Budget Prop. 169 Almost Lost in Shuffle

Overshadowed by the multimillion-dollar ballot campaigns over private school vouchers and sales taxes, a quiet, low-cost debate ensues about a constitutional amendment intended to ease adoption of future state budgets.

Proposition 169 would overturn a state Supreme Court decision and allow the Legislature to pass a single bill as a companion to each year’s spending plan, rather than having to vote separately on tax increases, welfare cuts and other changes in law that annually accompany the budget.

Supporters say the measure would help end the partisan gridlock that has delayed enactment of the budget several times in recent years. Opponents say the change would encourage legislative logrolling and make it easier for lawmakers to raise taxes without incurring the wrath of voters.

Neither side is waging much of a campaign. The proponents have produced a few television commercials but lack the money to air them. Opponents, with no organized campaign, have been limited to signing arguments in the official ballot pamphlet and discussing the issue at public forums.

The measure has its roots in one state senator’s frustration with the 63-day budget deadlock in 1992, when state government postponed paying some of its bills and was forced to pay others with IOUs.

Although the stalemate had many causes, one, according to former Senate Majority Leader Barry Keene, was that it took more than 29 pieces of legislation to enact the budget and make it work.

This is because the budget bill is merely a thick book of numbers setting out how much the state may spend on each of hundreds of programs and services. For each program to be created or eliminated, or a tax raised or cut, a separate bill is required.

Until 1987, most of the implementing issues were handled in a single bill, which was called a trailer bill because it was linked to the budget and followed it.

But the state Supreme Court struck down that practice, saying it violated the state Constitution’s provision requiring each bill passed by the Legislature to address only a single subject.

The single-subject clause, the court said, was designed to prevent “logrolling by the Legislature, i.e., combining several proposals in a single bill so that legislators, by combining their votes, obtain a majority for a measure which would not have been approved if divided into separate bills.”

After the court’s decision, the Legislature was forced to debate and vote upon each issue individually. In 1990, there were 18 trailer bills. In 1992, it took 28 measures to implement the budget.

“The implementing legislation . . . was carved into bite-size pieces,” Keene said. “Special interest groups seeking to increase their leverage in budget matters cannot resist chewing on those very tender morsels.”

But opponents say the measure would reduce accountability by allowing lawmakers to hide distasteful votes behind the rationale of getting the budget done on time.

“This would allow legislators to roll some of the most significant votes of the session into one amorphous package and then shrug their shoulders when questioned by constituents about individual provisions,” said former Assemblyman Tom McClintock of Thousand Oaks, a conservative Republican and frequent critic of the state’s fiscal policies.

But Keene said putting all the budget issues into one bill would create an accountability that has been lacking in recent years.

Under the current system, Keene said, lawmakers may use their votes to block pieces of the package they find distasteful without having to take responsibility for having stalled the budget.