Send this story Print this story

Adjust text size

Endorsements '08: State propositions
Twelve proposition analyses, no waiting...

There are 12 statewide propositions on the November ballot. As we said in a 2006 analysis of state propositions, we believe the state initiative process has been largely captured by special interests and is often being used in a way not intended by those reformers who conceived it at the beginning of the 20th century. Additionally, given our ongoing state budget disaster, we are sympathetic with anyone who votes no on all measures that add to the state's costs by incurring more bonded indebtedness. We provide our analysis and recommendations on individual propositions on a case by case basis and have relied on the state legislative analyst for some of the descriptive information on each proposition.

Proposition 1A

Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century (statute)

This bond measure was placed on the ballot by the state Legislature and is the product of work done by the California High Speed Rail Authority, which was created by legislation in 1996. It authorizes the state to sell general obligation bonds to fund: (1) $9 billion in pre-construction activities and construction of a high-speed (over 200 mph) passenger rail system; (2) $950 million in capital improvements to passenger rail systems that expand capacity and/or enable train riders to connect to the high-speed rail system. The funds would be available when appropriated by the Legislature, and the state would pay the principal and interest costs on these bonds. The first segment of the system would connect San Francisco with Los Angeles. The authority estimated in 2006 that the total cost to develop and construct the entire high-speed rail system would be about $45 billion. The authority plans to fund the construction of the proposed system with a combination of federal, private, local and state moneys. Bond proceeds are supposed to cover no more than half the total cost with the Rail Authority required to find funding for the remainder from other public and private sources. As our population grows, gasoline becomes more expensive and we look for cleaner transportation solutions, transit alternatives become more important. Further delays will only drive up the cost.

We recommend a Yes vote on Proposition 1.

Proposition 2

Treatment of Farm Animals (statute)

According to the legislative analyst, this proposition, beginning Jan. 1, 2015, would prohibit, with certain exceptions, the confinement on a farm of pregnant pigs, calves raised for veal and egg-laying hens in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up and fully extend their limbs. Any violators would be guilty of a misdemeanor. Many farmers have been moving in the direction of more humane treatment of animals. State law already prohibits animal cruelty. Similar propositions have been passed by voters in Arizona and Florida. Legislatures in Colorado and Oregon have also passed similar laws as has the European Union. In California this measure will primarily affect laying hens in cages. Opponents argue that it will increase the prices of eggs and drive large factory farms out of the state. Proponents argue that Proposition 2 prevents cruelty to animals, improves food safety, supports family farmers, protects air and water and safeguards the environment. The Humane Society of the U.S. is promoting this proposition and is joined by the California Veterinary Medical Association, Center for Food Safety, Union of Concerned Scientists, Sierra Club and Consumer Federation. Large egg producers oppose it.

We recommend a Yes vote on Proposition 2.

Proposition 3

Children's Hospital Bond Act (statute)

This measure authorizes $980 million in general obligation bonds to fund a grant program for capital improvement projects at children's hospitals. The measure specifically identifies the five University of California children's hospitals as eligible for 20 percent of bond funds. The remaining 80 percent would go to other nonprofit hospitals based on eligibility criteria specified in the measure, including performance in the 2001-02 fiscal year. These criteria include providing at least 160 licensed beds for infants and children. Voters passed Proposition 61 in November 2004, which authorized the sale of $750 million in general obligation bonds to provide funding for children's hospitals. Proposition 3's eligibility criteria are the same as Proposition 61. According to the legislative analyst, as of June 1, 2008, about $403 million of the funds from Proposition 61 had been awarded to eligible hospitals. Cost for principal and interest on the bonds would be about $64 million per year. The list of supporters is broad, beginning with hospitals and doctors. Who could oppose funding for children's hospitals? The National Tax Limitation Committee argues that this is a special interest misuse of the initiative process. Such funding should come through the legislative process and besides, they haven't even allocated all the funds from the prior children's hospital bond. We think children's hospitals do wonderful work, but are not convinced that we should add to the state's budget deficit for this limited purpose at this time.

We recommend a No vote on Proposition 3.

Proposition 4

Waiting Period and Parental Notification before Termination of Minor's Pregnancy (constitutional amendment)

This measure amends the state constitution to require, with certain exceptions, a physician to notify the parent or legal guardian of a pregnant unemancipated minor at least 48 hours before performing an abortion involving that minor. This amendment is similar to others defeated by voters in 2005 and 2006, and it's proposed by the same backers as the prior two. We have the same view now as we did then. It creates additional barriers and delays for pregnant minors seeking medical assistance and creates potential penalties for doctors who attempt to serve them using their best medical judgment. Californians strongly support freedom of choice. This initiative is an effort to get part of what anti-choice crusaders want, since they know they can't win the battle head on. We believe family communication cannot effectively be legislated. Parental notification laws force some teenagers to choose between talking with parents or having illegal and unsafe abortions. Some choose an illegal abortion, resulting in greater numbers of serious injuries and deaths. The real answer to teen pregnancy is prevention—and strong, caring families—not new laws that endanger our daughters. Planned Parenthood and healthcare providers including the California Medical Association, the California Nurses Association and the California Academy of Family Physicians oppose Proposition 4. So do we.

We recommend a No vote on Proposition 4.

Proposition 5

Nonviolent Drug Offenses. Sentencing, Parole and Rehabilitation (statute)

The legislative analyst says Proposition 5 would (1) expand drug treatment diversion programs; (2) modify parole supervision procedures and expand prison and parole rehabilitation programs; (3) allow inmates to earn additional time off their prison sentences for participation in rehabilitation programs; (4) reduce some penalties for marijuana possession from misdemeanors to infractions; and (5) make changes to state law mainly affecting rehabilitation and parole programs. The legislative analyst sees an increase in state costs, potentially exceeding $1 billion annually, mainly for expansion of drug treatment and other services for eligible offenders but also sees offsetting savings, potentially exceeding $1 billion annually, due mainly to reductions in prison population and parole supervision caseloads. Also, there might be one-time savings of $2.5 billion for foregone capital outlay costs for new prison facilities. This measure could reduce the state prison population by more than 18,000 and reduce the number of parolees under supervision by more than 22,000. Supporters include the League of Women Voters, California Democratic Party, California Association of Alcohol and Drug Program Executives, California Academy of Family Physicians and the Consumer Federation of California. The major donor in support is George Soros. Opponents include the California Narcotics Officers Association and National Association of Drug Court Professionals. We support well-crafted efforts to improve drug treatment options, decriminalize drug use and reduce our prison population.

We recommend a Yes vote on Proposition 5.

Proposition 6

Criminal Penalties and Laws. Public Safety Funding (statute)

This initiative, proposed by Southern California Republican Senator George Runner, is a tough-on-crime approach that increases a long list of criminal penalties, establishes new crimes and requires new state spending on various programs to combat crime and operate our prison and parole systems. Cost is estimated to exceed half-a-billion dollars annually not counting capital outlay for new prison facilities. Its approach is a sharp contrast to Proposition 5. Proposition 6 is supported by a broad range of law enforcement groups and opposed by the League of Women Voters, California Democratic Party and the California Teachers Association, among others. While some of its many elements may be useful, it seems to us that locking such a broad range of criminal penalties into state law with resulting massive costs is not an appropriate use of the initiative process.

We recommend a No vote on Proposition 6.

Proposition 7

Renewable Energy Generation (statute)

This initiative requires all utilities, including government-owned utilities, to generate 20 percent of their power from renewable energy by 2010. It requires all utilities to achieve 40 percent renewable energy by 2020 and 50 percent by 2025 and imposes penalties for noncompliance. It fast-tracks approval for new renewable energy plants and requires utilities to sign longer contracts (20 year minimum) to procure renewable energy. It creates an account to purchase property or rights of way for renewable energy. Revenues and costs to state and local governments are largely unknown. It dramatically steps up the state's conversion from fossil fuels to renewable resources. We like the goal of Proposition 7 and are tempted to support it because we believe that climate change is serious, oil is peaking and our prosperity will continue to suffer until we wean ourselves from fossil fuels. However, this measure is opposed by the League of Women Voters, the California Labor Federation and major environmental groups including the League of Conservation Voters, the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies, Environmental Defense Fund and the Natural Resources Defense Council as well as the Union of Concerned Scientists. You might think it would be supported by renewable energy producers. It's not. Among the opponents are Marin Conservation League, California Solar Energy Industries Association, California Wind Energy Association, Large-Scale Solar Association and Independent Energy Producers Association. They all argue that Proposition 7, because of its flawed drafting, will set back the cause of renewables rather than advance it. We could use a low-carbon energy self-sufficiency Manhattan-type project. However, launching such a crash program in a complicated ballot initiative that runs some 40 pages and is funded by one wealthy individual, Peter Sperling (some $5.5 millions in contributions and counting)—and would require a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to change it—is not the way to go.

We sadly recommend a No Vote on Proposition 7.

Proposition 8

Limit on Marriage (constitutional amendment)

This measure amends the California Constitution to specify that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. It would reverse the California Supreme Court ruling earlier this year and limit marriage to include only individuals of the opposite sex. We see this is as an equal rights issue. We believe that all California citizens, regardless of sexual preference, should be treated equally, and entitled to the same rights and status. Further, we continue to be amazed at how some heterosexuals feel so threatened by their gay or lesbian fellow citizens who wish to make a lasting commitment to each other in the form of marriage. We believe that society as a whole benefits when more individuals, of whatever sexual preference, commit to love and support each other.

We recommend a No vote on Proposition 8.

Proposition 9

Criminal Justice System. Victims' Rights. Parole (constitutional amendment and statute)

This measure amends the state constitution and various state laws to (1) expand the legal rights of crime victims and the payment of restitution by criminal offenders; (2) restrict the early release of inmates; and (3) change the procedures for granting and revoking parole. This measure is promoted by Henry T. Nicholas III, who provided almost $5 million for the campaign in addition to the $1 million he gave to Proposition 6. Nichols is a billionaire who has funded multiple anti-crime measures over the years. We don't believe it's a good idea to pass comprehensive and complex crime legislation through the initiative process and lock it into the state constitution. The fact that so much of the funding for this measure comes from one person, Nicholas, and that he was indicted this summer by a federal grand jury for 21 counts related to conspiracy, securities fraud, wire fraud and separately for narcotics crimes, raises additional questions.

We recommend a No vote on Proposition 9.

Proposition 10

Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Renewable Energy. Bonds (statute)

This measure allows the state to sell $5 billion in bonds for various renewable energy, alternative fuel, energy efficiency and air emissions reduction purposes. The majority (58 percent in cash payments of between $2,000 and $50,000) would go to purchasers of certain high fuel economy and alternative fuel (especially natural gas) vehicles. Twenty percent is allocated for incentives for research, development and production of renewable energy technology. Eleven percent goes to incentives for research and development of alternative fuel vehicle technology. The cost would be about $325 million annually over 30 years to repay the bonds. The financial support for this initiative comes from the Clean Energy Fuels Corporation (CEFC), to the tune of $3.2 million and counting. CEFC, which operates natural gas fueling stations, is owned by T. Boone Pickens and would benefit from the subsidies in this initiative. We're not convinced that California citizens should subsidize his large-scale natural gas vehicle plan. Prop 10 is opposed by a number of consumer groups including Consumer Federation, TURN in the Bay Area, as well as the Marin Conservation League. While it may seem attractive on the surface, there are many reasons to be troubled by this initiative: its narrow support and benefit, focus on fossil fuel use subsidy and long term public cost.

We recommend a No vote on Proposition 10.

Proposition 11 Redistricting (constitutional amendment and statute)

Proposition 11 creates a 14-member redistricting commission responsible for drawing new lines for state Senate, Assembly and Board of Equalization districts. It requires the state auditor to randomly select commissioners from a registered voter applicant pool. The auditor must reject applicants for various reasons including if they have recently been a lobbyist, political candidate or given more than $2,000 in a year to a political candidate. A 60-person pool is created from which legislative leaders of both parties can strike 24 names. The auditor then randomly draws eight commissioners, three from both major parties plus two others, who select the final six from the pool to produce a commission with five from both major parties plus four others. The measure establishes standards for drawing lines that require respect for the geographic integrity of neighborhoods and that encourage compact districts. The commission would hold hearings and take public comment. Nine votes are required to approve final district maps. The state Legislature would still draw lines for congressional districts but must adhere to the same geographic standards. The measure is supported by the League of Women Voters, California Common Cause, AARP and many business groups as well as Governor Schwarzenegger. While it has picked up support from Democrats such as Steve Westly, Gray Davis, former Assembly Speaker Robert Hertzberg, former Assemblymen Fred Keeley and Tom Bates, and more than a dozen Democratic clubs as well, it is opposed by the state Democratic Party, Don Perata, Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi who fear losing Democratic seats if it passes. Other support includes such diverse interests as ACLU - Southern California, the California Democratic Council, the California Police Chiefs Association, the Bay Area Council and the California Taxpayers Association. We opposed the redistricting initiative proposed in 2005 by this governor, which would have handed the process to three retired judges, and we have not been satisfied with other approaches on past ballots. This is different. While we share some of the opponents' concerns, it's apparent to us that the governing process in Sacramento is broken. Part of the problem is term limits, which produce a rotating cast of amateurs who work with an ineffective governor. Part is the two-thirds vote requirement for budgets. Part is the campaign finance system. But part of it is also noncompetitive legislative districts for both parties. This measure is not perfect, but it's the best we've seen, and it's time for change in Sacramento.

We recommend a Yes vote on Proposition 11.

Proposition 12

Veterans' Bond Act of 2008 (statute)

This initiative appears on the ballot as a result of legislation sponsored by state Senator Mark Wyland, R-Carlsbad. It authorizes the state to sell $900 million in general obligation bonds for the Cal-Vet program, which allows the state Department of Veterans Affairs to purchase farms and homes and resell them to California veterans. These bonds would provide sufficient funds for at least 3,600 additional veterans to receive loans. Each participating veteran makes monthly payments to the department. According to the legislative analyst, these payments are sufficient to (1) reimburse the department for its costs of purchasing the farm or home; (2) cover all costs resulting from the sale of the bonds, including interest; and (3) cover the costs of operating the program. The bonds authorized would be paid off over a period of about 30 years at a cost of about $59 million per year. If the payments made by veterans participating in the program do not fully cover the amount owed on the bonds, taxpayers would pay the difference. Given the history of this program, there is not likely to be any substantial cost to the state. While we think it's the federal government's responsibility to provide for veterans, not the state's, this is a proven program that helps deserving Californians at little or no cost.

We recommend a Yes vote on Proposition 12.