Posts
WHAT A YES or No VOTE MEANS
A YES vote would mean that California could sell $9.95 billion of general obligation bonds to partially fund a high-speed passenger train system.
A NO vote would mean that California could not sell the bonds.
SUPPORTERS SAY
High-speed rail will be a convenient and affordable alternative to high gas costs, highway congestion, and expensive and declining airline service.
Prop. 1A will create nearly 160,000 construction-related jobs and 450,000 permanent jobs in tourism and related sectors.
High-speed rail will reduce our reliance on foreign oil and improve the environment by cutting greenhouse gases and using less energy.
OPPONENTS SAY
Prop. 1A is a boondoggle that will cost taxpayers billions while adding to our bond debt at a time of budget crisis and cuts in services.
Californians’ most important traffic problems involve getting to work, not traveling between major cities.
There is no accountability as to how the bond proceeds will be spent, and no assurance that other funds will be available.
Proposition 2: Standards for Confining Farm Animals.
WHAT A YES or No VOTE MEANS
A YES vote means that farm enclosures for certain hens, calves and pigs must provide enough room for the animal to lie down, stand up, and move about.
A NO vote means that current laws relating to these animals will remain unchanged.
SUPPORTERS SAY
It will improve food safety by outlawing overcrowded conditions that foster the spread of diseases among farm animals.
This is a moderate, reasonable reform measure that gives the industry ample time to phase it in.
OPPONENTS SAY
This measure would drive many egg producers out of California, resulting in lost jobs and tax revenue.
Prop. 2 endangers public health by effectively forcing hens outdoors, where they may contact wild and migratory birds carrying diseases.
Proposition 3: Children’s Hospital Bond Act. Grant Program.
WHAT A YES or No VOTE MEANS
A YES vote means the state could sell $980 million in bonds for capital improvements for children’s hospitals.
A NO vote means the state could not sell the bonds.
SUPPORTERS SAY
Children’s hospitals provide essential treatment and need these funds to meet increasing demand for their services.
Children’s hospitals could buy the latest medical technology and equipment and provide more beds to care for sick children.
OPPONENTS SAY
In tough economic times, we can’t afford new spending and bond debt that will necessitate higher taxes or reduced spending on other programs.
Prop. 3 is unnecessary because unspent Prop. 61 funds are still available.
Proposition 4: Waiting Period and Parental Notification before Termination of a Minor’s Pregnancy.
WHAT A YES or No VOTE MEANS
A YES vote would mean that California could sell $9.95 billion of general obligation bonds to partially fund a high-speed passenger train system.
A NO vote would mean that California could not sell the bonds.
SUPPORTERS SAY
High-speed rail will be a convenient and affordable alternative to high gas costs, highway congestion, and expensive and declining airline service.
Prop. 1A will create nearly 160,000 construction-related jobs and 450,000 permanent jobs in tourism and related sectors.
High-speed rail will reduce our reliance on foreign oil and improve the environment by cutting greenhouse gases and using less energy.
OPPONENTS SAY
Prop. 1A is a boondoggle that will cost taxpayers billions while adding to our bond debt at a time of budget crisis and cuts in services.
Californians’ most important traffic problems involve getting to work, not traveling between major cities.
There is no accountability as to how the bond proceeds will be spent, and no assurance that other funds will be available.
Proposition 5: Nonviolent Drug Offenses. Sentencing, Parole and Rehabilitation.
WHAT A YES or No VOTE MEANS
A YES vote means drug treatment diversion programs will be revised and expanded, and sentencing and parole changes would shorten some sentences and parole periods and increase others, reduce penalties for marijuana possession, and expand treatment and rehabilitation for inmates and parolees.
A NO vote means drug treatment diversion programs would remain the same, and current laws relating to parole, prison custody credits, marijuana possession penalties, and rehabilitation and treatment for inmates and parolees would not change.
SUPPORTERS SAY
Treatment and rehabilitation for minor drug offenses will reduce recidivism and pay for themselves by reducing incarceration and prison construction costs.
Treating violent and nonviolent offenders differently makes sense. Judges can send nonviolent offenders to treatment while maintaining accountability, building on the successful approach of Prop. 36.
Effective rehabilitation programs will better prepare the 85 to 90 percent of inmates who are returned to society to become law-abiding, productive citizens.
OPPONENTS SAY
Dumping 45,000 criminals out of prisons and into our communities will not “save” money on the prison system, but will increase crime.
It weakens drug treatment programs by reducing court authority to incarcerate offenders who violate probation, parole, or drug treatment program rules.
This measure isn’t about keeping minor first-time drug offenders out of prison, because in reality such offenders never go to prison. Meanwhile, it puts dangerous criminals back on the streets sooner.
Proposition 6: Police and Law Enforcement Funding. Criminal Penalties and Laws.
WHAT A YES or No VOTE MEANS
A YES vote means that changes to the criminal justice system proposed by this measure would go into effect, including increased spending on law enforcement and criminal justice programs, addition of new crimes and penalties, and changes to juvenile law.
A NO vote means that the changes proposed in this measure would not go into effect and the current law and procedures would remain the same.
SUPPORTERS SAY
Prop. 6 will prioritize 1 percent of the state’s budget for local law enforcement without raising taxes, keeping our children safe while fully funding education.
It will give local government the resources it needs to win the war on gangs and crime by increasing penalties, creating new felonies and misdemeanors, and giving law enforcement new legal powers.
OPPONENTS SAY
Prop. 6 will spend $1 billion in one year on expanded programs without providing any new funding, taking money from education, health care, and proven public safety efforts.
Crime and gang problems need a coordinated balanced approach that includes community service workers, mental health, and drug and alcohol services along with tough enforcement of the law.
Proposition 7: Renewable Energy Generation.
WHAT A YES or No VOTE MEANS
A YES vote means the state would require utility companies to increase the percentage of electricity generated from renewable sources of energy to 20 percent by 2010 and 50 percent by 2025, and make other changes intended in increase renewable energy use.
A NO vote means the state’s requirements for renewable energy generation would remain the same.
SUPPORTERS SAY
This is a balanced solution, written and reviewed by energy and environmental experts, to cut the rising cost of energy and reduce global warming.
Prop. 7 will make California a world leader in clean power, creating over 370,000 new high-wage jobs and growing a strong market for solar and renewable energy businesses, as well as protecting the environment.
The measure will protect consumers by limiting rate increases to 3 percent and prohibiting utilities that fail to meet renewable energy standards from passing penalties on to consumers.
OPPONENTS SAY
Prop. 7 would hurt progress in increasing use of renewable power by shutting out the small providers that currently represent nearly 60 percent of California’s renewable energy contracts.
It will increase costs to consumers by allowing power companies to charge 10 percent above the market price, while providing no mechanism for limiting cost increases to the 3 percent per year it specifies.
The measure adds no new renewable energy sources. Simply raising required percentages of renewable energy each year will not create new sources for that energy.
Proposition 8: Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry.
WHAT A YES or No VOTE MEANS
A YES vote means that the California Constitution will specify that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California, eliminating the right of same-sex couples to marry.
A NO vote means that same-sex marriages will continue to be valid and recognized in California.
SUPPORTERS SAY
This measure will restore the sanctity of traditional marriage, which can only be between a man and a woman, as affirmed by the sixty-one percent of California voters who supported Proposition 22.
While affirming traditional marriage, Prop. 8 does not eliminate any of the rights, privileges or benefits given to same-sex registered domestic partners.
Same-sex marriage should only be legalized through a vote of the people, and not by the flawed reasoning of four activist judges in San Francisco.
OPPONENTS SAY
Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not diminish the sanctity of traditional marriage, but extends the rights and responsibilities of marriage to more people.
Domestic partnerships are not afforded the same dignity and respect as marriage, and partners don’t have the same rights as spouses in many situations, including medical emergencies and when life-and-death decisions are made.
The California Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law to everyone, and should not be amended to single out one group for different treatment.
Proposition 9: Criminal Justice System. Victims’ Rights. Parole.
WHAT A YES or No VOTE MEANS
A YES vote means that the legal rights of crime victims, including the right to restitution, will be expanded, early release of inmates will be restricted, and changes will be made in the procedures for granting and revoking parole.
A NO vote means that the rights of crime victims will remain as they are now in the state Constitution and in state law, and parole.
SUPPORTERS SAY
Prop. 9 guarantees crime victims’ rights to justice and due process, putting those rights in the state Constitution.
It protects crime victims by requiring that the safety of victims and their families be considered in bail decisions and by mandating that victims be notified when offenders are released.
Prop. 9 ensures that criminals will serve their full sentences and pay restitution to their victims, and it eliminates unnecessary parole hearings for dangerous criminals who have virtually no chance of release.
OPPONENTS SAY
The state Constitution is not the appropriate place for a detailed listing of victims’ rights; they belong in state statutes.
Prop. 9 is misleading and duplicative. Many of its provisions are already the law, such as the victim’s right to be heard throughout the legal process.
California is already strict on parole—for the past 20 years, the annual parole rate for inmates convicted of second degree murder or manslaughter has been less than 1 percent of those eligible.
Proposition 10: Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Renewable Energy. Bonds.
WHAT A YES or No VOTE MEANS
A YES vote means the state could issue $5 billion in bonds to provide incentives to purchase high fuel economy and alternative fuel vehicles and to fund research on clean fuel alternatives.
A NO vote means the state could not issue $5 billion in bonds to provide incentives for purchase of high fuel economy and alternative fuel vehicle and to fund research on clean fuel alternatives.
SUPPORTERS SAY
Prop. 10 will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, develop new clean energy industries in California, and create thousands of well-paying jobs.
This measure will give consumers alternatives to high priced gasoline by giving them the choice to buy vehicles that run on cleaner fuels or on electricity from renewable sources.
It will create cleaner air and a healthier future by replacing more than 28,000 diesel trucks with alternative fuel trucks and reducing greenhouse gases.
OPPONENTS SAY
Prop. 10 will cost taxpayers nearly $10 billion that could be used for needed programs and services, while duplicating existing clean fuel and alternative energy programs.
The measure will primarily subsidize trucks and large vehicles using natural gas, benefiting natural gas producers and driving up prices.
It does not require air quality improvements or reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, and only a small portion of the funds could be used to replace diesel vehicles, the only health benefit proponents claim.
Proposition 11: Redistricting.
WHAT A YES or No VOTE MEANS
A YES vote means that redistricting responsibility for state legislative and Board of Equalization seats would be transferred from the Legislature to a Citizens Redistricting Commission.
A NO vote means that the redistricting process will not be changed, and responsibility for redistricting will remain with the Legislature.
SUPPORTERS SAY
Prop. 11 will eliminate the current conflict of interest legislators have in drawing their own districts. Instead of politicians selecting their voters, voters will be empowered to select their elected officials and hold them accountable.
Redistricting reform will help reduce or eliminate the partisan gridlock that is keeping the Legislature from effectively dealing with the state budget, health care, the environment and other crucial issues.
The citizens’ redistricting commission ensures an open, balanced, inclusive process that will result in fair districts that protect our neighborhoods and communities.
OPPONENTS SAY
Prop. 11 will leave power in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats, not the voters. Bureaucrats will select the redistricting commission and seats will be set aside for partisan members of the two biggest political parties.
This measure creates a powerful, unelected redistricting commission but does not ensure that its 14 members will reflect the gender, racial, or geographic diversity of the state’s 36 million people.
Prop. 11 gives redistricting power to a commission that is not answerable to the voters, with no audits or financial accountability to protect the taxpayers.
Proposition 12: Veterans’ Bond Act of 2008.
WHAT A YES or No VOTE MEANS
A YES vote means that state could sell $900 million in general obligation bonds to replenish funding for Cal-Vet home and farm mortgages for veterans.
A NO vote means that state could not sell these bonds.
SUPPORTERS SAY
The Cal-Vet loan program has helped hundreds of thousands of veterans invest in homes and farms in California at no expense to taxpayers.
This program is good for the economy, generating millions of dollars in housing-related jobs.
OPPONENTS SAY
With home prices declining, state taxpayers could be liable if home buyers cannot make payments or sell their homes.
This program has indirect costs to taxpayers, since the tax-deductible interest paid to bondholders reduces state tax revenue.
No comments:
Post a Comment