As goes Colorado, so goes California?

Schwarzenegger's Live Within Own Means proposal got a little bit of ink in Sunday's New York Times. Jason DeParle writes about Colorado's 1992 spending cap--and how a Republican Governor is lobbying to loosen the restrictions. Anti-tax advocate Grover Norquist plays centerstage--as usual--saying Gov. Owens is not staying true to his Republican Party. Regarding California, the Times reports: "Efforts to girdle government growth date back to at least 1978, when Proposition 13 cut California's property taxes and inaugurated an antitax age. About 30 states now have tax or spending limits, though few have had much impact. Most are statutory, as opposed to constitutional, making them easy to override. And many permit considerable government expansion." So if these efforts date back to Proposition 13...and that is still on the books in California...and Prop. 13 is a constitutional tax limiter...then why does California need more restrictions? What makes our system simply not spend as little as other states? The more I read about other states--particularly Republicans in other states--considering raising taxes to fund programs, I am curious how the Republican Party in California has remained so unified in opposing such taxes here. I mean, other states have not had the same massive degree of deficits as the Golden State, yet the GOP hasn't budged. My hunch is that those gerrymandered districts from the 2000 redrawing of legislative lines have something to do with it...