<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18904"></HEAD>
<BODY style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 14pt" id=role_body bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 rightMargin=7 topMargin=7><FONT id=role_document color=#000000 size=4 face="Times New Roman">
<DIV><FONT size=4>FWIW, here are my picks on the ballot measures appearing on
the November General Election ballot. Warner</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial>
<DIV id=banner><FONT size=4 face="Times New Roman">Proposition 19
Legalization of Marijuana in California GPCA pre-endorsed this measure in March
2010 before it was certified. Yes</FONT></DIV>
<DIV id=centercontent class=common-nonvis-tbl-border><A name=1377></A>
<P><SPAN class=medium-text-bold>Proposition 19</SPAN><BR><SPAN class=smaller-text>Initiative Statute</SPAN><BR><SPAN class=text-strong>1377.
(09-0024. Amdt. #1S) - </SPAN><A href="http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/pend_sig/init-sample-1377-032410.pdf"><SPAN class=red-bold-text>Final Random Sample Update - 03/24/10</SPAN></A>
Changes California Law to Legalize Marijuana and Allow It to Be Regulated and
Taxed.<SPAN class=red-bold-text>Qualified: 03/24/10 </SPAN>Proponents: Richard
Seib Lee and Jeffrey Wayne Jones (510) 208-4554</P>
<P>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.) <A href="http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i821_initiative_09-0024_amdt_1-s.pdf">(Full
Text)</A></P><BR>
<DIV id=banner><FONT size=4 face="Times New Roman">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!!!</FONT></DIV><A name=1380></A>
<P><SPAN class=medium-text-bold>Proposition 20</SPAN><BR><SPAN class=smaller-text>Initiative Constitutional Amendment</SPAN><BR><SPAN class=text-strong>1380. (09-0027) - </SPAN><A href="http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/pend_sig/init-sample-1380-050510.pdf"><SPAN class=red-bold-text>Final Random Sample Update -
05/05/10</SPAN></A> Redistricting of Congressional Districts.<SPAN class=red-bold-text>Qualified: 05/05/10 </SPAN>Proponent: Charles T. Munger, Jr.
<A href="mailto:votersfirstactforcongress@gmail.com">votersfirstactforcongress@gmail.com</A></P>
<P>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.) <A href="http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i825_initiative_09-0027.pdf">(Full
Text)</A><BR></P>
<DIV id=banner><FONT size=4 face="Times New Roman">Proposition 21
$18 vehicle fee to fund state parks; California vehicles get free entry to state
parks. Yes.</FONT></DIV><A name=1421></A>
<P><SPAN class=medium-text-bold>Proposition 21 </SPAN><SPAN class=smaller-text>Initiative Statute </SPAN><SPAN class=text-strong>1421.
(09-0072) - </SPAN><A href="http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/pend_sig/init-sample-1421-061010.pdf"><SPAN class=red-bold-text>Final Random Sample Update -
06/10/10</SPAN></A> 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.<SPAN class=red-bold-text>Qualified: 06/10/10
</SPAN>Proponent: Joseph L. Caves (916) 558-1516</P>
<P>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.) <A href="http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i869_initiative_09-0072.pdf">(Full
Text)</A></P><A name=1414></A><SPAN class=medium-text-bold>
<DIV id=banner><FONT size=4 face="Times New Roman">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.</FONT></DIV>
<P>Proposition 22 </SPAN><SPAN class=smaller-text>Initiative Constitutional
Amendment.</SPAN><BR><SPAN class=text-strong>1414. (09-0063, Amdt.#1NS) -
</SPAN><SPAN class=red-bold-text>Final Random Sample Update - 06/22/10</SPAN>
Prohibits the State from Taking Funds Used for Transportation or Local
Government Projects and Services. <SPAN class=red-bold-text>Qualified: 06/22/10
</SPAN>Proponents: Joshua Shaw, Christopher K. McKenzie, and James N. Earp</P>
<P>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.) <A href="http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i860_initiative_09-0063_amdt_1-ns.pdf">(Full
Text)</A></P><A name=1454></A><SPAN class=medium-text-bold>
<DIV id=banner><FONT size=4 face="Times New Roman">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!!!</FONT></DIV>
<P>Proposition 23 </SPAN><SPAN class=smaller-text>Initiative Statute
</SPAN><SPAN class=text-strong>1454. (09-0104) - </SPAN><A href="http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/pend_sig/init-sample-1454-062210.pdf"><SPAN class=red-bold-text>Final Random Sample Update -
06/22/10</SPAN></A> 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. <SPAN class=red-bold-text>Qualified: 06/22/10 </SPAN>Proponent: Thomas W. Hiltachk
(916) 442-7757</P>
<P>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: <SPAN class=text-strong>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.</SPAN> (09-0104.) <A href="http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i902_initiative_09-0104.pdf">(Full
Text)</A></P>
<DIV id=banner><FONT size=4 face="Times New Roman">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!</FONT></DIV><A name=1412></A>
<P><SPAN class=medium-text-bold>Proposition 24 </SPAN><SPAN class=smaller-text>Initiative Statute. </SPAN><SPAN class=text-strong>1412.
(09-0058, #1NS) - </SPAN><A href="http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/pend_sig/init-sample-1412-062410-5pm.pdf"><SPAN class=red-bold-text>Final Random Sample Update -
06/24/10</SPAN></A> 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.<SPAN class=red-bold-text>Qualified:
06/24/10 </SPAN>Proponents: Robin Johansen and Karen Getman (510) 346-6200</P>
<P>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.) <A href="http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i855_initiative_09-0058_amdt_1-ns.pdf">(Full
Text)</A></P>
<DIV id=banner><FONT size=4 face="Times New Roman">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</FONT></DIV><A name=1408></A>
<P><SPAN class=medium-text-bold>Proposition 25 </SPAN><SPAN class=smaller-text>Initiative Constitutional Amendment.</SPAN><SPAN class=text-strong>1408. (09-0057) - </SPAN><A href="http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/pend_sig/init-sample-1408-062410-5pm.pdf"><SPAN class=red-bold-text>Final Random Sample Update -
06/24/10</SPAN></A> Changes Legislative Vote Requirement to Pass a Budget
from Two-Thirds to a Simple Majority. Retains Two-Thirds Vote Requirement for
Taxes. <SPAN class=red-bold-text>Qualified: 06/24/10 </SPAN>Proponents: James C.
Harrison and Thomas A. Willis (510) 346-6200</P>
<P>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.) <A href="http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i854_initiative_09-0057.pdf">(Full
Text)</A></P>
<DIV id=banner><FONT size=4 face="Times New Roman">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!</FONT></DIV><A name=1441></A>
<P><SPAN class=medium-text-bold>Proposition 26 </SPAN><SPAN class=smaller-text>Initiative Constitutional Amendment </SPAN><SPAN class=text-strong>1441. (09-0093) - </SPAN><A href="http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/pend_sig/init-sample-1441-062410-5pm.pdf"><SPAN class=red-bold-text>Final Random Sample Update -
06/24/10</SPAN></A> 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.<SPAN class=red-bold-text>Qualified: 06/24/10 </SPAN>Proponent: Allan Zaremberg c/o
Steve Lucas (916) 446-6752</P>
<P>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: <SPAN class=text-strong>Potentially major
decrease in state and local revenues and spending, depending upon future actions
of the Legislature, local governing bodies, and local voters.</SPAN> (09-0093.)
<A href="http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i891_initiative_09-0093.pdf">(Full
Text)</A></P>
<DIV id=banner><FONT size=4 face="Times New Roman">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!</FONT></DIV><A name=1451></A>
<P><SPAN class=medium-text-bold>Proposition 27 </SPAN><SPAN class=smaller-text>Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute. </SPAN><SPAN class=text-strong>1451. (09-0107) - </SPAN><A href="http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/pend_sig/init-sample-1451-062410-final.pdf"><SPAN class=red-bold-text>Final Random Sample Update -
06/24/10</SPAN></A> Eliminates State Commission on Redistricting.
Consolidates Authority for Redistricting with Elected Representatives. <SPAN class=red-bold-text>Qualified: 06/24/10 </SPAN>Proponent: Daniel Lowenstein c/o
Fredric D. Woocher (310) 576-1233</P>
<P>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: <SPAN class=text-strong>Likely decrease in state redistricting costs totaling several
million dollars every ten years.</SPAN> (09-0107.) <A href="http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/i905_initiative_09-0107.pdf">(Full
Text)</A></P><BR>
<H2><BR></FONT> </H2></DIV></DIV></DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>