Know Your Propositions

Proposition 1A: Transportation Funding Protection
‘Should the California Constitution be amended to further protect the state sales tax revenues for transportation purposes from general-purpose use and require any funds borrowed to be repaid to the transportation fund?’

Proposition 1A will dedicate gasoline taxes which are already paid at the pump to transportation improvements. Opponents believe that these taxes should remain in the general fund to ensure that there are no cuts to schools, firefighters, healthcare, etcetera.

Proposition 1B: Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality and Port Security Bond Act of 2006
‘Should the state sell $19.9 billion in general obligation bonds to fund state and local transportation improvement projects to relieve congestion, improve movement of goods, improve air quality and enhance safety and security of the transportation system?’

Supporters say that Proposition 1B can help transportation without raising taxes, but opponents believe that California will be borrowing its way into a false sense of economic security.

Proposition 1C: Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2006
‘Should the state sell $2.9 billion in general obligation bonds to fund housing for lower-income residents and development in urban areas near public transportation?’

Proposition 1C will provide emergency shelters, affordable homes for seniors and former foster youths and shelters for homeless families without raising taxes, but opponents say that it will irresponsibly increase California’s debt.

Proposition 1D: Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2006
‘Should the state sell $10.4 billion in general obligation bonds to fund repair and upgrade of public schools, including K-12, community colleges and state universities?’

Proposition 1D can improve the quality of schools by making buildings earthquake-proof and updating them with technology, but opponents worry that the same children that will benefit will later need to repay the debt incurred by the state.

Proposition 1E: Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act of 2006
‘Should the state sell $4.1 billion in general obligation bonds to finance disaster preparedness and flood prevention projects at the state and local levels?’

Proposition 1E will protect against floods and improve the drinking water supply for Californians. It also will help prevent water pollution. Opponents say that it will increase California’s debt and believe that such projects should be funded locally.

Proposition 83: Sex Offenders, Sexually Violent Predators, Punishment, Residence Restrictions and Monitoring
‘Should California amend existing laws relating to violent and habitual sex offenders and child molesters to increase penalties and monitoring?’

Proposition 83 allows police to keep track of sex offenders, prohibits them from living near schools and parks and keeps them in prison longer. Opponents say that it will cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars and that it is ineffective because it applies to those convicted of minor offenses as well as major ones. Opponents also say that similar laws have failed in other states.

Proposition 84: Water Quality, Safety and Supply, Flood Control, Natural Resource Protection, Park Improvements
‘Should the state issue $5.4 billion in bonds for a wide variety of projects related to water safety, rivers, beaches, levees, watersheds and parks and forests?’

Proposition 84 will provide safe drinking water and support for projects such as coastal protection and flood prevention without any new taxes. However, opponents believe that the proposition will not successfully provide funding for flood control, dams or water storage and will waste money.

Proposition 85: Waiting Period and Parent Notification Before Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy
‘Should the California Constitution be amended to require notification of the parent or legal guardian of an unemancipated pregnant minor at least 48 hours before performing an abortion?’

Proposition 85 will notify parents before their minor daughter is able to have an abortion. Opponents believe that notifying parents will not help family communication and may lead to illegal abortions, which are dangerous.

Proposition 86: Tax on Cigarettes
‘Should the state impose an additional tax of $2.60 per cigarette pack to fund new and expanded health services, health insurance for children and expand tobacco use prevention programs?’

Proponents say that Proposition 86 can reduce smoking and save lives. Studies show that it may prevent up to 300,000 smoking-related deaths and save over $16 billion in health care costs. Opponents say that the hospitals who support the bill are trying to pocket money for themselves.

Proposition 87: Alternative Energy, Research, Production Incentives, Tax on California Oil Producers
‘Should California establish a $4 billion Clean Alternative Energy Program to reduce California’s oil and gasoline consumption by 25 percent through incentives for alternative energy, education and training?’

Proposition 87 taxes oil companies in order to provide funding for cleaner and cheaper energy. Opponents say that gas prices will increase and that Proposition 87 will decrease California’s energy supply and create an ineffective bureaucracy.

Proposition 88: Education Funding, Real Property Parcel Tax
‘Should the California Constitution be amended to levy an annual $50 real property tax on most parcels with the funds allocated to five K-12 education programs?’

Proposition 88 will improve schools and help teachers, but opponents believe that it will create a never-ending property tax and that most schools won’t receive facility grants.

Proposition 89: Political Campaigns, Public Financing, Corporate Tax Increase, Campaign Contribution and Expenditure Limits
‘Should eligible candidates for state elective offices receive public campaign funding that is supported by new taxes on corporations and financial institutions, and should contribution limits be imposed on those candidates that do not receive public campaign funding?’

Supporters believe that Proposition 89 will ensure that elections are about ideas, not money, and enable everyday people to run for public office. Opponents believe that Proposition 89 is unconstitutional and increases taxes for negative political campaigns.

Proposition 90: Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property
‘Should the California Constitution be amended to require government to pay property owners for substantial economic losses resulting from some new laws and rules, and limit government authority to take ownership of private property?’

Supporters believe that Proposition 90 will protect the right of every American to own a home and prevent the government from taking homes or properties for other commercial projects. Opponents believe that it will cost taxpayers billions of dollars because of the new lawsuits it would create.