Past Projects

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 2, 2010 — General Election

June 8, 2010 — Primary Election

May 19, 2009 — Special Election

November 4, 2008 — General Election

June 3, 2008 — Primary Election Ballot Summaries

June 3, 2008 — Primary Election Interviews

February 5, 2008 — Primary Election Ballot Summaries

February 5, 2008 — Primary Election Interviews

November 7, 2006 — General Election Ballot Summaries

November 7, 2006 — General Election Interviews

June 6, 2006 — Primary Election Ballot Summaries

February 5, 2008 — Primary Election Ballot Summaries

The following was designed to assist citizens by offering nonpartisan information for Californians voting in the primary 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 91—Transportation Funding—FAILED

In 2006, Californians passed Proposition 1A, which limited the ability of state legislators to borrow funds from motor vehicle and gasoline sales taxes- which are supposed to be used for state and local transportation needs- and use them for projects other than transportation. Proposition 91 would do essentially the same thing; it would require funds earmarked for transportation to be used only for those purposes except in certain cases, such as a budget emergency, where very short term loans would be allowed.

Supporters: Those that originally back Proposition 91, now have asked the public to vote "NO" because it is no longer needed. They assert that Proposition 1A accomplished much of what this proposition set out to do.

Oppose: There is no argument to oppose this proposition.

Proposition 92—Community Colleges, Funding—FAILED

This would formally recognize the California Community Colleges System within the California state constitution.

It would reduce community college student fees to $15 per unit per semester and limit future fee increases.

Existing law requires that a minimum amount be set aside each year to fund K-14 education. Proposition 92 would split the funding requirement into two parts, one for K-12 and one for community colleges.

Arguments for: The state makes money when students graduate from college and get jobs that enable them to contribute taxes in greater amounts. After fees were raised many students could not afford to enroll in classes. This measure would thus ensure that students have a better chance at an education. Community colleges would be formally recognized in the California Constitution and each one would have their own Board of Governors to make staffing and funding determinations.

Argument against: This proposition has no accountability. There is no way to know if the money is getting into the classroom and to the students. It also requires more money to fund this proposition with no way to pay for it. The initial costs of lowering fees would cost the state $70 million at a time when the state is still struggling with a budget deficit. The state still needs more funds to provide better education to K-12 students, enhanced public safety, and more accessible health care. This measure could make less funds available for these purposes.

Supported by: Association of Chief Business Officials, California Federation of Teachers, and Faculty Association of California Community Colleges.

Yes - www.prop92yes.com

Opposed by: California Teachers Association, California Taxpayer's Association, and California Chamber of Commerce.

No - www.noprop92.org

Proposition 93—Limits on Legislators' Terms in Office—FAILED

Reduces total years that one may serve as a state legislator from 14 to 12 years. State legislators could serve a total of 12 years in the Senate, Assembly, or a combination of both. Currently, one may serve up to 6 years (3 terms) in the state Assembly and 8 years (2 terms) in the state Senate.

Arguments for: It reduces the number of years that can be served by a member of the Legislature from 14 to 12. These years can be served in the Assembly, Senate, or both. This would increase the level of experience of legislators in both houses, as they could stay in one seat for the entire duration of their legislative career.

Argument against: This measure is designed with a clause to benefit current legislators. The current Democratic legislative leaders of the state Assembly and Senate lead the effort to put Prop 93 on the ballot. Even if current legislators are scheduled to be termed out this year, they could serve up to 12 years in their current house, extending the term limits currently put in place by voters. It thus violates the will of the people regarding term limits.

Supported by: Governor Schwarzenegger, former Governor Gray Davis, California Democratic Party

Yes - www.termlimitsreform.org

Opposes: California Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner, California Term Limits Defense Fund, Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association

No - www.stopthepoliticians.com

Propositions 94-97—Referendum on Amendment to Indian Gaming Compact—PASSED

These referendums will ratify an amendment to current Indian gaming laws by allowing some tribes to increase their slot machines above the current cap of 2,000 machines. In exchange, these tribes would have to make annual increased payments to the State General Fund through 2030. Each proposition applies to one tribe (for a total of four) of Californian Indians, the Pachanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians, the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, the Syucan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation and the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians. Environmental impact reports and operating guidelines for each casino would also be required from each tribe.

Arguments for: It would generate hundreds of millions of dollars to the state's General Fund which could be used for education, health care and public safety. The tribes would be required to address environmental impacts of the casinos and would allow their employees to unionize. It would also provide tens of millions of dollars for other tribes statewide through revenue sharing.

Arguments against: It would allow four out of 108 tribes to control one-third of the Indian gaming pie. There would be an increase of 17,000 slots, which would make California home to some of the largest casinos in the nation. There is no way to hold tribes accountable for environmental impacts and there are too many loopholes in the language surrounding this agreement. None of the profits are ensured for schools or providing affordable healthcare for the casinos' employees.

Supporters: Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, California Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell, California Republican Party

Yes - www.YESforCalifornia.com

Opposes: California Federation of Teachers, California Tax Reform Association

No - www.NoUnfairDeals.com

Safely Out - Protecting the vulnerable during disasters Elections Project - Providing nonpartisan election information About
Nov 4, 2014
Register To Vote