[GPSCC-chat] [Fwd: [G-C-F] Warner's Ballot Measures Picks]

[Tian Harter]

The deadline for a county to vote on ballot measures is this evening.
How about if we submit these positions as Santa Clara County positions?

I think the County Council is willing to go with them. Any objections?

Tian
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	[G-C-F] Warner's Ballot Measures Picks
Date: 	Fri, 20 Aug 2010 19:32:05 EDT
From: 	WSB3ATTYCA at aol.com
To: 	cal-forum at cagreens.org



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-ns.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>






-- 
Tian
http://tian.greens.org
Latest change: Added pictures from and words about bike party.
The green horn fair trade icon is on a Nebraska quarter (25c USA coin).
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: Attached Message Part
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20100908/cb841375/attachment.ksh>