|
 |
 |
||||
 
Propositions 1A, Protection of Local Government Revenues
 There are three major revenues that local governments can rely on: (1) property tax, which is stable and gradually increases (2) sales tax, which is volatile, and (3) the vehicle license fee, which is a constant political target. For the last 25 years, the state has been altering, dipping into, and re-allocating these critical local streams of revenue. This proposition was a compromise where local governments agreed to give $2.6 billion over the next two years to balance the state budget. In return, Prop. 1A will require the state to pay back with interest any funds it takes from local government. Before such funds can be diverted, the Governor will have to declare a fiscal emergency and the legislature will have to authorize the loan with a two-thirds vote.  This initiative really has its roots in another initiative passed 25 years ago—Prop. 13. Prop. 13 began a trend where the power to distribute property tax was centralized in Sacramento. As a result, the Legislature has been able to shift local tax funds away from cities and counties to cover state expenditures. When city and county government leaders began to feel like an “ATM” for the state, they put Proposition 65 on the ballot, which would immediately stop the state from taking their funds, including $1.3 billion included in the budget this year. Later, a deal was worked out directly with Governor Schwarzenegger that is reflected in Proposition 1a, so the backers of Prop. 65 switched their support to 1a.  About $6.2 million has been contributed in support of Prop. 1A, the lion’s share coming from cities and counties. |
Proposition 59, Public Records, Open Meetings, Legislative Constitutional Amendment
The California constitution does not address the public’s right to access government information. However, there are several state statutes that allow the public access to government documents, including legislative records, state and local meeting notes, and public attendance to government meetings. This would make these existing rights part of the constitution. Though there are statutes that protect the public’s right to access government documents, proponents say they’ve seen a steady erosion of those rights through non-compliance of government agencies and court interpretations that limited the public’s access. This proposition was sponsored in part to stop this and in part to encourage future court decisions that might expand access. Clear Channel Outdoor Inc. has spent almost $50,000 in support of this proposition. |
Proposition 60, Election Rights of Political Parties Legislative Constitutional Amendment
There’s no difference between this proposition and our current system of voting. Under current law, all parties that participate in a primary can have their top vote-getting candidate advance to the general election. California’s current system is kind of complicated; it’s a “modified closed primary” where only members of a political party can vote for a candidate in the primary. However, unaffiliated voters (“decline to state”) can vote in any party’s primary, as long as the party allows unaffiliated voters to participate in the election. Both Republican and Democratic parties allowed unaffiliated voters to vote in their primaries in the 2000 and 2004 elections. This was quickly passed through the legislature after Prop. 62 got enough signatures to be on the ballot. The state’s political parties, who rarely agree on anything, have historically organized to keep California from having an open primary system, which could greatly weaken their strength. Prop. 62 supporters call this a “poison pill” put on by the legislature to try and kill their initiative. About $60,000 has been spent in support of this proposition, mostly coming from the California Applicants’ Attorneys Association. More than $4.5 million has been contributed in support of its rival, Prop 62. |
Proposition 60 A, Surplus Property Legislative Constitutional Amendment
Any proceeds from the sale of surplus state property would be used to pay off the deficit bonds passed by voters in March (Prop 57). If this proposition passes, it would accelerate the repayment of the deficit bonds by a few months. This was initially part of Prop. 60 and was knocked off by the Supreme Court since you’re not allowed to have more than one issue per proposition. It was designed to make Prop. 60 more attractive. Now that it’s been separated from Prop. 60, not even the backers of the proposition give a hoot whether it passes. No money spent in support or opposition |
Proposition 61, Children’s Hospital Projects. Grant Program Bond Act. Initiative Statute
Borrowing money to support expansion, renovation and technological improvements for children’s hospitals. Supporters say that wait time in children’s hospitals used to be primarily during flu season. Now it’s everyday. They sponsored this ballot to build more hospitals to alleviate this strain, and also to provide technological advancements for some of the state’s sickest children. About $4.1 million dollars has been spent in support of this initiative, mostly coming from children’s hospitals all over the state. 
|
 
Proposition 62, Elections. Primaries. Initiative Constitutional Amendment
The measure would allow voters to choose any candidate in the primary, regardless of party registration (note: Californians for the most part can do this if they decline to state their party affiliation). The top two vote-getters would advance to the general election - even if they were members of the same party. The proposition would not apply to presidential primaries. In 1996, California voters passed Proposition 198, which allowed people to vote for any candidate in the primary, regardless of party affiliation. It was in effect for the 1998 and 2000 elections, but in the summer of 2000, the Supreme Court deemed it unconstitutional. Today, the proponents of Prop. 62 are trying again after studying the Supreme Court’s decision. It is backed by big business, including Hewlett Packard, Zenith Insurance, and Blue Cross. It also has a number of wealthy donors, including Richard Riordan and Eli Broad. Total expenditures in support of this initiative total about $4.5 million. The California Republican Party has contributed about $450,000 in opposition of this proposition. |
Proposition 63, Mental Health Services Expansion, Funding. Tax on Personal Incomes Above $1 Million Initiative Statute
Taxes millionaires to fund mental health programs (to be specific, it taxes people whose incomes exceed $1 million per year). The mentally ill were cared for in asylums or state hospitals until the late 1960s, when states began closing those hospitals in favor of community-based treatment. Thousands escaped often-grim institutions but experts say the community based programs have never been adequately funded. According to a recent report by Human Rights Watch, 1 in 6 prison inmates is mentally ill, making correctional institutions America's primary mental-health facilities. California has more mentally ill people in prison than in psychiatric hospitals. In 1999, the California state legislature enacted Assembly Bill 34, which has since been expanded to provide services to 4,500 mentally ill people across the state. Supporters of the mentally ill say this is just a start. About $3.7 million has been spent in support of this proposition, mostly from advocates of the mentally ill. About $22,000 has been spent in opposition, mostly from tax limitation groups.
|
Proposition 64, Limits on Private Enforcement of Unfair Business Competition Laws. Initiative Statute
At issue is California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), which lets consumers sue businesses to stop unfair and deceptive business practices even when those consumers have not been harmed personally. This initiative would sharply limit who can sue and under which circumstances. Anyone suing under the UCL would have to prove that they were personally damaged to be represented by anyone other than government prosecutors. Furthermore, plaintiffs would have to meet the more difficult standards of a class action lawsuit in order to sue. The most notorious example of problems with the UCL involved the Trevor Law Group of Beverly Hills. Three of its attorneys quit the State Bar in July 2003 after state officials and others accused them of repeatedly suing businesses for trivial infractions and then badgering the firms into paying thousands of dollars to settle the cases. However, the UCL has also been a major force behind a number of important environmental and human rights lawsuits against corporations, many of which are amongst the donors. The initiative is backed by long list of large donors, including Blue Cross, Intel, State Farm, Wells Fargo, and a number of automobile dealers. They’ve contributed upwards of $12 million dollars in support of this initiative.
|
Proposition 65, Local Government Funds, Revenues. State Mandates
This proposition is much more rigid then Prop 1A, the other proposition on the ballot that protects local government revenues. The most significant difference between the two propositions is that Prop 65 requires voter approval before the state can reduce or modify local government tax revenues. Under Prop 1A, these changes are generally prohibited, except if the governor declares a fiscal emergency and gets a two-thirds approval in the Legislature. Prop 65 also allows community colleges, schools and local governments to reject a state mandate if the state fails to provide funding for that mandate. Under Prop 1A, only local governments can reject a state mandate if adequate funding is not provided. This was the cities and counties first attempt to force the legislature to stop the state from dipping into local revenue streams. However, after support looked weak in the polls, cities and counties struck a deal with Schwarzenegger (Prop 1A) and recanted their support of Prop 65. The backers of this proposition have shifted their support to 1A. |
Propositions 66, Limitations on “Three Strikes” Law. Sex Crimes. Punishment. Initiative Statute
Amends the “Three Strikes” law so that third strike can only be for “violent or serious felony.” Also reduces the number of felony offenses considered serious or violent. Only felonies that are tried separately can be considered a strike. Currently, a person can get multiple strikes in a single trial. Under this measure, to get two strikes, there would have to be two separate trials. This measure also requires the state to re-sentence offenders currently serving an indeterminate life sentence under the “Three Strikes” law if their third strike resulted from a conviction for a nonviolent or non-serious crime. Finally, it increases sentences for child molesters. In 1994, California voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot initiative known as “Three Strikes You’re Out.” Prop. 184 established substantially longer prison sentences for people who had previously been convicted of a violent or serious crime. Many other states have enacted three-strikes laws; however, California’s is seen as one of the most far-reaching because the third strike does not have to be a serious or violent felony. In 2002, the Supreme Court reviewed two California “Three Strikes” cases to decide whether the law was resulting in cruel and unusual punishment. The better known case was about Leandro Andrade, whose third strike was for stealing $150 worth of videotapes from K-Mart. Cases like this raised the public’s attention to some of the results of this tough on crime initiative. This initiative was bank-rolled by Jerry Keenan, a Sacramento millionaire whose son is serving 8 years in prison for killing two passengers while drunk-driving. He spent the initial $1 million to get this on the ballot, but it’s since been supported by a host of Civil Rights organizations as well.
|
Propositions 67, Emergency Medical Services. Funding, Telephone Surcharge. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
This is a three percent phone tax to offset costs incurred by hospitals and physicians and other emergency care workers when they treat the uninsured. It is estimated to raise $500 million dollars, increasing annually with more telephone users. Out of the $500 million, $4 million would go into the 911 account (which has maintained a reserve between $15 and $80 million due to increased revenues from cell phones), $19 million would go to First Responders (firefighters, etc), $25 million would go to community clinics, $153 million would go to emergency and trauma doctors, and $300 million would go to hospitals to reimburse them for costs of the uninsured. That means about 60 percent goes to hospitals, 30 percent to doctors, 4 percent to fire-fighters, and less than a percent to the 911 account. There have been 65 hospital closures in California over the past decade. In Los Angeles County alone, 8 emergency rooms have announced shut-downs in the year and a half. Most of these hospitals cite substantial financial losses. A major cause cited by healthcare administrators was the decline in reimbursement that hospitals receive from treating the uninsured, many of whom use the emergency room as their primary care facility. In the wake of these closures, a large fear for health care providers is that this wave of hospital closures will overwhelm resources at the remaining emergency rooms, extending delays that can already last several hours and adding greater financial burdens to neighboring hospitals. Healthcare providers have contributed about $4 million in support of this initiative. Phone companies have contributed about $8 million to defeat the initiative.
|
Propositions 68, Non-Tribal Commercial Gambling Expansion. Tribal Gaming Compact Amendments. Revenues, Tax Exemptions. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute
Requires Indian casinos to pay taxes or else face competition by non-tribal establishments. Currently non-tribal establishments (card rooms, race tracks, etc) cannot have slot machines. Under this initiative, they could have slot machines if Indian casinos didn’t agree within 90 days. Card clubs and race-tracks sponsored this initiative hoping to tap into a growing public sentiment that Indian casinos are not paying their “fair share” while California faces one of the worst budget crises in its history. Card-clubs and race-tracks spent about $26 million dollars on this initiative before officially throwing in the towel in early October after weak support in the polls.
|
Propositions 69, DNA Samples. Collection. Database. Funding. Initiative Statute
California already collects DNA samples from any person convicted of a serious felony offense, such as rape and murder. Proposition 69 would mandate DNA collections from anyone arrested on suspicion of committing a felony. Those who aren't convicted could get their DNA profile taken out of the state database, but they would have to go to a judge and obtain a court order. The use of DNA in identification is growing nation and worldwide. Unlike fingerprints, DNA carries the potential to reveal yet-untold amounts of detailed personal information. That's what makes centralized DNA databases a controversial subject, setting off an on-going political battle between privacy advocates, law enforcement, and victims rights groups. This initiative was bankrolled by Bruce Harrington, a Newport Beach business man whose brother and sister-in-law were murdered in 1980. He’s spent about $3 million of his own money to support the initiative. |
Propositions 70, Tribal Gaming Compacts. Exclusive Gaming Rights. Contributions to State. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Proposition 70 would give tribes unlimited gambling rights and would require them to pay the equivalent of a corporate income tax (about 9 percent). It also extends the length of a compact for 99 years unless it’s amended by an agreement between the governor and tribes. In 1999, tribes signed agreements with the state where they could operate up to 2 casinos on their land with no more than 2,000 slot machines. Under 1999 agreements, they paid about $100 million to the state and this money could only be used for specified purposes (namely supporting tribes that did not have casinos). This summer, five tribes revised their compacts. Under these agreements, they pay a set amount to the state, and additional payments on a per machine basis. In August, Schwarzenegger came to an agreement with five more tribes, four of which don’t have casinos. The legislature blocked the most controversial of the five compacts, which was to build a large urban casino in the Bay Area. Under these new agreements, the state can use revenues as it pleases and will get a percentage of net-wins (compacts vary but the state will get up to 25 percent in some cases). The Agua Caliente band of Cahuilla Indians and the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians have spent about $26 million in support of this initiative. |
Propositions 71, Stem Cell Research. Funding. Bonds. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute
Prop. 71 would authorize $3 billion in bonds to fund stem cell research. It would establish a California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, which would regulate and fund stem cell research. The proposition would forbid funding for research into human reproductive cloning. However, it does allow for embryonic cloning intended solely for medical research purposes. This has been one of the most closely watched propositions since it mirrors a debate unfolding on a national level in the presidential election. The Bush administration strictly limited the amount of federal funds that can be spent on human embyonic stem cell research. This prompted wealthy Californians with sick children like real estate developer Robert Klein II and Hollywood producer Jerry Zucker to organize behind a ballot measure. The Catholic Church and taxpayer limitation groups have raised about $300,000 in opposition to this proposition. Supporters, including Hollywood stars and venture capitalists, have spent over $27 million. |
Propositions 72, Health Care Coverage Requirements Referendum
Prop. 72 would require businesses with 200 or more employees to provide health coverage for workers and their dependents and pay at least 80% of the premiums. Firms with 50 to 199 workers would have to cover only the employees, a mandate those with 20 to 49 workers would face only if the state enacted a tax credit against their costs. Firms smaller than that would be exempt. Businesses that chose not to buy the coverage themselves would have to pay into a state pool that would buy it for them. John Burton and Jackie Speier co-sponsored SB2 to address the growing number of uninsured workers in California. It passed in the legislature, but the California Chamber of Commerce, which opposed SB2, gathered enough signatures to require a referendum—meaning voters will have to approve this legislative bill for it to go into affect. Nurses, doctors and unions have raised about $7 million to support the initiative. Restaurants and retailers have raised almost $11 million in opposition. |
