About a dozen of us got together to discuss CA ballot measures that will be voted on on February 5th. I typed up some rough notes that are after the jump. Anyone who was there should feel free to email me comments or addenda.

We also discussed a local measure for Los Angeles and the Democratic nominees, but I didn’t keep notes on those.

Summary

• Prop 91: NO
• Prop 92: Yes
• Prop 93: No
• Prop 94-97: NO

Proposition 91

Transportation Funding. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

Proponent: James Earp, c/o Richard D. Martland (916) 446-6752

Prohibits retention of funds earmarked for the Transportation Investment Fund in the General Fund for use unrelated to transportation after 7/1/08. Requires repayment by 6/30/17 of transportation funds retained in the General Fund in years prior to 2007-08. Eliminates General Fund borrowing of specified transportation funds, except for cash-flow purposes (repayment required within 30 days of adoption of budget); current law allows borrowing for three years where Governor declares transfer would cause significant negative fiscal impact on governmental functions and Legislature enacts authorizing statute. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: No revenue or cost effects. Increases stability of funding to transportation in 2007-08 and thereafter; reduces somewhat the state’s flexibility to use specified transportation funds for other (nontransportation) activities. (SA2005RF0123) (Full Text)

Discussion

• Similar legislation recently passed by the state already addresses most of this proposition hopes to accomplish. This proposition and a similar piece of legislation were pushed by the construction/transportation industries in parallel. Those industries hoped to guarantee more stable financing for road-building (and some public transit) projects. The legislation was passed at the last minute, and this proposition thus made it onto the ballot on its own momentum.
• The same groups that pushed Prop 91 are urging voters to vote against it, since state legislation already addresses their needs.
• In any case, this rigidity is not really desirable, since infrastructural spending isn’t really what’s needed during fiscal crises; short-term expenditures are usually in social services like education and healthcare. Also, most of this transportation spending (80%) is in road-building and car transport, not mass transit.

Recommendation: NO

Proposition 92

Community Colleges. Funding. Governance. Fees. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

Proponents: Dennis Smith and Scott Lay c/o Eugene Hill (916) 442-2952

Establishes in state constitution a system of independent public community college districts and Board of Governors. Generally, requires minimum levels of state funding for school districts and community college districts to be calculated separately, using different criteria and separately appropriated. Allocates 10.46 percent of current Proposition 98 school funding maintenance factor to community colleges. Sets community college fees at $15/unit per semester; limits future fee increases. Provides formula for allocation by Legislature to community college districts that would not otherwise receive general fund revenues through community college apportionment. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Potential increases in state spending on K-14 education of about $135 million in 2007-08, $275 million in 2008-09, and $470 million in 2009-2010, with unknown impact annually thereafter. Annual loss of fee revenues to community colleges of about $71 million in 2007-08, with unknown impacts annually thereafter. (06-0030.) (Full Text)

Discussion

• Funding Community College system
• Changes formula for how funding is calculated
• Used to be population-based, calculating on birth rates in-state. However, birth rates have been going down, but many young people are moving to the state, so funding has been decreasing for the last 20 yrs.
• Limits per-semester fee to $15/credit.
• Has split education-based advocacy groups, since UC is jealous of guaranteed funding for the community college system (both draw from the same education “pie”)
• Returns on “investment” in the community college system are huge; feeder system for UCs, Associates degrees raise income substantially, while costs per student are low.

Recommendation: Yes

Proposition 93

Limits on Legislators’ Terms in Office. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

Proponents: Robin B. Johansen and Kari Krogseng c/o James C. Harrison (510) 346-6200

Reduces the total amount of time a person may serve in the state legislature from 14 years to 12 years. Allows a person to serve a total of 12 years either in the Assembly, the Senate, or a combination of both. Provides a transition period to allow current members to serve a total of 12 consecutive years in the house in which they are currently serving, regardless of any prior service in another house. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: This measure would have no direct fiscal effect on state or local governments. (07-0004.) (Full Text)

Discussion

• Seems like a reasonable term limitation, but the transitional period creates some weird incentives for the the sponsors of the bill (Perata, Nunez) who will be able to put their names on the ballot again, next year.
• Practical result will actually be to increase people’s time in office (lower house, where more spots are available, limits to six, currently.)
• Most in the room will not vote for this Prop, or vote NO. Too many self-interested motives for having introduced the measure, for an unclear benefit.

Recommendation: No

Proposition 94, 95, 96, 97

Referendum Petition to Overturn Amendment to Indian Gaming Compact.

Proponent: Jack Gribbon

If this petition is signed by the required number of registered voters and timely filed with the Secretary of State, it will stop the law (Chapter 40, Statutes of 2007) from going into effect, unless a majority of voters at the next statewide election vote in its favor. The challenged law ratifies an amendment to an existing gaming compact between the state and Pechanga Band of Luiseño Mission Indians; exempts certain projects from the California Environmental Quality Act; requires that revenue paid by tribe be deposited in the General Fund. (07-0037.) (Full Text)

Discussion

• Four, related amendments to Indian gaming contracts. The text is the same; each for a different tribe
• 2000 to 5000 slot machine allowance for casinos
• Percentage of tax is being increased, but the the taxable revenue is not well-defined. The state gaming commissions in CA don’t have the legal access required for good auditing.
• Only four tribes covered; most smaller tribes are against this special treatment.
• Most labor groups are against; no transparency or guarantees for enviromental protection or worker’s rights.

Recommendation: NO

Useful Links

• Green Party Recommendations
• SPUR Recommendations
• Official page for the Ballot Measures

Related Posts:

• Gay candidates penetrate state legislatures (May, 2006)
• Is it the Ocean Air? (November, 2005)
• A “Losing Mistake” (February, 2006)
• while you were out… (December, 2005)
• franchisers over enfranchisement (January, 2006)

This entry was posted on Monday, January 21st, 2008 at 12:50 pm and is filed under politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.