(Go to Action Alerts)(Go to Bill Status)(Go to Prior Newsletters)(Go to FCL Homepage)
BALLOT BOX FCL stands on March 7 proposals
Legislative Issues Briefing -- Economic Justice -- March 29
A "crowded ballot" is the way Secretary of State Bill Jones describes the choices facing California voters when they go to the polls on March 7. The 20 propositions are not a record in terms of sheer numbers - there were 29 measures on the November, 1988 general election ballot. But the March vote may go down in history for its large number of recycled items.
The electoral recycling bin includes post-Proposition 5 Indian gambling compacts, post-Proposition 208 campaign reform, draconian juvenile crime measures that failed in the legislature, and repeal of Proposition 10 tobacco surtaxes that were approved only a year and a half ago. And the second try in as many general elections to persuade congressional candidates to declare their positions on term limits.
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 1A (Indian Gambling Compacts)After the California Supreme Court overturned Proposition 5, amending state law to authorize gambling on Indian lands, Governor Davis negotiated and the legislature approved - new compacts with 57 tribes. These virtually identical compacts allow each tribe at least 350 and as many as 2000 slot machines; set up a revenue sharing fund to provide payments to noncompact tribes and those with less than 350 machines; set up a fund for dealing with gambling addiction, gambling regulation, and the state and local government costs associated with Indian gambling. Further provisions allow tribes to offer unlimited numbers and varieties of card games, authorize casino workers to organize, and set the minimum age at 18 for gambling at Indian facilities. See FCL policy statement on gambling. FCL TAKES NO POSITION.
Proposition 12 (Park and Conservation Bonds)As funding runs out from the $1.9 billion in similar bonds approved by voters over the past 25 years, the legislature is asking voters to approve $2.1 billion in new bonds to spend on acquisition, development and protection of recreational, cultural, and natural areas. Local government and nonprofit groups are slated to receive a total of $949 million, with the majority of the funding going to urban parks and the remainder designated for items ranging from $1 million for community centers in Galt, Gilroy, and San Benito County to another $1 million for a San Bernardino Mountain wild animal rehabilitation center to $25 million for "farmland protection." The remaining balance of $1.16 billion is set aside for a huge array of state projects, ranging from $.5 million for linking open spaces with Henry Coe State Park to $6.25 million for grants to the Sierra Nevada-Cascade Program to $220.4 million to the State Coastal Conservancy to $265.5 million to the Wildlife Conservation Board.
Although the allocations seem to be driven more by pork than policy, California needs to keep up its recreational and cultural infrastructure for the sake of both social and environmental health. FCL SUPPORTS.
Proposition 13 (Water Bonds)Water is a chronic and messy issue for California. It's taken almost two years and thousands of hours of negotiating among various interest groups to create this proposal. The $1.97 billion in bonds will provide grants and loans to local agencies to improve the safety and quality of drinking water, for flood control and watershed protection, and to make the state's water supply more reliable. While not as pork heavy as Proposition 12, the water bond does specify that certain areas of the state, such as the watersheds of the Yuba, Feather, and Santa Ana rivers and Lake Elsinore and Lake San Jacinto (total$340 million) and the San Francisco Bay-Delta ($250 million), be allocated huge sums of money. And, according to recent newspaper reports, it contains provisions favorable to some big political campaign donors.
While we'd like to see more development and economic planning that integrates water into a comprehensive long-term vision for the state the approach that some are calling "smart growth" for the time being Proposition 13 will have to do. FCL SUPPORTS.
Proposition 14 (Library Bonds)At first glance, this seems like a "no-brainer." Over the 20 years since the passage of tax-cutting Proposition 13, California's public libraries have been neglected and literacy has fallen. This measure provides $350 million to be allocated by a six-member state board. Priority will be given to new "joint-use" libraries linked with schools and to renovation projects in communities where public schools are currently not equipped to accommodate computers and other educational technology.
The only big drawback is Proposition 14's requirement that no more than 65% of any funded project come from state dollars. Many less affluent communities will have a hard time coming up with a 35% match. We urge the legislature to find a way to make funding more equitable. FCL SUPPORTS.
Proposition 15 (Crime Lab Bonds)Recent news stories have highlighted the importance of DNA testing to the solution of crimes and to responsible arrests and convictions. Currently, California's cities and counties operate 19 local crime labs serving almost 80% of the state's population. Proponents of this $220 million measure say that existing labs are overcrowded, deteriorating and out-of-date. Opponents say that the job is done better by the private sector. FCL TAKES NO POSITION.
Proposition 16 (Veterans' Homes Bonds)The state's two existing veteran's homes - at Yountville in the north and Barstow in the south - house about 1800 elderly and disabled residents. This $50 million in bonds would do two things1) replace $24 million in currently available"lease-payment" bonds with less expensive "general obligation" bonds; 2) supply $26 million for building new facilities beyond the three currently under construction or planned in Southern California or for renovation of existing homes. Like everyone else, veterans certainly deserve the medical care they need. But it's doubtful that veterans' homes are the most effective or efficient place to house and treat them, especially when you take into account recent state and journalistic investigations revealing mismanagement at both of the state's homes currently in operation. FCL TAKES NO POSITION.
Proposition 17 (Charitable Raffles) A lottery is a game where a person pays for a chance to win a prize. A raffle is such a game and therefore is illegal under the State Constitution. Nevertheless, nonprofit organizations have been conducting fundraising raffles for decades. This measure would legalize this practice with the requirement that 90% of the gross receipts be spent for charitable purposes in California. And legislation is in the works to regulate charitable raffles should Proposition 17 pass.
Gambling is gambling, no matter how noble the purpose. Nonprofit organizations have other highly developed methods to pay their bills. And, unlike Indian tribes that operate casinos, they are not sovereign nations whose self-determination must be respected. FCL OPPOSES.
Proposition 18 (Death Penalty Expansion) Even though she's dead, the name of Rose Bird is still being invoked by death penalty proponents to expand the reach of capital punishment. In this case, politicians ranging from former Governor George Deukmejian on the right to Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa on the left, have endorsed a scheme to correct some Bird court decisions that district attorneys claim "illogically" limited the types of "special circumstances" that make convicted murderers subject to the death penalty. With death penalty prosecutions costing an average of $2 million more than prosecutions seeking life without parole and no compelling evidence that capital punishment deters murders or saves lives, it's truly "illogical" to expand the death penalty. FCL OPPOSES.
Proposition 19 (BART and CSU Peace Officers) This measure amends a section of the Penal Code so that second degree murderers ¯ under specified circumstances ¯ of California State University and San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit police are subject to sentences of life imprisonment without parole, bringing the law in line with the treatment of second murderers of other types of police officers.
While consistency in law is usually desirable, in this case the original concept is flawed. Why? 1) There is no compelling evidence that increasing penalties reduces or prevents crime. 2) There is compelling evidence that increasing sentences takes money away from programs that keep people out of prison in the first place. 3) There is no reason why crimes against police be considered any more serious than crimes against other public servants, such as fire fighters or construction workers, who also risk their lives daily for the common good. FCL OPPOSES.
Proposition 20 (State Lottery Allocation for Textbooks)By further reducing local control of education, this measure takes a bad public policy ¯ funding schools through state-sponsored gambling ¯ and makes it worse. Proposition 20 would require that school districts spend half of any increase in California State Lottery revenues on textbooks and other instructional materials.
The education community. including the California Teachers Association, the Association of California School Administrators, and the California School Boards Association is united against it. Those likely to benefit are textbook publishers, who will be guaranteed a piece of the action anytime Californians are persuaded to waste more of their personal income on lottery tickets. FCL OPPOSES.
Proposition 21 (Juvenile Crime) A lengthy, costly, and complicated hodgepodge of civil liberties violations pandering to those inclined to demonize California's young people. Some of its most egregious features, among many, include making more than $400 in graffiti vandalism a third-strike offense, giving prosecutors instead of judges the power to decide whether juveniles are tried in juvenile or adult court; requiring juveniles to be held in custody until their case is heard instead of allowing them to be released to parents or residential treatment programs; allowing police to charge gang members with felony conspiracy if a fellow gang member commits a crime, even if they are not present.
Proposition 21 is wasteful and counterproductive. In recent studies from New York and Florida, youth tried in adult courts had a greater chance of recidivism than comparable youths tried on the same charges in juvenile court. Youth violence has been falling in California for eight years. Juvenile felony arrests dropped 30% between 1991 and 1998; during the same period, juvenile homicide arrests dropped 50%.
All evidence points to the fact that jobs, education, medical and mental health care, housing and food, and prevention programs are cheaper and more effective than spending $33,500 a year to incarcerate a youth in the California Youth Authority. FCL OPPOSES.
Proposition 22 (Limit on Marriage)This measure is short and simple"Only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." By fanning unfounded fears of gay marriage, Proposition 22 contributes to the poisoned atmosphere that led to the murder of a gay couple in Redding last year as well as many lesser acts of rejection and hostility.
From a legal and religious point of view, Proposition 22 makes little sense. As the "Statement of Conscience" recently released by California Church IMPACT points out, civil marriage "does not belong to any specific religious tradition. Since civil marriage is fundamentally a set of legal rights and responsibilities, the denial of these benefits on the basis of gender is, in our view, discriminatory and compromises the Biblical imperative to ‘do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God' (Micah 68)." FCL OPPOSES.
Proposition 23 ("None of the Above" Ballot Option) While it may be an outlet for unhappy voters to let off steam, voting for "none of the above" will do absolutely nothing to attract or elect good candidates. This is delusional campaign reform at its worst. FCL OPPOSES.
Proposition 24 was removed from the ballot by the California Supreme Court.
Proposition 25 (Political Campaign Reform) When major portions of Proposition 208, passed by the voters in 1996, were thrown out by the courts in 1998, it opened the door for millionaire Republican political gadfly Ron Unz and former acting Secretary of State Democrat Tony Miller to join forces to come up with this incomplete, flawed but nevertheless essential first step toward campaign financing controls. Some of the major features of this lengthy initiative include voluntary spending limits, public financing of candidate and ballot measure campaign costs, immediate disclosure of large contributions and advertising expenses, $5,000 limit on campaign contributions, and a ban on all corporate contributions.
Proposition 25, should it pass, has major drawbacks that must be corrected quickly by another initiative. While Propositions 25 places strict limits on the amount individuals may contribute, wealthy candidates can still spend unlimited amounts of their own money to get elected, restricted only by voluntary limits. Voluntary limits also apply to contributions of so-called "soft money" to political parties. Hard limits are needed to break the hold of the wealthy and the major parties on our political institutions. FCL SUPPORTS.
Proposition 26 (School Bonds Majority Vote)Backed by both educational and business interests, this initiative would allow local school bonds to pass with a simple majority. Current law requires a two-thirds vote. Proposition 26 is especially important now because a 1998 law says local districts can't get state school construction money unless they put up a match. In addition, it will put an end to repeated elections to get a two-thirds plurality in a state where most recent school bond proposals have won 50 percent or more of the vote. FCL SUPPORTS.
Proposition 27 (Term Limit Declarations)After California voters adopted an initiative in 1992 that established term limits for California's U.S. senators and congressional representatives, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that qualifications for federal elective office can be changed only by amending the U.S. Constitution. In 1998, voters passed but courts overturned a ballot measure that called on California's elected officials to help enact a constitutional amendment to impose terms limits on members of Congress.
Now term limit proponents are putting forward a soft version of their demands that simply allows candidates to sign voluntarily a non-binding declaration of intent to serve or not to serve no more than three terms in the House and two terms in the Senate. Signers may also ask that their declaration be noted on the ballot and voter information materials.
No matter how you cut it, term limits are still a poor substitute for genuine campaign reform. In addition, this measure opens the door for any special interest who can get enough votes to clutter the ballot with declarations on their pet issue. FCL OPPOSES.
Proposition 28 (Tobacco Tax Repeal)In 1998, FCL took no position on Proposition 10, the Rob Reiner-backed proposal to fund child development programs by increasing the tobacco tax. In spite of our reservations, voters passed Proposition 10 and we see no reason to overturn it. Let's give it a chance to get up and running and then modify it if needed. FCL OPPOSES.
Proposition 29 (1998 Indian Gambling Compacts) If Proposition 1A is defeated and this measures passes, 1998 compacts negotiated between Governor Wilson and 11 California Indian tribes would go into effect. FCL TAKES NO POSITION. (See FCL policy statement on gambling. ) POSITION.
Propositions 30 and 31 (Bad Faith Handling of Insurance Claims) When the legislature and the governor approved legislation last fall giving Californians the right to sue if an insurance company illegally delays settlement payments, the insurance industry decided to use these two referenda to take the issue to the voters. FCL sees no reason why California's public and businesses should not be able to sue insurers for unfair practices. A "yes" vote would keep the right to sue on the books. FCL SUPPORTS.
-Ken Larsen
FCL stands on March 7 proposals
730 am
FCL Breakfast
with legislative advocates Steve Birdlebough and Ken Larsen.
Location: 926 J Street, 2nd Floor Conference Room.
To register: call FCL office no later than March 22(916) 443-3734.
Registration fee: No charge.
900 am
California Interfaith Coalition
All-day Briefing and Legislative Visits
Location: Library Galleria, 828 I Street
To register: (Go to Top)(Go to Action
Alerts)(Go to Bill
Status)(Go to Prior Newsletters)(Go to FCL Homepage) Friends Committee on Legislation This page is supported by peacetree.
call California Council of Churches no later than March 1(916)
442-5447.
Or down load registration form from
Friends Committee on Legislation
926 J Street, Sacramento CA 95814
(916)443-3734 FAX448-6109
926 J Street #707
Sacramento, CA 95814-2707
(916) 443-3734