The California Propositions

gawntrail

New Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2004
Messages
872
Location
Moreno Valley, CA
Although California is normally a non-factor in the genereal election (usually swings Democrat - or losing candidate throws in the towel even before the polls are closed), we have major issues being decided today by way of propositions.

Here is the rundown for California:

Propositions that are on the
November 2, 2004, General Election Ballot

Proposition 1A. Protection of Local Government Revenues -- State of California
Should local property tax and sales tax revenues remain with local government thereby safeguarding funding for public safety, health, libraries, parks, and other local services? Provisions can only be suspended if the Governor declares a fiscal necessity and two-thirds of the Legislature concur.

Proposition 59. Public Records, Open Meetings -- State of California (Legislative Constitutional Amendment)
Shall the Constitution be amended to include public's right of access to meetings of government bodies and writings of government officials while preserving specified constitutional rights and retaining existing exclusions for certain meetings and records?

Proposition 60. Election Rights of Political Parties -- State of California (Legislative Constitutional Amendment)
Shall the general election ballot be required to include candidate receiving most votes among candidates of same party for partisan office in primary election?

Proposition 60A. Surplus Property -- State of California (Legislative Constitutional Amendment)
Shall the sale proceeds of most surplus state property pay off specified bonds?

Proposition 61. Children's Hospital Projects. Grant Program -- State of California (Bond Act. Initiative Statute)
Shall $750 million general obligation bonds be authorized for grants to eligible children's hospitals for construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation, furnishing and equipping children's hospitals?

Proposition 62. Elections. Primaries -- State of California (Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute)
Should primary elections be structured so that voters may vote for any state or federal candidate regardless of party registration of voter or candidate? The two primary-election candidates receiving most votes for an office, whether they are candidates with "no party" or members of same or different party, would be listed on general election ballot. Exempts presidential nominations.

Proposition 63. Mental Health Services Expansion, Funding. Tax on Personal Incomes above $1 Million -- State of California (Initiative Statute)
Should a 1% tax on taxable personal income above $1 million to fund expanded health services for mentally ill children, adults, seniors be established?

Proposition 64. Limit on Private Enforcement of Unfair Business Competition Laws -- State of California (Initiative Statute)
Should individual or class action "unfair business" lawsuits be allowed only if actual loss suffered? Only government officials may enforce these laws on public's behalf.

Proposition 65. Local Government Funds, Revenues. State Mandates -- State of California (Initiative Constitutional Amendment)
Should reduction of local fee/tax revenues require voter approval? Permits suspension of state mandate if no state reimbursement to local government within 180 days after obligation determined.

Proposition 66. Limitations on "Three Strikes" Law. Sex Crimes. Punishment -- State of California (Initiative Statute)
Should the "Three Strikes" law be limited to violent and/or serious felonies? Permits limited re-sentencing under new definitions. Increases punishment for specified sex crimes against children.

Proposition 67. Emergency Medical Services. Funding. Telephone Surcharge -- State of California (Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute)
Should the telephone surcharge be increased and other funds for emergency room physicians, hospital emergency rooms, community clinics, emergency personnel training/equipment, and 911 telephone system be allocated?

Proposition 68. Non-Tribal Commercial Gambling Expansion. Tribal Gaming Compact Amendments. Revenues, Tax Exemptions -- State of California (Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute)
Should tribal compact amendments be authorized? Unless tribes accept, should casino gaming be authorized for sixteen non-tribal establishments? Percentage of gaming revenues fund government services.

Proposition 69. DNA Samples. Collection. Database. Funding -- State of California (Initiative Statute)
Should collection of DNA samples from all felons, and from others arrested for or charged with specified crimes be required with submission to state DNA database? Provides for funding.

Proposition 70. Tribal Gaming Compacts. Exclusive Gaming Rights. Contributions to State -- State of California (Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute)
Upon tribe's request, should the Governor be required to execute a 99-year compact? Tribes contribute percentage of net gaming income to state funds, in exchange for expanded, exclusive tribal casino gaming.

Proposition 71. Stem Cell Research. Funding. Bonds -- State of California (Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute)
Should the "California Institute for Regenerative Medicine" be established to regulate and fund stem cell research with the constitutional right to conduct such research and with an oversight committee? Prohibits funding of human reproductive cloning research.

Proposition 72. Health Care Coverage Requirements -- State of California (Referendum)
Should legislation requiring health care coverage for employees, as specified, working for large and medium employers be approved?

Here's the link: http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/11/02/ca/state/prop/


I'm not harping for or against, just trying to show you guys what we are dealing with (here in California).

If you have the time, post up some of the drivel being determined today in your state(s).

M. Gipson
 
Here are the big ones in Oklahoma, in short:

State Question No. 705: Creates the Oklahoma Lottery Commission.

State Question No. 706: Will create the Oklahoma Education Lottery fund.

State Question No. 711: Defines marriage to be between one man/one woman.

State Question No. 712: State-Tribal Gaming Act. Basically the casinos will be allowed to have table games, instead of just gaming machines.

State Question No. 713: Tobacco Tax. They are changing the tax to $.04/per cigar, $.12/per cigar.
 
bfreebern said:
Here are the big ones in Oklahoma, in short:

State Question No. 705: Creates the Oklahoma Lottery Commission.

State Question No. 706: Will create the Oklahoma Education Lottery fund.
Don't believe it for a second. Texas voted in the Lottery based on "Funding for Education". Total B.S. They've deposited it to the Education funding on the front end, but have taken it out the back door to spend it on whatever in the hell they want to. Texas's funding for education is still f'd-up royally.
 
cohibasurfer said:
Same sh$t here in Cali. Mark :angry:
We still have a lottery ?? I thought that was an illegal immigrant give-away program :p

And yes, you are right. I think it was 50% of Lottery proceeds were to go to education. Yet, students still are scrounging for textbooks, chairs, and classroom space.

Got lied to again.....................go figure :(

M. Gipson
 
Horse said:
bfreebern said:
Here are the big ones in Oklahoma, in short:

State Question No. 705: Creates the Oklahoma Lottery Commission.

State Question No. 706: Will create the Oklahoma Education Lottery fund.
Don't believe it for a second. Texas voted in the Lottery based on "Funding for Education". Total B.S. They've deposited it to the Education funding on the front end, but have taken it out the back door to spend it on whatever in the hell they want to. Texas's funding for education is still f'd-up royally.
Thank you Ann Richards

That was the main reason I voted for the Lotto in Texas, and I am sure I am not the only one.
 
Same with the lottery in Illinois. The money was to be for eductaion but it all ends up in the general fund at some point. Not that it would matter to our governor anyway, he has illegally taken funds from one place and put them into another since he started his "reform". My wife works in state government and they cut 13+ positions in her area alone, because the funding was removed from their accounts and transferred to another area of government. Then to top that off he raised the fees that these previous funds were derived from which sent the clients to private agencies instead of using the public agencies. Thus, some funds were reduced to almost no funds. We expect her agency to last another two years and then be gone.
 
Top