California Propositions is a series about propositions that will be on the California ballot in November. See Proposition 19 here, Prop 20 here and Prop 21 here. 

Graphic by Corianda Dimes

My two cents: If Proposition 22 sounds familiar, it should; in 2000, voters passed Prop 22, the California ballot initiative that would allow the state to honor only marriages between a man and a woman. But, since ballot measures seem to repeat themselves in a seemingly endless cycle—both in number and in initiative—we get to vote once more on a very different Prop 22 (which should not be confused with the 2008 initiative to ban same-sex marriage, Prop 8), which is a do-over of part of 2004's Proposition 1A.

This year’s reincarnation of Prop 22 would essentially prohibit the State from raiding local governments, public safety and transportation funds, even during times of fiscal hardship. If that sound familiar, it only because part of 2004's Prop 1A allowed state governments to borrow money from local funds in times of real fiscal crisis (with the stipulation that the borrowed money be repaid in three years time).

Are you thoroughly confused yet? Let’s move on.

A “yes” vote on Prop 22 would severely limit the state from being able to borrow local taxes raised through cities, counties, redevelopment agencies and special districts. It would also lock in constitutional protections for redevelopment agencies. 

A “no” vote, on the other hand, would keep the status quo; the State’s control over local property and gas taxes would stay the same. 

Proponents of Prop 22, including the California Fire Chiefs Association, The California Police Chiefs Association, the California Library Association and the California Transit Association, say it would help protect local emergency services, libraries, road safety repairs and senior services.

On the flip-side, Prop 22 opponents—which include The California Teachers Association, The California Professional Firefighters and The California Nurse's Association—argue that, if passed, public schools would lose billions and that the initiative would take away some of the money used to fight fires and other natural disasters.

There is no question that California is hurting at all levels, and that it needs to overhaul the ways in which it raises funds and spends money. However, does the state really need another ballot-box budgeting scheme to try and fix this financial mess—particularly when locking fixed amounts of spending into the state’s constitution has already proved to be fiscally troublesome?

Moreover, since the boundaries between local and state funds have become so blurred, it seems that regardless of whether Prop 22 is passed, some entity will end up losing money. In that sense, Proposition 22 is actually a Catch 22.

According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, Prop 22 could end up costing the state at least $1 billion a year. It would effectively protect local programs at the state’s expense. Think about it: if local government’s keep the money for themselves—without the state having any other options—it will force the state to cut funding elsewhere from some of its vital programs, such as education, public safety and health services, in order to balance the budget.

With the state already mired in a $19 billion budget deficit, the question is whether this is something California can afford right now; that answer is no. -Tracy Bloom

Reach Editor Tracy Bloom here.