- Prop. 222 - Sentence Enhancements -- - Prop. 225 - Term Limits
- Prop. 226 - Political Contributions -- - Prop. 227 - Bilingual Education
Some Significant Propositions in California's Past
When they go to the polls to vote in the June 2 primary election, California voters will be faced with nine ballot propositions. The FCL Executive Committee has studied all those measures; here are their recommendations and the staff's analysis.
Proposition 219: A Legislative Constitutional Amendment that prohibits any statewide initiative from including or excluding a county from its effect depending on how that county voted on the measure. FCL takes no position on this measure. Proposition 220: Courts. A Legislative Constitutional Amendment that would let judges of each county consolidate that county's municipal courts into a unified superior court. FCL takes no position on this measure. Proposition 221: A Legislative Constitutional Amendment that would give the State Commission on Judicial Performance authority to discipline subordinate judicial officers. FCL takes no position on this measure. Proposition 222: A Legislative Initiative Amendment that would prohibit convicted murderers from earning conduct credits to reduce their sentences. It would also forbid anyone convicted of murdering a peace officer from ever being paroled. FCL opposes this measure. Current law recognizes two basic kinds of murder: first degree, for premeditated killings or killings committed in the course of committing certain other crimes (such as arson, rape, or robbery), and second-degree, for all other circumstances. The existing penalty for second degree murder of a peace officer is 25 years to life in prison. Proposition 222 establishes a new crime -- aggravated second-degree murder of a peace officer -- and mandates life sentences for those convicted under its provisions. It also denies convicted murderers the opportunity to earn credits to reduce their prison terms. The initiative's author, Assembly Member Rod Pacheco, R., Riverside, Governor Pete Wilson, and other proponents, mostly drawn from the law enforcement community, maintain that the measure will keep cop killers off the streets and discourage future attacks on peace officers. Opponents, mainly from the criminal defense and civil liberties communities, point out that there is no clear cut evidence that sentence enhancements curtail crime. They also contend that the measure is largely symbolic, since second-degree murderers of peace officers are seldom paroled early anyway. Nor has there been any compelling reason presented as to why peace officers should be singled out from other public servants -- teachers, health care workers, librarians, and others -- who run a real and documented risk of being killed in the line of duty. Finally, as FCL's Legislative Statement on Criminal Justice points out, longer prison terms do do anyone any good: "...jails and prisons encourage dysfunctionality, burden society with an institutionalized sub-culture, and legitimize brutalization." Proposition 223: An initiative that limits school spending on administration to five percent of all federal, state, and local funds received. FCL takes no position on this measure. Proposition 224: An initiative affecting the use of private contracts for state design and engineering projects and instituting a new process for determining which projects, if any, could be contracted out. FCL takes no position on this measure. Proposition 225: An initiative calling on California's elected officials to help enact a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on members of Congress. FCL opposes this measure. In 1992, California voters adopted Proposition 164, which extended term limits to the state's U.S. Senators and members of Congress. But soon thereafter, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled an Arkansas congressional term limit law unconstitutional, effectively invalidating Proposition 164. Accordingly, term limit advocates devised a new two-part strategy: 1) ask voters to tell their representatives to support term limits; 2) hold those representatives to the will of the people by singling out non-supporters on the ballot. Proposition 225 declares that voters want the U.S. Constitution to limit senators to no more than two terms and representatives to no more than three terms. The measure instructs the California Legislature to ask Congress to enact such an amendment and to ratify the amendment if the amendment is approved by Congress and referred back to the states. It also requires that voters be informed if a congressional or legislative candidate fails to support the amendment. Proponents of the initiative claim that turning out legislators every few years will result in legislation that is more responsive to grass-roots interests. They also maintain that this initiative circumvents the constitutional problems of its predecessor by not formally binding legislators to a vote. The measure's opponents point out three things: 1) Shuffling legislative seats around is no guarantee of responsiveness; indeed, the opposite is likely to occur, by sending to office uninformed officials susceptible to special interests and large campaign donors; 2) Even if term limits have the desired effect, they are a poor substitute for genuine campaign reform; 3) The requirement that the ballot be used to inform voters on a candidate's position sets a dangerous precedent whereby any special interest group could manipulate the voting process by using this same stigmatizing technique. Proposition 226: An initiative requiring that all employees must annually give their written permission to labor unions and employers before using any payroll deductions for political activities. FCL opposes this measure. The stimulus for this initiative traces back to 1995 when a school voucher initiative failed, largely due to an expensive campaign subsidized by a special assessment levied on California Teachers Union members. In the past few years the CTA has also spent large sums to kill an initiative backed by Governor Pete Wilson that would have tightened his control of the state budget process, and it has sponsored media campaigns opposing several of Wilson's budget proposals. In addition, many Republicans blame organized labor's campaign expenditures for their failure to win control of the California State Assembly in 1996. As a result, several Orange County Republicans, school voucher advocate and Indiana insurance executive J. Patrick Rooney, and the Washington-based, conservative think tank, Americans for Tax Justice, developed this proposal to put the brakes on the use of union dues for political campaigns. The Governor chairs the California wing of this movement. Proposition 226 requires that employers and labor unions receive written permission from employees and union members before using any payroll deduction for political purposes. The measure also enacts into state law the federal ban on acceptance of campaign contributions from a foreign national. Proponents, including former Vice President Dan Quayle and the California Republican Party, contend that most union members have a portion of their paychecks diverted to political activity without their knowledge or consent. Workers need "paycheck protection" to ensure that union leaders do not exploit their members' hard-earned dues to achieve political goals with which the workers disagree. Opponents, including most of organized labor, Clean Water Action, League of Women Voters, California Faculty Association, and the Congress of California Seniors, point out that 1) the originators and prime movers of Proposition 226 are not disgruntled workers, but Republican party activists; 2) nationally, business already outspends labor 10 to 1 in political contributions and this initiative will further tip the balance of power in favor of businesses and individuals who already command immense financial resources; 3) the paperwork involved in implementing this measure will take away from the time and resources available for political activity; 4) union members already have a say through the election of officers and under the provisions of the 1988 U.S. Supreme Court Beck decision, which gave union members the right to opt out of paying for political activities, although they must still pay that portion of dues used for representation in collective bargaining, arbitration, organizing, and the like. Proposition 227: an initiative that ends bilingual education and proposes English immersion programs for limited English proficient students. FCL opposes this measure. This measure grows out of two long-term intertwined trends in California history: one is the struggle over language diversity, which reaches back at least as far as the 1849 state constitution which was written in two languages -- English and Spanish; the other is the controversy over the proper pedagogy for non-native speakers to learn English and, by inference, to improve their chances in life thereby. Bilingual education was the law in California throughout the 1970s and 80s, but began to run into increasing criticism that bilingual students were not getting enough of their instruction in English and consequently were falling behind in the rush to "mainstream" them into the state's English-dominated business and academic world. As the number of "limited English proficiency" (LEP) students grew to 1.4 million -- a quarter of all public students statewide -- the legislature became locked in a decade-long stalemate over the state's bilingual education law, which lapsed in 1987. That demise led to over 100 school districts dropping their bilingual programs. Reacting to this situation, and in response to vociferous complaints by some parents of LEP students and many "English Only" advocates, entrepeneur and failed Republican gubernatorial candidate Ron Unz and English-immersion proponent Gloria Matta Tuchman developed Proposition 227. Proposition 227 prohibits bilingual education, except under very limited circumstances, and mandates one-year English immersion classes for LEP students. It holds personally liable for civil action any school board member, elected official, public school teacher or administrator who "willfully and repeatedly refuses to implement the terms of this statute." The measure requires that current supplemental funding for English learners be maintained and that $50 million a year for ten years be appropriated to train adults to tutor LEP students in English. Proponents of Proposition 227 advance the claim that immersion in English, especially at an early age, strengthens English learning, whereas bilingual education runs the risk of reinforcing the native language only. Too few students develop English proficiency under the bilingual system, they contend, and that limits opportunities for the upward economic and social mobility of immigrant and poor families. Opponents of Proposition 227 concede that bilingual education may have its flaws, but they say that there is no definitive research demonstrating that English immersion is more effective than its alternatives. They point out that current bilingual programs vary widely in their results and methods and the broadbrush approach of Proposition 227 will wipe out the good along with the bad. Some proponents also contend that the shortcomings of bilingual education as it exists are owed to a lack of qualified teachers, not to problems with the methodology itself. Others point out that like Proposition 209, Unz's anti-affirmative action initiative, this measure is simply another electoral effort to exploit frustration at the large number of immigrants and people of color in California's population, this time by attacking programs that respect and take cognizance of their languages and cultures. Note: Proposition summaries are excerpted from California Journal; sources of text, quotes and information include California Secretary of State, California Journal, Capitol Weekly, The Sacramento Bee, San Francisco Chronicle, and state legislative reports. -Ken LarsenEstablished the Fair Political Practices Commission, required reports of contributions to political campaigns, and gave gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown a popular cause for his campaign.
1978: Proposition 13 - Jarvis-Gann Property Tax LimitSwamped Proposition 8, a last-minute legislative proposal to head off a years-old taxpayer revolt brought on by dramatic inflation of property values and the consequent escalation in property taxes. Subsequent initiatives imposed limits on public spending, and tightened voter approval requirements for taxes.
1982: Proposition 12 - Nuclear Weapons FreezeProvided an organizing forum for citizens frustrated by the growth of the military- industrial complex. A subsequent effort in 1984 failed to garner enough signatures to reach the ballot.
1984: Proposition 37 - State Lottery Backed heavily by the companies that provide gaming equipment and services, this initiative successfully broke California's resistance to organized gambling. 1988: Proposition 98 - Education Funding Requires that a fixed percentage of state revenues be devoted to elementary and high school education. 1988: Proposition 99 - Tobacco Education Established a program to educate youth to the hazards of smoking, using some of the monies generated by an increased tobacco tax. 1990: Proposition 140 - Term Limits Initiated a shakeup in the power structure of state government -- effects are yet to be fully understood. 1994: Proposition 187 - Ban Welfare -- Undocumented Persons Gave incumbent Governor Pete Wilson a popular if divisive campaign issue to overcome a challenge by State Treasurer Kathleen Brown. Federal courts eventually overturned all of the initiative's provisions. 1996: Proposition 209 - Ban Affirmative Action Outlawed race or ethnic-based affirmative action in California state agencies, most notably the State University and State College systems. Became a launching pad for copy- cat bills in other states while mobilizing opposition in communities targeted by the legislation