Rules for building state budget reserves and paying down extra state debts would change. As a result, state budget reserves would be higher. The state also would be required to make extra debt payments for longer.
Rules for building state budget reserves and paying down extra state debts would not change.
The official text says a YES vote moves toward: Saving more of it for future bad years.
The official guide says a YES vote means: "Rules for building state budget reserves and paying down extra state debts would change. As a result, state budget reserves would be higher."
Save More in the Rainy Day Fund. Proposition 2 requires the state to make deposits into the rainy day fund until it reaches 20 percent of General Fund taxes (instead of 10 percent of General Fund taxes). In addition, the state would make even larger deposits in years when revenues from taxes on investment gains are very high, like when the stock market is booming.
State budget reserves would be higher.
Each checked against the evidence listed with it
Supported
Official argument in favor of Proposition 2
“DOUBLE THE STATE'S RESERVE REQUIREMENT—from 10 to 20 percent of General Fund revenues”
Seen in: Official Voter Information Guide, argument in favor of Proposition 2
Verified · Oct 3, 2026The Attorney General's summary says the measure doubles the budget reserve cap from 10 percent to 20 percent of General Fund revenues, and the Analyst says deposits continue until the fund reaches 20 percent of General Fund taxes instead of 10 percent.
Missing context
Official argument against Proposition 2
“Within 24 hours of putting it on the ballot, the politicians backing Prop. 2 voted to suspend more than $5 billion in required deposits into the state’s budget reserve.”
Seen in: Official Voter Information Guide, argument against Proposition 2
Verified · Oct 3, 2026A suspension of a rainy day fund deposit of more than $5 billion is in the record: the Legislative Analyst's review of the Governor's May Revision reports a suspended deposit of $5.4 billion, and the Assembly Budget Committee's June 27, 2026 floor report says the 2025-26 "true up" deposits to the rainy day fund remain suspended as Proposition 2 of 2014 allows in specific circumstances. ACA 20, which became Proposition 2, passed its final Senate vote and was chaptered on June 25, 2026. The record does not show a single vote to suspend the deposits within 24 hours of placing the measure on the ballot: the suspension was part of the budget plan from the May Revision onward. The Assembly floor report refers to the June 15 legislative budget proposal, says SB 122 was passed by the Legislature on June 18, and says implementing bills were expected to be voted on June 29, 2026. ACA 20 was introduced on June 22 and passed and chaptered on June 25.
Supported
Official argument in favor of Proposition 2
“When tax revenues spike, this measure forces politicians to budget smarter by requiring the state to bank more of that windfall”
Seen in: Official Voter Information Guide, argument in favor of Proposition 2
Verified · Oct 3, 2026The Analyst says Proposition 2 would make even larger rainy day fund deposits in years when revenues from taxes on investment gains are very high, and the Attorney General's summary says it requires additional savings in years when tax revenues are high. "Budget smarter" is a characterization.
Not supported
Official argument against Proposition 2
“In 1978 California voters overwhelmingly voted to amend the state constitution to impose a spending limit on state politicians”
Seen in: Official Voter Information Guide, argument against Proposition 2
Verified · Oct 3, 2026The guide's own summary for Proposition 41 refers to the state spending limit "approved by voters in 1979", not 1978, so the stated year is contradicted by the official record. (Proposition 13, a different measure, was approved in 1978.) The claim that voters imposed a state spending limit is otherwise accurate.