How Do I Vote - Statewide Elections Page

STATEWIDE PROPOSITIONS

How do I Vote? rates the Propositions. Here's what we think about the statewide Propositions:

Proposition 91 - Transportation Funds. VOTE NO OR ABSTAIN

This Proposition qualified for the 2008 ballot, but was preempted by Proposition 1A that was passed in 2006 by 77% of the voters. Prop 1A prohibits some motor vehicle taxes from being used by the Legislature for non-transportation purposes. At present, there is no way to take a voter sponsored initiative off the ballot once it qualifies, so VOTE NO OR ABSTAIN on this one as it is no longer needed.

Proposition 92 - Community College Funding, Governance, Fees VOTE NO

A Yes Vote means Community College funding will be severed from voter required Prop 98 educational funding. If passed, this proposition could cost an estimated additional $300 million per year for taxpayers. In addition, if this proposition passes the Community Colleges Governing Board will be codified in the State Constitution, and the administration will increase in size.

Make no mistake, the Community Colleges carry an educational burden in California second to none, and they charge much less for classes than either CSU or UC. I am not sure if this Proposition, aside from the potential costs in a year when CA is already facing a $14 Billion budget shortfall, is wise or if it would finally make the CCC a full partner in California’s three part system of higher education (community colleges, California State University system, UC System), each of which has a different goal and objectives. When Clark Kerr championed the State's Master Plan for Higher Education, Community College classes were free, and the Master Plan was designed to provide the first two years of general education requirements at an academic level that would allow students to transfer to CSU or UC and complete their educations. A lot has changed since the early 1960s, but the Master Plan is still in effect even though the State Legislature and most recent Governor's have not made it a priority for funding.

The California Community Colleges were happy to be included in the original Proposition 98 funding formula, and in recent years, community colleges have received between 10 or 11% annually of the total Prop 98 funds. I don't remember either CSU or UC getting funding levels that high except once at UC when Governor Deukmejian gave UC a 35% one-time increase for faculty salaries to keep UC competitive nationally.

Students at CCC would like their fees cut from $25 per unit to $15 per unit as proposed by this initiative. If that happens, the loss of student fee revenues to community colleges would be about $70 Million next year. Students would be further penalized at the Federal level because the lower fees make them ineligible for Pell grants and students loans. There is a big cost to this measure at a time when California’s shrunken tax revenues are way below ($14 Billion below) what is needed to fund programs throughout California. Voting yes on this Proposition would benefit CCC administrators and students in the short term, but create unknown financial consequences for California for the long term. VOTE NO.

Proposition 93 - Limits on Legislator's Terms in Office VOTE YES

The best way to limit the term of a Legislator is to vote him or her out of office. This should be a simple matter, but the truth is since a lot of people who vote know their local officials, those officials are often returned to office whether they are competent or not. Name recognition counts for a lot in elections.

Since 1990, California citizens have been dealing with the unintentional consequences mandated by term limits. At first, lack of legislative knowledge did not pose a problem for new incumbents. The Legislature was only turning over about 25% of members in both Houses per year, and institutional memory remained intact. That is no longer the case. Now there is a revolving door into the Capitol and through it walks a new crop of members every 2 years to join folks with at best 4 years of seniority in the Assembly. Today, new Assembly members take their campaign staff to Sacramento and put them on the payroll. Many of those staffers have no experience in the Sacramento policy process or in-depth knowledge of the functional areas for which they become responsible. Even people who work for the Assembly consider it to be dysfunctional in terms of formulating long term plans for the state and in working through the myriad details of policy bills affecting millions of people. The Senate has been marginally better in terms of competence, but only because senior policy consultants remained in their jobs. Now even they are retiring. Who is left to govern California and has the needed institutional memory to formulate policy? Lobbyists. It is not an ideal situation for voters when many lobbyists know more about the state budget and policy issues than our elected officials do. Let's give elected officials a chance to spend an additional few years learning their jobs and doing what they are paid to do - making policy for the benefit of the public. If they abuse the time, we can reform term limits again and throw them all out. VOTE YES.

Proposition 94, 95, 96, 97 - Indian Gaming Compacts VOTE NO

Vote No and force the 4 Southern California tribes that will benefit from the proposed changes back to Sacramento to cut a new deal with the Governor and Legislature. There is no way we can rid our state of gambling, but we can force these 4 tribes to renegotiate the low 15% tax rate they are willing to pay on $4.3 Billion dollars a year of gambling profits. These Propositions also allow the tribes to audit themselves instead of having the state inspect casino records, a highly unusual arrangement in a state where every penny of taxable revenue is needed for our mandated programs. VOTE NO

Proposition Cheat Sheet

Prop. 91	No
Prop. 92	No
Prop. 93	Yes
Prop. 94	No
Prop.95	No
Prop. 96	No
Prop. 97	No

Blank Sheet

Prop. 91
Prop. 92
Prop. 93
Prop. 94
Prop.95
Prop. 96
Prop. 97