Monday, November 01, 2004

California Voting Initiatives

I'm just giving you the gist, the source links give the pro/con + analysis

Proposition 59 Breakdown:


The State Constitution generally does not address the public's access to government information. California, however, has a number of state statutes that provide for the public's access to government information, including documents and meetings.

Access to Government Documents. There are two basic laws that provide for the public's access to government documents:

- The California Public Records Act...
- The Legislative Open Records Act...

Access to Government Meetings. There are several laws that provide for the public's access to government meetings:
- The Ralph M. Brown Act...
- The Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act ...
- The Grunsky-Burton Open Meeting Act ...

Some Information Exempt From Disclosure. While these laws provide for public access to a significant amount of information, they also allow some information to be kept private. Many of the exclusions are provided in the interest of protecting the privacy of members of the public. For instance, medical testing records are exempt from disclosure. Other exemptions are provided for legal and confidential matters. For instance, governments are allowed to hold closed meetings when considering personnel matters or conferring with legal counsel.


This measure adds to the State Constitution the requirement that meetings of public bodies and writings of public officials and agencies be open to public scrutiny. The measure also requires that statutes or other types of governmental decisions, including those already in effect, be broadly interpreted to further the people's right to access government information. The measure, however, still exempts some information from disclosure, such as law enforcement records. Under the measure, future governmental actions that limit the right of access would have to demonstrate the need for that restriction.

The measure does not directly require any specific information to be made available to the public. It does, however, create a constitutional right for the public to access government information. As a result, a government entity would have to demonstrate to a somewhat greater extent than under current law why information requested by the public should be kept private. Over time, this change could result in additional government documents being available to the public.

By potentially increasing the amount of government information required to be made public, the measure could result in some minor annual costs to state and local governments.

read the full prop

Proposition 60

This proposition centers around State Primaries...here's an excerpt:

This measure would state that a political party that participated in a primary election for a partisan office has the right to participate in the general election for that office and shall not be denied the ability to place on the general election ballot the candidate who received, at the primary election, the highest vote among that party's candidates. (2) The Economic Recovery Bond Act authorizes the issuance of bonds to finance the accumulated state budget deficit, as defined.

From what I could gather, the PRO argument is that this prop contributes to open debate via primaries, protects voter choice, and is in direct opposition to PROP 62. Prop 60 is supported by:

Institute for the Study of Politics & Media
California State University, Sacramento

GEORGE N. ZENOVICH, Associate Justice, Retired
5th District Court of Appeal

While the CON says the prop doesn't go far enought to ensure these measures and still leaves loop-holes for special interests to take advantage of.

full PROP text

PROP 63...

Provides funds to counties to expand services and develop innovative programs and integrated service plans for mentally ill children, adults and seniors. Requires state to develop mental health service programs including prevention, early intervention, education and training programs. Creates new commission to approve certain county programs and expenditures. Imposes additional 1% tax on taxable income over $1 million to provide dedicated funding for expansion of mental health services and programs.

Provides funds to counties to expand services and develop innovative programs and integrated service plans for mentally ill children, adults and seniors. Requires state to develop mental health service programs including prevention, early intervention, education and training programs. Creates new commission to approve certain county programs and expenditures. Imposes additional 1% tax on taxable income over $1 million to provide dedicated funding for expansion of mental health services and programs. Current funding for mental health programs may not be reduced because of funding from new tax. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Additional revenues of approximately $250 million in 2004-05, $680 million in 2005-06, $700 million in 2006-07, and increasing amounts annually thereafter, with comparable increases in expenditures by the state and counties for the expansion of mental health programs. Unknown savings to the state and local agencies potentially amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars annually on a statewide basis from reduced costs for state prison and county jail operations, medical care, homeless shelters, and social services programs that would partly offset the additional cost of this measure.

full article

Proposition 64

Limitations on Enforcement of Unfair Business Competition Laws. Initiative Statute.

PRO argues that this will prevent small businesses from getting dragged into frivolous lawsuits.

CON argues that this would limit the rights of Californian's to enforce environmental, public health, privacy, and consumer protection laws. Seems to be drafted by big business. These groups are against it: AARP

California Nurses Association
California League of Conservation Voters
Consumers Union
Sierra Club California
Congress of California Seniors
Center for Environmental Health
California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform
Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights

California's unfair competition law prohibits any person from engaging in any unlawful or fraudulent business act. Examples of this type of lawsuit include cases involving deceptive or misleading advertising or violations of state law intended to protect the public well-being, such as health and safety requirements.

Currently, a person initiating a lawsuit under the unfair competition law is not required to show that he/she suffered injury or lost money or property...

Currently, persons initiating unfair competition lawsuits do not have to meet the requirements for class action lawsuits. Requirements for a class action lawsuit include (1) certification by the court of a group of individuals as a class of persons with a common interest, (2) demonstration that there is a benefit to the parties of the lawsuit and the court from having a single case, and (3) notification of all potential members of the class.

In cases brought by the Attorney General or local public prosecutors, violators of the unfair competition law may be required to pay civil penalties up to $2,500 per violation. Currently, state and local governments may use the revenue from such civil penalties for general purposes.

This measure makes the following changes to the current unfair competition law:

Restricts Who Can Bring Unfair Competition Lawsuits...

Requires Lawsuits Brought on Behalf of Others to Be Class Actions...

Restricts the Use of Civil Penalty Revenues...

This measure would have an unknown fiscal impact on state support for local trial courts.

full article

Proposition 72

Referendum Petition to Overturn Amendments to Health Care Coverage Requirements.

..this petition will prevent implementation of Chapter 673, Statutes of 2003, previously approved by the Legislature and Governor, unless and until it is approved by a majority of voters. Measure creates mandatory employee health care benefits program for employers with 20 or more employees. Employees working 100 hours per month are covered. Fee for coverage paid at least 80% by employer and up to 20% by employee contribution. Exempts employers for providing alternative coverage.


...skyrocketing cost.. [Californians].. pay for health care.

Many companies are forcing employees to pay more for health care through higher premiums or cuts in coverage... Many employees are going without the medical care and prescription drugs their families need, creating a health care crisis in California.

72 makes sure that private health insurance remains within reach.

72 WILL LIMIT WHAT EMPLOYEES PAY FOR HEALTH CARE...ENSURES COVERAGE YOU NEEd...PROTECTS TAXPAYERS...less $$ to emergency room visits because more people would be covered...72 protects responsible companies from unfair competition by requiring all large and mid-sized companies to pay for health care for employees.
Consumers Union, nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports, says, "After studying Proposition 72, we conclude it is a necessary step forward that protects health coverage for working Californians."
supported by:

RICHARD HOLOBER, Executive Director
Consumer Federation of California

California Nurses Association

RICHARD F. CORLIN, M.D., Past President
California Medical Association & American Medical Association

CON Argument:

Real health care reform should control costs and cover more people, but Proposition 72 fails that test...creates a huge government-run health care system funded by an estimated $7 billion in new taxes by 2007 on employers and workers... may hurt people who already have health coverage through their employer...BUREAUCRATS GIVEN TOO MUCH POWER... The Orange County Register called it health care with, "the bedside manner of the DMV."...PAY WHETHER YOU WANT IT OR NOT...


Proposition 72 will damage California's economy and mean MORE PEOPLE WITHOUT INSURANCE because thousands will lose their jobs as companies close or move out of state. California businesses already struggling with high workers' comp and energy costs just can't afford billions in new health care costs...Nonprofit organizations like Easter Seals and the Goodwill of Long Beach and South Bay oppose Prop. 72 because it makes it harder to provide services to people in need.


California Chamber of Commerce

Association of California School Administrators

JAMES G. KNIGHT, M.D., 2003 President
San Diego Medical Society


...based upon a 2001 survey, an estimated 6.3 million nonelderly Californians lacked health coverage at some point during the year. These individuals are likely to receive medical assistance from county indigent health care programs or through the charitable activities of health care providers or pay for it themselves. Surveys indicate that of the nonelderly uninsured individuals, more than four out of five are either employed or are family members of someone who is working.

Some of the medical costs incurred by uninsured persons are indirectly shifted by health care providers to others who have health coverage, in effect adding to the cost of their health insurance. There are also indications that the number of employees who are uninsured may be adding to the costs of workers' compensation insurance, which includes medical coverage for on-the-job injuries.

In 2003, the Legislature approved and the Governor signed Senate Bill 2 (Chapter 673) to expand health insurance coverage beginning in 2006 for employees of certain employers and, in some cases, their dependents. The law also established a program to assist lower-income employees with paying their share of health care premiums.

The new law would have gone into effect January 1, 2004. However, Proposition 72, a referendum on this new law, subsequently qualified for the statewide ballot. As a result, SB 2 was put "on hold" and will take effect only if Proposition 72 is approved by the voters at the November 2004 election.


If approved, this proposition would allow the provisions of SB 2 to go into effect. Health care researchers have estimated that the provisions of SB 2 could eventually result in more than 1 million uninsured employees and dependents receiving health coverage. The major provisions of SB 2 are described below.

"Pay or Play" Requirement for Employers

Senate Bill 2 enacts a "pay or play" system of health coverage for certain employers. Under the system, specified California employers would be required to pay a fee to the state to provide health insurance (in other words, "pay") for their employees and in some cases, for their dependents. Alternatively, the employer could choose to arrange directly with health insurance providers for coverage (in other words, "play") for these individuals.

Both "pay" and "play" employers are required to pay a fee to the state to support a state health insurance purchasing program. Employers choosing to arrange their own health coverage (in some cases by continuing or modifying the coverage now provided to their employees) would receive a credit that would fully offset their fee. In order for an employer to qualify for a fee offset, the employer would have to provide specified types of coverage. Employers would be responsible for at least 80 percent of the cost of the fee, with the balance borne by their employees. The fee would be collected from emp

Full article

Proposition 61

Children's Hospital Projects. Grant Program. Bond Act. Initiative Statute

Authorizes $750,000,000 in general obligation bonds, to be repaid from state's General Fund, to fund grants to eligible children's hospitals for the construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation, furnishing and equipping of children's hospitals. Twenty percent of bonds shall be available for grants to certain University of California general acute care hospitals, and eighty percent of the bonds shall be available for grants to other general acute care hospitals whose missions focus on children with illnesses such as leukemia, heart defects, sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis, and which meet other stated requirements. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Assuming 30-year bonds at an interest rate of 5.5 percent, the state cost would be about $1.5 billion over 30 years to pay off both the principal ($750 million) and interest ($800 million) on the bonds. Payments of about $50 million per year. This measure would also result in minor administrative costs to the California Health Facilities Financing Authority.

full article

Proposition 62

Elections. Primaries. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

Proposition 62

Elections. Primaries.
Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.


California generally holds two statewide elections to elect a candidate to public office-a primary election (in March) and a general election (in November). Some public offices (such as the Governor and members of the Legislature) are partisan, which means that a candidate represents a political party in an election. For partisan offices, the primary election determines each political party's nominee for the office. The candidate receiving the most votes among a party's candidates is that party's nominee for the general election. In the general election, voters then choose among all of the parties' nominees, as well as any independent candidates, to elect a candidate to office. Other offices (such as the Superintendent of Public Instruction and local officials) are nonpartisan, which means that a candidate does not represent a political party. For these nonpartisan offices, the primary election generally reduces the field of candidates by advancing the top two vote-getters to the general election.

For every primary election, each county prepares a ballot and related materials for each political party. Those voters affiliated with political parties receive their party's ballot. Voters with no party affiliation generally receive ballots related only to nonpartisan offices and propositions. This system is known as a "closed" primary since voters of one party cannot vote for candidates of any other party. (In California, parties may allow voters with no party affiliation to receive their party's ballot. Three parties chose to allow this for the March 2004 election.) Figure 1 compares this type of primary system with several other systems, including the one proposed by this measure.

In March 1996, California voters approved Proposition 198, which created a "blanket" primary system. Proposition 198 allowed all voters, regardless of party affiliation, to vote for any candidate in a primary election. As with the existing system, the candidate from each party receiving the most votes in the primary appeared on the general election ballot. This system was used for primaries in 1998 and 2000. The United States Supreme Court, however, ruled in June 2000 that this system was unconstitutional and could no longer be used. As a result, the state returned to using party-specific ballots for primaries in 2002.


Changes to Primary System. This measure amends both the State Constitution and state statutes to make changes to primary elections. For most state and federal elected offices, this measure allows voters-including those not affiliated with a political party-to vote for any candidate regardless of the candidate's political party. The measure applies to the election of state constitutional officers, members of the Legislature, and members of Congress. The measure, however, does not apply to the election of the U.S. President or political party committees. If approved, the new system would be used beginning with the March 2006 primary.

Under the measure, each county would prepare for use by all voters a single, primary ballot covering most offices. (There would, however, be a separate party-specific ballot for U.S. President and political party committees.) Candidates affiliated with parties and independent candidates would appear on the primary ballot. In each primary, only the top two vote-receiving candidates-regardless of party identification-would be placed on the general election ballot. These two candidates would be the candidates on the general election ballot. (A write-in candidate could increase the number of general election candidates.)

Comparison to Proposition 198. As under Proposition 198, the measure would not require a voter to select candidates from the same party for all office.

full article

Proposition 65

Local Government Funds and Revenues. State Mandates. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

Proposition 65

Local Government Funds, Revenues. State Mandates.
Initiative Constitutional Amendment.


Local Government Funding

California has over 5,000 local governments-cities, counties, special districts, and redevelopment agencies-that provide services such as fire and police protection, water, libraries, and parks and recreation programs. Local governments pay for these programs and services with money from local taxes, fees, and user charges; state and federal aid; and other sources. Three taxes play a major role in local finance because they raise significant sums of general-purpose revenues that local governments may use to pay for a variety of programs and services. These three taxes-the property tax, the local sales tax, and the vehicle license fee (VLF)-are described in Figure 1.

State Authority Over Local Finance

The State Constitution and existing statutes give the Legislature authority over the three major taxes described in Figure 1. For example, the Legislature has some authority to change tax rates; items subject to taxation; and the distribution of tax revenues among local governments, schools, and community college districts. The state has used this authority for many purposes, including increasing funding for local services, reducing state costs, reducing taxation, and addressing concerns regarding funding for particular local governments. Figure 2 describes some past actions the Legislature has taken, as well as actions that the state was considering during the summer of 2004 (at the time this analysis was prepared).

Requirement to Reimburse for State Mandates

The State Constitution generally requires the state to reimburse local governments, schools, and community college districts when the state "mandates" a new local program or higher level of service. For example, the state requires local agencies to post agendas for their hearings. As a mandate, the state must pay local governments, schools, and community college districts for their costs to post these agendas. Because of the state's budget difficulties, the state has not provided mandate reimbursements in recent years. Currently, the state owes these local agencies about $2 billion for prior-years' costs of state-mandated programs.

full article

Proposition 66

Limitations on "Three Strikes" Law. Sex Crimes. Punishment. Initiative Statute.

Proposition 66

Limitations on "Three Strikes" Law. Sex Crimes. Punishment.
Initiative Statute.


There are three kinds of crimes: felonies, misdemeanors, and infractions. A felony is the most serious type of crime. About 18 percent of persons convicted of a felony are sent to state prison. The rest are supervised on probation in the community, sentenced to county jail, or both.

Existing law classifies some felonies as "violent" or "serious," or both. Of the inmates sentenced to prison in 2003, approximately 30 percent were convicted for crimes defined as serious or violent. Examples of felonies currently defined as violent include murder, robbery, and rape and other sex offenses. Felonies defined as serious include the same offenses defined as violent felonies, but also include other offenses such as burglary of a residence and assault with intent to commit robbery. There are other felonies that are not classified as violent or serious, such as grand theft and possession of a controlled substance.

As of April 2004, there were about 163,000 inmates in California prisons, as well as some state-contracted facilities. The costs to operate the state prison system in 2004-05 are estimated to be approximately $5.7 billion.

Three Strikes. Proposition 184 (commonly referred to as the "Three Strikes and You're Out" law) was adopted by the voters in 1994. It imposed longer prison sentences for certain repeat offenders. Specifically, it requires that a person who is convicted of a felony and who has been previously convicted of one or more violent or serious felonies, be sentenced to state prison as follows:

Second Strike Offense. If the person has one previous serious or violent felony conviction, the sentence for any new felony conviction (not just a serious or violent felony) is twice the term otherwise required under law for the new conviction. Offenders sentenced by the courts under this provision are often referred to as "second strikers." As of March 2004, about 35,000 inmates were second strikers.

Third Strike Offense. If the person has two or more previous serious or violent felony convictions, the sentence for any new felony conviction (not just a serious or violent felony) is life imprisonment with the minimum term being 25 years. Offenders convicted under this provision are frequently referred to as "third strikers." As of March 2004, about 7,000 inmates were third strikers.

Sex Offenses. California law sets penalties for a variety of sex offenses, including sex offenses committed against children. Current law requires a prison sentence of 3, 6, or 8 years (depending on the circumstances of the crime) for anyone convicted of sexual penetration or oral copulation with a minor who is under the age of 14 and more than 10 years younger than the offender.


This measure amends the Three Strikes law and also amends the law relating to sex crimes against children. These changes are described below.

Three Strikes Law

New Crime Must Be Violent or Serious. This measure requires that an offender would be subject to a longer sentence under the Three Strikes law only if the conviction for the new crime is for a violent or serious felony, instead of any felony as provided under current law.

Narrows Felonies Considered Violent or Serious. This measure reduces the number of felony offenses considered serious or violent. Figure 1 lists for illustration purposes selected felonies that would no longer be considered serious or violent. These changes are not limited to convictions under the Three Strikes law and, therefore, would also affect some other aspects of sentencing, such as the amount of credits inmates can earn towards a reduced sentence.

full article

Proposition 67

Emergency and Medical Services. Funding. Telephone Surcharge. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

Proposition 67

Emergency Medical Services.
Funding. Telephone Surcharge.
Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.


Emergency Telephone Number Surcharge

Currently, telephone service customers in California pay a monthly surcharge that supports the state's 911 emergency telephone number system. Under current law, the surcharge rate can be set up to 0.75 percent of a customer's monthly bill for telephone services for calls made within the state. The surcharge applies to each separate telephone bill a customer may receive. The state has currently set the surcharge rate at 0.72 percent.

Revenues from the surcharge are deposited into the State Emergency Telephone Number Account (911 Account), which is available for expenditure upon appropriation by the Legislature. The revenues are used to reimburse government agencies and telephone companies for equipment and related costs associated with California's 911 emergency telephone number system. Due to an increase in the number of cellular phone accounts, the 911 Account has maintained a reserve that has ranged from $15 million to $80 million in recent years. The revenue received from the surcharge in 2002-03 was $139 million. The Department of General Services and the Board of Equalization are responsible for administering the 911 Account.

Proposition 99

The Tobacco Tax and Health Protection Act (Proposition 99, enacted by the voters in 1988) assessed a $0.25 per pack tax on cigarette products that is allocated for specified purposes. In 2004-05, the state is projected to receive approximately $334 million in Proposition 99 revenues. Because the number of tobacco users is declining, this funding source has and will likely continue to decrease. Currently, the state utilizes Proposition 99 funding for a number of health-related purposes, including tobacco education and prevention efforts, tobacco-related disease research, environmental protection and recreational resource programs, and health care services for low-income uninsured persons.

Uncompensated Emergency Medical Care

Under state and federal law, any person seeking emergency medical care must be provided that care regardless of his or her ability to pay. As a result, hospitals and physicians who provide emergency and trauma care are often not fully compensated for the care they provide. The amount spent today by physicians and hospitals on uncompensated emergency medical care is not known. Physicians and hospitals reported that, in 2000-01, their cost for this care was approximately $540 million. However, this estimate may be low because physicians and hospitals may have underreported the cost of the care that they provided.

Some of the cost of this uncompensated care is partly paid from various state and county government sources. For example, the state currently budgets about $32 million in Proposition 99 funds to help pay for uncompensated medical care provided by physicians and community clinics.

Also, under existing law, each county is allowed to establish a Maddy Emergency Medical Services Fund (Maddy Fund) made up of specified revenues from criminal fines and penalties. Counties may use up to 10 percent of these revenues for the cost of administering the fund. After these costs have been deducted, 58 percent of the remaining funds are to be used to reimburse physicians for uncompensated emergency and trauma care, 25 percent to reimburse hospitals for such care, and 17 percent for other emergency medical services such as regional poison control centers.

Even with these funds, hospitals and physicians generally are not compensated for all of the emergency and trauma care that they provide.

Provides funding for emergency personnel training and equipment, reimbursement for uncompensated emergency physician care, uncompensated community clinic care, emergency telephone system improvements, and to hospitals for emergency services. Commission to administer physician funding. Funded by: Addition of 3% to surcharge rate on telephone use within California; portions of tobacco taxes; criminal and traffic penalties. Monthly cap of 50 cents on surcharge collected by residential service providers, but not cell phone or business lines. Excludes funding from government appropriations limitations, and telephone surcharge from Proposition 98's school spending requirements. Summary of estimate of Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Increased revenues of about $550 million annually from increased charges on telephone usage for emergency care services and other specified purposes. These revenues would probably grow in future years.

full article

Proposition 68

Tribal Gaming Compact Renegotiation. Non-Tribal Commercial Gambling Expansion. Revenues, Tax Exemptions. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

Authorizes Governor to renegotiate tribal-state compacts to require that tribes: Pay 25% of slot machine/gaming device revenues to government fund; comply with multiple state laws; accept state court jurisdiction. Unless all compacted tribes accept terms within 90 days, or if terms determined unlawful, authorizes 16 specified non-tribal racetracks and gambling establishments to operate 30,000 slot machines/gaming devices, paying 33% of revenues to fund public safety, regulatory, social programs. Provides exemption from future state/local tax increases. Limits new tribal gaming. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: This measure would have the following major fiscal effect: Increased local government revenues of likely over $1 billion annually from new gambling revenues. The revenues would be used primarily for additional firefighting, police, and child protective services.

Proposition 69

DNA Samples. Collection. Database. Funding. Initiative Statute.

Requires collection of DNA samples from all felons, and from adults and juveniles arrested for or charged with specific crimes, and submission to state DNA database; and, in five years, from adults arrested for or charged with any felony. Authorizes local law enforcement laboratories to perform analyses for state database and maintain local database. Specifies procedures for confidentiality and removing samples from databases. Imposes additional monetary penalty upon certain fines/forfeitures to fund program. Designates California Department of Justice to implement program, subject to available moneys: Authorizes $7,000,000 loan from Legislature for implementation. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: This measure would result in the following direct fiscal effects: Unknown annual state costs potentially over $10 million initially, increasing to a couple tens of millions of dollars when fully implemented to collect, analyze, and store increased DNA samples. These costs would be partially offset by increased criminal penalty revenues. Unknown annual local costs potentially several million dollars initially, increasing to over $10 million when fully implemented to collect DNA samples. These costs could be offset by increased criminal penalty revenues.

full article

Proposition 70

Tribal Gaming Compacts. Exclusive Gaming Rights. Contributions to State. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

Requires Governor to offer renewable 99-year gaming compacts to federally recognized Indian tribes providing: exclusive gaming rights on Indian land; no limits on number of machines, facilities, types of games; contribution to state fund of portion of net tribal gaming income, based on prevailing state corporate tax rate; off-reservation environmental impact reports, public notice/comment opportunities before significant expansion or construction of gaming facilities. Contributions are in lieu of any other fees, taxes or levies. Contributions terminate if state permits non-tribal casino-type gaming. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: This measure would have the following major fiscal effect: Increased state gaming revenues - potentially several hundreds of millions of dollars annually. These revenues could increase significantly over time.

full article

Proposition 71

Stem Cell Research. Funding. Bonds. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

Establishes "California Institute for Regenerative Medicine" to regulate stem cell research and provide funding, through grants and loans, for such research and research facilities. Establishes constitutional right to conduct stem cell research; prohibits Institute's funding of human reproductive cloning research. Establishes oversight committee to govern Institute. Provides General Fund loan up to $3 million for Institute's initial administration/implementation costs. Authorizes issuance of general obligation bonds to finance Institute activities up to $3 billion subject to annual limit of $350 million. Appropriates monies from General Fund to pay for bonds. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: State cost of about $6 billion over 30 years to pay off both the principal ($3 billion) and interest ($3 billion) on the bonds. Payments of about $200 million per year.

full article

Proposition 1A

Torlakson. Protection of Local Government Revenues.

the entire analysis is here

Proposition 60A

Surplus Property. Legislative Constitutional Amendment

This amendment proposed by Senate Constitutional Amendment 18 of the 2003?2004 Regular Session (Resolution Chapter 103, Statutes of 2004) expressly amends the California Constitution by adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.

That Section 9 is added to Article III thereof, to read: SEC. 9. The proceeds from the sale of surplus state property occurring on or after the effective date of this section, and any proceeds from the previous sale of surplus state property that have not been expended or encumbered as of that date, shall be used to pay the principal and interest on bonds issued pursuant to the Economic Recovery Bond Act authorized at the March 2, 2004, statewide primary election. Once the principal and interest on those bonds are fully paid, the proceeds from the sale of surplus state property shall be deposited into the Special Fund for Economic Uncertainties, or any successor fund. For purposes of this section, surplus state property does not include property purchased with revenues described in Article XIX or any other special fund moneys.

full article

List and Background Info on all CA Initiatives

Link to find out who's funding who?

Comments: Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?