Advertise Here
Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.
Our readers are influential opinion makers - politicians, journalists and activists.
Our latest headlines
- Weekly Radio Address: Assembly Lead Water Negotiators Huffman, Caballero Discuss this Week’s Historic Agreement to Solve California’s Water Crisis
- Feinstein Once Again Flirts With Entering the Governor’s Race
- A Good Health Care Bill Emerging from the House
- Schwarzenegger Applauds Passage of Peripheral Canal/Dams Water Package
- "Historic" Water Deal Draws Both Praise and Criticism
- Republican State Senators Vote for Administrative Chaos, Backdoor Cuts in IHSS
- Assembly Budget Committee Follow-up Informational Hearing on Implementation on IHSS Program Changes
About Us
David Greenwald, Editor. (Contact David.)
CFC Education Foundation, Publisher. (Contact us.)
Got a news tip? Want to write a guest column?
Contact David here.
About California Progress Report.
Founded by Frank D. Russo (Publisher and Editor, 2006-08).
Sponsors
Books
Propositions Numbered 1 to 11 on California November Ballot as Deadline Passes--But Legislature and Governor Could Place Additional Measures—and Might With Budget Related Items
By Frank D. Russo
California Secretary of State Debra Bowen just a few hours ago announced proposition numbers for the 11 measures that will appear on the November 4, 2008, General Election ballot.
In a statement released with the number of 11 ballot measures, she took pains to indicate that although yesterday was the deadline for placing measures on the ballot, this requirement can be waived if there is an agreement by the governor and legislature. The statutory deadline for placing legislative and initiative measures on the ballot was yesterday, June 26.
It is not uncommon for this to occur with last minute negotiations that bend and blow through deadlines which are extended with the ballot measure that is passed and signed by the governor. If there is an extended delay, given the timelines for submitting arguments pro and con and other preparation of the voters’ pamphlet, there could be the need for a supplemental ballot pamphlet.
There is speculation in the Capitol that there may be at least one ballot proposition involving the budget—dealing with the California state lottery, and some well placed sources are optimistic that a deal on the state budget will emerge sooner rather than later with that being the part of additional revenue, along with cuts, the closure of some tax loopholes, and increases in fees, taxes, or other revenues.
Elections Code section 13115 sets the order in which the measures must appear on the ballot. Legislative bond measures are first, followed by legislative constitutional amendments, other legislative measures, citizen initiative measures, and referenda. Measures are listed within their category in the order in which they qualified. The proposition numbers for the November ballot measures are listed below with the Attorney General’s official titles and summaries, except in the case of Proposition 1, which is a legislative measure.
If there is an additional item or items placed on the ballot by agreement, it could be assigned a number, such as Prop 1A, and the order that measures will appear on the ballot would be changed, but not the numbers for those announced by the Secretary of State’s office. The order of placement on the ballot is sometimes important as voters fatigue and there is both a drop off in voting on measures as they appear late on the ballot and sometimes an increasing negative vote as voters go down the ballot.
Here is what we have for November as of now:
Proposition 1 Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century. SB 1856 (Ch. 697, 2002) Costa. Existing law creates the High-Speed Rail Authority with the responsibility of directing the development and implementation of intercity high-speed rail service. This bill would enact the Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century, which, subject to voter approval, would provide for the issuance of $9.95 billion of general obligation bonds, $9 billion of which would be used in conjunction with available federal funds for the purpose of funding the planning and construction of a high-speed train system in this state pursuant to the business plan of the authority. Nine hundred fifty million dollars of the bond proceeds would be available for capital projects on other passenger rail lines to provide connectivity to the high-speed train system and for capacity enhancements and safety improvements to those lines. Bonds for the high-speed train system would not be issued earlier than January 1, 2006. The bill would provide for the submission of the bond act to the voters at the general election on November 2, 2004. (Note: Subsequent legislation moved this measure to the November 2008 ballot.)
Proposition 2 Treatment of Farm Animals. Statute. 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.)
Proposition 3 Children’s Hospital Bond Act. Grant Program. Statute. 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.)
Proposition 4 Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy. Constitutional Amendment. 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.)
Proposition 5 Nonviolent Offenders. Sentencing, Parole and Rehabilitation. Statute. 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.)
Proposition 6 Criminal Penalties and Laws. Public Safety Funding. Statute. 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.)
Proposition 7 Renewable Energy. Statute. 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.)
Proposition 8 Limit on Marriage. Constitutional Amendment. 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.)
Proposition 9 Criminal Justice System. Victims’ Rights. Parole. Constitutional Amendment and Statute. 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.)
Proposition 10 Bonds. Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Renewable Energy. Statute. 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.)
Proposition 11 Redistricting. Constitutional Amendment and Statute. 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.)
People may submit arguments for or against any of the ballot measures. Arguments selected for the ballot pamphlet will be on public display between July 22 and August 11. If multiple arguments are submitted for one proposition, state law gives first priority to arguments written by legislators in the case of a legislative measure, and first priority to arguments written by the proponents of an initiative in the case of an initiative measure. Subsequent priority for all measures goes to bona fide citizen associations and then to individuals. No more than three signers are allowed to appear with an argument or rebuttal to an argument.
Ballot arguments cannot exceed 500 words and rebuttals to ballot arguments cannot exceed 250 words. All submissions should be typed and double-spaced. They may be hand-delivered to the Secretary of State’s Elections Division at 1500 11th Street, 5th Floor, Sacramento, California 95814 or faxed to (916) 653-3214. If faxed, the original copies must be received within 72 hours. The deadline to submit ballot arguments is July 8 by 5:00 p.m. and the deadline to submit rebuttals to the ballot arguments is July 17 by 5:00 p.m.
For more information about the process and requirements for qualifying statewide initiatives, go to http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/initiative_guide.htm.
Comments
My take
1. NO: Won't get built even if approved, but will raise the baby tax by almost $20 billion. Before asking the next generation for money, they need to map it out and budget where each source of money will come from
2. YES: About time!
3. NO: Sadly, and with a heavy heart, I must vote no. Private childrens hospitals perform miracles daily, but they are private institutions and that's not appropriate use of state money (let alone bond money). Furthermore, one of the hospitals eligible for the money is Loma Linda University Children's Hospital, whose mission is "Innovating excellence in Christ-centered health care." They limit access to abortion, contraception and AIDS-related information and services. They shouldn't be doing that and expecting government aid.
4. Hell NO
5. YES
6. Probably NO
7. Probably NO
8. Hell NO
9. YES
10. NO: Those things should be funded out of the general fund, they don't belong on a 30-year tab. It's not appropriate to borrow money from our children to pay for things that will be obsolete long before they are around to enjoy them. What happens when we find something even more efficient before the 30 years are over? Are we going to have ANOTHER bond while we're still paying interest on this one? All in all, bad idea, and we should be paying for these as we go along
11. YES: Won't really change the make-up of the legislature, but will make the process more ethical
Posted by: Ben at June 27, 2008 11:05 PM
Ben totally does not understand what 11 will do. It is NOT a more ethical process. He needs to look at the backers of this REPUBLICAN MEASURE that is FULLY FUNDED by Arnold's pals. Go to Secretary of State's website under election reform and find the cal-access link to see where the money's flowing from. Republican's DO NOT fund anything that is not in their direct interest. This is a mis-named attempt to seize control of redistricting dressed up as a "reform."
Posted by: Linda Sutton at August 10, 2008 12:07 PM
No on everything. No more bonds, No more expanding programs, No more nanny government, No more anything until California learns how to control spending.
Posted by: Bill at August 20, 2008 02:03 PM
Prop 8 is a gross human rights violation and I am sad to even see it appear on the ballot. It's 2008 lets give it up already.
Posted by: Beth at August 29, 2008 12:00 AM
In the above comment on Prop 8 posted by Beth, a gross human rights violation. Show me two male homosexuals through homosexual SEX, creating a baby. Show me two lesbians through homosexual SEX without artificial insemination creating a baby. YOU CAN'T.
The marriage between a man and a woman is the ONLY way to morally reproduce the Human Species. Homosexuals within themselves can produce nothing except disease and unhappiness.
Posted by: outspoken2 at August 29, 2008 08:14 PM
Vote yes on 8... marriage is a religious institution between a man and a woman!
Posted by: matt at August 31, 2008 10:35 PM
Vote NO on 8.
In regards to OUTSPOKEN & MATT'S comments-
My assistant is a young gay man of 27 years who's been in a monogamous relationship with his partner for 6 years. He has told me all the struggles of his childhood growing up in the south and his family's disapproval. He is ecstatic that now he gets to finally marry the person he loves. And I say it's great to see a warm, happy couple who've made a strong commitment to each other.
Some people who marry in this free country of ours aren't religious at all and therefore don't believe in marriage as a religious entity. Does that make them Satanic? And marriage doesn't translate into babies... sometimes even a man & a woman can't produce children on their own. So, therefore, am I to believe that couple is going "against God" if they must adopt?
The entire reason this country exists is because of freedom of religion and no taxation without representation. Although I am a straight, God fearing man, again, there are some who don't believe in God at all- and I ask myself, who am I to judge them? I wouldn't be a Christian if I did. Someone quite famous once said "let those of you without sin cast the first stone"- and I say to those people... go ahead and throw!
Anyway, God bless those who have found love in their lives, regardless of their sexuality! There is enough pain & suffering in the world... and we certainly don't need any more simple-minded individuals like myself passing mean spirited judgement on you folk.
Best of luck to those of you who've tied the knot! I sincerely hope your love lasts regardless of the outcome of this ridiculous ballot. Just remember to never underestimate the power of ignorant people in large numbers. ;-)
Posted by: Bryan at September 10, 2008 05:51 PM
California voters already decided that marriage is only between a man and a women (Prop 22, 2002). Recently California Judges have made judgements directly against the people of California's will. Prop 8 will not povide these judges with an option, they will be forced to rule in the opinion of the people.
Preventing Prop 8 from passing leaves the door open to all possibilties. Marriage will be between 'Party A' and 'Party B'. How far will the definition of these 'Parties' go? Will someone be able to marry their dog? Their TV? Perhaps 'Parties A, B, & C' will be able to marry?
Not defining marriage in California's Constitution will end up costing the State of California (ie: me & you, the taxpayers) huge amounts of money in legal battles and in requireing all orgaizations performing marriages to not exclude anyone (even if it is against the will of that organization).
Posted by: Ben at September 13, 2008 03:38 PM
Hear, hear, Bryan! Vote NO on Prop. 8.
Posted by: Lee at October 9, 2008 11:57 PM
Ben - Then tell those TV and Dog to fight for their right to Marry. Besides who cares if a party marry one another? If that bothers your marriage with your loved one then honestly i am not the one with the problem here.
Byran you really inspire me and make me have faith in those that are religious despite me not being so.I wish everyone were to be as open minded as that.
No on 8 ^^
Posted by: Lionx at October 16, 2008 12:51 AM
prop 8- it is so sad to see this up for debate...again. religion is supposed to be separate from state/government...yet this proposition seems deeply rooted in religion. i fully recognize and respect the rights of others to say they do not agree with the way i live my life- as i may not agree with theirs. like it or not, it is their right- as it is mine- to live it the way they see fit.
religious groups take this topic to ridiculous extremes...marrying a dog? a tv? are these arguments for real? don't those arguing these pathetic points realize how idiotic/ignorant they sound? lol...apparently not b/c they can't seem to stop! if marriage is between "party a" and "party b", who does that affect? the parties involved are the only ones who matter...and it is important to have those parties include EVERYONE and ANYONE who chooses to walk down the aisle with the one they love.
is there a plan to rally against the marriage of heterosexual couples who use/plan to continue to use birth control? surely those blessed with the ability to procreate should be banned from the sanctity of marriage as they are defying the very "meaning" of marriage.
it appears the religious pick and choose what they want to follow in their respective bibles. this topic is risen against as they lie, cheat, steal, covet, indulging themselves in anything they please under the protective blanket of their belief. please...
prop 8 is not debating whether or not same sex couples under god are moral. prop 8 is deciding whether or not same sex couples should receive all of the benefits heterosexual married couples enjoy today....or rather continue to receive.
Posted by: selina at October 17, 2008 07:08 AM
I am a Christian woman and think it is completely un-holy for these other so called Christians to be making these rediuclous arguments. Haven't you read your bible...unless your GOD you have NO right to pass judgement...that is left to ONLY GOD. You may not agree with that life style, but how would you like your rights stripped because your a Christain? And let me just add that us Hetrosexual couples aren't really taking marrage all that seriously, just look at our divorce rate. There is NO reason homosexuals shouldn't have the same rights under the LAW as everyone else.
Posted by: Callie at October 20, 2008 01:05 PM
Sorry, comments are temporarily disabled. We're doing a bit of server maintenance on the commenting area. We'll be back up and running shortly. Thank you for your patience.
Get Email Updates
Want the California Progress Report by email? Once a week, we'll send you the latest and greatest headlines.
© 2008 California Progress Report Our copyright and fair use policy.
Powered by Mandate Media. Logo design by Jane Norling.
RSS 