Page One

There are 16 state ballot propositions this year. Enjoy. 

Prop. 1A - Legislative Constitutional Amendment on Local Government Revenues 

This is the compromise proposition worked out between the governor and the California League of Cities and other local governments that replaces Proposition 65. This proposition would prohibit the state from reducing local governments' property tax proceeds except on a two-thirds vote, and only after the governor declares a fiscal necessity. Any money taken by the state under this "fiscal necessity" trigger must be repaid to the local governments, in full, before the state can invoke the "fiscal necessity" trigger again. 

Prop. 59 - Legislative Constitutional Amendment on Public Records and Open Meetings 

Would increase public access to government meetings and writings of government officials 

Prop. 60 - Legislative Constitutional Amendment on Election Rights of Political Parties 

This would put into the state Constitution the present statutory requirement that each party holds its own separate primary, and the winners of the respective primaries then run against each other in the November general election. Prop 60 is directly opposed to Prop. 62, which would establish a Louisiana-type open primary where a single all-y'all-come primary is held for all candidates for a given office-regardless of party-and the top-two vote getters in the primary advance to run against each other in the general election. 

Under Prop. 60, if Democrats and Republicans and the Green Party (for example) hold primaries, the winners of each of these three primaries would run against each other in the general election. Under Prop. 62, there would only be one primary, and the top two vote-getters in that primary would run against each other in the general election. That means that a general election could see two Democrats running against each other, or two Republicans, or a Republican and a Democrat, or any other combination. 

Prop. 60 and Prop. 62 are in conflict. Therefore, if both of them pass, only the proposition that gets the most "yes" votes will be put into effect. 

Prop. 60A - Legislative Constitutional Amendment on Surplus State Property 

Would require the use of revenues from sale of surplus state property to go towards the repayment of some existing bonds. 

Prop. 61 - Bond Initiative for Children's Hospital Projects 

$750 million general obligation bond for construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation, furnishing, and equipping eligible children's hospitals. 

Prop. 62 - Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute on Primary Elections 

Would establish a Louisiana-type open primary where a single all-y'all-come primary is held for all candidates for a given office-regardless of party-and the top-two vote getters in the primary advance to run against each other in the general election. Prop. 62 is directly opposed to Prop. 60, which would put into the state Constitution the present statutory requirement that each party holds its own separate primary, and the winners of the respective primaries then run against each other in the November general election. 

Under Prop. 62, there would only be one primary, and the top two vote-getters in that primary would run against each other in the general election no matter party affiliation. If both Prop. 60 and Prop. 62 pass, the one with the most “yes” votes will be put into effect. 

Prop. 63 - Initiative Statute on High-Income Taxes for Mental Health Services Expansion 

Would establish 1 percent new tax on taxable personal income above $1 million to fund expanded health services for the mentally ill. 

Prop. 64 - Initiative Statute on Private Enforcement of Unfair Business Competition Laws 

Would limit the ability of individual or class action "unfair business practice" lawsuits by private citizens. While the State Attorney General or local district attorneys would still be able to bring such lawsuits on behalf of the public if Prop. 64 passes, individuals would only be able to bring such lawsuits if they show that they, themselves, have suffered injury or lost money or property. 

Prop. 65 - Initiative Constitutional Amendment on State Mandates for Local Government Funds and Revenues 

Essentially, this is an orphan proposition without a current major sponsor. Would require voter approval of any legislative changes to certain local government revenues (particularly the Vehicle License Fee givebacks) that fall below the January 2003 levels. Would also allow local suspension of state mandates if the state fails to reimburse local governments for those mandated programs within 180 days. This proposition was crafted by the League of California Cities in response to the governor's VLF reduction, and came before the compact was reached with the governor that led to Prop. 1A. The league has since abandoned its support for Prop. 65 in favor of Prop. 1A, but since it had already qualified, it remains on the ballot. 

Prop. 66 - Initiative Statute on Three Strikes Law 

Would limit three strikes law to violent and/or serious felonies as well as increase punishment for specified sex crimes against children. 

Prop. 67 - Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute on Emergency Medical Services Funding 

Would increase telephone surcharge by 3 percent and allocate other state funds for various presently-unreimbursed emergency medical services. 

Prop. 68 - Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute on Non-Tribal Commercial Gambling Expansion and Tribal Gaming Compact Amendments 

This initiative has to be seen in conjunction with Proposition 70, as well as with current state gambling laws. Both 68 and 70 would expand casino gambling and slot machines in California and bring in more tax revenue to the state. They would do it in different ways. 

Under current law, on-site and televised "simultaneous-cast" gambling is allowed on horse races at certain locations (at Golden Gate Fields, Bay Meadows, and the Alameda County Fairgrounds, for example). Gambling at certain so-called "gaming" establishments on certain types of card games is also allowed (at card rooms in Emeryville and San Pablo, for example). And slot machines and other casino-type gambling (the type you normally see in Nevada) is allowed on certain Indian lands which have worked out tribal-state gambling compacts. The key here is that the Indian gambling tribes have a monopoly on slot machine establishments in California. In addition, they are paying a relatively low amount to the state in return for the privilege of operating those slot machines. 

64 tribes signed compacts with the state in 1999 that limited them to operating no more than two gambling facilities with a total limit of 2,000 slot machines. In 2004, five of these tribes signed amended contracts with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger which allowed them to increase the number of slot machines they can operate. One of these amended contracts was the controversial Casino San Pablo expansion negotiated with the Lytton Indian tribe. 

Prop. 68 would allow a significant expansion of slot machines—in existing Indian gambling establishments if new tribal-state gambling compacts can be worked out with all of them, or on certain non-Indian gambling establishments if new gambling compacts can't be worked out with all of the Indian gambling tribes—with increased gambling tax revenues expected to be passed on to the state. If the tribes agree to the compacts, they would have to pay 25 percent of their slot machines' net winnings to the state. 

Essentially, Prop. 68 holds a bargaining club over the Indian tribes presently operating gambling establishments in the state. If Prop. 68 passes and the gambling tribes don't all agree to new gambling compacts that give over more of their revenue as taxes to the state, the proposition will trigger a breakup of the Indian monopoly on slot machines in California. 

Prop. 68 and Prop. 70 are in conflict. Therefore, if both of them pass, only the proposition that gets the most "yes" votes will be put into effect. 

Prop. 69 - Initiative Statute on DNA Samples 

Requires collection of DNA samples from all convicted felons, from all adults arrested for or charged with a felony, and from all juveniles arrested for or charged with certain specified crimes. 

This is a significant expansion from present California law, which only requires blood samples for DNA purposes from persons convicted of a serious felony offense. 

Prop. 70 - Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute on Tribal Gaming Compacts  

While Prop. 68 allows the state to expand casino gambling to non-tribal areas if the gambling tribes don't all agree to give up more revenue in new gambling compacts—essentially giving the state more of the bargaining chips— Prop. 70 reverses the bargaining chips, giving more of them to the existing gambling tribes. 

It requires the state to renegotiate gambling contracts with gambling tribes within 30 days after the tribes request such renegotiations. Under those new contracts, the old restriction on numbers of slot machines would be thrown out. The new compacts would subject Indian gambling establishments to California's 8.4 percent corporate tax rate. If for any reason, casino gambling in California was expanded to non-Indian tribes, the tribes would no longer have to pay the corporate tax rates, although they would still be subject to the fees owed to the state under their old compacts. 

Prop. 68 and Prop. 70 are in conflict. Therefore, if both of them pass, only the proposition that gets the most "yes" votes will be put into effect.  

Prop. 71 - Constitutional Amendment and Statute on Stem Cell Research 

Stem cell research, which is in its infancy stage, is associated both with a search for cures for certain diseases as well as with human cloning. Prop. 71 would establish the constitutional right to conduct stem cell research in California. It would both regulate, oversee, and provide state financing for that research. But it would prohibit that research from going into the area of human cloning. 

Prop. 72 - Referendum on Health Care Coverage Requirements 

This initiative allows voters to decide whether a recently-passed state law on worker health care coverage will go into effect. 

Under the 2003 law (SB2), California businesses with 50 or more employees would be required to provide health care coverage to their workers, either by setting up their own health care plans, or by paying a fee to a state agency that would then purchase privately-operated health insurance for those employees. The key here is that the state would not operate its own health insurance program for private employees. It would only purchase that health insurance—from, say, Blue Cross or Kaiser—in the same way that any private employer would purchase that health insurance. 

If Prop. 72 does not pass, SB2 will not become state law, and existing worker health care coverage will remain as it is now.