Thank You, Legislative Analyst

In our polarized era, the California Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) shows that it’s still possible to provide accurate and neutral information that is widely accepted as the basis for debate. Since 1974, the LAO has provided impartial analyses of propositions on the California ballot. Using plain language, it explains what a proposition would change and what the consequences would be, distinguishing reasonably predictable effects from uncertain ones. In this mission, the LAO has been remarkable for how little controversy it attracts. We should not take this for granted. We should celebrate it.

LAO Origins

California’s LAO was created in 1941 to give the Legislature an independent source of budget analysis. The first U.S. state office of its kind, the LAO predated even the U.S. Congressional Budget Office by more than thirty years.

In 1974, Proposition 9 gave the LAO another responsibility: writing impartial, plain-language analyses of statewide ballot propositions.

The LAO Today

Today the LAO has about 40 analysts, plus a dozen or so administrative and technical staff. An analyst typically covers a specific area, such as community colleges, Medi-Cal, state prisons, water, or the personal income tax.

Most of the LAO’s work is directed toward the Legislature, but ballot measures are where the LAO most directly informs the public. Before a potential ballot proposition can circulate for signatures, the LAO and the Department of Finance estimate its fiscal effect for the Attorney General’s official summary. If the proposition qualifies for the ballot, the LAO writes the analysis that appears in the voter guide, as well as the guide’s short “What your vote means” summary. The LAO also writes the fiscal estimate that appears, in condensed form, on the ballot itself.

2026 Propositions

The California 2026 general election had fourteen propositions. Across these propositions, the LAO’s analyses offer a wide-ranging civics lesson.

• Public finance: general obligation versus revenue bonds, interest costs, debt service as a share of revenue.
• Constitutional budget mechanics: reserve deposits, the 1979 spending limit, the school-funding guarantee.
• Tax policy: income brackets, wealth valuation, taxes on owning personal property, retroactivity, local vote thresholds.
• Election administration: campaign finance, recall procedure, voter registration and ID, mail-ballot verification.
• Health care finance: Medi-Cal, safety-net clinics, research and development, drug licensing.
• Housing and land use: down-payment programs, construction-defect law, CEQA procedure, tribal consultation.

I like that voters learn about these concepts not in the abstract but in relation to a choice each person faces. A vote to cast makes otherwise remote topics matter.

I also appreciate that the analysts take seriously the goal of using plain language. The concepts in play can be complex. Proposition text is often rife with technical terms, jargon, and legalisms. For example, this is from Proposition 2’s full text:

Notwithstanding Section 5 of Article XIII B, for the 2027–28 fiscal year and each fiscal year thereafter, transfers to the Budget Stabilization Account shall not constitute “appropriations subject to limitation” for purposes of Article XIII B. For the 2027–28 fiscal year and each fiscal year thereafter, funds withdrawn or transferred from the Budget Stabilization Account that were not counted previously as “appropriations subject to limitation” for purposes of Article XIII B shall constitute “appropriations subject to limitation” for purposes of Article XIII B in the fiscal year in which they are withdrawn from the Budget Stabilization Account or returned to the General Fund.

Here is the equivalent point from the LAO’s analysis: “Deposits into the rainy day fund would not count toward the state appropriations limit. Instead, the money would count toward the limit when it is taken out.”

Rarely Challenged

Before the voter guide goes to print, its content is made available to the public. Any voter can ask a Sacramento judge to strike or rewrite material that is false or misleading. Campaigns use this process routinely, against each other’s arguments and against the Attorney General’s titles and summaries. They rarely use it against the LAO.

I could find only a single case where a judge ruled that LAO-written content in official voter materials needed to be changed. The case involved Proposition 22 of 2010. Supporters of the proposition did not challenge the LAO’s overall analysis. Rather, they challenged the wording of the abbreviated fiscal-impact statements that appeared in the official title and summary and on the ballot itself. Judge Michael Kenny agreed that the wording was misleading and ordered it fixed. But he rejected the supporters’ rewrite as too self-serving and instead adopted the LAO’s own proposed revision, changing “comparable increases in transportation and redevelopment resources” to “comparable increases in funding for state and local transportation programs and local redevelopment.”

Yes, that was it.

Given the LAO’s position in the crossfire between campaigns, a low-drama history signals a job well done.

Respect

In the 2026 Voter Information Guide, campaign arguments for or against Propositions 2, 37, 38, 39, and 45 cited the LAO’s work (sometimes with a self-serving stretch). Outside the guide, reporters’ stories on ballot propositions often reference LAO analyses, as do endorsements by newspaper editorial boards. For example, the Sacramento Bee supported Proposition 40, and the San Francisco Chronicle opposed it. They both cited the LAO estimate of fiscal impact.

Many other outside groups also cite the LAO. Of course, they do so when it suits them, but I’d rather have that than an all-against-all contest of “alternative facts.” Whenever public discourse points back to a neutral, trusted source, it’s a win.

So now that the 2026 general election is over, let’s take a moment to celebrate the LAO. With quiet competence, it remains respected and relied on across partisan divides. Thank you, Legislative Analyst, for what your organization does and represents.