Proposition # |
Summary |
Pro Argument |
Con Argument |
Prop 1A: Protection of Local Government Revenues |
· Ensures local property tax and sales tax revenues remain with
local government thereby safeguarding funding for public
safety, health, libraries, parks, and other local services
·
Provisions can only be suspended if the Governor declares a
?scal necessity and two-thirds of the Legislature concur
· Fiscal
Impact: Higher local government revenues than otherwise
would have been the case, possibly in the billions of dollars
annually over time. Any such local revenue impacts would result
in decreased resources to the state of similar amounts. |
· Prop. 1A is a historic, bipartisan agreement that prevents the State from taking and using local tax dollars, which
local governments use for fire and paramedic response, law enforcement, health care,
and other vital services. Join Governor Schwarzenegger, firefighters, law enforcement.
PROTECT LOCAL TAXPAYERS AND PUBLIC SAFETY. YES on 1A.
· For more info: Yes on 1A Californians to Protect Local Taxpayers
and Public Safety, www.yesonprop1A.com |
· Proposition 1A gives local politicians a spending guarantee without fiscal oversight.
It allows the State to permanently
raid the property taxes
of school districts, but not
the property taxes of cities
and counties. It locks in the
local sales tax rate in the
Constitution, preventing the
Legislature from ever lowering
it.
· For more info: Carole Migden, Chairwoman-
State Board of Equalization, 601 Van Ness Ave., #E3-611
San Francisco, CA 94102 |
Prop 59: Public Records, Open Meetings. Legislative Consitutional Amendment. |
· Amends Constitution to include public's right of access to meetings of government bodies and writings of government officials
· Preserves specified constitutional rights; retains existing exclusions for certain meetings and records
· Fiscal Impact: Potential minor annual state and local government costs to make additional information available to the public |
· California's government-all three branches, statewide and local-should be as transparent as possible to the public it asks for funding, power, and trust. But too often officials and judges choose secrecy over disclosure. Proposition 59 would make transparency a constitutional duty owed to the people, to whom officials are accountable.
· For more info: Californians Aware, www.prop59.org |
· The press and public must, indeed , have access to the workings of state and local governments to help ensure accountability; however, the question is whether Proposition 59 goes far enough in guaranteeing that critical access.
· For more info: Gary B. Wesley, 408.882.5070 |
Prop 60: Election Rights of Political Parties. Legislative Constitutional Amendment. |
· Requires general election ballot include candidate receiving most votes among candidates of same party for partisan office in primary election |
· Proposition 60 guarantees full, free, and open debate in elections. PROPOSITION 60 PRESERVES VOTER CHOICE and protects your right to select political party nominees for public office in direct primary elections. Proposition 60 gives you the right to choose from all parties and different points of view in general elections.
· For more info: Yes on 60- Committee to Preserve Voter Choice, www.Yeson60.com |
· Propositions 60 does not go far enough. It leaves the door open to possible future tinkering with our election system. |
Prop 60A Surplus Property. Legislative Constitutional Amendment. |
· Sale proceeds of most surplus state property pay off specified bonds
· Fiscal Impact: Net savings over the longer term-potentially low tens of millions of dollars-from accelerated repayment of existing bonds.
|
|
· Prop 60A does not go far enough. While it earmarks the proceeds of sale of surplus property to pay off bonds, it doesn’t mandate sales.
|
Prop 61: Children’s Hospital Projects. Grant Program. Bond Act. Initiative Statute. |
· Authorizes $750 million general obligation bonds for grants to eligible children’s hospitals for construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation, furnishing and equipping children’s hospitals
· Fiscal Impact: State cost of about 1.5 billion over 30 years to pay off both the principal ($750) and interest ($756 million) costs of the bonds. Payments of about $50 million per year.
|
· Everyday, California’s Children’s Hospitals save lives. Children with leukemia, cancer, cystic fibrosis, and heart disease. 80% of children with leukemia are making it. 90% are coming through delicate heart surgery. Proposition 61 doesn’t raise taxes. It does give the sickest kids in California the best care on earth.
· For more info: California Children’s
Hospitals Association, www.SaveTheChildrens
Hospitals.com
|
· Rebuilding a few children’s hospitals will make some building contractors richer; however, it will no, by itself, provide health care for anyone. What we need-in California and across America- is some sort of “single-payer” health care system which cuts out the middlemen and profiteers.
· For more info: Gary B. Wesley, 408.882.5070 |
Prop 62: Elections. Primaries. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute. |
· Requires primary elections where voters may vote for any state or federal candidate regardless of party registration of voter or candidate
· The two primary- election candidates receiving most votes for an office, whether they are candidates with “no party” or members of same or different party, would be listed on general election ballot
· Exempts presidential nominations
· Fiscal Iimpact: No significant net fiscal effect on state and local governments |
· The Voter Choice Primary Initiative allows every voter-including independent voters- to vote for the best candidate for office, regardless of party, in primary elections. It is similar to the method Californians have used for the past century to elect mayors, council members, county supervisors, and district attorneys.
· For more info: Californians for an Open Primary, www.openprimary.org |
· Proposition 62 is based on Louisiana’s radical election system. There, it helped KKK leader David Duke run for governor. It ELIMINATES VOTER CHOICE in General Elections, UNDERCUTS opportunities for WOMEN and MINORITY candidates, makes the Legislature LESS ACCOUNTABLE. Don’t bring Louisiana’s dirty politics to California! Vote NO!
· For more info: Californians for Election Accountability, www.NOon62.com |
Prop 63: Mental Health Services Expansion, Funding. Tax on Personal Incomes Above $1 Million. Initiative Statute. |
· Establishes 1% tax on taxable personal income above $1 million
to fund expanded health services for mentally ill children,
adults, seniors
· Fiscal Impact: Additional state revenues of
about $800 million annually by 2006–07, with comparable
annual increases in total state and county expenditures for
expansion of mental health programs. Unknown partially offsetting
savings to state and local agencies. |
· Proposition 63 expands mental
health care for children
and adults, using programs
proven to be effective. Paid
for by 1% tax on taxable personal
income over $1 million.
Requires strict financial accountability.
Supported by nurses,
mental health professionals,
law enforcement, educators.
Let’s stop neglecting mental illness.
Vote YES on Proposition
63.
· For more info: Campaign for Mental Health, www.YESon63.org |
· Prop. 63 is a false promise. It
doesn’t treat the mentally ill,
but is a shortsighted substitutefor long-term solutions. Built
on a shaky funding scheme,
63 drives away the very taxpayers
it needs, destroying its own
funding source. Don’t jeopardize
the health of thousands
with a feel-good plan.
·
For more info: Citizens for a Healthy California, www.Healthy
California.org |
Prop 64: Limits on Private Enforcement of Unfair Business Competition Laws. Initiative Statute. |
· Allows individual or class action “unfair business” lawsuits only
if actual loss suffered; only government officials may enforce
these laws on public’s behalf
· Fiscal Impact: Unknown state fiscal
impact depending on whether the measure increases or
decreases court workload and the extent to which diverted
funds are replaced. Unknown potential costs to local governments,
depending on the extent to which diverted funds are
replaced.
|
· Proposition 64 closes a loophole
allowing lawyers to file
frivolous shakedown lawsuits
against small businesses. Proposition
64 stops lawyers from
pocketing most of the settlements
from these bogus lawsuits.
Don’t be mislead by the
trial lawyers’ smokescreen:
64 doesn’t change any of California’s
consumer or environmental
laws! Yes on 64.
· For more info: Yes on 64—Californians to
Stop Shakedown Lawsuits, www.yeson64.org |
· Newspaper headlines warn:
“Consumers lose if initiative succeeds.”
The LA Times reports
Proposition 64 “would weaken
a state law that allows private
groups and government prosecutors
to sue businesses for polluting
the environment and for
engaging in misleading advertising
and other unfair business
practices . . . the current law
would be drastically curtailed.”
· For more info: Consumer Watchdog, www.NoOnProp64.org |
Prop 65: Local Government Funds, Revenues.
State Mandates.
Initiative Constitutional Amendment. |
· Requires voter approval for reduction of local fee/tax revenues
· Permits suspension of state mandate if no state reimbursement
to local government within 180 days after obligation determined
· Fiscal Impact: Higher local government revenues than
otherwise would have been the case, possibly in the billions of
dollars annually over time. Any such local revenue impacts
would result in decreased resources to the state of similar
amounts. |
|
· Our coalition submitted Prop.
65 to the voters, but we are
now supporting Prop. 1A—
a better, more ?exible alternative
to protect funding for
local taxpayers and local
public safety services. Join
Governor Schwarzenegger,
police, ?re, health care, and
local government leaders. Yes
on Prop. 1A. NO on Prop. 65.
|
Prop 66: Limitations on “Three Strikes” Law.
Sex Crimes. Punishment.
Initiative Statute. |
· Limits “Three Strikes” law to violent and/or serious felonies
·
Permits limited re-sentencing under new definitions
· Increases
punishment for specified sex crimes against children
· Fiscal
Impact: Over the long run, net state savings of up to several
hundred million dollars annually, primarily to the prison system;
local jail and court-related costs of potentially more than
ten million dollars annually. |
· PROPOSITION 66 RESTORES
THREE STRIKES TO ITS
ORIGINAL INTENT—ensuring
criminals currently serving time
for violent offenses are kept in
prison, SAVING TAXPAYERS
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS currently
wasted imprisoning shoplifters
and other nonviolent,
petty offenders for life.
PROPOSITION 66 PROTECTS
CHILDREN WITH TOUGHER
1-STRIKE SENTENCES FOR
CHILD MOLESTERS. YES ON
PROPOSITION 66.
· For more info: Citizens Against Violent
Crime, www.voteyeson66.org |
· Proposition 66 is opposed by
Governor Schwarzenegger, the
Attorney General, all 58
District Attorneys, the state’s
leading law enforcement, taxpayer,
and child protection
groups. Costs millions and
threatens public safety by creating
a legal loophole that
could release an estimated
26,000 convicted felons—
including rapists, child
molesters, and murderers.
www.Keep3Strikes.org
· For more info: Californians United for
Public Safety, www.noProp66.org |
Prop 67: Emergency Medical Services. Funding.
Telephone Surcharge. Initiative
Constitutional Amendment and Statute. |
· Increases telephone surcharge and allocates other funds for
emergency room physicians, hospital emergency rooms, community
clinics, emergency personnel training/equipment, and
911 telephone system
· Fiscal Impact: Increased state revenues
of about $500 million annually to reimburse physicians and
hospitals for uncompensated emergency medical services and
other specified purposes. Continues $32 million in state
funding for physicians and clinics for uncompensated medical
care. |
· FIREFIGHTERS, PARAMEDICS,
DOCTORS, AND NURSES
SAY: PROP. 67 will make
sure emergency medical care
is available when you and
your family need it most.
Emergency rooms are closing.
Others are severely overcrowded.
Paramedics, emergency
room doctors, and nurses are
overwhelmed. SAVE EMERGENCY
CARE. SAVE LIVES.
YES ON PROP. 67.
· For more info: Coalition to Preserve Emergency
Care
—Yes on 67, www.save
emergency
care.org |
· Prop. 67 is a $540 million
phone tax—a tax on talking.
There’s no cap on cell phone
or business phone taxes. More
than 1 million seniors will be
affected. 90% of the money
goes to large health care corporations
and special interests
—with no mandatory
audits or financial controls.
· For more info: No on 67—Californians
Stop the Phone Tax, www.stopthe
phonetax.com
|
| Prop 68: Non-Tribal Commercial Gambling Expansion.
Tribal Gaming Compact Amendments.
Revenues, Tax Exemptions. Initiative
Constitutional Amendment and Statute. |
· Authorizes tribal compact amendments
· Unless tribes accept,
authorizes casino gaming for sixteen non-tribal establishments
·
Percentage of gaming revenues fund government services
·
Fiscal Impact: Increased gambling revenues—potentially over
$1 billion annually—primarily to local governments for additional
specified services. Depending on outcome of tribal negotiations,
potential loss of state revenues totaling hundreds of
millions of dollars annually. |
· Proposition 68 means California’s
immensely profitable
Indian Casinos should pay
their fair share to support
local services. Indian Casinos
choose to make a 25% contribution
and live by the same
regulations that affect us all or
the state will authorize limited
competition with an even bigger
return to communities.
· For more info: A Fair Share for California, www.fairshare
forcalifornia.org |
· Beware: Their “fair share”
claim is a scam. 68 lets its
FUNDERS—RACETRACKS
and CARD CLUBS—operate
LAS VEGAS-SIZED CASINOS
throughout California—NEAR
FREEWAYS and 200 SCHOOLS.
MORE TRAFFIC. MORE
CRIME. ANOTHER BROKEN
PROMISE TO INDIANS. Governor
Schwarzenegger, fire-
fighters, sheriffs, police, tribes,
taxpayers, labor, educators say:
“NO on 68!”
· For more info: No on 68: Californians
Against the Deceptive
Gambling Proposition, www.Stop68.com
|
Prop 69: DNA Samples. Collection. Database.
Funding. Initiative Statute. |
· Requires collection of DNA samples from all felons, and from
others arrested for or charged with specified crimes, and submission
to state DNA database
· Provides for funding
· Fiscal
Impact: Net state cost to process DNA samples of potentially
nearly $20 million annually when costs are fully realized. Local
costs likely more than fully offset by revenues, with the additional
revenues available for other DNA-related activities. |
· Requiring convicted felons and
arrestees for rape/murder to
submit DNA, Proposition 69
helps solve crime, prevents
false imprisonment, and stops
serial rapists/killers. 69 brings
California law enforcement up
to par with 34 states. Governor
Schwarzenegger, Attorney General
Lockyer, law enforcement,
defense attorneys, and victims’
groups say vote yes!
· For more info: Californians for the DNA
Fingerprint—Yes on 69, www.dnayes.org |
· Proposition 69 will not make
you safer, but could trap your
DNA in a criminal database.
69 treats thousands of
Californians that are never
charged with a crime just like
the guilty. 69 risks your most
sensitive, private information
—your DNA. Protect your
privacy. No on 69! See
www.protectmyDNA.com
· For more info: VOTE NO on Proposition 69, www.protectmy
DNA.com
|
Prop 70: Tribal Gaming Compacts. Exclusive
Gaming Rights. Contributions to State. Initiative
Constitutional Amendment and Statute. |
· Upon tribe’s request, Governor must execute 99-year compact
·
Tribes contribute percentage of net gaming income to state
funds, in exchange for expanded, exclusive tribal casino gaming
·
Fiscal Impact: Unknown effect on payments to the state
from Indian tribes. The potential increase or decrease in these
payments could be in the tens of millions to over a hundred million
dollars annually. |
· Proposition 70 will provide
billions of dollars to the State
and will restrict tribal gambling
to Indian reservations.
Both the taxpayers and
Indians win: Tribes pay the
same amount as every other
business pays in state income
taxes; in return, they can
operate their casinos. That’s
only fair!
· For more info: Citizens for a Fair Share of
Indian Gaming Revenues, www.indianfairshare.com |
· PROPOSITION 70 IS A BAD
DEAL FOR CALIFORNIA. Governor Schwarzenegger’s
negotiated agreements with
Indian gaming tribes guarantee
they pay their fair share
and respect California laws.
Proposition 70 effectively destroys
these agreements. Join Governor
Schwarzenegger, law enforcement,
labor, environmental
groups, and seniors in voting
NO on Proposition 70.
· For more info: No on Propositions 68 and
70—Governor
Schwarzenegger’s
Committee for Fair Share
Gaming Agreements, www.no68and70.org |
Prop 71: Stem Cell Research. Funding.
Bonds. Initiative Constitutional
Amendment and Statute. |
· This measure establishes “California Institute for Regenerative
Medicine” to regulate and fund stem cell research, constitutional
right to conduct such research, and oversight committee
·
Prohibits funding of human reproductive cloning research
·
Fiscal Impact: State cost of about $6 billion over 30 years to pay
off both the principal ($3 billion) and interest ($3 billion) on
the bonds. State payments averaging about $200 million per
year. |
· 71 authorizes stem cell research
to find new CURES FOR CANCER,
HEART DISEASE, DIABETES,
and many other diseases,
SAVE MILLIONS OF
LIVES, and CUT HEALTH
CARE COSTS BY BILLIONS.
And, 71 prohibits cloning to
create babies. Join non-profit
disease organizations, Nobel
Prize scientists, doctors, and
nurses: Vote YES on 71.
· For more info: YES on 71: Coalition for Stem
Cell Research and Cures, www.YESon71.com |
· Adds $3 billion of bond debt
to California’s massive debt
load. Money would fund
huge, new bureaucracy to promote
human embryo cloning.
Few controls, no real accountability
for how money is spent.
Exempts new bureaucracy
from aspects of “open meeting”
laws. Opposed by
women’s groups, leading doctors,
and medical ethicists.
· For more info: Doctors, Patients, and
Taxpayers for Fiscal
Responsibility, www.NoOn71.com |
Prop 72: Health Care Coverage Requirements.
Referendum. |
· A “Yes” vote approves, and a “No” vote rejects legislation requiring
health care coverage for employees, as specified, working
for large and medium employers
· Fiscal Impact: Significant
expenditures fully offset, mainly by employer fees, for a state
program primarily to purchase private health insurance coverage.
Significant county health program savings. Significant
public employer health coverage costs. Significant net state revenue
losses. Overall unknown net state and local savings or
costs.
|
· Prop. 72 keeps private health
coverage within reach of working
families. It requires large
and mid-sized companies to
pay for private coverage, caps
employee share of premiums,
and sets coverage standards.
Doctors, nurses, and consumers
agree: With premiums rising
and employees losing health
insurance, Prop. 72 provides
needed protection.
· For more info: Health Access, www.YesonProp72.com |
· Proposition 72 creates a government-
run healthcare scheme
funded by an estimated
$7 billion in new taxes on employers
and workers by 2007.
You could get forced from your
existing plan into the government
system and lose access to
your doctors and hospitals.
Educators, charities, taxpayers,
doctors say “NO on 72.”
· For more info: Californians Against
Government Run
Healthcare, www.noprop72.org |
