Posted on 06/29/2008 2:26:39 PM PDT by CounterCounterCulture
Bond Measure
Proposition 1
SB 1856 (Chapter 697, 2002). Costa.
Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century.**
**Note: The Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century was originally scheduled to appear on the November 2, 2004, General Election ballot. Subsequently, Senate Bill 1169, Chapter 71, Statutes of 2004, provided that it appear on the November 7, 2006, General Election ballot. However, most recently, Assembly Bill 713, Chapter 44, Statutes of 2006, provides for the submission of this Act on the November 4, 2008, General Election ballot instead.
Initiative Statute
Proposition 2
1274. Treatment of Farm Animals. Statute.
Proponent: Joe Ramsey
Requires that an enclosure or tether confining specified farm animals allow the animals for the majority of every day to fully extend their limbs or wings, lie down, stand up, and turn around. Specified animals include calves raised for veal, egg-laying hens, and pregnant pigs. Exceptions made for transportation, rodeos, fairs, 4-H programs, lawful slaughter, research and veterinary purposes. Provides misdemeanor penalties, including a fine not to exceed $1,000 and/or imprisonment in jail for up to 180 days. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Probably minor local and state enforcement and prosecution costs, partly offset by increased fine revenue. (Initiative 07-0041.)
Initiative Statute
Proposition 3
1271. Children’s Hospital Bond Act. Grant Program. Statute.
Proponent: Diana S. Dooley
Authorizes $980,000,000 in bonds, to be repaid from state’s General Fund, to fund the construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation, furnishing and equipping of children’s hospitals. Designates that 80 percent of bond proceeds go to hospitals that focus on children with illnesses such as leukemia, cancer, heart defects, diabetes, sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis. Requires that qualifying children’s hospitals provide comprehensive services to a high volume of children eligible for governmental programs and meet other requirements. Designates that 20 percent of bond proceeds go to University of California general acute care hospitals. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: State costs of about $2 billion over 30 years to pay off both the principal ($980 million) and the interest ($1 billion) costs of the bond. Payments of about $67 million per year. (Initiative 07-0034.)
Initiative Constitutional Amendment
Proposition 4
1287. Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy. Constitutional Amendment.
Proponent: John Smith
Amends California Constitution to prohibit abortion for unemancipated minor until 48 hours after physician notifies minor’s parent, legal guardian or, if parental abuse reported, an adult family member. Provides exceptions for medical emergency or parental waiver. Permits courts to waive notice based on clear and convincing evidence of minor’s maturity or best interests. Mandates reporting requirements, including reports from physicians regarding abortions on minors. Authorizes monetary damages against physicians for violation. Requires minor’s consent to abortion, with exceptions. Permits judicial relief if minor’s consent is coerced. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Potential unknown net state costs of several million dollars annually for health and social services programs, court administration, and state health agency administration combined. (Initiative 07-0053.)
Initiative Statute
Proposition 5
1310. Nonviolent Offenders. Sentencing, Parole and Rehabilitation. Statute.
Proponent: Daniel N. Abrahamson
Requires State to expand and increase funding and oversight for individualized treatment and rehabilitation programs for nonviolent drug offenders and parolees. Reduces criminal consequences of nonviolent drug offenses by mandating three-tiered probation with treatment and by providing for case dismissal and/or sealing of records after probation. Limits court’s authority to incarcerate offenders who violate probation or parole. Shortens parole for most drug offenses, including sales, and for nonviolent property crimes. Creates numerous divisions, boards, commissions, and reporting requirements regarding drug treatment and rehabilitation. Changes certain marijuana misdemeanors to infractions. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Increased state costs that could exceed $1 billion annually primarily for expanding drug treatment and rehabilitation programs for offenders in state prisons, on parole, and in the community. Savings to the state that could exceed $1 billion annually due primarily to reduced prison and parole operating costs. Net savings on a one-time basis on capital outlay costs for prison facilities that could exceed $2.5 billion. Unknown net fiscal effect on expenditures for county operations and capital outlay. (Initiative 07-0081.)
Initiative Statute
Proposition 6
1326. Criminal Penalties and Laws. Public Safety Funding. Statute.
Proponents: George C. Runner, Jr., Gary Ovitt and Mike Reynolds
Requires new state spending on various programs to combat crime and gangs, and to operate prison and parole systems. Increases penalties for several crimes, including violating gang injunctions, using or possessing to sell methamphetamine, or carrying loaded or concealed firearms by certain felons. Eliminates bail for illegal immigrants charged with violent or gang-related felonies, establishes crime for removing or disabling a monitoring device affixed as part of a criminal sentence, and changes evidence rules to allow use of certain hearsay statements as evidence when witnesses are unavailable. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Net state costs likely to exceed a half billion dollars annually primarily for increased funding of criminal justice programs, as well as for increased costs for prison and parole operations. Unknown one-time state capital outlay costs potentially exceeding a half billion dollars for prison facilities. Unknown net fiscal impact for state trial courts, county jails, and other local criminal justice agencies. (Initiative 07-0094.)
Initiative Statute
Proposition 7
1304. Renewable Energy. Statute.
Proponent: Jim Gonzalez c/o Randall W. Keen
Requires all utilities, including government-owned utilities, to generate 20% of their power from renewable energy by 2010, a standard currently applicable only to private electrical corporations. Raises requirement for all utilities to 40% by 2020 and 50% by 2025. Imposes penalties for noncompliance. Fast-tracks approval for new renewable energy plants. Requires utilities to sign longer contracts (20 year minimum) to procure renewable energy. Creates Solar and Clean Energy Transmission Account to purchase property or rights of way for renewable energy. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: State administrative costs of up to $3.4 million annually for the regulatory activities of the Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission and the California Public Utilities Commission, paid for by fee revenues. Potential, unknown increased costs and reduced revenues, particularly in the short term, to state and local governments resulting from the measure’s potential to increase retail electricity rates, with possible offsetting cost savings and revenue increases, to an unknown degree, over the long term to the extent the measure hastens renewable energy development. (Initiative 07-0066.)
Initiative Constitutional Amendment
Proposition 8
1298. Limit on Marriage. Constitutional Amendment.
Proponents: Dennis Hollingsworth, Gail J. Knight, Martin F. Gutierrez, Hak-Shing William Tam, and Mark A. Jansson c/o Andrew Pugno
Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: The measure would have no fiscal effect on state or local governments. This is because there would be no change to the manner in which marriages are currently recognized by the state. (Initiative 07-0068.)
Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute
Proposition 9
1325. Criminal Justice System. Victims’ Rights. Parole. Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Proponents: Henry Nicholas, Marcella Leach and LaWanda Hawkins c/o Ashlee N. Titus
Requires notification to victim and opportunity for input during phases of criminal justice process, including bail, pleas, sentencing and parole. Establishes victim safety as consideration in determining bail or release on parole. Increases the number of people permitted to attend and testify on behalf of victims at parole hearings. Reduces the number of parole hearings to which prisoners are entitled. Requires that victims receive written notification of their constitutional rights. Establishes timelines and procedures concerning parole revocation hearings. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Unknown potential increases in state prison and county jail operating costs due to provisions restricting early release of inmates. To the extent that any such costs were incurred, they could collectively amount to hundreds of millions of dollars annually. A potential net savings in the low tens of millions of dollars for the administration of parole reviews and revocations if the changes related to parole revocation procedures were not overturned by potential legal challenges. (Initiative 07-0100.)
Initiative Statute
Proposition 10
1332. Bonds. Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Renewable Energy. Statute.
Proponents: Allison Hart, Mitzi Dudley and Thomas Daly c/o Daniel K. Abramson
Authorizes $5 billion in bonds paid from state’s General Fund, allocated approximately as follows: 58% in cash payments of between $2,000 and $50,000 to purchasers of certain high fuel economy and alternative fuel vehicles; 20% in incentives for research, development and production of renewable energy technology; 11% in incentives for research and development of alternative fuel vehicle technology; 5% in incentives for purchase of renewable energy technology; 4% in grants to eight cities for education about these technologies; and 3% in grants to colleges to train students in these technologies. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: State costs of about $9.8 billion over 30 years to pay both the principal ($5 billion) and interest ($4.8 billion) costs on the bond. Payments of about $325 million per year. Increase in state sales tax revenues of an unknown amount, potentially totaling in the tens of millions of dollars, over the period from 2009 to beyond 2018. Increase in local sales tax and VLF revenues of an unknown amount, potentially totaling in the tens of millions of dollars, over the period from 2009 to about 2018-19. Potential state costs of up to about $10 million annually, through about 2018 -19, for state agency administrative costs not funded by the measure. (Initiative 07-0101.)
Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute
Proposition 11
1307. Redistricting. Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Proponents: Kathay Feng, Jeannine English and David Fleming
Creates 14-member redistricting commission responsible for drawing new district lines for State Senate, Assembly, and Board of Equalization districts. Requires State Auditor to randomly select commission members from voter applicant pool to create a commission with five members from each of the two largest political parties, and four members unaffiliated with either political party. Requires nine votes to approve final district maps. Establishes standards for drawing new lines, including respecting the geographic integrity of neighborhoods and encouraging geographic compactness. Permits State Legislature to draw lines for congressional districts subject to these standards. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Probably no significant increase in state redistricting costs. (Initiative 07-0077.)
*Titles Subject to Change.
Mike Zapler, San Jose Mercury News, Sacramento Bureau
SACRAMENTO - Barack Obama and John McCain may grab most of the headlines, but California voters will have a lot more to chew on than the presidential race this political season.
Eleven propositions have now made the Nov. 4 ballot, on issues ranging from same-sex marriage and abortion to alternative energy to the treatment of farm animals.
As of the secretary of state's announcement last week, it is now too late for more citizen initiatives - which constitute all but one of the measures to date. But the Legislature may add more measures before all is said and done.
"There's something for everyone," said San Jose State University political science Professor Larry Gerston.
Several of the measures seek big dollars for ambitious new projects - a potentially tough sell in the midst of the economic slowdown. Voters will be asked to authorize nearly $10 billion in borrowing to help pay for a high-speed train (Proposition 1, placed on the ballot by the Legislature) that would shuttle people from San Francisco to Los Angeles in under three hours. A $5 billion bond initiative (Proposition 10) would provide subsidies to people who buy alternative- and clean-fuel cars, as well as grants for renewable energy research. Proposition 3 seeks approval for a nearly $1 billion bond for children's hospitals.
Makes me so excited that I get to live in California. Someone is always propositioning me.
I suggest another proposition...........no State money can be spent until the budget is balanced without raising taxes.
Maybe another one...........State legislatures will have their pay cut 50% until they do 50% of what they are getting payed for and balance the budget. In addition, no pay raises will be given out without the state citizens voting on it.
1 - NO.
2 - Are you kidding me? HELL NO.
3 - NO.
4 - YES.
5 - NO.
6 - Not sure, have to do more research. Sounds good though.
7 - HELL NO! Get ready to pay more for everything if this passes.
8 - YES.
9 - YES.
10 - HELL NO.
11 - Not sure.
courtesy ping
Highly informative.
Thank you!
courtesy ping
Always my pleasure. The earlier we get active in supporting or opposing something, the better. The bad guys tend to have the most money to spend.
courtesy ping
11 - NO
No on all bond measures. No to borrowing more and more money.
Courtesy?
Daing it, next time you ping me to something like this, tell me to get a barf bag before reading.
YES on 4, 8 & 9
NO on the others
(watch for the key words “increased spending,” “expand,” and “bond” and you’ll always know how to vote on ballot measures)
You been around long enough to keep barf bags on standby regarding most California propositions. Must I have to put warning labels on all California-related threads now? ;-)
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No
4. Yes
5. No
6. Yes
7. No
8. YES
9. Yes
10. No
11. Yes
Do your forehead and the back of your wrist have matching bruises?
Sheesh. Hell of a thing to call a "courtesy ping."
The nerve of some people.
Prop. 2: More crud from the “animals are people too” crowd. Sadly, it may very well pass (anyone remember the Mr. Ed initiative?).
Prop. 3: Yet more bonds that are “for the children.” May pass based on that...
Prop. 4: Good idea, but won't pass.
Prop. 5: Will probably pass. Californians tend to be more libertarian in this regard.
Prop. 6: Will likely pass and, like most things the government does, will probably not do a whole lotta good.
Prop. 7: And people wonder why the cost of living in California is so high???
Prop. 8: I fear that five months of legal gay marriage, enough people who would have supported this will vote against it because they won't see an immediate reason to take away what other people are currently enjoying being able to do. And if this DOES fail, then it will be by a vote of the people...and all the arguments regarding judicial usurpation or legislative shenanigans will be moot.
Prop. 9: Will probably pass.
Prop. 10: Yet another bond measure...aack! Hopefully this one won't pass.
Prop. 11: May be the only thing protecting the GOP from being redistricted into oblivion for decades in California.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.