessed March 26, 2009
    19. ↑ Biz Journals, "California Gov. Schwarzenegger urges budget changes coming on May ballot," accessed March 2, 2021
    20. ↑ Voter Guide, "Arguments for and against Proposition 1E"
    21. ↑ Facebook: No on Prop 1E, "Home," accessed March 7, 2021
    22. ↑ California Progress Report, "Props 1D and 1E – Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing," May 1, 2009
    23. ↑ Yuba Net, "YES Campaign TV Ad Misleading on Proposition 1D and 1E," April 25, 2009
    24. ↑ Sacramento Bee, "Field Poll shows early backing for budget items on ballot," March 4, 2009
    25. ↑ Field Poll results for initial polling on six budget measures on May 19 ballot
    26. ↑ Sacramento Bee, "Budget ballot measures face uphill fight," March 26, 2009
    27. ↑ Public Policy Institute of California, "Special Election Ballot Propositions Face Tough Road," March 25, 2009
    28. ↑ SurveyUSA, "One Month From California Special Election, Opposition Grows to 5 of 6 Ballot Measures," April 22, 2009
    Flag of California
    v • e
    State of California
    Sacramento (capital)
    Elections

    What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2021 | 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

    Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 | Original source: https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_1E,_Redirect_Funds_for_Mental_Health_Programs_Measure_(May_2009)
    Status: cached on November 18 2021 12:00:04
    Encyclosphere.org EncycloReader is supported by the EncyclosphereKSF