State - Opponents to wording in Proposition 1E, a ballot measure to temporarily take money from a 2004 health initiative, settled the lawsuit March 5th in Sacramento Superior Court. The Proposition is scheduled to appear on the May 19 ballot measure. “This is a good and fair resolution,” said Rusty Selix, who sued to change the language. “The new language discloses to voters that they are being asked to approve changes to an initiative they passed in 2004.” Selix was the legal proponent of that measure, Proposition 63, which funded new mental health programs with a 1 percent tax surcharge on personal income above $1 million. Opponents called the new measure “false and misleading.” Selix does not hide his opposition to the proposed health cuts or using money once designated for other programs to help balance the state budget. Under the ruling read by Judge Michael Kenney, new language for both the short “ballot label” and for the title and summary for the measure were agreed upon between parties prior to entering the court hearing. The original ballot title, “Ensures Funding For Children's Mental Health Services. Helps Balance State Budget” was changed to read “Mental Health Funding. Temporary Reallocation. Helps Balance State Budget.” The language within the original ballot label was altered as well. Prop 1E cuts up to $460 million from voter-mandated Proposition 63 mental health programs over the next two fiscal years. Prop. 1E opponents had objected to the parts of the ballot descriptions suggesting that the measure would "preserve funding for children's mental health services," and that Prop 1E "guarantees and protects" funding for a specific program that is provided through Medi-Cal. That program is a federal mandate and will be provided at the same funding level whether Prop. 1E passes or fails. Story by Alex Lane This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Tuesday, 10 March 2009 00:13
Proposition 1E
State - Opponents to wording in Proposition 1E, a ballot measure to temporarily take money from a 2004 health initiative, settled the lawsuit March 5th in Sacramento Superior Court. The Proposition is scheduled to appear on the May 19 ballot measure. “This is a good and fair resolution,” said Rusty Selix, who sued to change the language. “The new language discloses to voters that they are being asked to approve changes to an initiative they passed in 2004.” Selix was the legal proponent of that measure, Proposition 63, which funded new mental health programs with a 1 percent tax surcharge on personal income above $1 million. Opponents called the new measure “false and misleading.” Selix does not hide his opposition to the proposed health cuts or using money once designated for other programs to help balance the state budget. Under the ruling read by Judge Michael Kenney, new language for both the short “ballot label” and for the title and summary for the measure were agreed upon between parties prior to entering the court hearing. The original ballot title, “Ensures Funding For Children's Mental Health Services. Helps Balance State Budget” was changed to read “Mental Health Funding. Temporary Reallocation. Helps Balance State Budget.” The language within the original ballot label was altered as well. Prop 1E cuts up to $460 million from voter-mandated Proposition 63 mental health programs over the next two fiscal years. Prop. 1E opponents had objected to the parts of the ballot descriptions suggesting that the measure would "preserve funding for children's mental health services," and that Prop 1E "guarantees and protects" funding for a specific program that is provided through Medi-Cal. That program is a federal mandate and will be provided at the same funding level whether Prop. 1E passes or fails. Story by Alex Lane This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
