Dear Friends, we have now moved to a fully functioning new campaign website. Please go to:
www.NoProp1E.com
Thank you for your help with our efforts to defeat Prop. 1E!!!
Monday, April 6, 2009
Monday, March 16, 2009
League of Women Voters of CA Opposes 1E
It did not take long for the respected League of Women Voters of California to weigh in on the budget-related propositions on the May 19 ballot.
On Proposition 1E, the League is clear: Vote NO.
Prop. 1E is one of four measures the League officially opposes. The others are Prop. 1A, Prop. 1C and Prop. 1D. (The group took no position on the remaining issues, Prop. 1B and Prop. 1F.)
Of all the propositions, Prop. 1D is most similar to Prop. 1E, in that both proposals would take money from new revenue sources approved by voters and redirect those funds away from programs spelled out in those initiatives. The League said:
We thank the League of Women Voters of California for evaluating these special-election measures and sharing their opinion early in this brief election period. Before May 19, we have a lot of work to do to get the word out to all voters.
You can help! Please get involved today!
On Proposition 1E, the League is clear: Vote NO.
Prop. 1E is one of four measures the League officially opposes. The others are Prop. 1A, Prop. 1C and Prop. 1D. (The group took no position on the remaining issues, Prop. 1B and Prop. 1F.)
Of all the propositions, Prop. 1D is most similar to Prop. 1E, in that both proposals would take money from new revenue sources approved by voters and redirect those funds away from programs spelled out in those initiatives. The League said:
Propositions 1D and 1E. On May 19, voters will also be asked to approve the temporary taking of funds from early childhood and mental health programs that were established by two previous initiatives. These are illusory, stopgap measures, and the League opposes these propositions as part of this objectionable package. It is ironic that these initiatives, which did what many consider “the right thing” by providing a source of funding, now face reductions.(Click here to go to the group's page devoted to budget issues, where their press release is posted.)
We thank the League of Women Voters of California for evaluating these special-election measures and sharing their opinion early in this brief election period. Before May 19, we have a lot of work to do to get the word out to all voters.
You can help! Please get involved today!
Thursday, March 12, 2009
We Need Your Help!
The No on Prop. 1E campaign needs your help!
We have a huge challenge ahead of us and very little time. The special election is May 19!
The campaign website will be growing soon to provide a lot more information and tools to help connect you with the No on 1E effort.
Please take some time right now to download the basic one-page fact sheet and contribution form. (Click the document names here or up in the top-right corner of the website.) Give as generously as you can today!
We have a high hill to climb, but we must win to protect mental health services and to prevent future raids on Proposition 63.
Thank you for your support!
We have a huge challenge ahead of us and very little time. The special election is May 19!
The campaign website will be growing soon to provide a lot more information and tools to help connect you with the No on 1E effort.
Please take some time right now to download the basic one-page fact sheet and contribution form. (Click the document names here or up in the top-right corner of the website.) Give as generously as you can today!
We have a high hill to climb, but we must win to protect mental health services and to prevent future raids on Proposition 63.
Thank you for your support!
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Prop. 1E Opponents Settle Case Over Ballot Language
PRESS RELEASE
Revisions Clarify Amendments and Cuts to Prop. 63, Remove Objectionable References to 'Protect[ing]' Existing Medi-Cal Program
SACRAMENTO, March 5 - Opponents of one of the measures on the upcoming May 19 special election ballot, Proposition 1E, settled a lawsuit this morning over ballot descriptions that the campaign had called misleading.
New language for both the short “ballot label” and for the title and summary for the measure was hammered out between the parties prior to this morning's court hearing. The court accepted the settlement this morning, and will certify it this afternoon.
“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% tax surcharge on personal income above $1 million.
“Just as importantly,” said Selix, “these descriptions are devoid of the advocacy language found in the first draft, which falsely suggested that Prop. 1E would be necessary to protect an existing Medi-Cal program. In reality, Prop. 1E cuts Prop. 63 programs and backfills the state General Fund, which will pay for those Medi-Cal programs regardless of Prop. 1E's passage or defeat.”
“Make no mistake,” said Selix, “we oppose these cuts. We believe they are short-sighted and will cost the state more money to deal with the consequences of untreated mental illness. With today's resolution we believe we can make our case in this campaign on a level playing field.”
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.
The official descriptions of Prop. 1E were written by the Legislature and passed in the bill that called the special election, a break from the normal process. Lawyers for the Legislature agreed to the changes.
###
NEW BALLOT LANGUAGE FROM RESOLVED COURT CASE
NEW BALLOT LABEL FOR PROP. 1E
MENTAL HEALTH FUNDING. TEMPORARY REALLOCATION. Helps balance state budget by amending the Mental Health Services Act (Proposition 63 of 2004) to transfer funds, for two years, to pay for mental health services provided through the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment program for children and young adults. Fiscal impact: State General Fund savings of about $230 million annually for two years (2009-10 and 2010-11). Corresponding reduction in funding available for Mental Health Services Act programs.
NEW TITLE & SUMMARY FOR PROP. 1E
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES FUNDING. TEMPORARY REALLOCATION. HELPS BALANCE STATE BUDGET.
• Amends Mental Health Services Act (Proposition 63 of 2004) to transfer funds, for a two-year period, from mental health programs under that act to pay for mental health services for children and young adults provided through the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment program.
• Provides more than $225 million in flexible funding for mental health programs.
• Helps balance state budget during this difficult economic time.
Summary of Legislative Analyst's Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:
• State General Fund savings of about $230 million annually for two years (2009-10 and 2010-11) from redirecting a portion of Proposition 63 funds to an existing state program in place of state General Fund support.
• Corresponding reduction in funding available for Proposition 63 community mental health programs.
Revisions Clarify Amendments and Cuts to Prop. 63, Remove Objectionable References to 'Protect[ing]' Existing Medi-Cal Program
SACRAMENTO, March 5 - Opponents of one of the measures on the upcoming May 19 special election ballot, Proposition 1E, settled a lawsuit this morning over ballot descriptions that the campaign had called misleading.
New language for both the short “ballot label” and for the title and summary for the measure was hammered out between the parties prior to this morning's court hearing. The court accepted the settlement this morning, and will certify it this afternoon.
“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% tax surcharge on personal income above $1 million.
“Just as importantly,” said Selix, “these descriptions are devoid of the advocacy language found in the first draft, which falsely suggested that Prop. 1E would be necessary to protect an existing Medi-Cal program. In reality, Prop. 1E cuts Prop. 63 programs and backfills the state General Fund, which will pay for those Medi-Cal programs regardless of Prop. 1E's passage or defeat.”
“Make no mistake,” said Selix, “we oppose these cuts. We believe they are short-sighted and will cost the state more money to deal with the consequences of untreated mental illness. With today's resolution we believe we can make our case in this campaign on a level playing field.”
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.
The official descriptions of Prop. 1E were written by the Legislature and passed in the bill that called the special election, a break from the normal process. Lawyers for the Legislature agreed to the changes.
###
NEW BALLOT LANGUAGE FROM RESOLVED COURT CASE
NEW BALLOT LABEL FOR PROP. 1E
MENTAL HEALTH FUNDING. TEMPORARY REALLOCATION. Helps balance state budget by amending the Mental Health Services Act (Proposition 63 of 2004) to transfer funds, for two years, to pay for mental health services provided through the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment program for children and young adults. Fiscal impact: State General Fund savings of about $230 million annually for two years (2009-10 and 2010-11). Corresponding reduction in funding available for Mental Health Services Act programs.
NEW TITLE & SUMMARY FOR PROP. 1E
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES FUNDING. TEMPORARY REALLOCATION. HELPS BALANCE STATE BUDGET.
• Amends Mental Health Services Act (Proposition 63 of 2004) to transfer funds, for a two-year period, from mental health programs under that act to pay for mental health services for children and young adults provided through the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment program.
• Provides more than $225 million in flexible funding for mental health programs.
• Helps balance state budget during this difficult economic time.
Summary of Legislative Analyst's Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:
• State General Fund savings of about $230 million annually for two years (2009-10 and 2010-11) from redirecting a portion of Proposition 63 funds to an existing state program in place of state General Fund support.
• Corresponding reduction in funding available for Proposition 63 community mental health programs.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Gov's Campaign Repeats Falsehood About 1E
PRESS RELEASE
Gov's Campaign Repeats Falsehood About Prop. 1E
Medi-Cal Program for Children Not At Risk, Prop. 1E Opponents Say
SACRAMENTO, March 4 - Opponents of Prop. 1E today demanded changes in the language used to describe the measure on the website of a campaign funded by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and business groups.
“The 'yes on everything' campaign is creating a false sense of crisis around children's health care to promote Prop. 1E,” said Dave Fratello, campaign manager for No on Prop. 1E. “It is cruel and cynical to suggest to voters that they must choose between funding mental health care and children's health.”
“Prop. 1E is about one thing,” said Fratello, “and one thing only: cutting mental health care programs demanded by the voters. The least we can demand from the governor and his team is an honest sales pitch.”
The website created by the governor's “California Dream Team” and allied business groups claims that Prop. 1E would move money from Proposition 63 mental health services to “children's health programs that are at risk of elimination due to the budget crisis.” (See http://tinyurl.com/govProp1e.)
However, Prop. 1E opponents point out that there is no “risk of elimination” for the children's programs at issue. As the Legislative Analyst points out in a review of Prop. 1E, the Early and Periodic, Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) program mentioned in the text of Prop. 1E is a federally mandated program Medi-Cal program. Funding levels are not discretionary for the state; they are based on enrollment. The program cannot be eliminated without the state opting out completely from Medicaid.
“In fact,” Fratello said, “Prop. 1E will not fund or expand any children's health program. It cuts a half billion dollars from mental health care and dumps that money in the state general fund.”
The claims by the governor's campaign about Prop. 1E echo several points that were challenged last week in a lawsuit by Prop. 1E opponents. Mental health advocates say that ballot descriptions written by legislators give a false impression of Prop. 1E, characterizing the measure as one that would “preserve” and “guarantee” funding for EPSDT, when in fact those funds are assured regardless of the fate of Prop. 1E.
A hearing is set in that lawsuit for Thursday, March 5, at 8:45am, at Dept. 31 of the Sacramento Superior Court.
###
Gov's Campaign Repeats Falsehood About Prop. 1E
Medi-Cal Program for Children Not At Risk, Prop. 1E Opponents Say
SACRAMENTO, March 4 - Opponents of Prop. 1E today demanded changes in the language used to describe the measure on the website of a campaign funded by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and business groups.
“The 'yes on everything' campaign is creating a false sense of crisis around children's health care to promote Prop. 1E,” said Dave Fratello, campaign manager for No on Prop. 1E. “It is cruel and cynical to suggest to voters that they must choose between funding mental health care and children's health.”
“Prop. 1E is about one thing,” said Fratello, “and one thing only: cutting mental health care programs demanded by the voters. The least we can demand from the governor and his team is an honest sales pitch.”
The website created by the governor's “California Dream Team” and allied business groups claims that Prop. 1E would move money from Proposition 63 mental health services to “children's health programs that are at risk of elimination due to the budget crisis.” (See http://tinyurl.com/govProp1e.)
However, Prop. 1E opponents point out that there is no “risk of elimination” for the children's programs at issue. As the Legislative Analyst points out in a review of Prop. 1E, the Early and Periodic, Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) program mentioned in the text of Prop. 1E is a federally mandated program Medi-Cal program. Funding levels are not discretionary for the state; they are based on enrollment. The program cannot be eliminated without the state opting out completely from Medicaid.
“In fact,” Fratello said, “Prop. 1E will not fund or expand any children's health program. It cuts a half billion dollars from mental health care and dumps that money in the state general fund.”
The claims by the governor's campaign about Prop. 1E echo several points that were challenged last week in a lawsuit by Prop. 1E opponents. Mental health advocates say that ballot descriptions written by legislators give a false impression of Prop. 1E, characterizing the measure as one that would “preserve” and “guarantee” funding for EPSDT, when in fact those funds are assured regardless of the fate of Prop. 1E.
A hearing is set in that lawsuit for Thursday, March 5, at 8:45am, at Dept. 31 of the Sacramento Superior Court.
###
Monday, March 2, 2009
Prop. 1E Opponents Sue
PRESS RELEASE – Monday, March 2, 2009
Prop. 1E Opponents Sue Over Misleading, ‘Happy Talk’ Ballot Language
Measure Would Cut Almost $500 Million from Mental Health, But Official Descriptions Falsely Portray Prop. 1E as Necessary to ‘Preserve’ Programs
SACRAMENTO, March 2 – Opponents of one of the measures on the upcoming May 19 special election ballot, Proposition 1E, filed suit late Friday seeking changes to the official descriptions of the measure. A judge will hear the case this Thursday morning on an accelerated schedule.
Prop. 1E cuts up to $460 million from voter-mandated Proposition 63 mental health programs. However, the basic descriptions of Prop. 1E slated for ballots and the ballot pamphlet fail to disclose that it amends a voter-approved initiative and falsely suggest that the cuts to Prop. 63 would actually protect mental health programs.
“The problem is that the language for Prop. 1E is happy talk designed to win an election,” said No on Prop. 1E campaign manager Dave Fratello. “It does not fairly disclose to voters what they are being asked to do.”
“In fact,” said Fratello, “the Prop. 1E ballot language seeks to mislead voters by indicating that passage would protect hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of mental health programs, when in fact it cuts programs by that amount.”
The official descriptions of Prop. 1E were written by the Legislature and passed in the bill that called the special election, a break from the normal process. Ordinarily, the Attorney General writes a neutral summary of any measure appearing on the ballot. The Legislature purported to override the laws requiring fair and impartial language in the special-election bill.
The lawsuit filed by Prop. 1E opponents claims that a standard of fairness and impartiality still applies. Beyond that, the Legislature’s drafting of advocacy language that skews the official descriptions of the measure amount to an unconstitutional attempt to use government funds to advocate a specific political position, the lawsuit alleges.
Prop. 1E opponents challenged the short “ballot label” that would appear next to the “yes” and “no” spots on the ballot, as well as the title and summary that goes in the voter guide.
The ballot label entirely fails to reference Prop. 63 or any program cuts, instead suggesting that Prop. 1E is necessary to “preserve funding for children’s mental health services.” The complete title and summary similarly say that Prop. 1E “guarantees and protects” funding for mental health programs without mention of the dramatic cuts to Prop. 63 funds. If Prop. 1E were to be successful, the funds taken from Prop. 63 would go to the state General Fund.
“If you need to cut a half a billion dollars from mental health, then say so,” said No on Prop. 1E campaign manager Dave Fratello. “If you’re going to amend a voter initiative that expressly protected the funds it raised from raids like this, say so.”
“The principle here is pretty simple,” said Fratello. “The descriptions should be fair. No one should be able to manipulate this process to try to achieve a specific political outcome.”
###
LAWSUIT DETAILS
Plaintiffs:
Rusty Selix, Prop. 63 proponent, California Council of Community Mental Health Agencies, Sacramento; Richard Van Horn, President, Mental Health America of Los Angeles
Defendants:
Secretary of State Debra Bowen; State Printer Geoff Brandt; California Legislature.
Judge:
Hon. Michael Kenney
Hearing Date & Location:
Thursday, March 5, 2009, 8:45am
Sacramento Superior Court, Dept. 31
Click here to go to the Secretary of State's page for "public display" of all special election ballot materials.
Prop. 1E Opponents Sue Over Misleading, ‘Happy Talk’ Ballot Language
Measure Would Cut Almost $500 Million from Mental Health, But Official Descriptions Falsely Portray Prop. 1E as Necessary to ‘Preserve’ Programs
SACRAMENTO, March 2 – Opponents of one of the measures on the upcoming May 19 special election ballot, Proposition 1E, filed suit late Friday seeking changes to the official descriptions of the measure. A judge will hear the case this Thursday morning on an accelerated schedule.
Prop. 1E cuts up to $460 million from voter-mandated Proposition 63 mental health programs. However, the basic descriptions of Prop. 1E slated for ballots and the ballot pamphlet fail to disclose that it amends a voter-approved initiative and falsely suggest that the cuts to Prop. 63 would actually protect mental health programs.
“The problem is that the language for Prop. 1E is happy talk designed to win an election,” said No on Prop. 1E campaign manager Dave Fratello. “It does not fairly disclose to voters what they are being asked to do.”
“In fact,” said Fratello, “the Prop. 1E ballot language seeks to mislead voters by indicating that passage would protect hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of mental health programs, when in fact it cuts programs by that amount.”
The official descriptions of Prop. 1E were written by the Legislature and passed in the bill that called the special election, a break from the normal process. Ordinarily, the Attorney General writes a neutral summary of any measure appearing on the ballot. The Legislature purported to override the laws requiring fair and impartial language in the special-election bill.
The lawsuit filed by Prop. 1E opponents claims that a standard of fairness and impartiality still applies. Beyond that, the Legislature’s drafting of advocacy language that skews the official descriptions of the measure amount to an unconstitutional attempt to use government funds to advocate a specific political position, the lawsuit alleges.
Prop. 1E opponents challenged the short “ballot label” that would appear next to the “yes” and “no” spots on the ballot, as well as the title and summary that goes in the voter guide.
The ballot label entirely fails to reference Prop. 63 or any program cuts, instead suggesting that Prop. 1E is necessary to “preserve funding for children’s mental health services.” The complete title and summary similarly say that Prop. 1E “guarantees and protects” funding for mental health programs without mention of the dramatic cuts to Prop. 63 funds. If Prop. 1E were to be successful, the funds taken from Prop. 63 would go to the state General Fund.
“If you need to cut a half a billion dollars from mental health, then say so,” said No on Prop. 1E campaign manager Dave Fratello. “If you’re going to amend a voter initiative that expressly protected the funds it raised from raids like this, say so.”
“The principle here is pretty simple,” said Fratello. “The descriptions should be fair. No one should be able to manipulate this process to try to achieve a specific political outcome.”
###
LAWSUIT DETAILS
Plaintiffs:
Rusty Selix, Prop. 63 proponent, California Council of Community Mental Health Agencies, Sacramento; Richard Van Horn, President, Mental Health America of Los Angeles
Defendants:
Secretary of State Debra Bowen; State Printer Geoff Brandt; California Legislature.
Judge:
Hon. Michael Kenney
Hearing Date & Location:
Thursday, March 5, 2009, 8:45am
Sacramento Superior Court, Dept. 31
Click here to go to the Secretary of State's page for "public display" of all special election ballot materials.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)