(Go to Action Alerts)(Go to Bill Status)(Go to Prior Newsletters)(Go to FCL Homepage)

Friends Committee on Legislation

NEWSLETTER -- August-September, 2000

The November Ballot Propositions   -- Ken Larsen

Ballot Box -- Summary of FCL stands

What Ever Happened To?

Articles in Prior Newsletters

Ballot Box

[FCL N/L 8-9/00]

FCL's stands on the November 7, 2000 Ballot proposals.

Proposition 32 . Veteran's Bond Act.
FCL TAKES NO POSITION.

Proposition 33 . Legislature: Retirement.
FCL TAKES NO POSITION.

Proposition 34 . Campaign Contributions and Expenditures.
FCL OPPOSES.

Proposition 35 . Public Works Projects.
FCL TAKES NO POSITION.

Proposition 36 . Drug Treatment Diversion Program.
FCL SUPPORTS.

Proposition 37 . Fees, Taxes. New Definitions, Vote Requirements.
FCL OPPOSES.

Proposition 38 . School Vouchers. State-Funded Private and Religious Education. Public School Funding.
FCL OPPOSES.

Proposition 39 . School Facilities. 55% Local Vote. Bonds, Taxes. Accountability Requirements.
FCL SUPPORTS.

The November Ballot

When California voters go to the polls on November 7, they will face only eight ballot propositions, down from the intimidating total of 20 in the March primary election.

As in March, the electorate will be asked to make decisions on a number of issues recycled from failed efforts of recent years, including political campaign reform, school vouchers, and reducing the threshold for passing school bond proposals.

Another interesting twist is the Arizona influence on the ballot. Proposition 36, which reroutes drug users from prison and into treatment programs, is modeled on an Arizona law passed two years ago. And Arizona Senator and ex-presidential candidate John McCain signed on to the ballot argument in support of Proposition 38, which makes every student in the state eligible for a $4000 voucher each year to attend a private elementary or secondary school.

Here are the recommendations of the FCL Executive Committee, with analyses by staff. In cases where FCL takes no position, the Committee found that the proposition fell outside FCL policy guidelines or they failed to reach unity.

Proposition 32. Veteran s Bond Act. Authorizes $500 million in bonds for California Veteran Farm, Home, and Mobilehome Purchase Assistance Program.

"Veteran" is one of the most powerful words in politics. Case in point: 1) this measure to provide continued funding of state-managed veteran s mortgages breezed through the Legislature with hardly a dissenting vote; 2) since 1921, California voters have approved 25 Cal-Vet bond issues totaling $7.9 billion, a record of success probably unsurpassed in the history of the state s politics.

On the plus side, with housing costs skyrocketing in most parts of California, this program is an attractive means for many low- and moderate- income families to purchase a home. With the diverse makeup of the U.S. military, Cal-Vet is a de facto affirmative action lender, helping people of color to make a sound investment they can pass on to their children.

On the down side, this proposition gives preferential treatment to one among many needy and deserving groups in the state s population. As the official ballot argument against Proposition 32 points out, why not a Cal-Resident Home Loan Program for everyone who needs help with buying a home? In addition, Cal-Vet is a benefit of military service and may induce Californians to support and enlist in the armed forces. Legislators, the governor, and veteran s groups are for it; the Voter Information Alliance is against it.

FCL TAKES NO POSITION.

Proposition 33. Legislature: Retirement. Authorizes Members of the Legislature elected or serving after November 1, 1990 to elect to participate in the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS).

Proposition 140, passed by the voters in 1990, prohibits state legislators from receiving retirement benefits other than Social Security. Now the legislature is asking voters to give them the opportunity to participate in the same pension plan (PERS) as other state employees. The amount of money involved is not great (less than $1 million/year), but opponents of this measure point out two flaws: 1) legislators don t have to meet the same requirements as other state employees in order to qualify for retirement benefits; 2) with a salary of $99,000 plus a $100/day per diem, legislators already get enough pay and perks. Supporters claim that the absence of retirement benefits discourages everybody but the rich from running for office.

AARP, California Chamber of Commerce and the professional fire fighters union are for it; taxpayer rights groups are against it. FCL TAKES NO POSITION.

Proposition 34. Campaign Contributions and Expenditures.

A 1998 court order suspended implementation of Proposition 208, a campaign reform measure approved by voters in 1996. That left California with virtually no contribution and expenditure limits on campaigns for state offices. As the court began to hear the case this July, State Senate President John Burton (D., San Francisco) masterminded the passage of an alternative to Proposition 208, bypassing public hearings and with only a minimum of debate.

Burton claims that 208 just won t stand up in court. So he cobbled together Proposition 34, claiming it is a realistic approach to satisfying the increasing public demand for campaign funding limits and disclosures.

Grassroots campaign reform groups, such as Common Cause and the League of Women Voters, who backed 208, reject Burton s arguments. Proposition 208 co-author Tony Miller maintains that Proposition 34 is a scheme by politicians, for politicians because its provisions would supersede the tougher controls in Proposition 208.

Unfortunately, grassroots opposition views don t appear in the official information guide that will soon be mailed to registered voters by the Secretary of State. Instead legislative leaders and state officials recruited two of their own, Assembly Member Brett Granlund (R., Yuicaipa) and Senator Bill Morrow (R., Oceanside), to lend their names to a ballot argument considerably weaker than the case made by the public opposition to Proposition 34.

However, the ballot guide does include an objective and detailed side-by-side comparison by the nonpartisan state Legislative Analyst. We encourage Newsletter readers to examine that analysis and have reprinted a portion thereof in a sidebar. FCL has reached the conclusion that Proposition 34 is too weak to curb the influence of well-funded interest groups and wealthy individuals. It is better to hold out for Proposition 208, if the court upholds it, or a strong new initiative. FCL OPPOSES.

Proposition 35. Public Works Projects. Allows state and local governments to contract with private entities for engineering and architectural services for public works projects.

Existing state constitutional law limits the ability of state and local government entities to contract for public engineering and design work. Private firms have been seeking by legislation and initiative to overturn this limitation for over 20 years.

This initiative authorizes contracting procedures that will make it easier for private firms to qualify for design work on roads, hospital, schools, and water projects. It is sponsored by the Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors of California (CELSOC), whose primary interest is $2 billion in potential annual business from the California Department of Transportation.

Supporters say that state agencies lack sufficient qualified personnel and administrative systems to complete public works safely and on time. Opponents say developing the new procedures required by this initiative will take 18 months or more, thereby delaying much-needed projects. In addition, Propositions 35 s critics also claim that local governments already have authority to contract out and that the measure will impose unnecessary new state regulations on local government.

Supporters include Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors of California. Opponents include Professional Engineers in California Government, California Federation of Teachers, Congress of California Seniors, and Consumer Federation of California. FCL TAKES NO POSITION.

Proposition 36. Drug Treatment Diversion Program. Requires drug treatment and probation for certain non-violent drug possession offenses. Appropriates funding for drug treatment program through fiscal year 2005-06.

Modeled on an Arizona law, Proposition 36 provides treatment rather than incarceration for nonviolent drug possession. The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst says it will save the state more than $100 million a year by lowering prison operations costs and reduce the need to build new prisons, saving the state a total of $475 million to $575 million. Counties would save another $50 million annually in reduced jail costs. Excluded is anyone caught dealing or in possession of large amounts of illegal drugs or who commits another crime with drugs in their possession.

Currently, there are about 20,000 state prisoners doing time for simple drug possession. Proposition 36 would divert prisoners like these into programs ranging from Narcotics Anonymous-type meetings to residential therapeutic settings to methadone maintenance. An Arizona Supreme Court study found that in the first year after that state s program went into effect, 61 percent of the 932 participants successfully completed their treatment programs.

Proponents assert that drug treatment is tough on crime since it deals with the core problem. In addition, recent studies by the California Youth and Adult Correctional Agency indicate that prisons, far from being detoxification centers, are actually full of drugs.

Opponents, however, are up in arms about a provision of the initiative that prohibits spending any of the measure s annual $120 million annual treatment budget on drug testing a critical component of the local drug courts throughout California. Opponents maintain that testing is vital because it holds drug abusers accountable. Without testing, there is no way to determine if the treatment is really working.

Furthermore, opponents assert that the measure will reduce the ability of drug court judges to order short jail stints for defendants who backslide in treatment programs, a hammer they claim is a vital incentive for drug users who are reluctant to reform.

Supporters include Republican U.S. Senate candidate Tom Campbell, California Nurses Association, California Society of Addiction Medicine, and California Association of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Counselors. Opponents include actor Martin Sheen and columnist Alexander Cockburn, Chief Probation Officers of California, and California District Attorneys Association. FCL SUPPORTS.

Proposition 37. Fees, Taxes. New Definitions, Vote Requirements. Redefines as taxes certain types of compulsory fees and requires two-thirds vote of the legislature and local elections to impose such fees.

It s no news to most people that polluters don t like to pay for the costs of cleaning up pollution. This initiative is a prime example.

In 1997, the State Supreme Court upheld the 1991 Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Act, which imposes a fee on manufacturers of lead-containing products to pay for screening and treating children for lead poisoning. That decision didn t sit well with members of the California Chamber of Commerce and the California Manufacturers and Technology Association,

Consequently, these and other business groups drafted this initiative. Their intent is to make it harder for state and local government to compel those responsible to mitigate the adverse effects of the pollution they create.

Supporters include the Western Growers Association and Latin Business Association. Opponents included California League of Conservation Voters and Peace Officers Research Association of California. FCL believes that it is good public policy to require polluters to clean up their own messes. FCL OPPOSES.

Proposition 38. School Vouchers. State-Funded Private and Religious Education. Public School Funding. Authorizes state-paid vouchers of at least $4,000 per pupil to qualifying private and religious schools. Exempts private schools from some Uniform Building Code requirements and from certain other regulations. Restructures state s school financing system.

For decades, vouchers have been touted as key to the solution of the problem of quality education. Voucher proponents assert that parents and students should be allowed to use taxpayer dollars to pay for private school tuition and that competition for students between public and private schools will improve both systems.

Tim Draper, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur who spent $1 million to put this measure on the ballot, has filled Proposition 38 with his own ideas, seeking little if any counsel from the private education establishment whom he hopes will receive a boost from his efforts. As result, he has stimulated opposition from some unlikely sources. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, for example, has supported other voucher proposals, but opposes this one on the grounds that it will result in cuts in other government services, tax increases, or both.

Another telling critique comes from John E. Coons and Stephen D. Sugarman, authors of Making School Choice Work for All Families, published by the Pacific Research Institute, a conservative think tank. These two Boalt Hall law professors point out in a Los Angeles Times commentary (July 27, 2000) that Proposition 38 is morally wrong, and it attacks public school failure at the wrong end. The main beneficiaries of the Draper plan would be those now enrolled in private schools and new recruits drawn largely from the ranks of wealthier families. But those who really need good school choices are low-income families now stuck with poor public schools, typically in inner cities or rural areas. Well-off families already have lots of choices, including access to reasonably good public schools in the suburbs.

Supporters include a number of individual local school board members and school teachers plus Arizona Senator John McCain and Democrat Mayor John Norquist of Milwaukee, which has a school voucher program. Opponents include California PTA, Congress of California Seniors, and California Teachers Association. FCL OPPOSES.

Proposition 39. School Facilities. 55% Local Vote. Bonds, Taxes. Accountability Requirements. Lowers vote requirement for passage of local school construction projects from two-thirds to 55 percent.

This is the second time this year that California voters have been asked to make it easier to pass school construction bonds. The first attempt, Proposition 26, narrowly defeated on the March ballot, would have lowered the voter requirement from a two-thirds majority to 50 percent. Proposition 39 lowers the threshold to 55 percent.

Since 1986, 40 percent of proposed local school bonds have failed to achieve the two-thirds vote prescribed by the state Constitution. Success is particularly difficult in communities dominated by empty nesters with no children in public schools.

Sponsors of Proposition 39 hope that a tougher approach will make it easier for voters to swallow bond measures. The initiative also would require local school districts to audit each bond-funded project and to evaluate safety, class size reduction and technology needs before submitting a bond issue to voters.

According to 55 percent proponents, California needs to spend more to relieve overcrowded schools and repair dilapidated buildings. $16.5 billion worth of school bonds have been approved since 1986. A 55 percent threshold would have meant that additional $4.2 billion would have been authorized. In addition, proponents cite data showing that California will need 20,000 more classrooms and 544 new schools this decade to accommodate enrollment growth.

Opponents argue that since school bonds are paid off by property taxes the century-old two-thirds vote requirement is a safeguard that protects homeowners from having their taxes raised by renters.

Supporters include California Chamber of Commerce, California Business Roundtable, labor unions, and the state PTA. Opponents include taxpayer rights groups and Dean Andal, Chairman of the State Board of Equalization. FCL SUPPORTS.