These background briefs on the propositions and summaries of pro- and con- arguments were prepared by Stanford in Government (SIG), a non-partisan, student-run organization that has promoted public service and political awareness on campus since 1963. For more information about SIG programming or fellowships, please visit their Web site at http://sig.stanford.edu or contact Eric Zimmerman, director of SIG’s Campus Awareness committee, at ezimm7@stanford.edu.

Prop 1A

This proposition earmarks transportation funding for projects that relieve congested areas of traffic. It also enables safety and overall improvements to be enacted on local streets and roads. It stops the state from allowing any type of sales tax on car fuels for any purpose other than improvements in transportation. It authorizes loans of these funds only to be enacted in the case of major state debt. If this happens the proposition allows for loans of revenues that are taken from states sales tax on car fuels to be fully repaid within three years. It also restricts loans from being given more than twice in any 10-year period.

Pro — This proposition will make it so that our tax dollars will actually be used for road and transportation projects and not given to other facts that don’t help the general public. This will also enable new roads and highways to be constructed. This will help our overall economy as our transportation mechanism for carrying goods will be more efficient.

Con — The problem with this proposition is if the economy declines in the future too much money will be spent on new roads and better transportation mechanisms and not enough on welfare, health care and public education.

Proposition 1b

This act makes safety improvements and repairs to state highways, upgrades freeways to reduce congestion, repairs local streets and roads, upgrades highways along major transportation corridors, improves seismic safety of local bridges, expands public transit, helps complete the state’s network of car pool lanes, reduces air pollution and improves anti-terrorism security at shipping ports by providing for a bond issue not to exceed $19.925 billion. Fiscal Impact: State costs of approximately $38.9 billion over 30 years to repay bonds.

PRO — The proposition jumpstarts traffic relief, mass transit and safety improvements in every corner of the state without raising taxes. 1B builds new roads and transportation improvement projects that enhance mobility and protect our economic future.

CON — California cannot afford to continue borrowing its way into a false sense of economic security. More borrowing means worsening budget deficits. A no vote will force the Legislature to focus on paying for our transportation needs with existing funds in a fiscally responsible manner.

Prop 1C

Proposition 1C, also known as “Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2006,” revolves around the creation of shelters for “battered women and their children” and disadvantaged seniors.

The proposition also offers aid for the disabled, veterans and “working families” as well as offering home assistance in repairs and accessibility to living spaces. In order to create these portions of the proposition, California will issue $2,850,000,000 in bonds, having been paid with pre-existing funds from the state.

PRO — With such groups as Habitat for Humanity (San Diego), AARP and the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence united in support for this bill, one is assured that it bridges several unique constituencies. These groups site the Proposition’s effect on creating jobs, helping victims of domestic violence, and aiding senior citizens in independent home ownership as the basis for their support.

CON — Opponents of Proposition 1C, notably California State Congressman Chuck DeVore, call the initiative “fiscally irresponsible,” noting that the bill relies upon the sale of bonds. This sale of bonds, according to the opposition’s argument, will exert pressure upon the legislature to raise taxes for Californians through a lack of capital for priority expenditures, those cited include schools, prisons, and highways.

Proposition 1D

Proposition 1D would issue a $10 billion bond to fund public education. Specifically, the money would go to earthquake renovation, vocational education in science and technical fields, expand classrooms to meet a growing population and increase energy efficiency in public schools. The bond would, after interest, end up costing the state $20 billion. Over half the funds would go to K-12 schools (including charter schools), while $3.1 billion to state colleges and universities.

Pro — Proponents argue that California schools are in desperate need of funding for renovation and expansion, and argue that Proposition 1d would deliver this boost. Teachers unions are among the largest supporters of 1D.

Con — Opponents argue that the proposition does not adequately address the gap between rich and poor school districts. By providing for local governments to “match” the funds allocated under the bond measure it would give an increased advantage to richer areas.

Proposition 1E

Proposition 1E would authorize a $4 billion bond act to fund repairs to California’s flood control mechanisms. Specifically, levee failures, flash floods and mudslides would be addressed. Repairing levees would also address the security of California’s drinking water supply. The bond would cost the state around $8 billion after the interest is paid off. Local property taxes would likely be reduced to adjust for the state’s larger role in these responsibilities.

Pro — Supporters contend that the failure of the levee system in Katrina is a reminder of how important it is to protect against flooding. This bond, they argue, is necessary to keep California prepared for a natural disaster.

Con — Opponents say that California cannot afford another multi-billion dollar bond measure. Furthermore, levees and other flood control structures are local responsibilities that should be addressed at the local level.

Prop 83

This proposition increases all penalties for repeated sex offenders and child molesters.

It also stops any registered sex offender from living within 2,000 feet of parks and schools. It also mandates a lifetime Global Positioning System be put on sex offenders that are registered as felons. In also widens the definition of a sexually violent predator. It also erases the current two-year involuntary civil commitment for a sexual predator to a commitment that is subject to an annual review by the Director of Mental Health. They then have the ability to petition in court that the sexually violent predator either have a conditional release or an unconditional discharge.

Pro — It will keep our children safe by making prison sentences for child molesters longer. This will keep them away from public areas, especially public parks and schools. It will almost make sure their movements are monitored once they are released. It will almost lower the amount of sexual assaults and rape cases which right now occurs once every two minutes.

Con — This proposition would cost tax payers about five hundred million dollars and would actually not increase child safety. This is because repeated sex offenders usually target people in their own homes and these children would still be at risk even if this law is enacted. It would also waste resources on many sex offenders who don’t pose a serious risk.

Proposition 84

This proposition helps to fund projects relating to drinking water, supply and quality and any type of flood control. It also protects waterways and natural resources. It decreases water pollution and helps enable more contamination control in state and local parks. These improvements will allow public access to natural resource and help water conservation efforts. The proposition provides funding for emergency drinking water and prohibits these costs from being part of public contracts. It will also ensure immediate action for public safety. Lastly, it authorizes $5,388,000,000 in general obligation bonds to help fund projects which will be repaid from the state’s General Fund.

Pro — The measure will help protect California’s water, land and coastline. It will also enable more safe water supplies to be built around this state. This will attract more tourism and help to keep our economy on a steady incline.

Con — These dollars will not actually be used to help our water supplies and coastlines but will be swallowed by bureaucracy.

Proposition 85

This proposition amends the state Constitution to prohibit abortion for minors until 48 hours after a physician has notified the minor’s parent or guardian, except in medical emergency or with a parental waiver. It mandates reporting requirements and authorizes monetary damages against physicians for violation. Fiscal impact: Potential unknown net state costs of several million dollars annually for health and social services programs, court administration, and state health agency administration combined.

PRO — Right now anyone can arrange a secret abortion for your minor daughter and you won’t even know. Don’t permit your young daughter to be subjected to dangerous medical procedures without your knowledge. Keep her life and health in your hands and not those of strangers.

CON — No law can mandate family communication. Vulnerable teenagers from abusive, violent homes can’t talk to their parents, can’t navigate overcrowded courts and may resort to dangerous, illegal abortions. Prop. 85 won’t stop predators, won’t protect teens and is the first step in overturning Roe and banning all abortions.

Proposition 86

By imposing an additional $2.60 per pack excise tax on cigarettes and indirectly increasing taxes on other tobacco products, the proposition would provide funding for various health programs, children’s health coverage and tobacco-related programs. If passed, it means an increase in excise tax revenues of about $2.1 billion annually in 2007-08 for the specified purposes outlined above.

PRO — Reduces smoking and saves lives. A study by the California Department of Health Services says Proposition 86 will keep 700,000 kids from becoming adult smokers and prevent 300,000 smoking related deaths. The same study says Prop 86 will save over $16 billion in health care costs.

CON — Is really about hospitals using our Constitution and laws to pocket millions for themselves and HMOs through a $2.1 billion tax hike. Section 9 even gives hospitals an exemption to antitrust laws! It’s another lottery mess and has no guarantees on how the money will be spent.

Proposition 87

Proposition 87 creates the California Energy Alternatives Program Authority, which would be organized out of existing bureaus and would be charged with allocating funds from an imposed severance tax on in-state oil production (approximately 674 million barrels in 2005) in order to garner $4 billion for the expressed purpose of reducing traditional oil consumption to 75 percent of its current levels. This tax would be adjusted as per the current selling price per barrel of oil and the state Board of Equalization would be charged with prohibiting the transfer of the tax to the consumer. The proposition also calls for “research and production incentives for alternative energy, alternative energy vehicles, energy efficient technologies and for education and training.”

PRO — Proponents of Proposition 87 argue that this referendum would be of no cost to consumers, while providing for renewable and less polluting energy sources. These sources of energy, which would be researched and paid for by the oil producers according to the bill, would then provide for cleaner air and healthier cities and citizens.

CON — Those opposing Proposition 87 call it a recipe for waste, not progress. It is exempt from a requirement in the state constitution that a portion of tax revenues in California goes toward education and expands the state bureaucracy with a bevy of new appointees who may keep spending, year after year even if they’re not producing results.

Proposition 88

The Education Funding Real Property Parcel Tax Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute would create a parcel tax (a charge statewide of $50 based on each parcel of land one owns). This type of tax is already in numerous municipalities in the state, but it has not yet been applied statewide. This tax would be used to allocate $470 million initially to California public schools, with the plurality of which going towards class size reduction programs, as well as safety programs and instructional materials. This funding would be distributed as per a formula to be developed by the state legislature, taking into account school size and “higher-cost students.”

PRO — Those in favor of Proposition 88 have contended that it would give California’s students “more textbooks and learning materials, smaller classes, and safer schools.” The proponents also applaud the measure’s requirement of annual independent audits and stringent accountability standards, which would prevent misuse of funds.

CON — This state tax will merely raise the cost of living in California by creating a new “never ending” tax on land. Opponents argue also that the state would get the money from this tax before the localities, which they say are better suited at dealing with local issues and conditions.

Proposition 89

Proposition 89 would provide public funding for candidates running for state elective office. Candidates would have a choice whether or not to accept such funding. However, if they chose not to accept public money, the amount they would be allowed to receive from private donors would be lower than current limits. Also, various organizations would be limited in their funding of ballot initiatives. Corporate tax rates would be increased to pay for the funds needed to publicly fund campaigns.

Pro — Proponents believe Prop 89 will reduce corruption in California politics and help limit the undue influence of special interests. Also, they argue that ordinary citizens would be empowered to run for office instead of only the wealthy or powerful.

Con — Opponents point out that the ballot-initiative portion of Prop 89 would exempt certain groups like nurses unions while hampering their political opponents (such as insurance companies). Prop 89, opponents argue, is a political power-grab by particular special interest groups in California to the detriment of others.

Proposition 90

Prop 90 would reduce the ability of state and local governments to take private property for other private uses (land would have to be used for strictly public purposes). Any eminent domain court decisions that have not been published would be voided. The proposition would also provide a definition for “just compensation” in paying citizens whose land is taken.

Pro — Supporters argue that Prop 90 would protect private citizens from large developers. In recent years, some contend, the government has abused its “eminent domain” authority and has unfairly taken private property to give to commercial developers. Prop 90 would remedy this, supporters say, by strengthening private property rights in the face of government intrusion.

Con — According to opponents, Prop 90 is too extreme. The new requirements for compensating property owners would cost the state billions of dollars and would lead to frivolous lawsuits. Also, opponents contend that the law might prevent the state from protecting certain lands from environmental damage.