Is California’s High-speed Rail Plan A Misuse Of Voter-approved Funds?

In 2008, California voters passed Proposition 1A authorizing funding for a high-speed rail system. Now, nearly three years later, a new state report suggests that the proposed funding plan is not in compliance with the proposition passed by the voters, eliciting personal opposition from many Californians. An attorney in the state explains how the law protects funding for voter-approved measures from the injurious consequences of misuse.

California Funding Rules

When the state passes a ballot proposition to provide funding, the state incurs an obligation to use that funding for the projects the voters approved.

California voters are wary of funds being diverted from approved programs to other needs, especially in light of ongoing budget crisis within the state. For instance, California voters passed Proposition 22 in 2010 to stop the state's borrowing money from local governments and local public safety programs. To protect against the diversion of funds, most programs created by ballot propositions contain some type of accountability to insure that public funds are used for the approved purpose.

When funds are to be used for purposes different than what was described on the original ballot measure, an additional ballot proposition must be passed in order to authorize the diversion of those funds. For instance, in 2004, Proposition 63 was passed to authorize funds for mental health services. When the state wanted to divert funding approved for this program to pay for a federally mandated Medicaid program, an additional ballot measure had to be voted on called Proposition 1E in May of 2009. When Proposition 1E did not pass, the diversion of funds could not go forward. Then, in 2010, after Proposition 63 funds were allegedly misspent, a whistleblower complaint was filed with the California state auditor in 2010.

The legality of the construction of the Central Valley track is also being called into question by a new state report issued by the California Legislative Analyst's Office, which suggests that the new proposal does not in fact conform to what the voters approved when they passed the proposition, explains an attorney. Moreover, residents in areas considered for the line have speculated that it will have injurious consequences and have expressed personal opposition to it.

The Legislative Analyst's office periodically reviews the planning process for the project and concluded in their most recent report that, because the first segment of track would not accommodate high-speed trains, state bond funding approved in Prop 1A could not be requested.

Instead, before such funding could be requested, the rail officials must identify a segment of the track that can be used for the promised bullet trains. Not only must the usable segment by identified, but funding must also be scheduled and a schedule for the receipt of financing must be available, according to an LA Times article summarizing the Legislative Analyst's report.
According to the Los Angeles Times, proponents of the project argue that the Legislative Analyst's report is not a comprehensive analysis of the complex project and that it is unquestionable that the construction of the Central Valley segment should go forward.

While the situation remains unresolved for the time being, it is clear that measures must be in place—and enforced—to make sure that state governments do not divert funds from projects approved by voters to complete other, unapproved projects different from those on the ballot.

By: Larry Drexel

Article Directory: http://www.articledashboard.com

Larry Drexel is a Public Relations manager. To obtain free, informative books or articles he suggests visiting California personal injury attorney.