[Carry_Okie]

76 is indeed a devilish choice. I am opposed because I would rather the State hit the wall sooner rather than later. I don't like government by formula. I would rather expose the spending class for what it is even if I get hit up for more taxes.

Too bad this discussion among us has been way beyond 99% of the electorate.

[Amerigomag]

I don't know if 99% should be expected to know. The codification of the protection:

No reduction may be made in appropriations for debt service, appropriations necessary to comply with federal laws and regulations, or appropriations where the result of a reduction would be in violation of contracts to which the State is a party.

...is buried in Section 4 of the Proposed Law (Prop 76) and adds the above language to Number (5), under Part (g), in Subsection (C), under Number (5), of Part (f), of Section (10) of Article IV, contained in Section 10 of the California Constitution.

What I do expect is that California's press should have informed California's electorate of the implications of the added language.