Proposition 4: Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy FAILED

Constitutional Amendment

• Amends California Constitution to prohibit abortion for unemancipated minor until 48 hours after physician notifies minor’s parent, legal guardian or, if parental abuse reported, an adult family member.
• Provides exceptions for medical emergency or parental waiver.
• Permits courts to waive notice based on clear and convincing evidence of minor’s maturity or best interests.
• Mandates reporting requirements, including reports from physicians regarding abortions on minors.
• Authorizes monetary damages against physicians for violation.
• Requires minor’s consent to abortion, with exceptions.
• Permits judicial relief if minor’s consent is coerced.

Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government:

• Potential unknown net state costs of several million dollars annually for health and social services programs, court administration, and state health agency administration combined.

(Initiative 07-0053.)

More on the CA Secretary of State's site.
Read more.

Proposition 5: Nonviolent Offenders. Sentencing, Parole and Rehabilitation. FAILED

Statute

• Requires State to expand and increase funding and oversight for individualized treatment and rehabilitation programs for nonviolent drug offenders and parolees.
• Reduces criminal consequences of nonviolent drug offenses by mandating three-tiered probation with treatment and by providing for case dismissal and/or sealing of records after probation.
• Limits court’s authority to incarcerate offenders who violate probation or parole.
• Shortens parole for most drug offenses, including sales, and for nonviolent property crimes.
• Creates numerous divisions, boards, commissions, and reporting requirements regarding drug treatment and rehabilitation.
• Changes certain marijuana misdemeanors to infractions.

Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government:

• Increased state costs that could exceed $1 billion annually primarily for expanding drug treatment and rehabilitation programs for offenders in state prisons, on parole, and in the community.
• Savings to the state that could exceed $1 billion annually due primarily to reduced prison and parole operating costs.
• Net savings on a one-time basis on capital outlay costs for prison facilities that could exceed $2.5 billion. Unknown net fiscal effect on expenditures for county operations and capital outlay.

(Initiative 07-0081.)

More on the CA Secretary of State's site.
Read more.

Proposition 6:Criminal Penalties and Laws. Public Safety Funding. FAILED

Statute

• Requires new state spending on various programs to combat crime and gangs, and to operate prison and parole systems.
• Increases penalties for several crimes, including violating gang injunctions, using or possessing to sell methamphetamine, or carrying loaded or concealed firearms by certain felons.
• Eliminates bail for illegal immigrants charged with violent or gang-related felonies, establishes crime for removing or disabling a monitoring device affixed as part of a criminal sentence, and changes evidence rules to allow use of certain hearsay statements as evidence when witnesses are unavailable.

Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government:

• Net state costs likely to exceed a half billion dollars annually primarily for increased funding of criminal justice programs, as well as for increased costs for prison and parole operations.
• Unknown one-time state capital outlay costs potentially exceeding a half billion dollars for prison facilities.
• Unknown net fiscal impact for state trial courts, county jails, and other local criminal justice agencies.

(Initiative 07-0094.)

More on the CA Secretary of State's site.
Read more.

Proposition 7: Renewable Energy. FAILED

Statute

• Requires all utilities, including government-owned utilities, to generate 20% of their power from renewable energy by 2010, a standard currently applicable only to private electrical corporations.
• Raises requirement for all utilities to 40% by 2020 and 50% by 2025.
• Imposes penalties for noncompliance. Fast-tracks approval for new renewable energy plants.
• Requires utilities to sign longer contracts (20 year minimum) to procure renewable energy.
• Creates Solar and Clean Energy Transmission Account to purchase property or rights of way for renewable energy.

Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government:

• State administrative costs of up to $3.4 million annually for the regulatory activities of the Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission and the California Public Utilities Commission, paid for by fee revenues.
• Potential, unknown increased costs and reduced revenues, particularly in the short term, to state and local governments resulting from the measure’s potential to increase retail electricity rates, with possible offsetting cost savings and revenue increases, to an unknown degree, over the long term to the extent the measure hastens renewable energy development.

(Initiative 07-0066.)


More on the CA Secretary of State's site.

Read more.

Proposition 10: Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Renewable Energy. FAILED

Bond. Statute.
Authorizes $5 billion in bonds paid from state’s General Fund, allocated approximately as follows:

• 58% in cash payments of between $2,000 and $50,000 to purchasers of certain high fuel economy and alternative fuel vehicles;
• 20% in incentives for research, development and production of renewable energy technology;
  
• 11% in incentives for research and development of alternative fuel vehicle technology;
• 5% in incentives for purchase of renewable energy technology; 4% in grants to eight cities for education about these technologies;
• and 3% in grants to colleges to train students in these technologies.

Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government:

• State costs of about $9.8 billion over 30 years to pay both the principal ($5 billion) and interest ($4.8 billion) costs on the bond.
• Payments of about $325 million per year.
• Increase in state sales tax revenues of an unknown amount, potentially totaling in the tens of millions of dollars, over the period from 2009 to beyond 2018.
• Increase in local sales tax and VLF revenues of an unknown amount, potentially totaling in the tens of millions of dollars, over the period from 2009 to about 2018-19.
• Potential state costs of up to about $10 million annually, through about 2018 -19, for state agency administrative costs not funded by the measure.

(Initiative 07-0101.)

More on the CA Secretary of State's site.
Read more.

Proposition 98: Eminent Domain. Limits on Government Authority. FAILED

Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

• Bars state and local governments from taking or damaging private property for private uses.
• Prohibits rent control and similar measures.
• Prohibits deference to government in takings cases.
• Defines “just compensation.”
• Requires an award of attorneys fees and costs if a property owner obtains a judgment for more than the amount offered by the government.
• Requires government to offer to original owner of condemned property the right to repurchase property at condemned price when property is put to substantially different use than was publicly stated.

Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:

• Increased costs to many governments due to the measure’s restrictions. The net statewide fiscal effect, however, probably would not be significant.

For the TEXT OF PROPOSED LAW:

PROPOSITION 98

This initiative measure is submitted to the people of California in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 of Article II of the California Constitution. This initiative measure amends a section of the California Constitution; therefore, existing provisions proposed to be deleted are printed in strikeout type and new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.

PROPOSED LAW SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FINDINGS

(a) Our state Constitution, while granting government the power of eminent domain, also provides that the people have an inalienable right to own, possess, and protect private property. It further provides that no person may be deprived of property without due process of law, and that private property may not be taken or damaged by eminent domain except for public use and only after just compensation has been paid to the property owner.

(b) Notwithstanding these clear constitutional guarantees, the courts have not protected the people’s rights from being violated by state and local governments through the exercise of their power of eminent domain.

(c) For example, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Kelo v. City of New London, held that the government may use eminent domain to take property from its owner for the purpose of transferring it to a private developer. In other cases, the courts have allowed the government to set the price an owner can charge to sell or rent his or her property, and have allowed the government to take property for the purpose of seizing the income or business assets of the property.

(d) Farmland is especially vulnerable to these types of eminent domain abuses.

SECTION 2. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

(a) State and local governments may use eminent domain to take private property only for public uses, such as roads, parks, and public facilities.

(b) State and local governments may not use their power to take or damage property for the benefit of any private person or entity.

(c) State and local governments may not take private property by eminent domain to put it to the same use as that made by the private owner.

(d) When state or local governments use eminent domain to take or damage private property for public uses, the owner shall receive just compensation for what has been taken or damaged.

(e) Therefore, the people of the state of California hereby enact the “California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act.”

SECTION 3. AMENDMENT TO CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION Section 19 of Article I of the California Constitution is amended to read: SEC. 19.

(a) Private property may be taken or damaged only for a stated public use only and when just compensation, ascertained by a jury unless waived, has first been paid to, or into court for, the owner. The Legislature may provide for possession by the condemnor following commencement of eminent domain proceedings upon deposit in court and prompt release to the owner of money determined by the court to be the probable amount of just compensation. Private property may not be taken or damaged for private use.

(b) For purposes of this section:

(1) “Taken’’ includes transferring the ownership, occupancy, or use of property from a private owner to a public agency or to any person or entity other than a public agency, or limiting the price a private owner may charge another person to purchase, occupy or use his or her real property.

(2) “Public use” means use and ownership by a public agency or a regulated public utility for the public use stated at the time of the taking, including public facilities, public transportation, and public utilities, except that nothing herein prohibits leasing limited space for private uses incidental to the stated public use; nor is the exercise of eminent domain prohibited to restore utilities or access to a public road for any private property which is cut off from utilities or access to a public road as a result of a taking for public use as otherwise defined herein.

(3) “Private use” means:

(i) transfer of ownership, occupancy or use of private property or associated property rights to any person or entity other than a public agency or a regulated public utility;

(ii) transfer of ownership, occupancy or use of private property or associated property rights to a public agency for the consumption of natural resources or for the same or a substantially similar use as that made by the private owner; or

(iii) regulation of the ownership, occupancy or use of privately owned real property or associated property rights in order to transfer an economic benefit to one or more private persons at the expense of the property owner.

(4) “Public agency” means the state, special district, county, city, city and county, including a charter city or county, and any other local or regional governmental entity, municipal corporation, public agency-owned utility or utility district, or the electorate of any public agency.

(5) “Just compensation” means:

(i) for property or associated property rights taken, its fair market value;

(ii) for property or associated property rights damaged, the value fixed by a jury, or by the court if a jury is waived;

(iii) an award of reasonable costs and attorney fees from the public agency if the property owner obtains a judgment for more than the amount offered by a public agency as defined herein; and

(iv) any additional actual and necessary amounts to compensate the property owner for temporary business losses, relocation expenses, business reestablishment costs, other actual and reasonable expenses incurred and other expenses deemed compensable by the Legislature.

(6) “Prompt release” means that the property owner can have immediate possession of the money deposited by the condemnor without prejudicing his or her right to challenge the determination of fair market value or his or her right to challenge the taking as being for a private use.

(7) “Owner” includes a lessee whose property rights are taken or damaged.

(8) “Regulated public utility” means any public utility as described in Article XII, Section 3, that is regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission and is not owned or operated by a public agency. Regulated public utilities are private property owners for purposes of this article.

(c) In any action by a property owner challenging a taking or damaging of his or her property, the court shall consider all relevant evidence and exercise its independent judgment, not limited to the administrative record and without deference to the findings of the public agency. The property owner shall be entitled to an award of reasonable costs and attorney fees from the public agency if the court finds that the agency’s actions are not in compliance with this section. In addition to other legal and equitable remedies that may be available, an owner whose property is taken or damaged for private use may bring an action for an injunction, a writ of mandate, or a declaration invalidating the action of the public agency.

(d) Nothing in this section prohibits a public agency or regulated public utility from entering into an agreement with a private property owner for the voluntary sale of property not subject to eminent domain, or a stipulation regarding the payment of just compensation.

(e) If property is acquired by a public agency through eminent domain, then before the agency may put the property to a use substantially different from the stated public use, or convey the property to another person or unaffiliated agency, the condemning agency must make a good faith effort to locate the private owner from whom the property was taken, and make a written offer to sell the property to him at the price which the agency paid for the property, increased only by the fair market value of any improvements, fixtures, or appurtenances added by the public agency, and reduced by the value attributable to any removal, destruction or waste of improvements, fixtures or appurtenances that had been acquired with the property. If property is repurchased by the former owner under this subdivision, it shall be taxed based on its pre-condemnation enrolled value, increased or decreased only as allowed herein, pIus any inflationary adjustments authorized by subdivision (b) of Section 2 of Article XIII A. The right to repurchase shall apply only to the owner from which the property was taken, and does not apply to heirs or successors of the owner or, if the owner was not a natural person, to an entity which ceases to legally exist.

(f) Nothing in this section prohibits a public agency from exercising its power of eminent domain to abate public nuisances or criminal activity.

(g) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit or impair voluntary agreements between a property owner and a public agency to develop or rehabilitate affordable housing.

(h) Nothing in this section prohibits the California Public Utilities Commission from regulating public utility rates.

(i) Nothing in this section shall restrict the powers of the Governor to take or damage private property in connection with his or her powers under a declared state of emergency.

SECTION 4. IMPLEMENTATION AND AMENDMENT This act shall be self-executing. The Legislature may adopt laws to further the purposes of this act and aid in its implementation. No amendment to this act may be made except by a vote of the people pursuant to Article II or Article XVIII of the California Constitution.

SECTION 5. SEVERABILITY The provisions of this act are severable. If any provision of this act or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.

SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE The provisions of this act shall become effective on the day following the election (“effective date”); except that any statute, charter provision, ordinance, or regulation by a public agency enacted prior to January 1, 2007, that limits the price a rental property owner may charge a tenant to occupy a residential rental unit (“unit”) or mobile home space (“space”) may remain in effect as to such unit or space after the effective date for so long as, but only so long as, at least one of the tenants of such unit or space as of the effective date (“qualified tenant”) continues to live in such unit or space as his or her principal place of residence. At such time as a unit or space no longer is used by any qualified tenant as his or her principal place of residence because, as to such unit or space, he or she has:

(a) voluntarily vacated;

(a) assigned, sublet, sold or transferred his or her tenancy rights either voluntarily or by court order;

(c) abandoned;

(d) died; or he or she has

(e) been evicted pursuant to paragraph (2), (3), (4) or (5) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure or Section 798.56 of the Civil Code as in effect on January 1, 2007; then, and in such event, the provisions of this act shall be effective immediately as to such unit or space.

Read more.

Proposition 93: Limits on Legislators' Terms in Office. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. FAILED

INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

• Reduces the total amount of time a person may serve in the state legislature from 14 years to 12 years.
  
• Allows a person to serve a total of 12 years either in the Assembly, the Senate, or a combination of both.
• Provides a transition period to allow current members to serve a total of 12 consecutive years in the house in which they are currently serving, regardless of any prior service in another house.

SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S ESTIMATE OF NET STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FISCAL IMPACT:

• This measure would have no direct fiscal effect on state or local governments.

TEXT OF PROPOSED LAW HERE.


Read more.

Proposition 92: Community Colleges. Funding. Governance. Fees. FAILED

INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.

• Establishes in state constitution a system of independent public community college districts and Board of Governors.
  
• Generally, requires minimum levels of state funding for school districts and community college districts to be calculated separately, using different criteria and separately appropriated.
• Allocates 10.46 percent of current Proposition 98 school funding maintenance factor to community colleges.
• Sets community college fees at $15/unit per semester; limits future fee increases.
• Provides formula for allocation by Legislature to community college districts that would not otherwise receive general fund revenues through community college apportionment.

SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S ESTIMATE OF NET STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FISCAL IMPACT:

• Increase in state spending on K–14 education from 2007–08 through 2009–10—averaging about $300 million per year, with unknown impacts annually thereafter.
• Loss of student fee revenues to community colleges—potentially about $70 million annually.

TEXT OF PROPOSED LAW HERE.


Read more.

Proposition 91: Transportation Funds. FAILED

INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

• Prohibits certain motor vehicle fuel sales and use taxes, that are earmarked for the Transportation Investment Fund, from being retained in the General Fund. Currently such taxes may be retained if Governor issues a proclamation, a special statute is enacted by a 2/3 vote of the Legislature, repayment occurs within three years, and certain other conditions are met.
• Requires repayment by 6/30/17 of such vehicle fuel taxes retained in General Fund from 7/1/03 to 6/30/08. Currently repayment is generally required by 6/30/16.
• Changes how and when General Fund borrowing of certain transportation funds is allowed.

SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S ESTIMATE OF NET STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FISCAL IMPACT:

• Increases stability of state funding for highways, streets, and roads and may decrease stability of state funding for public transit. May reduce stability of certain local funds for public transit.

TEXT OF PROPOSED LAW HERE.

Read more.