(KRON) KRON4 News is providing complete local and statewide election information. There are 17 statewide ballot measure for you to cast your ballot on November 8th. We have compiled information directly from the California Secretary of State’s voter guide so you can make informed decisions on issues impacting your communities. We have also included a link directly to the Secretary of State’s web page.
51 School Bonds. Funding for K-12 School and Community College Facilities. Initiative Statute.
PROP 51
SCHOOL BONDS. FUNDING FOR K–12 SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE FACILITIES. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
SUMMARY
Authorizes $9 billion in general obligation bonds for new construction and modernization of K–12 public school facilities; charter schools and vocational education facilities; and California Community Colleges facilities. Fiscal Impact: State costs of about $17.6 billion to pay off both the principal ($9 billion) and interest ($8.6 billion) on the bonds. Payments of about $500 million per year for 35 years.
WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS
YES: A YES vote on this measure means: The state could sell $9 billion in general obligation bonds for education facilities ($7 billion for K–12 public school facilities and $2 billion for community college facilities).
NO: A NO vote on this measure means: The state would not have the authority to sell new general obligation bonds for K–12 public school and community college facilities.
ARGUMENTS
PRO: Our children deserve safe schools where they can learn, but many schools and community colleges need repairs to meet health and safety standards. Prop. 51 will fix deteriorating schools, upgrade classrooms, and provide job-training facilities for veterans and vocational education. All projects are accountable to local taxpayers.
CON: Prop. 51 was created for greedy developers to exploit taxpayers for profit. Prop. 51 stops legislators from providing fair school funding. Disadvantaged schools are left behind. There’s no improvement in taxpayer accountability. It does nothing to fight waste, fraud and abuse. Governor Brown opposes Prop. 51. Vote NO on 51.
52 Medi-Cal Hospital Fee Program. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Prop 52 MEDI‐CAL HOSPITAL FEE PROGRAM. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.
SUMMARY
Extends indefinitely an existing statute that imposes fees on hospitals to fund Medi-Cal health care services, care for uninsured patients, and children’s health coverage. Fiscal Impact: Uncertain fiscal effect, ranging from relatively little impact to annual state General Fund savings of around $1 billion and increased funding for public hospitals in the low hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS
YES: A YES vote on this measure means: An existing charge imposed on most private hospitals that is scheduled to end on January 1, 2018 under current law would be extended permanently. It would be harder for the Legislature to make changes to it. Revenue raised would be used to create state savings, increase payments for hospital services to low-income Californians, and provide grants to public hospitals.
NO: A NO vote on this measure means: An existing charge imposed on most private hospitals would end on January 1, 2018 unless additional action by the Legislature extended it.
ARGUMENTS
PRO: YES on Proposition 52 extends the current state Medi–Cal hospital fee program, which generates over $3 billion a year in federal matching funds that pay for health care services for children, seniors and low-income families. Proposition 52 prohibits the Legislature from diverting this money for other purposes without voter approval.
CON: Removes all accountability and oversight of over $3 billion of taxpayer dollars. Gives $3 billion to hospital CEOs with no independent audit and no requirement the money is spent on health care. Public funds can be spent on lobbyists, perks and salaries for hospital bureaucrats instead of children and seniors.
53 Revenue Bonds. Statewide Voter Approval. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
PROP 53 REVENUE BONDS. STATEWIDE VOTER APPROVAL. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
SUMMARY
Requires statewide voter approval before any revenue bonds can be issued or sold by the state for certain projects if the bond amount exceeds $2 billion. Fiscal Impact: State and local fiscal effects are unknown and would depend on which projects are affected by the measure and what actions government agencies and voters take in response to the measure’s voting requirement.
WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS
YES: A YES vote on this measure means: State revenue bonds totaling more than $2 billion for a project that is funded, owned, or managed by the state would require statewide voter approval.
NO: A NO vote on this measure means: State revenue bonds could continue to be used without voter approval.
ARGUMENTS
PRO: Proposition 53 requires voter approval for state megaprojects costing over $2 billion in state revenue bonds—like the bullet train. Doesn’t impact local projects. Increases transparency so taxpayers know the true cost. Holds politicians accountable and stops blank checks. If taxpayers have to pay, they should have a say!
CON: Prop. 53 erodes local control by requiring statewide vote on some local infrastructure projects. Empowers voters in faraway regions to reject your community’s needs. Prop. 53 jeopardizes water supply, bridge safety, other repairs. No exemption for emergencies/disasters. California Professional Firefighters, cities, counties, Association of California Water Agencies urge No on 53. http://www.NoProp53.com
54 Legislature. Legislation and Proceedings. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
PROP 54 LEGISLATURE. LEGISLATION AND PROCEEDINGS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.
SUMMARY
Prohibits Legislature from passing any bill unless published on Internet for 72 hours before vote. Requires Legislature to record its proceedings and post on Internet. Authorizes use of recordings. Fiscal Impact: One-time costs of $1 million to $2 million and ongoing costs of about $1 million annually to record legislative meetings and make videos of those meetings available on the Internet.
WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS
YES: A YES vote on this measure means: Any bill (including changes to the bill) would have to be made available to legislators and posted on the Internet for at least 72 hours before the Legislature could pass it. The Legislature would have to ensure that its public meetings are recorded and make videos of those meetings available on the Internet.
NO: A NO vote on this measure means: Rules and duties of the Legislature would not change.
ARGUMENTS
PRO: Prop. 54 stops special-interest, surpriselegislation from passing either legislative house without 72 hours for review. Prop. 54 posts all the Legislature’s public meetings online, so voters can review legislators’ public actions. A bipartisan coalition of good–government, taxpayer, minority, business, and environmental groups backs Prop. 54. Requires no new tax money.
CON: A NO vote continues free Internet & TV access for any California citizen to see how laws are made. A NO vote also prevents special interests like tobacco, oil, and drug companies from delaying passage of state laws. A NO vote also limits political “attack” ads.
55 Tax Extension to Fund Education and Healthcare. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Prop 55 TAX EXTENSION TO FUND EDUCATION AND HEALTHCARE. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
SUMMARY
Extends by twelve years the temporary personal income tax increases enacted in 2012 on earnings over $250,000, with revenues allocated to K–12 schools, California Community Colleges, and, in certain years, healthcare. Fiscal Impact: Increased state revenues—$4 billion to $9 billion annually from 2019–2030—depending on economy and stock market. Increased funding for schools, community colleges, health care for low–income people, budget reserves, and debt payments.
WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS
YES: A YES vote on this measure means: Income tax increases on high–income taxpayers, which are scheduled to end after 2018, would instead be extended through 2030.
NO: A NO vote on this measure means: Income tax increases on high–income taxpayers would expire as scheduled at the end of 2018.
ARGUMENTS
PRO: Prop. 55 helps children thrive! Prop. 55 prevents $4 billion in cuts to California’s public schools, and increases children’s access to healthcare, by maintaining current tax rates on the wealthiest Californians—with strict accountability requirements. We can’t go back to the deep cuts we faced during the last recession. http://www.YesOn55.com
CON: VOTE NO ON 55—TEMPORARY SHOULD MEAN TEMPORARY. Voters supported higher taxes in 2012 because Governor Brown said they would be TEMPORARY. State budget estimates show higher taxes are not needed to balance the budget, but the special interests want to extend them to grow government bigger. TELL THEM NO.
56 Cigarette Tax to Fund Healthcare, Tobacco Use Prevention, Research, and Law Enforcement. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
PROP 56 CIGARETTE TAX TO FUND HEALTHCARE, TOBACCO USE PREVENTION, RESEARCH, AND LAW ENFORCEMENT. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.
SUMMARY
Increases cigarette tax by $2.00 per pack, with equivalent increase on other tobacco products and electronic cigarettes containing nicotine. Fiscal Impact: Additional net state revenue of $1 billion to $1.4 billion in 2017–18, with potentially lower revenues in future years. Revenues would be used primarily to augment spending on health care for low–income Californians.
WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS
YES: A YES vote on this measure means: State excise tax on cigarettes would increase by $2 per pack—from 87 cents to $2.87. State excise tax on other tobacco products would increase by a similar amount. State excise tax also would be applied to electronic cigarettes. Revenue from these higher taxes would be used for many purposes, but primarily to augment spending on health care for low–income Californians.
NO: A NO vote on this measure means: No changes would be made to existing state taxes on cigarettes, other tobacco products, and electronic cigarettes.
ARGUMENTS
PRO: Tobacco-related healthcare costs California taxpayers $3.5 billion annually, even if you don’t smoke. Prop. 56 works like a user fee, taxing tobacco to help pay for smoking prevention and healthcare—so smokers pay their fair share for their costs. American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network sponsored Prop. 56 to prevent kids from smoking and save lives.
CON: Follow the 56 money: This $1.6 billion tax increase gives $1 billion to health insurance companies and special interests. 56 cheats schools out of $600 million a year by circumventing our minimum school funding guarantee. Only 13% of the money helps smokers or prevents kids from starting. No on 56.
57 Criminal Sentences. Parole. Juvenile Criminal Proceedings and Sentencing. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
PROP 57 CRIMINAL SENTENCES. PAROLE. JUVENILE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AND SENTENCING. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.
SUMMARY
Allows parole consideration for nonviolent felons. Authorizes sentence credits for rehabilitation, good behavior, and education. Provides juvenile court judge decides whether juvenile will be prosecuted as adult. Fiscal Impact: Net state savings likely in the tens of millions of dollars annually, depending on implementation. Net county costs of likely a few million dollars annually.
WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS
YES: A YES vote on this measure means: Certain state prison inmates convicted of nonviolent felony offenses would be considered for release earlier than otherwise. The state prison system could award additional sentencing credits to inmates for good behavior and approved rehabilitative or educational achievements. Youths must have a hearing in juvenile court before they could be transferred to adult court.
NO: A NO vote on this measure means: There would be no change to the inmate release process. The state’s prison system could not award additional sentencing credits to inmates. Certain youths could continue to be tried in adult court without a hearing in juvenile court.
ARGUMENTS
PRO: California public safety leaders and victims of crime support Proposition 57—the Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016—because Prop. 57 focuses resources on keeping dangerous criminals behind bars, while rehabilitating juvenile and adult inmates and saving tens of millions of taxpayer dollars. YES on Prop. 57.
CON: Vote NO on 57 because it:
Authorizes EARLY RELEASE of violent criminals, including those who RAPE unconscious victims.
Authorizes immediate release for 16,000 dangerous criminals, even convicted murderers.
Amends the California Constitution; takes rights away from victims; grants more rights to criminals. Vote NO on 57.
58 English Proficiency. Multilingual Education. Initiative Statute.
PROP 58
ENGLISH PROFICIENCY. MULTILINGUAL EDUCATION. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
SUMMARY
Preserves requirement that public schools ensure students obtain English language proficiency. Requires school districts to solicit parent/community input in developing language acquisition programs. Requires instruction to ensure English acquisition as rapidly and effectively as possible. Authorizes school districts to establish dual–language immersion programs for both native and non–native English speakers. Fiscal Impact: No notable fiscal effect on school districts or state government.
WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS
YES: A YES vote on this measure means: Public schools could more easily choose how to teach English learners, whether in English–only, bilingual, or other types of programs.
NO: A NO vote on this measure means: Public schools would still be required to teach most English learners in English–only programs.
ARGUMENTS
PRO: Teachers, parents, school principals, local school board members, and Governor Jerry Brown support Proposition 58 to help students learn English as quickly as possible and expand opportunities for English speakers to master a second language. Proposition 58 gives school districts local control to choose the most effective instruction methods for their students.
CON: Prop. 58 is not about modernizing the way we teach English. It’s about eliminating parental rights to an English–language education for their children. English–language success has been spectacular. Immigrant children are learning English faster than ever before and record numbers of immigrant students are gaining admission to our universities.
59 Corporations. Political Spending. Federal Constitutional Protections. Legislative Advisory Question.
PROP 59 CORPORATIONS. POLITICAL SPENDING. FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS. LEGISLATIVE ADVISORY QUESTION.
SUMMARY
Asks whether California’s elected officials should use their authority to propose and ratify an amendment to the federal Constitution overturning the United States Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Citizens United ruled that laws placing certain limits on political spending by corporations and unions are unconstitutional. Fiscal Impact: No direct fiscal effect on state or local governments.
Shall California’s elected officials use all of their constitutional authority, including, but not limited to, proposing and ratifying one or more amendments to the United States Constitution, to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) 558 U.S. 310, and other applicable judicial precedents, to allow the full regulation or limitation of campaign contributions and spending, to ensure that all citizens, regardless of wealth, may express their views to one another, and to make clear that corporations should not have the same constitutional rights as human beings?
WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS
YES: A YES vote on this measure means: Voters would be asking their elected officials to use their constitutional authority to seek increased regulation of campaign spending and contributions. As an advisory measure, Proposition 59 does not require any particular action by the Congress or California Legislature.
NO:A NO vote on this measure means: Voters would not be asking their elected officials to seek certain changes in the regulation of campaign spending and contributions.
ARGUMENTS
PRO: Vote YES on Prop. 59 to tell Congress we want big money out of politics and overturn misguided Supreme Court rulings saying unlimited campaign spending is free speech and that corporations have the same constitutional rights as real people. Send a message to Congress that we’ll hold them accountable.
CON: The Legislature should stop wasting taxpayer dollars by putting do–nothing measures on the ballot that ask Congress to overturn the Supreme Court. Instead of wasting time and money on do–nothing ballot measures, politicians in Sacramento should focus on transparency and bringing jobs to California. Proposition 59 DOES NOTHING. Vote NO!
60 Adult Films. Condoms. Health Requirements. Initiative Statute.
PROP 60 ADULT FILMS. CONDOMS. HEALTH REQUIREMENTS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
SUMMARY
Requires adult film performers to use condoms during filming of sexual intercourse. Requires producers to pay for performer vaccinations, testing, and medical examinations. Requires producers to post condom requirement at film sites. Fiscal Impact: Likely reduction of state and local tax revenues of several million dollars annually. Increased state spending that could exceed $1 million annually on regulation, partially offset by new fees.
WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS
YES:A YES vote on this measure means: There would be additional workplace health and safety requirements placed on adult film productions in California and additional ways to enforce those requirements.
NO: A NO vote on this measure means: Adult film productions in California would continue to be subject to current state and local workplace health and safety requirements, including the rules now interpreted to require condom use in adult film productions.
ARGUMENTS
PRO: A YES vote on Prop. 60 will stop adult film pornographers from exposing their performers to life–threatening diseases that cost taxpayers millions of dollars. Prop. 60 gives California health officials new enforcement tools to ensure pornographers finally obey the same workplace protection rules that apply to other California industries.
CON: Prop. 60 allows ANY Californian to sue adult film performers who distribute or produce adult content, violates their privacy, and weakens workplace safety. A single special interest group has spent millions to disguise Prop. 60’s flaws. Join workers, public health, civil rights organizations, California Democratic Party and California Republican Party, VOTE NO on Prop. 60.
61 State Prescription Drug Purchases. Pricing Standards. Initiative Statute.
PROP 61 STATE PRESCRIPTION DRUG PURCHASES. PRICING STANDARDS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
SUMMARY
Prohibits state from buying any prescription drug from a drug manufacturer at price over lowest price paid for the drug by United States Department of Veterans Affairs. Exempts managed care programs funded through Medi–Cal. Fiscal Impact: Potential for state savings of an unknown amount depending on (1) how the measure’s implementation challenges are addressed and (2) the responses of drug manufacturers regarding the provision and pricing of their drugs.
WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS
YES: A YES vote on this measure means: State agencies would generally be prohibited from paying more for any prescription drug than the lowest price paid by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs for the same drug.
NO: A NO vote on this measure means: State agencies would continue to be able to negotiate the prices of, and pay for, prescription drugs without reference to the prices paid by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
ARGUMENTS
PRO: Prop. 61, The California Drug Price Relief Act, would require all prescription drugs purchased by the State of California to be priced at or below the price paid for the same drug by the U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, which pays by far the lowest price of any federal agency.
CON: Experts say Prop. 61 would: increase prescription prices, reduce patient access to needed medicines, produce more bureaucracy and lawsuits that cost taxpayers millions, and hurt veterans by increasing their prescription costs. Strongly opposed by California Medical Association, California NAACP, California Taxpayers Association, Ovarian Cancer Coalition of Greater California, Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), Department of California. http://www.NoProp61.com
62 Death Penalty. Initiative Statute.
PROP 62 DEATH PENALTY. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
SUMMARY
Repeals death penalty and replaces it with life imprisonment without possibility of parole. Applies retroactively to existing death sentences. Increases the portion of life inmates’ wages that may be applied to victim restitution. Fiscal Impact: Net ongoing reduction in state and county criminal justice costs of around $150 million annually within a few years, although the impact could vary by tens of millions of dollars depending on various factors.
WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS
YES: A YES vote on this measure means: No offenders could be sentenced to death by the state for first degree murder. The most serious penalty available would be a prison term of life without the possibility of parole. Offenders who are currently under a sentence of death would be resentenced to life without the possibility of parole.
NO: A NO vote on this measure means: Certain offenders convicted for first degree murder could continue to be sentenced to death. There would be no change for offenders currently under a sentence of death.
ARGUMENTS:
PRO: Prop. 62 replaces the FAILED DEATH PENALTY SYSTEM with a strict life sentence without possibility of parole. Prisoners must work and pay restitution, instead of sitting on death row. Guarantees no innocent person is executed. TAXPAYERS SAVE $150 MILLION/year. Victims’ family members and former death penalty advocates: YES on 62.
CON: Prop. 62 repeals the death penalty for brutal killers, including child killers, mass murderers, serial killers, and rape/torture murderers. Prop. 62 means these murderers will live the rest of their lives at taxpayers’ expense, with free healthcare, long after their victims are gone. Law enforcement, victims’ families, and DAs oppose Prop. 62.
63 Firearms. Ammunition Sales. Initiative Statute.
PROP 63 FIREARMS. AMMUNITION SALES. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
SUMMARY
Requires background check and Department of Justice authorization to purchase ammunition. Prohibits possession of large–capacity ammunition magazines. Establishes procedures for enforcing laws prohibiting firearm possession by specified persons. Requires Department of Justice’s participation in federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Fiscal Impact: Increased state and local court and law enforcement costs, potentially in the tens of millions of dollars annually, related to a new court process for removing firearms from prohibited persons after they are convicted.
WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS
YES: A YES vote on this measure means: A new court process would be created for the removal of firearms from individuals upon conviction of certain crimes. New requirements related to the selling or purchasing of ammunition would be implemented.
NO: A NO vote on this measure means: No new firearm– or ammunition–related requirements would be implemented.
ARGUMENTS
PRO: Proposition 63 will improve public safety by keeping guns and ammunition out of the wrong hands. Law enforcement and public safety leaders support Prop. 63 because it will reduce gun violence by preventing violent felons, domestic abusers, and the dangerously mentally ill from obtaining and using deadly weapons and ammo.
CON: Law enforcement, anti–terrorism experts, and civil liberties groups overwhelmingly oppose Prop. 63. It was written by a politician seeking to make a name for himself, not the public safety community. It imposes costly burdens on law enforcement and the taxpayer and only affects the law–abiding.
64 Marijuana Legalization. Initiative Statute.
PROP 64 MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
SUMMARY
Legalizes marijuana under state law, for use by adults 21 or older. Imposes state taxes on sales and cultivation. Provides for industry licensing and establishes standards for marijuana products. Allows local regulation and taxation. Fiscal Impact: Additional tax revenues ranging from high hundreds of millions of dollars to over $1 billion annually, mostly dedicated to specific purposes. Reduced criminal justice costs of tens of millions of dollars annually.
WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS
YES: A YES vote on this measure means: Adults 21 years of age or older could legally grow, possess, and use marijuana for nonmedical purposes, with certain restrictions. The state would regulate nonmedical marijuana businesses and tax the growing and selling of medical and nonmedical marijuana. Most of the revenue from such taxes would support youth programs, environmental protection, and law enforcement.
NO: A NO vote on this measure means: Growing, possessing, or using marijuana for nonmedical purposes would remain illegal. It would still be legal to grow, possess, or use marijuana for medical purposes.
ARGUMENTS
PRO: Prop. 64 creates a safe, legal system for adult use of marijuana. It controls, regulates and taxes marijuana use, and has the nation’s strictest protections for children. It provides billions for afterschool programs, job training, drug treatment, and cracking down on impaired driving. Fix our approach to marijuana. Visit YesOn64.org!
CON: Proposition 64 purposely omits DUI standard to keep marijuana–impaired drivers off our highways. California Association of Highway Patrolmen and Senator Dianne Feinstein strenuously oppose. Legalizes ads promoting smoking marijuana, Gummy candy and brownies on shows watched by millions of children and teens. Shows reckless disregard for child health and safety. Opposed by California Hospital Association. Vote “No”.
65 Carry-Out Bags. Charges. Initiative Statute.
PROP 65 CARRYOUT BAGS. CHARGES. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
SUMMARY
Redirects money collected by grocery and certain other retail stores through mandated sale of carryout bags. Requires stores to deposit bag sale proceeds into a special fund to support specified environmental projects. Fiscal Impact: Potential state revenue of several tens of millions of dollars annually under certain circumstances, with the monies used to support certain environmental programs.
WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS
YES: A YES vote on this measure means: If state law (1) prohibits giving customers certain carryout bags for free and (2) requires a charge for other types of carryout bags, the resulting revenue would be deposited in a new state fund to support certain environmental programs.
NO: A NO vote on this measure means: If charges on carryout bags are required by a state law, that law could direct the use of the resulting revenue toward any purpose.
ARGUMENTS
PRO: YES ON 65—PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT. In a deal brokered by special interest lobbyists, the Legislature REQUIRED grocery stores to CHARGE and KEEP fees on certain bags at checkout. Grocers get $300 million richer, while shoppers lose $300 million. Prop. 65 redirects those fees to environmental projects, not grocer profits.
CON: Prop. 65 is sponsored by out–of–state plastic companies from South Carolina and Texas. They don’t care about California’s environment, they just want to confuse voters and distract from the real issue: the need to phase out plastic grocery bags. 65 is deceptive and doesn’t deserve your vote.
66 Death Penalty. Procedures. Initiative Statute.
PROP 66 DEATH PENALTY. PROCEDURES. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
SUMMARY
Changes procedures governing state court challenges to death sentences. Designates superior court for initial petitions and limits successive petitions. Requires appointed attorneys who take noncapital appeals to accept death penalty appeals. Exempts prison officials from existing regulation process for developing execution methods. Fiscal Impact: Unknown ongoing impact on state court costs for processing legal challenges to death sentences. Potential prison savings in the tens of millions of dollars annually.
WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS
YES: A YES vote on this measure means: Court procedures for legal challenges to death sentences would be subject to various changes, such as time limits on those challenges and revised rules to increase the number of available attorneys for those challenges. Condemned inmates could be housed at any state prison.
NO: A NO vote on this measure means: There would be no changes to the state’s current court procedures for legal challenges to death sentences. The state would still be limited to housing condemned inmates only at certain state prisons.
ARGUMENTS
PRO: Our death penalty system is bogged down by decades of appeals. We need to reform it, not repeal it, by passing Proposition 66. Prop. 66 saves millions, brings closure to victims’ families and justice to brutal murderers. Innocent persons won’t be executed under Prop. 66. Victims’ families, DAs and law enforcement support Proposition 66.
CON: Prop. 66 is not real reform. We don’t know all of its consequences, but we do know this: it adds more layers of government bureaucracy causing more delays, costs taxpayers money, and increases California’s risk of executing an innocent person. Prop. 66 is a costly experiment that makes matters worse.
67 Ban on Single-Use Plastic Bags. Referendum.
PROP 67 BAN ON SINGLE–USE PLASTIC BAGS. REFERENDUM.
SUMMARY
A “Yes” vote approves, and a “No” vote rejects, a statute that prohibits grocery and other stores from providing customers single–use plastic or paper carryout bags but permits sale of recycled paper bags and reusable bags. Fiscal Impact: Relatively small fiscal effects on state and local governments, including a minor increase in state administrative costs and possible minor local government savings from reduced litter and waste management costs.
WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS
YES:A YES vote on this measure means: Most grocery stores, convenience stores, large pharmacies, and liquor stores would be prohibited from providing single–use plastic carryout bags. Stores generally would be required to charge at least 10 cents for any other carryout bag provided to customers at checkout. Stores would keep the resulting revenue for specified purposes.
NO: A NO vote on this measure means: Stores could continue to provide single–use plastic carryout bags and other bags free of charge unless a local law restricts the use of such bags.
ARGUMENTS
PRO: YES on 67 protects California’s successful efforts to PHASE OUT PLASTIC GROCERY BAGS. Plastic bags strangle wildlife, litter communities, raise clean–up costs, clog recycling machines. Bans on plastic grocery bags are WORKING IN 150 CALIFORNIA COMMUNITIES. Don’t let out–of–state plastic companies stop California. YES on 67.
CON: DON’T BE FOOLED. Prop. 67 is a $300 million annual HIDDEN TAX on consumers who will be forced to pay $.10 for every grocery bag at checkout. Not one penny goes to the environment. All $300 million goes to grocer profits. Stop the bag tax . . . VOTE NO ON PROP. 67.
