The state has not declared bankruptcy (because it legally can't), not has it repudiated it's debts without bankruptcy (which it also legally can't), so I'm not sure what your point is.
You're right though it wasn't technically bankruptcy!
It isn't the first time the State has had solvency issues either.
It stopped paying a subset of its obligations from July-September 2009.
> and defaulted on a lot of tax sharing agreements it had with counties and the like.
It did not. It suspended, with the required governors declaration and legislative supermajority, a protected reservation of certain funding streams for local use that had only been adopted in 2004 (and only effective since 2006), before which such diversions by the state were common, to temporarily redirect $1.9 billion (which would be repayed) to deal with the state cash flow situation; note that proponents of the 2004 measure noted that $40 billion had been permanently redirected (not borrowed) by the state from the funds that would be protected by it over the preceding 12 years, or about $3.3 billion per year.
These aren’t “tax sharing agreements” made between different parties, they are assignments of revenue to particular uses under the State Constitution, which have exceptions.
> It isn’t the first time the State has had solvency issues either.
No, but it was the last, and Like literally all of the previous ones, it was a cash flow crises as a result of a budget impasse due to the 2/3 budget supermajority requirement (which has since been repealed), resulting in fund exhaustion without authority to do normal cash management things like selling short-term revenue anticipation bonds (there was more involved in 2009, but that was the foundational problem, the other complications were complications in solving the budget deadlock.)
I still have an "IOU" from those years sent by the state instead of the money I was owed due to overpaying state taxes. The state was essentially bankrupt for a signification time, even though no proceedings took place.
California had a cash flow crisis in 2009.
> The state was essentially bankrupt for a signification time, even though no proceedings took place.
Not really. It was unable to make payments because of the political inability (due to supermajority requirements in the legislature—one of the key ones of which has since been removed—legislative/executive disunity, reliance on voter approval for certain actions which failed, etc.) to decide how to change operations to do so, not because of lack of resources.
I guess it was a bit like an involuntary bond.