Proposition 2Constitutional amendment · Put on the ballot by lawmakers
Bigger rainy day fund
Explain it like I'm 5
California has a savings account for hard times. This would let the account grow twice as large and would change how saving money counts under the state spending limit.
Yes vote
The Budget Stabilization Account cap would rise from 10% to 20% of General Fund revenue, and deposits would be excluded from the Gann Limit.
No vote
The cap and current Gann Limit treatment would remain unchanged.
The question to ask yourself
Should California save more during strong years even when that leaves less money available now?
The case for
- Larger reserves could reduce service cuts during recessions.
- Saving volatile surplus revenue can reduce pressure for future tax increases or emergency borrowing.
- Excluding deposits from the limit removes a rule that can discourage saving.
Backed by: California Professional Firefighters, Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, Governor Gavin Newsom, Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel
The case against
- More money in reserves means less available for current services or possible rebates.
- Excluding deposits weakens a voter-approved spending constraint.
- A higher cap does not guarantee lawmakers will save or use the money wisely.
Opposed by: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Reform California
- Money
- There is no direct tax increase or bond repayment cost estimated; the measure changes how much revenue may be saved and counted.
- Don't be misled
- It does not immediately double state spending; it raises a savings cap and changes the treatment of deposits under the Gann Limit.