Proposition Summary

COMPENSATION OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, INDIVIDUAL PUBLIC CONTRACTORS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE. Sets Governor's annual salary at $80,000; other "Constitutional" officers at $52,000. Limits maximum compensation of elected or appointed state and local government employees and individual public contractors to 80% of Governor's salary. Requires people's vote to increase salaries of constitutional officers, members of Board of Equalization, legislators, judiciary, and specified local elected officers. Prohibits public officials and employees from accruing sick leave or vacation from one calendar year to another. Summary of Legislative Analyst's estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact: Public official and employee salary and benefit-related reductions would amount to $125 million in the first year at the state level and roughly the same amount at the local level. These reductions would not necessarily result in comparable savings. They would be offset to some extent or could be outweighed by the need to pay various costs depending on unknown factors relating to (1) how the measure is interpreted, (2) possible payment of vested sick and vacation leave at a one-time cost of about $7 billion, (3) how the measure would be implemented, (4) its effect on governmental efficiency resulting from its limitation on pay for officers, employees and contractors. Net fiscal impact is unknown.

Proposition Number




Document Type




Popular Vote Results

Y: 2341883; A: 34.1; N: 4523463; B: 65.9

Election Type

General Election

Proposition Type

Initiative constitutional and statutory

For Author

Paul Gann

Against Author

Richard P. Simpson, California Taxpayers' Association; Linda Broder, President, League of Women Voters of California; Bill Honig, State Superintendent of Public Instruction

Rebuttal Author

Richard P. Simpson, California Taxpayers' Association; Joe A. Duardo, President, California School Beards Association; Jack Boling, President, California Association of Highway Patrolmen (CHP)

Rebuttal Against Author

Paul Gann