California Propositions

CalProps Analysis: Prop 12

Proposition 12, also known as the Veterans' Bond Act of 2008, would authorize issuance of $900 million in bonds to assist veterans in purchasing farms, homes and mobile home properties.

The non partisan California Legislative Analyst's Office estimates the proposition will result in costs of about $1.8 billion to pay off both the principal ($900 million) and interest ($856 million) on the bonds; costs paid by participating veterans.

California voters have voted 26 times to assist veterans with Cal-Vet bonds since the 1920’s, though Prop 12's request for $900 million is the largest request to date.

Republican State Senator Mark Wyland was primary sponsor of Proposition 12, placed on the ballot by unanimous votes in both house of the legislature.  Governor Schwarzenegger has also endorsed the measure.

There is no organized opposition ot the measure.  A Mountain View-based attorney named Gary Westly, who has something of a name for himself writing dissenting opinions of ballot measures, has authored the opposition argument in the offical voters' guide.

Arguments in Favor

• The Veterans Bond Act will help California's veterans achieve the American dream of homeownership.

• Veterans who risked their lives in places like Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan will be eligible to join the more than 420,000 others who have bought a home with a CalVet loan
• Loans are repaid, along with all program costs, by the loan holders at no expense to the taxpayers
• There have never been any costs to the taxpayers under the previous authorizations
• The program helps reinforce the housing market in California
• Cal Vet loans generate thousands of housing industry-related jobs resulting in millions of dollars in annual payrolls.

Arguments in opposition:

• Benefits are not limited to only veterans who served in a combat zone but to any that served during a time of war

• Possibly resulting in unavailable funds for those who actually served in harm’s way
• Eligible beneficiaries of the program may have never even left the United States
• Voters may wish to have the program rewritten so serving in harm’s way is a requirement for eligibility.
• The interest on the bonds is federal and state tax free, which in a roundabout way means all taxpayers are paying some costs
• State taxpayers will be liable for any shortfall in the event beneficiaries fail to make payments and are unable to sell the home for full value

So what do you think?  Take a deeper look at the initative's finances here, or join one of the CalProps groups advocating for or against Prop 12:

   

CalProps Analysis: Prop 11

California Proposition 11, also known as the Voters FIRST Act, would amend the state constitution and establish a 14 member commission to establish state legislative and board of equalization districts.  This would of course remove such authority from the elected leaders themselves, where that power currently resides. 

The proposed commission would be required to include five Democrats, five Republicans and four of independent members unaffiliated with either party.  The commission would be subject to some legislative oversight, much the way opposing attorneys engage in jury selection.  Government auditors would select 60 applicants from a pool that legislative leaders from both parties may then whittle down.  The auditors will subsequently pick eight commission members by lottery, and those commissioners pick six additional members for a total of 14.

Redistricting has long been the call for would-be reformers of a state legislature most agree is broken.  Governor Schwarzenegger attempted his own initiative in 2005, which would have given the authority to a panel of retired judges.  It lost badly, though all of the Governor’s reform efforts that year suffered the same fate.

The essential thinking behind redistricting is centered chiefly on two issues: that a legislature that draws its own seat has an inherent conflict of interest, and that the currently “safe seats” function to elect deeply ideological legislators that do little to assuage partisan rancor and gridlock in the Capitol.

California Common Cause is a main sponsor of Prop 11. Others supporting it include the AARP , The League of Women Voters, Governor Schwarzenegger, the ACLU and numerous chambers and statewide business advocates.  Add to that virtually every major editorial board in the state.

The opposition is not, however, wanting for heavy hitters of its own.  Chief among them are  Senator Barbara Boxer, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the California Democratic Party.  The NAACP Defense Fund and several other minority advocacy groups also stand opposed.

Arguments for and against Prop 11

Notable arguments in favor of Prop. 11:

• Under current law the legislature draws its own districts which results in a 99 percent of incumbents being re-elected
• The initiative will open up redistricting so that it will no longer be controlled by only the party in power.
• When state legislators are in charge of drawing district boundaries, as they are currently, there is a conflict of interest such that legislators place their own self-interest ahead of the common good.
• A citizen's commission created according to Prop. 11 will be able to make independent decisions leading to legislative boundaries based on fairness and the public good and not political aspirations.

Arguments against Prop. 11

• No accountability to taxpayers. Each commission member is guaranteed $300 a day, plus unlimited expenses in the form of staffing, offices, etc.
• The commission created under Prop. 11 would allow politicans to hide behind the selected bureaucrats to maintain a hold on redistricting as they wish.
• The overly complicated process created by Prop. 11 would make it easier to mask hidden agendas of the people behind those on the committee.
• Prop. 11 offers no assurance of the same representation for communities, such as California's Hispanic community in the redistricting process.
• The current version of Prop. 11 does not included congressional districts as an earlier draft did, thereby not being complete reform and creating additional detractors to the measure.
• Even when commissions do create competitive districts, the people who get elected in them do not necessarily behave as political moderates."

Polling information

Month of Poll	Polling company	In Favor	Opposed	Undecided
July 2008	Field	42 percent	30 percent	28 percent
August 2008	PPIC	39 percent	36 percent	25 percent
Sept. 2008	PPIC	38 percent	33 percent	29 percent

So what do you think?  Take a deeper look at the initative's finances here, or join one of the CalProps groups advocating for or against Prop 11:

   

CalProps Analysis: Prop 10

Proposition 10, the California Alternative Fuels Initiative, like Prop 7 is focused on alternative fuels.  Popular vernacular has labeled Props 7 and 10 as Big Solar and Big Wind, respectively. 

The initiative authorizes $5 billion in bonds, to be allocated as follows:

• 58% in cash payments to purchasers of 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.

According to the Leg Analysts’ Office, the initiative would cost the State about $9.8 billion over 30 years to pay both the principal ($5 billion) and interest ($4.8 billion) costs on the bond.

Allison Hart, Mitzi Dudley and Thomas Daly filed the initial ballot language, but the most prominent and recognizable proponent is T. Boone Pickens, the backer of  Clean Energy Fuels Corp. (CEFC), which has donated $3,747,250 to the effort.  A fellow Oklahoman Aubrey McClendon, co-founder of Chesapeake Energy, has chipped in an additional $500,000.

Many have derided Pickens and Clean Energy Fuels for sponsoring this initiative because it may set up the company and Pickens for a financial windfall, though a CEFC spokesman has gone on record as saying "I don’t think it’s a given that Clean Energy is going to cash in. I wish it were that simple."

The sole registered opposition to the measure is  "No on Proposition 10; Californians against the $10 Billion Lemon," who reports no financial activity through September 18.

Key Arguments for and against:

• Prop 10 will allow the generation of electricity from renewable sources, and provide consumer rebates for the purchase or lease of "clean alternative fuel vehicles".
• The fuding will allow the replacement of "older polluting diesel trucks with clean alternative fuel trucks" and provide for research into alternative fuels.
• The programs funded by Prop. 10 will help reduce dependence on foreign fuel produced by "hostile foreign governments."

Arguments against

• The proposition is a "laundry list of cash grabs" benefiting Pickens and others.
• Taking $10 billion out of the state's general fund over a 30 year period to underwrite the cost for individuals and businesses to purchase low-emission vehicles "is not a smart use of money" considering the state is "already sagging with debt".
• a shift to natural gas is "problematic in a lot of ways" including that "few mechanics know how to fix natural-gas engines and few filling stations offer natural gas."
• The proposition was initiated by one person/interest group and as such lacks the vetting that would have come had it gained input from a wider variety of sources.

So what do you think?  Take a deeper look at the initative's finances here, or join one of the CalProps groups advocating for or against Prop 10:

  

CalProps Analysis: Prop 9

Proposition 9, also known as Marsy's Law and/or Nicholas's Law, would alter laws governing victim's rights in California. If it passes, it will amend the California Constitution to provide for additional rights to the families of crime victims while removing certain prisoners’ rights.

Key Provisions:

• The California Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) is charged with providing neutral analyses of the provisions of proposed California propositions. According to the LAO, the provisions of Proposition 9 include:
• Provisions requiring the payment of restitution to victims.
• Any funds collected by a court, or law enforcement agencies, from a person ordered to pay restitution would go to pay that restitution first, in effect prioritizing those payments over other fines and obligations an offender may legally owe.
• Provisions regarding the notification and participation of victims in criminal justice proceedings.
• Provisions that expand victims' legal rights.
• Provisions that affect how parole is granted and revoked; this includes lengthening the parole hearing wait for lifers from five to 15 years.
• Limits the use of state-paid defense lawyers in revocation proceedings to indigent offenders.

In its fiscal analysis of the measure, the California Legislative Analyst's Office cited unknown potential increases in state prison and county jail operating costs, potentially in the hundreds of millions of dollars each year.  A potential net savings in the low tens of millions of dollars for the administration of parole reviews is also possible.

The initiative is sponsored by Broadcom co-founder Henry Nicholas and his family. Nicholas, who donated $4,845,000 to the campaign to put Marsy's Law on the ballot, stepped away from active support of the campaign when a criminal indictment on drug and securities offenses was unsealed in June of this year.

Other backers of Proposition 9 are the California Coalition of Law Enforcement Associations, the California Farm Bureau Federation, and Crime Victims United of California.

Notable opponents include the California Democratic Party, the California Professional Firefighters, the California Teachers Association, California Church IMPACT, the Los Angeles Times, the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and the American Friends Service Committee Pacific Mountain Region.

Arguments in favor of Prop. 9

• Proposition 9 would save money because under the current system, taxpayers are spending money to fund hearings for criminals who have little chance of release. For example, supporters of Prop 9 argue, "'Helter Skelter' inmates Bruce Davis and Leslie Van Houten, followers of Charles Manson, convicted of multiple brutal murders, have had 38 parole hearings in 30 years. That’s 38 times the families involved have been forced to relive the painful crime and pay their own expenses to attend the hearing, plus 38 hearings that taxpayers have had to subsidize."
• The rights of victims are important.
• Parole judges could increase the number of years between parole hearings typically to 15 years, saving money.
• Arguments against Prop. 9

Notable arguments that have been made against Proposition 9 include:

• Voters already approved many components of Prop. 9 when they passed California Proposition 8 (1982), including the requirements that victims be notified of critical points in an offender’s legal process as well as the rights for victims to be heard throughout the legal process.
• Prop. 9 amounts to political grandstanding without really changing any significant problems in the criminal justice system.
• The provision in Prop. 9 to stop early release of criminals could end up costing the taxpayer in the "hundreds of millions"
• The annual parole rate for those convicted of second degree murder or manslaughter has been less than 1% of those eligible for parole for the last twenty years. Opponents of Prop. 9 say this means that the taxpayers would spend a lot of money with minimal resulting changes, since at most Prop. 9 would affect early parole of 1% of the most violent criminal population.
• Money spent enforcing the provisions of Prop. 9 won't be available for other important government programs.

So what do you think?  Take a deeper look at the initative's finances here, or join one of the CalProps groups advocating for or against Prop 9:

   

CalProps Analysis: Prop 8

Proposition 8 is one of the two big ticket social issue initiatives on the November ballot. The ballot title for the measure says that Prop 8 "eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry" and the initiative seeks to re-define marriage in the state following a recent court case upholding the rights of same-sex couples to marry.  The initiative text states that: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Both the ballot title and language have been the subject of lawsuits and legal wrangling – likely foreshadowing legal challenges were it to pass in November.

The electoral contest over Prop. 8 has attracted both national attention and dollars. Through September 30, supporters of Prop. 8 had raised about $27 million, while its opponents had raised $19 million. Although checks in the $1 million range have been written to both campaigns from wealthy backers, the campaigns also each have tens of thousands of small donors--62,000 donors for the "Yes on 8" campaign and over 30,000 for the "No on 8".
California first explicitly defined marriage as a state between a man and woman in 1977 when the legislature passed a law stating that marriage is a "personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman". In 2000, voters passed ballot Proposition 22 which formally defines marriage in California between a man and a woman in statute, whereas this year’s Prop 8 is a constitutional amendment.  A California Supreme Court ruling this year struck down Prop 22 on a 4 to 3 vote.

The National Organization for Marriage and Focus on the Family are national organizations that support the initiative and are helping to fund it.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints supports efforts to pass the measure, and Mormon church leaders made a televised appeal to members of the church asking them to work for Prop 8’s passage. The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, the largest Orthodox umbrella group nationally, also supports the measure.

Eight different organizations have formally filed as opposition groups with the California Secretary of State, including Let California Ring, Equality for All, Equality California, the Equality California Issues PAC, and the Human Rights Campaign. Governor Schwarzenegger has said the amendment is "a waste of time". Other notable opponents include Hollywood luminaries Brad Pitt and Steven Spielberg as well as PG&E, who made headlines by financially supporting a social issue of this nature.

Arguments in favor of Prop. 8

• "Proposition 8 is about preserving marriage; it’s not an attack on the gay lifestyle. Proposition 8 doesn’t take away any rights or benefits of gay or lesbian domestic partnerships."
• Prop. 8 "restores the definition of marriage to what the vast majority of California voters already approved and human history has understood marriage to be."
• "It overturns the outrageous decision of four activist Supreme Court judges who ignored the will of the people."
• "It protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage."

Arguments against Prop. 8

• "Our California Constitution--the law of our land---should guarantee the same freedoms and right to everyone. No one group should be singled out to be treated differently."
• "Equal protection under the law is the foundation of American society."
• The institution of marriage conveys dignity and respect to the lifetime commitment that a couple makes. Proposition 8 would deny lesbian and gay couples the opportunity that same dignity and respect.
• "The freedom to marry is fundamental to our society, just like the freedoms of religion and speech."
• Laws should treat everyone equally.
• It should not be up to the government to say who can and cannot get married.
• When domestic partnerships are held out as an acceptable substitute for marriage, this is misleading. Domestic partnerships are not a substitute for marriage.

Polling information

Month of Poll	Polling company	In Favor	Opposed	Undecided
May 2008	Field	40 percent	54 percent	6 percent
July 2008	Field	42 percent	51 percent	7 percent
August 2008	PPIC	40 percent	54 percent	6 percent
Sept. 2008	Field	38 percent	55 percent	7 percent
Sept. 2008	SurveyUSA	44 percent	49 percent	7 percent
Sept. 2008	PPIC	41 percent	55 percent	4 percent
Oct. 2008	Internal polling, "No on 8"	47 percent	42 percent	11 percent
Oct 4-5, 2008	CBS News/SurveyUSA	47 percent	42 percent	11 percent

So what do you think?  Take a deeper look at the initative's finances here, or join one of the CalProps groups advocating for or against Prop 8:

       

CalProps Analysis: Prop 7

Proposition 7, one of two major energy initiatives on the November ballot, would require California utilities to procure half of their power from renewable resources by 2025. In order to make that goal, levels of production of solar, wind and other renewable energy resources will more than quadruple from their current output of 10.9%.  It will also require California utilities to increase their purchase of electricity generated from renewable resources by 2% annually specific milestones and requirements.

Key Provisions:

• All electric utilities (including municipally-owned utilities) will be required to provide half of their electricity from solar and clean energy facilities by 2025. Current law requires the state’s investor-owned utilities (Edison and PG&E, for example) to reach 20 percent renewable energy by 2010.
• The California Energy Commission will be required to identify solar and clean energy zones, primarily in the desert, to jump-start clean power plants.
• Renewable plant construction permits would be fast-tracked for approval by the California Energy Commission once all environmental reviews are in place. Fast-tracking would limit the period for local comments and participation to 100 days.
• Penalties levied on utilities for specific acts of non-compliance would be reduced from 5% to 1%, but the total cap on fines that can be imposed on a utility would be eliminated.
• The California Energy Commission (CEC) will have the authority and responsibility to allocate funds from these penalties into the construction and implementation of new and existing transmission lines to provide access for renewable energy to the grid.
• Utilities will be prohibited from passing along penalties to their electric rate-payers.
• Caps price impacts on consumer's electricity bills at less than 3 percent. However, the non-partisan California Legislative Analyst's Office states that “the measure includes no specific provisions to implement or enforce this declaration”.
• Renewable energy sources include solar thermal, photovoltaic, wind, geothermal, small hydro, biomass, and tidal, as provided for in current law.
• Utilities entering into contracts with alternative fuel providers will be required to sign 20-year contracts.

The California Legislative Analyst's Office estimates costs for Prop 7 as up to $3.4 million annually for the regulatory activities, together with unknown impacts on state and local government costs and revenues due to the measure’s uncertain impact on retail electricity rates.

The official committee supporting Prop 7 is called Californians for Solar and Clean Energy.  Among its chief proponents are Dr. Donald Aitken, former Chief of Research at the Union of Concerned Scientists, several prominent Democratic Party leaders and Dolores Huerta, co-founder of the United Farm Workers Union.

The official committee opposing Prop. 7 is called Californians Against Another Costly Energy Scheme, and it has many allies.  Among the chief opponents to the measure are the the California Democratic Party, the California Republican Party, the California Green Party, the California Labor Federation, the California Taxpayers' Association and many others.  Several large environmental groups also oppose, including the Sierra Club of California and the California League of Conservation Voters.  The state’s major utilities are also opposing Prop 7 financially, with PG&E and Edison both in for nearly $14 million apiece.

Arguments made in favor of Prop. 7

• It would make California the world leader in clean power technology.
• It would help create over 370,000 new high wage jobs.
• It meets environmental protection standards as outlined in the Warren-Alquist Act and Desert Protection Act.
• Will have no negative impact on small-scale renewables and will likely benefit small-scale renewables
• Strengthens penalties for utility non-compliance by eliminating the current cap on penalties imposed by the Public Utilities Commission

Arguments made against Prop. 7

• The measure is poorly written and so complicated that it could hurt the cause of renewable energy in the state.
• It will force small wind and solar companies out of the market because it excludes small renewable plants smaller than 30mw from counting towards new requirements.
• It will guarantees that electricity consumers will pay 10% above market rates for renewable power forever, even when the costs of solar and wind sources become more competitive.

Polling:

Month of Poll	In Favor	Opposed	Undecided
July 2008	63 percent	24 percent	13 percent

So what do you think?  Take a deeper look at the initative's finances here, or join one of the CalProps groups advocating for or against Prop 7:

 

CalProps Analysis: Prop 6

California Proposition 6, also known as the Safe Neighborhoods Act and The Runner Initiative, Proposition 6 places additional penalties on crime.

Proposition 6 would:

• Increase penalties for several crimes, including violating gang injunctions, using or possessing to sell methamphetamine, or carrying loaded or concealed firearms by certain felons.
• Require new state spending on various criminal justice programs, as well as for increased costs for prison and parole operations. This funding would come from California's General Fund, reallocating funds currently spent on social services 
• Deem any youth 14 years or older who is convicted of a "gang-related" felony as unfit for trial in a juvenile court, thus, prosecuting these youth as adults.
• Necessitate recipients of public housing subsidies submit to annual criminal background checks.
• Eliminate bail for undocumented individuals charged with violent or gang-related felonies.
• Change evidence rules to allow use of certain hearsay statements as evidence when witnesses are unavailable.

The Legislative Analyst's Office estimates the fiscal impact of Prop 6 as likely to exceed a half billion dollars annually.  This is primarily for increased funding of criminal justice programs, as well as for increased costs for prison and parole operations. These funds would come from California's general fund.

The official sponsors of the initiative are Mike Reynolds, author of the original 3 Strikes Initiative, San Bernardino County Supervisor Gary Ovitt, and California State Senator George Runner.

Notable supporters of Prop. 6 include the California State Sheriffs’ Association, the California District Attorneys Association, the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, and a number of county and local sheriffs.

Notable members of the opposition coalition include the California Democratic Party, the California Professional Firefighters, the California Labor Federation, former Los Angeles Police Chief Bernard Parks, the California Teachers Association, California National Organization for Women,

Key Arguments for Prop 6:

• "Creates tougher punishment for gang crimes, drive-by shooting, meth distribution and victim intimidation."
• "Creates more effective and accountable intervention programs to stop young kids from joining gangs."
• "Helps victims who have been intimidated by gang criminals and it funds victim-witness protection programs in our communities."
•  "Prohibits bail for illegal aliens who are charged with violent or gang crimes."
• "Ensures funding for local police, sheriff, district attorneys and probation officers."

Arguments against Prop. 6

• It "diverts billions from California's schools, hospitals and childcare centers. By funding failed prison and policing policies, it would deepen the state's ongoing budget crisis."
• It "target youth for adult incarceration, deeming any youth 14 years or older who is convicted of a "gang-related" felony as unfit for trial in a juvenile court or housing in a youth prison."
• "Targets poor people, forcing recipients of public housing subsidies to submit to annual criminal background checks with the intention of withdrawing the housing subsidies of people with recent criminal convictions."

So what do you think?  Take a deeper look at the initative's finances here, or join one of the CalProps groups advocating for or against Prop 6:

 

CalProps Analysis: Prop 5

As  The Los Angeles Times puts it : "This measure pits two well-known liberals against each other -- activist and actor Martin Sheen and billionaire philanthropist George Soros. Sheen, whose son Charlie had high-profile drug problems in the 1990s, leads the opposition because, he has said, "successful rehabilitation requires accountability." Soros and former Soros executive Jacob Goldfied are Proposition 5's top financial backers. If voters pass Proposition 5 and Proposition 6, they would simultaneously loosen and stiffen penalties for drug offenses. "

Proposition 5 essentially expands rehabilitation programs and de-criminalize drug offenses for non-violent acts.

The multi-bibillionaire Soros has an affinity for liberal causes and ensuring they are well-financed. The organization "moveon.org" reached success largely s a result of his largess. But, Moveon.org hasn't been Soros only political engagement, in fact Proposition 5 is essentially a rematch of a ballot measure Soros backed a few years ago that did essentially the same thing. The reason: Apparently Soros son has struggled with addiction and the elder Soros felt there was a better way to treat him than through stiff penalties.

Another well known advocate of liberal causes who has, if not as much money, than certainly as much name recognition is actor Martin Sheen. Sheen, whose own son Charlie has suffered from similar addictions has come out strongly against the measure because he believes that addiction can only be cured with strong accountability on behalf of the addicted.

Regardless of the behind the scenes drama, Proposition 5 is about serious public policy. Opponents of the measure are concerned, as they were last time, that they wont be able to raise enough money to raise awareness about the serious effects this will have on the public. Almost all police, sheriff's, DA's and law enforcement agencies are opposed to Proposition 5 but most California voters probably won't know that without a monied campaign.

Expect a high voter turnout and an electorate thats already demonstrated a leniency on drug use under certain conditions and abuse to make this race very interesting. The biggest variable will be George Soros' money, if he comes late and big it will be hard to stop Proposition 5. Soros hasn't seen much political success in his endeavors, but as a self made multi-billionaire with a personal stake --  he can never be counted out.

So what do you think?  Take a deeper look at the initative's finances here, or join one of the CalProps groups advocating for or against Prop 5:

  

CalProps Analysis: Prop 4

Proposition 4, or “Sarah’s Law” or (officially) the Abortion Waiting Period and Parental Notification Initiative, is among the big ticket headliners to the November roster of initiatives.

The initiative would prohibit abortion for “unemancipated” minors until 48 hours after physician notifies minor’s parent, legal guardian or, if parental abuse has been reported, an alternative adult family member.

If this sounds familiar, it is.  Prop 4 is the third time in 4 years that California voters will have considered the issue of a parental notification/waiting period for abortion. The two previous, unsuccessful, initiatives were Prop 85 (2006) and Prop 73 (2005).

When Prop 73 lost in 2005, some supporters thought that a similar measure would fare better in a general election. However, Prop 85 did worse. Unlike 85 or 73, the Sarah's Law initiative allows an adult relative of the minor seeking an abortion to be notified, if the minor's parents are abusive.

Prop 4, if enacted as a constitutional amendment, would:

• Provide 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.

Estimated fiscal impacts are $4 million to $5 million for the state and about $2 million for counties in health and social services expenses, as well as law enforcement and court costs in the range of $5 million to $6 million per year.

 

The major official opposition campaign to Prop. 4 is known as Campaign for Teen Safety - No on 4 - A Project of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California. Other notable opponents include major health and education groups such as the California Nurses Association, California Teachers Association, California Academy of Family Physicians, among others.

Key Arguments for and against

Notable arguments that have been made in favor of Prop. 4 include:

• 34 other U.S. States have notification laws in place for as long as 25 years. They have resulted in declined rates of teen abortion, STDs, and teen pregnancy.

• When a minor obtains an abortion without the knowledge of a family member or guardian, her health can be endangered if health complications arise after the abortion.

• If a minor becomes pregnant because of sexual violence or predation, and then has an abortion without her family's knowledge of either the sexual assault or the abortion, an opportunity to identify and stop a sexual predator may be missed, because the abortion clinic may not report the sexual crime.

Arguments against Prop. 4

• Notable arguments that have been made against Prop. 4 include:

• While parents rightfully want to be involved in their teenagers' lives, mandated parental notification laws don't work. No law can mandate family communication.

• In the real world, some teenagers can't go to their parents because they fear being kicked out of the house, beaten, or worse. Prop 4 may force these teens to delay medical care, turn to self-induced abortions, or consider suicide.

• Forced "family notification" is a lie. Right now, a pregnant teen can safely go to a trusted aunt, grandma, or an older sister. Prop 4 would close that option to teens, because under Prop 4, if a teen chooses to go to another adult, her parents would automatically be reported to authorities and an investigation would ensue.

• "Mandatory notification laws make scared, pregnant teens who can't go to their parents do dangerous things."

 There was some notable legal wrangling around the use of “Sarah” in ballot language, though this was ultimately allowed by Superior Court judge. 

Polling information

The Field Poll has conducted and released the results of three public opinion polls on Proposition 4, in July, August and September.Mark DiCamillo, director of the polling agency, said he believes the current version is running stronger because Latinos overwhelmingly favor it and are expected to vote in higher-than-usual numbers in November.

Month of Poll	In Favor	Opposed	Undecided
July 2008	48 percent	39 percent	13 percent
August 2008	47 percent	44 percent	9 percent
September 2008	49 percent	41 percent	10 percent

So what do you think?  Take a deeper look at the initative's finances here, or join one of the CalProps groups advocating for or against Prop 4:

    

CalProps Analysis: Prop 3

Every few years or so there a new bond placed on the ballot to help finance the construction and financing of childrens hospitals throughout the state with a new bond. This year happes to be one of those years, and Californians are being asked to borrow $980 million to meet those ends.

While there is a lot of discussion about bond measures this year -- it happens to be a bad time for the issuance of debt in the mind of voters given the turmoil in financial markets, the condition of the economy, melting of the foreclosure market and general distate for the direction of government -- if there was ever a bond that would pass -- it would be one for ailing children and the hospitals that treat them.

As a recent San Francisco Chronicle article pointed out, Prop. 3 is nearly identical to Prop. 61, a $750 million bond measure for children's hospitals approved by voters in 2004 by 58 percent of the vote.

The hospitals say they need the additional funds because of soaring construction costs and a squeeze on Medi-Cal reimbursements, leaving them little money to apply toward infrastructure.

They say that there is also increasing demand for medical care as the number of children in the state rises -- over the next two decades, the number of children in California will jump by 35 percent, according to the state Department of Finance.

Theres no paid support for this measure -- at least not much to speak of anyway. While we could all make a commercial that would tug at the heartstrings of Californians and compel them to tug at their wallets for the sick kids on the screen - don't expect that to be the case on Proposition 3. This is one of those measures that will pass with out ads and tons of money thrown at it.  If it doesn't, the underlying market conditions and dynamics will be too strong to change the outcome anyway. The campaigns real difficulties were finding the money to get the measure qualified. Once they passed that hurdle, theyre hoping the passage of Prop 61 by a nearly 60-40 ratio means they'll be getting a cash infusion to the tune of $980 million come January 1, 2009.

So what do you think?  Take a deeper look at the initative's finances here, or join one of the CalProps groups advocating for or against Prop 3: