[GPSCC-chat] November ballot propositions / Warner's picks

[WB4D23 at aol.com]

FWIW, here are my picks on the ballot measures appearing on  the November 
General Election ballot.  Warner
 
 
 
Proposition  19  Legalization of Marijuana in California GPCA pre-endorsed 
this measure in March  2010 before it was certified.  Yes
 
Proposition 19
Initiative Statute
1377.  (09-0024. Amdt. #1S) - _Final Random Sample Update - 03/24/10_ 
(http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/pend_sig/init-sample-1377-032410.pdf)     
Changes California Law to Legalize Marijuana and Allow It to Be Regulated and  
Taxed.Qualified: 03/24/10 Proponents: Richard  Seib Lee and Jeffrey Wayne Jones 
(510) 208-4554 
Allows people 21 years old or older to possess, cultivate, or transport  
marijuana for personal use. Permits local governments to regulate and tax  
commercial production and sale of marijuana to people 21 years old or older.  
Prohibits people from possessing marijuana on school grounds, using it in  
public, smoking it while minors are present, or providing it to anyone under 
21  years old. Maintains current prohibitions against driving while impaired. 
 Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of 
fiscal  impact on state and local governments: Savings of up to several tens of 
millions  of dollars annually to state and local governments on the costs of 
incarcerating  and supervising certain marijuana offenders. Unknown but 
potentially major tax,  fee, and benefit assessment revenues to state and local 
government related to  the production and sale of marijuana products. 
(09-0024.) _(Full  Text)_ 
(http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i821_initiative_09-0024_amdt_1-s.pdf) 
Proposition  20  Adds congressional districts to being drawn by the 
reapportionment commission  approved by the voters to draw lines for State Senate 
and State Assembly  Districts.  Corrects the biggest flaw of the ballot 
initiative previously  approved by California voters.  Yes!!!
Proposition 20
Initiative Constitutional Amendment
1380. (09-0027) - _Final Random Sample Update -  05/05/10_ 
(http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/pend_sig/init-sample-1380-050510.pdf)  Redistricting of 
Congressional Districts.Qualified: 05/05/10 Proponent: Charles T. Munger, Jr.  
_votersfirstactforcongress at gmail.com_ 
(mailto:votersfirstactforcongress at gmail.com)  
Removes elected representatives from the process of establishing  
congressional districts and transfers that authority to the recently-authorized  
14-member redistricting commission. Redistricting commission is comprised of  
five Democrats, five Republicans, and four voters registered with neither 
party.  Requires that any newly-proposed district lines be approved by nine  
commissioners including three Democrats, three Republicans, and three from  
neither party. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of  
Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Probably no significant  
change in state redistricting costs. (09-0027.) _(Full  Text)_ 
(http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i825_initiative_09-0027.pdf) 
Proposition  21   $18 vehicle fee to fund state parks; California vehicles 
get free entry to state  parks.  Yes.
Proposition 21 Initiative Statute 1421.  (09-0072) - _Final Random Sample 
Update -  06/10/10_ 
(http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/pend_sig/init-sample-1421-061010.pdf)  Establishes $18 Annual Vehicle License Surcharge to  Help 
Fund State Parks and Wildlife Programs and Grants Free Admission to All  State 
Parks to Surcharged Vehicles.Qualified: 06/10/10 Proponent: Joseph L. Caves 
(916) 558-1516 
Establishes an $18 annual state vehicle license surcharge and grants free  
admission to all state parks to surcharged vehicles. Requires deposit of  
surcharge revenue in a new trust fund. Requires that trust funds be used 
solely  to operate, maintain and repair the state park system, and to protect 
wildlife  and natural resources. Exempts commercial vehicles, trailers and 
trailer coaches  from the surcharge. Requires annual independent audit and 
review by citizen's  oversight committee. Summary of estimate by Legislative 
Analyst and Director of  Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: 
Increased state revenues  of about $500 million annually from the 
imposition of a surcharge on the VLF to  be used mainly to fund state parks and 
wildlife conservation programs. Potential  state savings of up to approximately 
$200 million annually to the extent that  the VLF surcharge revenues were 
used to reduce support from the General Fund and  other special funds for parks 
and wildlife conservation programs. Reduction of  about $50 million 
annually in state and local revenues from state park day-use  fees. These revenue 
losses could potentially be offset by increases in other  types of state park 
user fees and revenues. (09-0072.) _(Full  Text)_ 
(http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i869_initiative_09-0072.pdf)  
Proposition  22   This is another of a series of initiatives attempting to 
prevent the state  government from claiming what otherwise would be local 
government revenue.   If passed, it will make the state budget even worse, but 
is needed to help  protect the ability of local governments to provide 
services at that  level.  Yes.
Proposition 22 Initiative Constitutional  Amendment.
1414. (09-0063, Amdt.#1NS) - Final Random Sample Update - 06/22/10  
Prohibits the State from Taking Funds Used for Transportation or Local  Government 
Projects and Services. Qualified: 06/22/10 Proponents: Joshua Shaw, 
Christopher K. McKenzie, and James N. Earp 
Prohibits the State from shifting, taking, borrowing, or restricting the 
use  of tax revenues dedicated by law to fund local government services, 
community  redevelopment projects, or transportation projects and services. 
Prohibits the  State from delaying the distribution of tax revenues for these 
purposes even  when the Governor deems it necessary due to a severe state 
fiscal hardship.  Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of 
Finance of fiscal  impact on state and local government: Significant constraints 
on state authority  over city, county, special district, and redevelopment 
agency funds. As a  result, higher and more stable local resources, 
potentially affecting billions  of dollars in some years. Commensurate reductions in 
state resources, resulting  in major decreases in state spending and/or 
increases in state revenues.  (09-0063.) _(Full  Text)_ 
(http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i860_initiative_09-0063_amdt_1-ns.pdf)  
Proposition  23   This the oil companies promoted initiative to suspend the 
California reduce  greenhouse gases legislation.  Among other effects, 
would hurt clean energy  industries by cancelling incentives included in that 
legislation.  No!!!
Proposition 23 Initiative Statute 1454. (09-0104) - _Final Random Sample 
Update -  06/22/10_ 
(http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/pend_sig/init-sample-1454-062210.pdf)  Suspends Air Pollution Control Laws Requiring Major  Polluters 
to Report and Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions That Cause Global  Warming 
Until Unemployment Drops Below Specified Level for Full Year. Qualified: 
06/22/10 Proponent: Thomas W. Hiltachk  (916) 442-7757 
Suspends State laws requiring reduced greenhouse gas emissions that cause  
global warming, until California's unemployment rate drops to 5.5 percent or 
 less for four consecutive quarters. Requires State to abandon 
implementation of  comprehensive greenhouse-gas-reduction program that includes 
increased renewable  energy and cleaner fuel requirements, and mandatory emission 
reporting and fee  requirements for major polluters such as power plants and 
oil refineries, until  suspension is lifted. Summary of estimate by 
Legislative Analyst and Director of  Finance of fiscal impact on state and local 
government: Potential positive, short-term impacts on state and local  
government revenues from the suspension of regulatory activity, with uncertain  
longer-run impacts. Potential foregone state revenues from the auctioning of  
emission allowances by state government, by suspending the future 
implementation  of cap-and-trade regulations. (09-0104.) _(Full  Text)_ 
(http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i902_initiative_09-0104.pdf)  
Proposition  24   Repeals legislation that would give businesses, 
particularly corporations  different tax treatment that "normally" exists -- e.g., 
the legislation would  allow tax deductions for business losses in current 
years to be applied to past  years retroactively lowering taxes owed from the 
previous years.  The thing  to remember is that this is a referendum to 
repeal bad laws.  So...   Yes!
Proposition 24 Initiative Statute. 1412.  (09-0058, #1NS) - _Final Random 
Sample Update -  06/24/10_ 
(http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/pend_sig/init-sample-1412-062410-5pm.pdf)  Repeals Recent Legislation That Would Allow 
Businesses  to Carry Back Losses, Share Tax Credits, and Use a Sales-Based Income  
Calculation to Lower Taxable Income.Qualified:  06/24/10 Proponents: Robin 
Johansen and Karen Getman (510) 346-6200 
Repeals recent legislation that would allow businesses to shift operating  
losses to prior tax years and that would extend the period permitted to 
shift  operating losses to future tax years. Repeals recent legislation that 
would  allow corporations to share tax credits with affiliated corporations. 
Repeals  recent legislation that would allow multistate businesses to use a 
sales-based  income calculation, rather than a combination property-, payroll- 
and  sales-based income calculation. Summary of estimate by Legislative 
Analyst and  Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local 
government: Annual state  revenue increase from business taxes of about $1.7 billion 
when fully phased in,  beginning in 2011-12. (09-0058.) _(Full  Text)_ 
(http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i855_initiative_09-0058_amdt_1-n
s.pdf)  
Proposition  25   Democrats claim this will only effect how many votes it 
will take to pass a  budget from 2/3ds to "simple majority"; Republicans 
argue the language could  apply to tax increases, also.  My view is that the 
supermajority  requirement is part of what allows deals like Prop 14 and allows 
majority  political parties to duck accountability.  So...  Yes
Proposition 25 Initiative Constitutional Amendment.1408. (09-0057) - _Final 
Random Sample Update -  06/24/10_ 
(http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/pend_sig/init-sample-1408-062410-5pm.pdf)  Changes Legislative Vote Requirement to 
Pass a Budget  from Two-Thirds to a Simple Majority. Retains Two-Thirds Vote 
Requirement for  Taxes. Qualified: 06/24/10 Proponents: James C.  Harrison 
and Thomas A. Willis (510) 346-6200 
Changes the legislative vote requirement necessary to pass the state budget 
 from two-thirds to a simple majority. Provides that if the Legislature 
fails to  pass a budget bill by June 15, all members of the Legislature will 
permanently  forfeit any reimbursement for salary and expenses for every day 
until the day  the Legislature passes a budget bill. Summary of estimate by 
Legislative Analyst  and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and 
local government: Unknown  changes in the content of the state budget from 
lowering the legislative vote  requirement for passage. Fiscal impact would 
depend on the composition and  actions of future Legislatures. Minor reduction 
in state costs related to  compensation of legislators in years when the 
budget bill is passed after June  15. (09-0057.) _(Full  Text)_ 
(http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i854_initiative_09-0057.pdf)  
Proposition  26   This is the reverse of Prop 25.  This is an attempt to 
increase  the votes needed to pass "fees" for specific purposes and users from 
 "simple majority" to 2/3rds.  If passed, this would make it much more  
difficult for partially patching the budget or legislating clean environment  
fees.  Vote No!
Proposition 26 Initiative Constitutional Amendment 1441. (09-0093) - _Final 
Random Sample Update -  06/24/10_ 
(http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/pend_sig/init-sample-1441-062410-5pm.pdf)  Increases Legislative Vote Requirement to 
Two-Thirds  for State Levies and Charges. Imposes Additional Requirement 
for Voters to  Approve Local Levies and Charges with Limited 
Exceptions.Qualified: 06/24/10 Proponent: Allan Zaremberg c/o  Steve Lucas (916) 446-6752 
Increases legislative vote requirement to two-thirds for state levies and  
charges, with limited exceptions, and for certain taxes currently subject to 
 majority vote. Changes Constitution to require voters to approve, either 
by  two-thirds or majority, local levies and charges with limited exceptions. 
 Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of 
fiscal  impact on state and local government: Potentially major  decrease in 
state and local revenues and spending, depending upon future actions  of the 
Legislature, local governing bodies, and local voters. (09-0093.)  _(Full  
Text)_ 
(http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i891_initiative_09-0093.pdf)  
Proposition  27   This is the reverse of Prop 20.  If passed, it would send 
California to the  bad old days of legislative gerrymandering.  Would not 
even require votes  by the full membership of the State Senate and State 
Assembly.   No!
Proposition 27 Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute. 1451. 
(09-0107) - _Final Random Sample Update -  06/24/10_ 
(http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/pend_sig/init-sample-1451-062410-final.pdf)  Eliminates State 
Commission on Redistricting.  Consolidates Authority for Redistricting with Elected 
Representatives. Qualified: 06/24/10 Proponent: Daniel Lowenstein c/o  
Fredric D. Woocher (310) 576-1233 
Eliminates 14-member redistricting commission selected from applicant pool  
picked by government auditors. Consolidates authority for establishing 
state  Assembly, Senate, and Board of Equalization district boundaries with 
elected  state representatives responsible for drawing congressional districts. 
Reduces  budget, and imposes limit on amount Legislature may spend, for 
redistricting.  Provides that voters will have the authority to reject district 
boundary maps  approved by the Legislature. Requires populations of all 
districts for the same  office to be exactly the same. Summary of estimate by 
Legislative Analyst and  Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and 
local government: Likely decrease in state redistricting costs totaling several 
 million dollars every ten years. (09-0107.) _(Full  Text)_ 
(http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i905_initiative_09-0107.pdf) 




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20100820/6a7c2e81/attachment.html>