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

Thu Sep 9 16:32:51 PDT 2010

  I've taken the liberty to forward this to the voting age members of my 
family and to some extended family members.  I think they will 
appreciate it.

Thanks, Warner.

Fred

On 9/8/10 7:05 PM, Tian Harter wrote:
> 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>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sosfbay-discuss mailing list
> sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org
> http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20100909/f3a46bf5/attachment.html>