To paraphrase Mark Twain, the report of the death of the right to referenda have been greatly exaggerated.
The notion that California could become one of 47 states that has a majority vote budget appears to have opponents in something of a froth. Charges of majority vote taxes and loss of the right of referenda have flown – even in the face of irrefutable evidence to the contrary.
It’s fear mongering at its worst.
A little context first. There are several major constitutional exceptions for categories of statutes that are not subject to referendum: statutes calling for elections; statutes providing for taxes; appropriations measures; and urgency statutes that the Legislature determines require immediate effect. All of these go into effect immediately.
In other words, under current law, none of these categories of statutes are subject to referendum. To suggest that Proposition 25 "takes away" the right of referendum is inaccurate because budget appropriations already go into effect immediately and are therefore not currently subject to referendum. Exactly the same measures that are excepted from referendum now would be excepted from referendum under Proposition 25. It is true that appropriations currently require a two-thirds vote, and that Proposition 25 would reduce the vote threshold for budget appropriations and "bills providing for appropriations related to the budget bill" to a simple majority: that is the purpose of the measure.
The Legislature could not "add in" other non-appropriation provisions to prevent a referendum any more than it could add non-election provisions into a statute calling for elections and assert that the entire package was not subject to referendum. This would violate both the referendum provisions and the single subject requirement.
Proposition 25 is clear that the purpose of the ballot measure is to end budget gridlock. The budget bill can only contain appropriations and very limited "control language," which cannot amend or enact statutory law changes. So, NO substantive law changes like employer mandated healthcare or sweeping changes to tort laws could be enacted through the budget bill.
The plain language of Proposition 25 makes clear that any legislation passed pursuant to this language must be related to the budget. So, the argument that Proposition 25 gives carte blanche to the Legislature to bypass the voters’ power of referendum completely overlooks the well-established constitutional principle of referendum, which is jealously guarded by the courts.
The right to referenda therefore will live and thrive if Proposition 25 passes.