had recently approved, a cuts-only budget could be
the legislature had in earlier propositions that it had
approved by a simple majority. So Republican votes
placed on the ballot reserved the right to create its
were not needed if that painful route were eventually
own (enticing) language for the title and summary. In
chosen. Democrats would be blamed for the cuts in
a case involving legislature-determined language for a
that event, since they had the needed simple majority.
2008 bond proposition for high-speed rail, it was ruled
Republican Senator Bob Huff signaled that Republicans
that the legislature could not author the language but,
would not need to come up with a cuts—only budget
as in the case of initiatives, would have to rely on the
themselves. “It’s a majority-vote budget,” he said. We’re
Attorney General. 4 8
not the majority. We respect that. We’ll be part of the process but it’s not like we’re going to lead with all the things where we become the bad guys.”
45
As will be described below, in the end Brown did not receive Republican support and there was no special election. Such an election—had it occurred—would
Indeed, Republicans set out to prove that there might
not have been confined to Brown’s tax extensions and
be a way for Democrats in the legislature to put tax
would have included any initiative that had previously
extensions on the ballot as modifications of prior
qualified plus a constitutional amendment passed by the
initiatives. They were able to obtain a limited legal
legislature in October 2010 involving an enhanced “rainy
opinion, seeming to endorse that view. According to a
day” fund.49 A budget was passed eventually that did not
Republican spokesperson, the opinion suggested that
include extensions and thus had more severe cuts than if
Democrats were just looking for “political cover” in
extension revenues had been part of the package.
asking for GOP votes.
46
Given hindsight, and given the statements made But in fact, following a legally-questionable approach
by Republicans initially, it can be asked why Brown
would probably have failed. A court might well have
continued for almost six months to try and negotiate a
enjoined the process and pushed whatever election
deal with them. Democratic leaders in the legislature
there was—if it were ultimately allowed—well beyond
came to the conclusion more quickly than Brown that
June. However, the objective from the Republican
no deal could be reached but could not proceed until he
perspective was mainly to indicate that Brown and
signaled that negotiations had failed. It may have been
the Democrats didn’t need Republican support and
that Brown’s approach was reflective of his earlier terms
should go ahead on their own (and answer to the
as governor in which the legislature was less polarized
electorate for what followed). Assembly speaker John
and in which bipartisan deal-making was commonplace.
Pérez complained that Republicans were “trying to abdicate their responsibility” by raising the simple-majority approach.
47
As for the numbers, Table 4 summarizes the Legislative Analyst’s budget estimates as of November 2010. Table 5 summarizes the governor ’s January
Even had the governor ultimately received sufficient
2011 proposals. Brown’s revenue estimates with
support from Republicans to put his tax extensions on
no tax extensions were more pessimistic than the
the ballot, a court opinion in late January suggested
Legislative Analyst had made in November. Thus,
that the wording of the ballot title and summary
absent any modifications, the 2010-11 budge—instead
would not be in the control of the legislature.
of showing a slight surplus—was about $2 billion
Initiatives that are filed receive a title and summary
in deficit. Some of the discrepancy between the
from the Attorney General and that language can
Legislative Analyst’s numbers and the governor ’s
have an influence on voter receptiveness. However,
involve a change in accounting accrual practices,
R e a l ly ! N o M e n ta l R e s e r v at i o n s
CPO_2012_final.indb 43
43
12/13/11 4:13 PM