We have kept the following as a sample of our election content. Look for our new election content prior to the next California statewide and national elections.
November 7, 2006 General Election Ballot Summaries
The following was designed to assist citizens by offering nonpartisan information for Californians voting in the general election. It does not reflect a position on specific ballot measures, as Citizen Voice views its important role in elections as assisting citizens in making their own informed decisions.
You'll find a brief, clear summary of each ballot measure, specifically designed to be easily understood, in the column below. For additional information about each measure, check out some of the additional resources at the bottom of the page.
Summaries Provided by Citizen Voice
Proposition 1AUse of Gas TaxesPASSED
Proposition 1A would place additional restrictions on how money collected from California's gasoline tax can be used.
Before 2002, gas tax money could be used pretty much as they state saw fit. Then in 2002, voters changed the state constitution to require that gas tax money could only be used for transportation purposes (congestion relief, safety projects, and street and road improvements) except in a state budget emergency.
Proposition 1A would make more changes to the state Constitution to say gas taxes could not be used for anything except transportation, unless there is a severe state financial crisis. In that case, money from gas taxes could be borrowed, but would have to be paid back - with interest - within three years. Prop 1A also limits the number of times the state can borrow gas tax money to twice in ten years.
Supporters say Prop. 1A protects money needed for roads and safety. Opponents say 1A makes it harder for lawmakers to spend money on important services other than transportation.
Proposition 1A is supported by: the California Highway Patrol, the Automobile Club of Southern California, the California Transportation Commission, the California Chamber of Commerce and the California Police Chiefs Association.
Proposition 1A is opposed by: State Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg (D - Los Angeles), chair of the Assembly Education Committee.
Proposition 1BTransportation BondsPASSED
Proposition 1B would allow the state to sell $19.9 billion in bonds with the money raised used to upgrade roads and highways, reduce congestion, expand public transit, and make safety, seismic and other improvements.
It's estimated the cost of the proposal would be $38.9 billion to cover the cost of the bonds and interest over 30 years. There would also be "unknown" maintenance costs for new buses, rail cars and other equipment.
Supporters say Prop 1B helps the state make long overdue investments in transportation projects without raising taxes. Opponents say 1B puts California further in debt and makes the state's budget problems worse.
Proposition 1B is supported by: The California Air Resources Board, the California Taxpayers Association, the California Highway Patrol, the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Transportation Commission and the Automobile Club of Southern California.
Proposition 1B is opposed by: California State Assemblyman Michael Villines (R - Clovis) and the California Taxpayer Protection Committee.
Proposition 1CHousing Program BondsPASSED
Proposition 1C would allow the state to sell $2.85 billion in bonds to build housing projects in urban areas near public transit, provide assistance for low income and first-time home buyers, and provide funds for homeless shelters, housing for farm workers, and other housing programs.
The total estimated cost of Proposition 1C is $6.1 billion to cover the cost of the bonds and interest over 30 years. In the 2002 election, voters approved $2.1 billion in bonds for similar state housing programs, most of which has now been spent.
Supporters say Proposition 1C creates jobs and helps provide safe housing for people who need the most help. Opponents of 1C say California cannot afford this kind of debt and private builders, not the government, should build homes.
Proposition 1C is supported by: the American Association of Retired Persons, the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence, San Diego Habitat for Humanity, the Congress of California Seniors and Vietnam Veterans of California.
Proposition 1C is opposed by: California State Assemblyman Chuck Devore (R - Irvine), member of the Assembly Budget Committee; Bill Leonard, member of the California State Board of Equalization; and the California Taxpayer Protection Committee.
Proposition 1DSchool BondsPASSED
Proposition 1D would allow the state to sell $10.4 billion in bonds to pay for repairing older schools, relieving overcrowding, improving earthquake safety and improving vocational education in public schools (e.g. "shop" classes). Of that money, $7.3 billion is designated for K-12 schools and $3.1 billion for community colleges and public universities.
Money could only be spent according to strict rules. Specifically, school districts would have to pay for 50 percent of the cost of a new building or 40 percent of the cost of repairs.
The estimated cost of the Proposition 1D will be $20.3 billion to cover the cost of the bonds and interest over 30 years. This $10.4 billion bond measure would be in addition to the $28 billion (most of which is already spent) in school bond measures approved by the voters since 1996.
Supporters say Proposition 1D will ease overcrowding, repair or build thousands of classrooms and improve education. Opponents say few schools will benefit from 1D and current spending, not additional debt, should be used for these types of school projects.
Proposition 1D is supported by: the California Teachers Association, the California State PTA, the California Taxpayers Association, the California Business Roundtable, the Coalition for Adequate School Housing and George Caplan of the California Community College Board of Governors.
Proposition 1D is opposed by: the California Taxpayer Protection Committee and William Saracino of the California Political Review.
Proposition 1EFlood Control BondsPASSED
Proposition 1E would allow the state to sell $4.1 billion in bonds to pay for improvements and repairs to flood control systems and facilities throughout the state. Specifically, $3 billion would pay for levee repairs and flood control projects in the Central Valley and $1.1 billion would go to similar uses elsewhere in the state.
The total estimated cost of Proposition 1E is $8 billion for the bonds and interest over 30 years.
Supporters say Proposition 1E would protect lives, property and water supplies against the threat of a catastrophic flood. Opponents say California should not take on more debt for something that will only pay for a portion of the needed repairs, and that these expenses should come from annual budget allocations.
Proposition 1E is supported by: The California Fire Chiefs Association; Henry Renteria, director of the California Office of Emergency Services; Linda Adams, secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency; the Western Growers Association and Peter Silva, former vice chair of the State Water Resources Control Board.
Proposition 1E is opposed by: The California Taxpayer Protection Committee.
Proposition 83Punishment for Sex OffendersPASSED
Proposition 83 would increase punishments for violent and repeat sex offenders and child molesters. Prop 83 would also make it illegal for sex offenders and child molesters to live within 2,000 feet of a school or a park.
Prop. 83 also requires that sex offenders be monitored electronically with Global Positioning System (GPS) devices for the rest of their lives and allows the state to commit some sex offenders to mental health facilities for treatment under the Sexually Violent Predator program.
Supporters of Proposition 83 say it will keep dangerous sex criminals in prison longer and away from schools and parks, while giving the police an important tool for tracking these criminals. Opponents of Prop. 83 say its cost (estimated at hundreds of million dollars a year) is wasteful and would not increase public safety, as similar laws in other states have not reduced crime.
Proposition 83 is supported by: Crime Victims United of California, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, San Diego County District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis, the California Organization of Police and Sheriffs, the California Deputy District Attorneys Association and the California State Sheriffs Association.
Proposition 83 is opposed by: California Attorneys for Criminal Justice.
Proposition 84Water, Parks and Natural Resources BondsPASSED
Proposition 84 would allow the state to sell $5.4 billion in bonds to fund programs for water supply, drinking water safety and water quality, as well as flood control, environmental protection, and state park improvement programs.
The total cost of Proposition 84 is estimated at $10.5 billion to cover the payment of the bonds and the interest over 30 years. There would also be "unknown" state and local operations and maintenance costs, estimated at tens of millions of dollars a year. California's Legislative Analyst also predicts Proposition 84 would result in reduced local property tax revenues of several million dollars a year.
Supporters of Proposition 84 say it will help ensure a clean, reliable and safe water supply, while giving "every region of the state" the ability to decide how it will meet demands for water resources. Opponents say local projects should be funded by local communities instead of the state and that the cost of the bonds will cut into government spending on education, health care and other critical programs.
Proposition 84 is supported by: The Nature Conservancy, the Ocean Conservancy, Clean Water Action; Dr. Richard Brown, professor in the School of Public Health at the University of California Los Angeles; Larry Wilson, chairman of the board of the Santa Clara Valley Water District; and Jeff Kightlinger, general manager of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.
Proposition 84 is opposed by: Americans for Tax Reform, the National Tax Limitation Committee; and Bill Leonard, member of the California State Board of Equalization.
Proposition 85Waiting Period and Parental Notification for Minors Before AbortionFAILED
Proposition 85 would require a doctor to notify the parents of a girl who is a minor (under the age of 18) at least 48 hours before performing an abortion, except in emergency situations or if a court grants the doctor permission to proceed. Parents would not have to give permission for the abortion, meaning after 48 hours if the minor still wants the abortion the doctor can proceed. Currently any unmarried girl under 18 can get an abortion in California without her parents or guardians being notified.
Proposition 85 also would create fines for doctors who violate this law and requires that some information about the abortions be reported to the state, without identifying the minors.
Supporters of Proposition 85 say it can avoid medical problems by ensuring teens get the help and attention they need instead of trying to hide their pregnancy or abortion from their parents, and that parents have a right to be informed before a medical procedure is carried out on their child. Opponents say Prop 85 will force teens into unsafe abortions and that the proposition itself is designed to be a first step in banning all abortions.
Proposition 85 is supported by: Retired California Supreme Court Justice William Clark; Dr. Mary Davenport, fellow with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; Dr. Joseph Zanga, past president of the American Academy of Pediatrics; Dr. Jane Anderson, clinical professor of Pediatrics; and Teresa Stanton Collet, J.D., professor of parental notification and involvement laws.
Proposition 85 is opposed by: the League of Women Voters of California, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, the California Academy of Family Physicians; Dr. Jeanne Conry, vice chair, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists - District IX California, the California Medical Association; and Dr. Robert Black, American Academy of Pediatrics California District.
Proposition 86Cigarette and Tobacco TaxFAILED
Proposition 86 would add a tax of $2.60 to every pack of cigarettes sold in California to create a pool of money (estimated at $2.1 billion per year) to be spent on hospital emergency care, children's health insurance, tobacco education and a variety of other specific programs.
Supporters of Proposition 86 say it will stop more than a million kids and adults from smoking and will simultaneously pay for critical health care services in California, while ultimately saving California an estimated $16 billion in tobacco-related health care costs. Opponents say Proposition 86 is an unfair tax that will create more crime by producing a black market for cigarettes, and that less than 10 percent of Proposition 86 funds will go to help smokers quit.
Proposition 86 is supported by: the American Cancer Society - California Division; the American Heart Associaiton - Western States Affiliate; and the American Lung Association of California.
Proposition 86 is opposed by: the California Taxpayers Association; the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs; the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce; and Dr. James Knight, past president of the San Diego County Medical Society.
Proposition 87Oil Tax for Alternative EnergyFAILED
Proposition 87 would create a new tax on oil pumped in California to be paid by oil companies. This money would be used to pay for a $4 billion program designed to promote clean energy while simultaneously reducing oil use in California. The new tax would provide $285 million to $485 million to this program each year and would end after the $4 billion was raised.
Supporters of Proposition 87 say it makes oil companies pay their fair share for cleaner energy, will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and that it would be illegal under the measure for oil companies to past the costs of Prop 87 on to consumers. Opponents say Prop 87 will lead to higher gas prices and make taxes on oil pumped in California the highest in the country with no requirement that the program produce any results.
Proposition 87 is supported by: the American Lung Associaiton, the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights; Winston Hickox, former secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency; the Coalition for Clean Air; and Dr. Mario Molina, Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry and professor at the University of California, San Diego.
Proposition 87 is opposed by: the California Chamber of Commerce; Californians Against Higher Taxes; the California Taxpayers Association; the California Small Business Alliance; the California State Firefighters Association; and Mary Bergeson, past president of the California School Boards Association.
Proposition 88$50/Parcel Property Tax for SchoolsFAILED
Proposition 88 would create a new, ongoing state tax of $50 per year for every piece of property owned in California, to be paid by the individual property owners, although elderly and disabled property owners would not have to pay. The money generated by this tax (estimated at $450 million per year) would pay for five specified education programs, including class size reductions, new textbooks, and school safety.
Supporters of Proposition 88 say it is needed because a third of California students don't have textbooks to take home, teachers often have to pay for basic classroom supplies out of their own pockets, and class size reduction funds are needed. Opponents say Proposition 88 offers no guarantees as to where its funds will be used - it's up to the legislature to decide - creates a new kind of never-ending property tax and paves the way for special interests to propose more taxes later.
Proposition 88 is supported by: Jack O'Connell, California State Superintendent of Public Instruction; Reed Hastings, past president of the California State Board of Education; Shelbi Wilson, 2006 Teacher of the Year; Russell "Rusty" Hammer, former Chamber of Commerce Executive; and Stephanie Pridemore, local PTA President.
Proposition 88 is opposed by: The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association; the Small Business Action Committee; Clifford Corigliano, 2003 teacher of the Year; Dr. Tom Bogetich, executive director California State Board of Education (Ret.); Art Pedroza with the California and American Federations of Teachers; and Lorie McCann, Parent-Teachers Association Local President.
Proposition 89Public Financing for Political CampaignsFAILED
Proposition 89 attempts to address the ever increasing levels of campaign spending in California's election races. It would do so by imposing a 0.2 percent tax on corporations and financial institutions that would go into a public fund for political candidates.
Before they could get any of this money, candidates would have to agree to certain rules. Candidates would not be required to use this public money, however, and could continue to pay for their campaigns in the more traditional way -- campaign contributions. Even so, Prop 89 would set limits on how much money corporations could give to campaigns.
Supporters of Proposition 89 say it will level the playing field in California's elections by limiting the ability of special interests to spend huge amounts of money to help a particular candidate, and it would make it easier for people without big money connections to run for office. Opponents say Prop. 89 is not necessary, as Californians have already approved campaign contribution limits.
Proposition 89 is supported by: The California Nurses Association, the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, the California Clean Money Campaign, The League of Women Voters, and California Common Cause.
Proposition 89 is opposed by: The California Taxpayers' Association, the California Small Business Roundtable; the California Chamber of Commerce, and James Hall and Tony Quinn, former commissioners on the California Fair Political Practices Commission.
Proposition 90Property Rights and Government ExpenseFAILED
Proposition 90 would affect the ability of the government to take private property through a power called "eminent domain." Typically, eminent domain is used when a government wants to take private property and put it to public use. People who own property taken under eminent domain are paid fair market price.
Sometimes governments can force the sale of private property to make room for private developers to build new residential, commercial or industrial projects, typically through redevelopment of areas deemed less than desirable. Proposition 90 would change the California Constitution so that state and local governments could not force the sale of private property for this kind of private use.
Proposition 90 would also force state and local governments to pay property owners if new laws or regulations are passed which create a major economic loss for the property owner, like a change in zoning laws that causes property values to go down.
Supporters say people shouldn't be forced to sell their property so a new mall or a new housing complex or some other private project can be built, and add that it's only fair to pay property owners for any losses created by new laws. Opponents say Proposition 90 is a taxpayer trap that would led to more lawsuits against local and state government costing taxpayers billions of dollars per year, and that it would discourage the government from acting to protect the public interest or the environment.
Proposition 90 is supported by: Victims of Eminent Domain Abuse, the California Protect Our Homes Coalitions; and the National Federation of Independent Business.
Proposition 90 is opposed by: the League of California Homeowners; the California Fire Chiefs Association; the League of Women Voters; the American Farmland Trust; and the California Police Chiefs Association.