With less than two weeks to go before November 4 Election Day, you hear the words frequently: this may be the most important election of most voters’ lifetimes.
Along with the critical choices for president at the top of the ballot, there are numerous state propositions to consider; a judge to elect; nine candidates for three seats on the El Tejon Unified School Board of Trustees; a race for a chair on the Frazier Park Public Utilities District Board (FPPUD); and Measure K, to provide a firefighterparamedic program for the residents of Pine Mountain under the Kern County Fire Department, which would be Kern County’s first.
This week and next The Mountain Enterprise will provide an overview to the local and county issues on the ballot, providing nonpartisan information.
We’ll start with the Kern County Superior Court Judge candidates.
Superior Court Judge:
Holly Mitchell has worked as a Kern County Deputy District Attorney for 25 years, “serving as an advocate for children and victim’s rights.” She says she has handled criminal trials, family law and truancy issues. She says she believes a judge should be sensitive to victims while being fair and impartial to all in the system. She has been endorsed by Kern County District Attorney Ed Jagels.
Chip Brehmer has been an attorney for 16 years. He has served as a judge pro tem and a mediator/ arbitrator for 10 years, hearing ‘over 200 cases.’ He says he is experienced in civil, criminal and administrative law, and that retirement of judges requires experienced candidates to step forward. He supports drug diversion programs for nonviolent offenders to ease the burden on courts and prisons. He is endorsed by outgoing Judge Westra, Jr., the Kern Law Enforcement Association, Kern County Sheriff’s Commanders and the Kern County and Bakersfield Firefighters.
Propositions:
There are 12 state propositions in this election. The following descriptions are created with the assistance of the League of Women Voters.
Any proposition that gets more than 50% “yes” votes will become a new law for California. Propositions 1A and 12 were placed on the ballot by the state legislature. The rest of the propositions are “initiatives” that were placed on the ballot by their supporters who collected enough signatures to qualify them. Some of these propositions are also Constitutional Amendments to change the State Constitution if passed.
State Bonds
Propositions 1A, 3, 10 and 12 on the November 4 ballot ask voters to allow the state to sell bonds to raise money for certain purposes. Bonds borrow money to pay for things that last a long time, like schools and bridges.
The government sells bonds to get the money now and then pays the bonds back with interest, usually over 30 years. Every $1 billion in bonds costs the state about $2 billion total: one billion to pay back the money borrowed and nearly one billion in interest. To pay back $1 billion in bonds, the state must spend an average of $65 million every year for 30 years.
Choosing to Vote “Yes” or “No” on a Proposition:
A “Yes” vote means that you support the way the proposition would change things.
A “No” vote means that you want to leave things the way they are.
Short Descriptions with Simplified Titles:
Prop. 1A: Bonds for High-Speed Rail (Proposed by the State Legislature)
In 1996, the California High- Speed Rail Authority was created to plan and build an electric-powered, high-speed rail system linking California’s major cities. The Rail Authority estimates that the total cost to finish planning and then build the entire system is about $45 billion. The funds are expected to come from federal, state and local governments, as well as private sources.
What Prop 1A would do if it passes: Allow the state to sell $9.95 billion in bonds to continue planning and start building the high-speed rail system. About $9 billion would be used for the core route between San Francisco and Los Angeles/ Anaheim and possible extensions. The remaining $950 million would be spent on local and other state rail systems. Prop 1A requires funding plans to be in place before the bonds can be sold.
Fiscal effect on government:
*State costs of about $19.4 billion over 30 years to pay off the bonds plus interest. Payments would average $647 million per year.
*State costs of about $1 billion a year to run the high-speed rail system. These costs would be at least partly offset by train ticket sales.
People for Prop 1A say:
*This new rail system will give us a more efficient way to travel between cities that will be better for the environment.
*This will reduce California’s need for foreign oil and help our overcrowded freeways and airports.
People against Prop 1A say:
*Our budget crisis is already forcing cuts to schools, healthcare and more. These funds could be spent on improving our existing roads and transit systems.
*There is no guarantee this high-speed rail system will ever be finished.
Prop. 2: Treatment of Farm Animals (Initiative)
State law makes it illegal to be cruel to animals. For example, animals in enclosed areas must have shelter, food, water and room to exercise. People who break these laws may be fined or sent to jail or both.
If it passes: Make it illegal to keep certain farm animals in a way that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs. Prop 2 covers pregnant pigs, calves raised for veal and hens that lay eggs. The law would begin in 2015. People who break the law could be fined up to $1,000 or sent to jail or both.
Fiscal effect on government:
Possible small changes in costs and revenues to local and state governments.
People for Prop 2 say:
*Prop 2 will stop the cruel and inhumane treatment of farm animals that are now kept in cramped or overcrowded cages.
*This lowers the risk of spreading animal diseases and protects the environment from air pollution and waste from factory farms. It is the agribusiness suppliers of commercial fertilizers and antibiotics who are opposed.
People against Prop 2 say:
*Prop 2 is extreme and not needed. There are already laws in place to stop cruel treatment of animals.
*This will increase grocery prices of California eggs and other farm products, put farmers out of business, and cost us much-needed jobs.
Prop. 3: Bonds for Children’s Hospitals (Initiative)
Children’s hospitals in California treat over one million children facing life-threatening illnesses or injuries each year. Voters approved $750 million in bonds for children’s hospitals in November 2004. About $400 million of those bonds have been sold.
If it passes, Prop 3 will: Allow state government to sell $980 million in bonds for improvements to children’s hospitals in California. The money would be used to expand, remodel and provide updated equipment for these hospitals.
Fiscal effect on government:
*State costs of about $2 billion over 30 years to pay off the bonds plus interest. Payments would average about $64 million per year. People for Prop 3 say:
*Children’s hospitals save hundreds of lives each day but do not have enough room to treat all of the children who are sent to them.
*Hospitals would be able to buy up-to-date equipment to treat babies born early or with defective organs.
People against Prop 3 say:
*Hundreds of millions of dollars for children’s hospitals are still left from bonds passed in 2004 that have not been spent.
*Although these funds would go to hospitals that serve children, Prop 3 does not guarantee that the money will be spent on actual services for children.
Prop. 4: Parental Notification
About Abortion (Initiative/ Constitutional Amendment)
A pregnant minor (an unmarried girl under 18 years old) can get an abortion in California without telling her parents.
What Prop 4 would do if it passes: Change the State Constitution to require a doctor to notify the minor’s parent or guardian at least 48 hours before performing an abortion. The law does not require a parent to agree to the abortion, but the parent must be told about it. Parental notification would not be required in the case of a medical emergency or if the minor gets approval from a juvenile court judge. In some cases, a doctor could notify an adult family member other than a parent.
Fiscal effect on government: Possible state costs of several million dollars per year for health and welfare programs and court expenses.
People for Prop 4 say:
*A pregnant minor needs the support of a parent or guardian before and after she decides what to do about her pregnancy.
*Minors hiding an abortion from their parents may delay getting help for medical problems after the abortion. People against Prop 4 say:
*Minors who are afraid to tell their parents, or are too scared to go to a juvenile court judge, may try to get unsafe abortions.
*Laws cannot force good communication in families, and Prop 4 does not help minors in families with poor communication.
Prop. 5: Rehabilitation of Nonviolent Criminal Offenders (Initiative)
The state has drug treatment programs for some nonviolent criminal offenders. Some offenders can enter “diversion programs” where they can get drug treatment instead of going to jail. The state also has rehabilitation programs, but those services are often not available to inmates and parolees due to lack of money or space.
What Prop 5 would do if it passes: Expand the types of offenders that are eligible for drug treatment diversion programs and increase the services they can receive. Prop 5 also requires more rehabilitation programs for offenders while they are in prison, on parole and afterwards. Prop 5 makes many changes affecting offenders on parole and reduces penalties for possession of small amounts of marijuana.
Fiscal effect on government:
This could cost the state more than $1 billion per year for drug treatment and rehabilitation, but it could save the state about the same amount on prisons and parole costs. There could also be a one-time net state savings of more than $2.5 billion in building costs for new prisons that would not be needed if Prop 5 passes.
People for 5 say:
*Prop 5 will get nonviolent offenders and drug addicts into programs that will help them stay out of our overcrowded jails and prisons.
*California inmates and parolees are not getting enough rehabilitation services to help them re-enter society successfully.
People against 5 say:
*Prop 5 will let people convicted of domestic violence, identity theft and other crimes get out of going to jail by going into drug treatment programs instead.
*This shortens the parole time for methamphetamine dealers and other drug felons.
Proposition 6: Public Safety Spending and Criminal Penalties (Initiative)
The way it is now: Currently the state spends about $10 billion per year to run the prison system, which has about 171,000 inmates. Local governments are primarily responsible for funding community law enforcement.
What Prop 6 would do if it passes: Require an additional $365 million to be spent by the state on specific local law enforcement and criminal justice programs, beginning in 2009-10, and ensure certain programs get inflation-related increases. Increase the penalties for certain crimes, especially those related to gang members. Increase the number of parole officers. Make several other changes in procedures used by law enforcement and courts.
Fiscal effect on government
*New state spending that would increase to more than $500 million a year to pay for local law enforcement and criminal justice programs.
*One-time state costs of about $500 million to build prisons to house additional inmates due to tougher penalties. People for Prop 6 say:
*Prop 6 will bring more police and increased safety to our streets, along with more juvenile crime prevention.
*Gang members who commit violent felony crimes will spend more time in prison, and we will have better ways to track them when they are released. People against Prop 6 say:
*Prop 6 will waste billions on unproven programs, taking money away from other important programs like schools and fire protection.
*Several anti-gang programs were started in local communities around the state in 2007, and we need to give them more time to work.
Proposition 7: Renewable Energy (Initiative)
The way it is now: Electric utility companies in California generate most of the electricity they sell from “nonrenewable” resources (such as coal and natural gas). They generate a small amount of the electricity they sell from “renewable” resources (such as solar and wind). State law sets the goal of using renewable energy resources to generate 20% of California’s electricity by the year 2010. That law does not currently apply to electric utility companies that are owned by a local government.
What Prop 7 would do if it passes: Require all electric utility companies, including those owned by a government, to generate at least 20% of the electricity they sell from renewable resources by 2010. Set new, higher goals for all electric utility companies in California: 40% of electricity from renewable resources by 2020 and 50% by 2025. Change the penalties companies must pay when they fail to meet the renewable energy goals. Provides exceptions that allow electric utility companies to avoid penalties when they fail to meet the renewable energy goals.
Prop 7 makes many other changes affecting electric utility companies.
Fiscal effect on government:
*A small increase in state costs would probably be covered by the new fees the state would collect.
*Prop 7’s effect on electricity rates is unknown, so the effect on state and local government costs and revenues is also unknown. People for Prop 7 say:
*We can do better than dirty coal and nuclear power. Using more renewable resources will help the environment.
*Prop 7 will make California a leader in clean power and create hundreds of thousands of new jobs. People against Prop 7 say:
*Prop 7 will shut small renewable energy electric utility companies out of California’s market and disrupt the renewable energy work in progress.
*It will increase our electricity bills and taxpayer costs without achieving its stated goals.
Proposition 8: Ban on Gay Marriage (Initiative-Constitutional Amendment)
The way it is now: In 2000, voters passed a law stating that marriage between a man and a woman was the only legal kind of marriage in California. In a May 2008 ruling, the California Supreme Court said the State Constitution gives samesex couples the right to marry.
What Prop 8 would do if it passes: Change the State Constitution to say that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. This would mean that same-sex couples do not have a right to marry.
Fiscal effect on government: Possible losses in sales tax revenues over the next few years due to fewer weddings. In the long run, there would be little fiscal impact to government.
People for Prop 8 say:
*Prop 8 restores the definition of marriage approved by the voters in 2000 and puts it in the State Constitution.
*California still has a “domestic partners” law that gives same-sex couples the same rights and benefits as married spouses. People against Prop 8 say:
*California’s Constitution guarantees the same rights for everyone, and marriage is a right.
*Domestic partnerships are not the same as marriage. It’s unfair that some people can enjoy the dignity of marriage and others cannot.
Proposition 9: Victims’ Rights (Initiative Constitutional Amendment)
The way it is now: Victims of crime have certain rights under California’s Constitution and laws.
These include the right to speak up at sentencing and parole hearings. Victims also have the right to be paid back for their losses (called “restitution”), although current law allows some convicted criminals not to pay.
What Prop 9 would do if it passes: Add new rights for victims of crime and strengthen the rights they now have. For example, every convicted criminal who has caused a loss would have to pay restitution to the victim. The victim’s safety would have to be taken into account when deciding bail or parole. Prop 9 also changes the State Constitution to stop prisons and jails from letting offenders out early to reduce overcrowding. Prop 9 would also make changes to the state’s parole process, such as increasing the time some prisoners wait for their parole hearing.
Fiscal effect on government:
*Higher costs to state and county governments in the hundreds of millions of dollars a year if prisoners are kept in jail or prison longer.
*Net savings in the low tens of millions of dollars a year because of the changes to parole. People for Prop 9 say:
*With Prop 9 crime victims would get the same rights to due process as the rights criminals have.
*Prop 9 will keep politicians from letting dangerous prisoners out early in order to lower overcrowding problems in prisons and jails.
People against Prop 9 say:
*The rights of victims are already protected, and the way they are enforced should not be added to the State Constitution.
*Prop 9 is unnecessary and would take money away from other government programs like education and healthcare.
Proposition 10: Bonds for Alternative Energy (Initiative)
The way it is now: The state has a number of programs to help reduce California’s use of “nonrenewable” energy sources (such as coal and oil). The programs encourage energy efficiency and use of “renewable” energy (such as solar and wind) and alternative fuels (such as natural gas).
What Prop 10 would do if it passes: Allow the state to sell $5 billion in bonds to raise money for more programs to support alternative fuels and renewable energy. Much of this money would be spent on rebates to encourage Californians to buy vehicles that use less gasoline or use some other fuel. Some of this money would be used for research and development of new kinds of power that are better for the environment.
Fiscal effect on government:
*State costs of approximately $10 billion over 30 years to pay off the bonds plus interest. Payments would average $335 million per year.
*State costs to run Prop 10 programs would be about $10 million per year for 10 years. People for Prop 10 say:
*Prop 10 rebates will help more Californians afford cars and trucks that are better for the environment and cost less to run.
*This reduces California’s need for foreign oil and helps our state base more of its economy on clean power.
People against Prop 10 say:
*Prop 10 takes taxpayer dollars from other budget priorities when we already have several programs in place to encourage clean power.
*Bonds should be saved for longterm investments like bridges and buildings, not short-term programs like car rebates.
Proposition 11: Redistricting (Initiative-Constitutional Amendment)
The way it is now: Each federal and state lawmaker represents the people in a certain legislative district. Every 10 years, maps outlining the borders for legislative districts must be redrawn to make sure each district continues to have about the same number of people. This process is called “redistricting.” The state legislature has the job of drawing district maps for the 80 seats in the State Assembly, the 40 seats in the State Senate and California’s seats in the United States Congress.
What Prop 11 would do if it passes: Change the State Constitution to give a 14-member citizens redistricting commission the job of drawing district maps for seats in the State Assembly and State Senate. The commission would be made up of registered voters (5 Democrats, 5 Republicans and 4 members who do not belong to either major party). Prop 11 includes rules for selecting the commission members and for a public process for drawing new district maps for state offices. Prop 11 leaves the state legislature in charge of redrawing the district maps for California’s U.S. Congress seats.
Fiscal effect on government:
No significant increases in state spending.
People for Prop 11 say:
*Prop 11 ends the current system of politicians drawing district maps in ways that makes it very easy for them to get reelected.
*If we have more competitive elections, politicians will be more accountable to the voters. People against Prop 11 say:
*Instead of districts being drawn by legislators elected by the people, they will be drawn by commissioners picked by state administrators.
*Because it does not cover U.S. Congress, Prop 11 sets up two different processes for drawing district maps.
Proposition 12: Bonds for Veterans’ Home Loans (Proposed by the State Legislature)
The way it is now: California veterans can buy homes and farms with low-interest loans provided by the Cal-Vet program. The money for these loans is raised by selling state bonds. Monthly payments from veterans have covered all costs of the Cal- Vet program.
What Prop 12 would do if it passes: Allow the state to sell $900 million in bonds to provide more money for the Cal-Vet program. This amount would be enough for loans to at least 3,600 veterans.
Fiscal effect on government: No net cost to the state is expected since the veterans’ payments have covered all costs of the Cal- Vet program in the past.
People for Prop 12 say:
* This gives veterans low-interest loans to buy homes, which is a way to show our appreciation for their service and sacrifice. People against Prop 12 say:
* Veterans who served in combat or in a combat zone should be given loans before other veterans since funds are limited.
This is part of the October 24, 2008 online edition of The Mountain Enterprise.
Have an opinion on this matter? We'd like to hear from you.
