Budget Rules, Parties, or Polarization? A Test of Competing Explanations as to the Causes of California's Budget Gridlock

During the summer of 2009, Californiaﾒs state government narrowly avoided a catastrophic collapse by reaching a budget deal to erase a $26 billion deficit out of a $92 billion budget. During the protracted stalemate, the state was forced to issue nearly 450,000 IOUs totaling over $2.5 billion simply to avoid insolvency. This budget deal came on the heels of the September 2008 budget debacle, which featured a record 85-day impasse that caused the state to operate without a budget for nearly one-fourth of the fiscal year. What is to blame for California's ongoing budget stalemate? Is it the Prop 13 requirement that all new taxes be approved by a 2/3 majority? Is it the increased partisanship in Sacramento and/or in the various California legislative districts? Is it the increased ideological polarization in Sacramento and/or in the state's legislative districts? In this paper, we will examine and test each of these claims. We will examine the legislative votes on passage for all budgets adopted since 1960 to determine if budgets prior to Prop 13 tended to nevertheless pass by more than a 2/3 majority. We will also examine the changing partisanship and ideological polarization both in Sacramento as well as in California's legislative districts. The results of this analysis should enable us to make some conclusions as to the causes of California's budget gridlock, and be instructive as to which solutions might be most helpful in solving this serious problem