Prop 1E – SCLC Summary

Published: March 17, 2009

You may be aware that the Southwest Riverside County Association of Realtors has been a supporting Partner of the Southwest California Legislative Council since its inception. The SCLC, a coalition of Southwest California Chambers of Commerce, Legislative Representatives and business representatives – advocate on behalf of Southwest County Businesses. Each of you, as working Realtors, is the owner of your own business. The SCLC has proven to be an effective lobbyist for local concerns and we have a great dialogue with our local Legislators.
Today the SCLC posted recommendations on the Proposition votes upcoming in May. CAR has not yet taken positions on the ballot propositions and, since they are not primarily real estate related, they may not.

This is the summary of Prop 1E. The committee took a position to ‘oppose’ Prop 1E.

Proposition 1E – Mental Health Funding Budget


  1. Proposition 1E temporarily redirects funds from the Mental Health Services Act to fund children’s health programs that are at risk of elimination due to the budget crisis, including health care screening, diagnosis and treatment.


  1. In November 2004, California voters approved Proposition 63, also known as the Mental Health Services Act.
  1. Proposition 63 provides state funding for certain new or expanded mental health programs through a personal income tax surcharge of 1 percent on the portion of a taxpayer’s taxable income in excess of $1 million.
  1. Revenues generated by the surcharge are dedicated to the support of specified mental health programs and, with some exceptions, are not appropriated by the Legislature through the annual budget act.
  1. Full-year annual Proposition 63 revenues to date have ranged from about $900 million to $1.5 billion, and could vary significantly in the future.
  1. The Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT) Program is federally mandated program that requires states to provide a broad range of screening, diagnosis, and medically necessary treatment services—including mental health services—to Medi-Cal beneficiaries under age 21.
  1. Department of Mental Health (DMH) administers the mental health services required under the EPSDT program generally through county contracts.
  1. These services include group and individual counseling and assistance in stabilizing children and young adults who experience a mental health crisis.
  1. Total expenditures for EPSDT specialty mental health services now exceed $1 billion annually. The federal government provides about one-half of the funding, with most of the remaining cost borne by the state and a small portion borne by the counties.
  1. Proposition 1E allows for the temporary redirection of some Proposition 63 (2004) funds to support EPSDT mental health services.
    1. Specifically, $226.7 million in Proposition 63 funds would be redirected in 2009 – 2010, and between $226.7 million and $234 million would be redirected in 2010 – 2011, to support EPSDT.

Arguments in Support

  1. In effect, these Proposition 63 revenues would be used to offset state costs that would otherwise be borne by the General Fund, thereby achieving savings to help address the state’s current budgetary problem.

Arguments in Opposition

  1. Some Proposition 63 funds are used to draw down federal matching funds through the Medi-Cal Program. Thus, the redirection of Proposition 63 funds proposed in Proposition 1E could result in a decrease in federal financial support.


California Chamber of Commerce

California Fire Chiefs Association

California Police Chiefs Association

Central California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce

Former Assembly Speaker Pro Tempore Fred Keeley

Former Secretary of State Bill Jones

National Tax Limitation Committee

The California Taxpayers Association


Southwest California Legislative Council

Last modified: March 17, 2009 at 11:19 am | Originally published: March 17, 2009 at 11:19 am
Printed: September 22, 2020