February 2008 Presidential Primary Election

News Stories about the Propositions

This section provides California voters with convenient access to a sampling of news articles that give an overview of the potential impact of each proposition on the ballot.

Proposition 91

Proposition 92

Proposition 93

Proposition 94 - 97

 

Proposition 91

• Backers now urge voting against Prop 91, by Michael Cabanatuan, San Francisco Chronicle, January 10, 2008.

Excerpt:

The transportation groups used their initiative campaign as leverage to gain protections of the gasoline tax in Prop. 1A, which was part of the package of ballot measures approved by voters in November. But by then, it was too late to stop the Prop. 91 campaign, and it qualified for the ballot.

So the transportation groups agreed not to campaign for Prop. 91 and to use their argument in the ballot pamphlet to urge a "no" vote.

"I'm doing everything I can to dissuade people from voting for it," said Mark Watts, executive director of Transportation California and former head of the pro-91 campaign, which he said has disbanded.

Prop. 1A, said Watts, resolved the problem of the governor and Legislature taking gas tax money from transportation to balance the budget, describing transportation industry leaders as being very comfortable with how Prop. 1A closed the loophole in Prop. 42.

***

But Prop. 1A only narrowed the loophole, says Kymberleigh Richards, public and legislative affairs director for Southern California Transit Advocates, which has taken the lead in urging voters to approve Prop. 91.

"Since everyone who had a connection with it orphaned it, we, this little grassroots organization in Southern California, decided to take it on," she said.

State law, as revised by Prop. 1A, still allows the state to borrow some gas tax revenue in the event of fiscal emergency but with stricter limits. It restricts those loans to just two of every 10 consecutive years, and requires repayment with interest within three years. No borrowing can take place until outstanding loans have been repaid.

Proposition 92

• At odds over Prop 92, by Jillian Jones, Napa Valley Register, January 15, 2008.

  Excerpt:

  With California facing an estimated $14 billion budget deficit, a Feb. 5 ballot measure that would provide more state money to community colleges has even educators pitted against each other.

  Opponents of Proposition 92 argue that while the measure guarantees additional funding for community colleges, it offers no way to pay for the increase in spending. This could result in cuts to health care, public safety and education for K-12 and public universities, opponents say.

Supporters argue that funding for community colleges makes up a relatively small portion of the state budget and is an investment in the future of California's economy.

• Initiative jump-starts college fee discussion, by Matt Krupnick, San Jose Mercury News, December 23, 2007.

  Excerpt:

  A February ballot measure has energized the debate over the wisdom of California's perennially low fees at the state's 109 community colleges.

  Proposition 92, to be decided by California voters on Feb. 5, would lower fees from $20 to $15 per unit, and severely restrict future hikes.

  California already has by far the lowest community college fees in the nation - less than a quarter of the national average this year.
  
  But the measure has generated an angry response from those who support a high-fee, high-aid structure, much like the one developing at the University of California.

  Some have criticized the community colleges for using Proposition 92 to guarantee the schools more money while wiping out some of their fee revenue.

  Community colleges should not be the same as high schools, said Patrick Murphy, a University of San Francisco professor of politics and a higher-education finance expert.

  "The proponents keep saying, 'Treat us like higher education,' " Murphy said. "But then they go and say, "Treat us like K-12.' I think it's a lousy idea."

  Proposition 92 would permit fee increases only under very specific circumstances, and likely not at all for several years. If voters approve the measure, community colleges - which serve more than 2.5 million students - would lose millions in revenue, according to the state's non-partisan Legislative Analyst's Office.

  The lost money means lawmakers and the governor would need to pull money from other areas for the community colleges. Leaders of both the University of California and California State University oppose the measure, as does the California Teachers Association.

  That opposition is hypocritical, said Scott Lay, president of the Community College League of California, which helped draft Proposition 92. University and K-12 leaders supported measures that guaranteed their schools state funding, he said.

  "It's strange that all these things have tied the hands of the Legislature, but when it comes to community colleges, that's where people draw the line," Lay said.

Proposition 93

• Prop. 93 provisions reduce years in office but aid some incumbents, by Jim Sanders, Sacramento Bee, December 26, 2007.

  Excerpts:

  A state-by-state examination shows California would join Oklahoma with the nation's strictest cumulative term limits on future lawmakers under Proposition 93 – but the measure would let lame-duck legislators off the hook.

  ***

  Proposition 93, on the Feb. 5 statewide primary ballot, would reduce total years that a California lawmaker could serve by two, to 12, but would allow all to be served in the Senate, Assembly or a combination of both.

  The boon to incumbents stems from a provision allowing sitting officeholders to serve their entire careers in one house, guaranteeing senators at least one extra term and Assembly members three.

  ***

  Proposition 93 has sparked arguments over whether it would tighten or loosen California's existing term limits.

  Only legislators who move to the Senate after being termed out of the Assembly, or vice versa, would be affected by the cut in total legislative service from 14 to 12.

Propositions 94 - 97

• 2 sides of casino proposals argued, by Laura Norton, Press Democrat, January 15, 2008.

  Excerpt:

  With polls showing most voters undecided and more than $70 million in the combined campaign coffers, the televised debate gave each side an opportunity to make its case to Sonoma County voters.

  Propositions 94, 95, 96 and 97 would allow four Southern California Indian tribes to add 17,000 slot machines to the 8,000 they already have, in return for sharing revenue with the state.

  The agreements were negotiated with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and ratified by the Legislature, but opponents -- including organized labor, horse racing tracks and other tribes -- gathered enough signatures to place them on the ballot.

  At Monday's debate, opponents argued that the tribes obtained a "sweetheart deal" through shrewd political maneuvering and millions in campaign contributions.

  Voter approval, they said, could lead to bigger casinos in other parts of the state.

  Supporters said expanded tribal gaming could help bail California out of its budget crisis by pumping a share of slot machine revenue into state coffers.

  "The state is going to have to cut vital services to the poor, to the elderly, to the disabled, to the whole community of education or raise taxes," said Cloey Hewlet, a pro-casino representative, pointing to the budget plan unveiled last week by Schwarzenegger.

  "Gaming revenues help the state budget," she said. "We will not solve the deficit in total, but it is a fair deal for the state."

  Opponents countered that the revenue estimates would be a drop in the bucket for the state, even though passing the propositions would mark the single largest expansion of gambling in U.S. history.

  Ted Green, a spokesman for the campaign against the ballot measures, said the estimated state revenue would be one-half of 1 percent of the general fund.

  Furthermore, he said, cloudy audit and financial language in the propositions would make it impossible to efficiently regulate -- or trust -- the tribes to provide the state its full share.

  "The language in these compacts allows tribes themselves to determine what to pay the state," he said, adding it could be easy for casinos to "play games" with how they calculate slot earnings and state payments.

  Supporters said the measures include mandatory audits.

  California voters authorized tribal gaming through ballot measures in 1998 and 2000. But voters soundly rejected ballot measures in 2004 that would have allowed expansion of tribal casinos and potentially allowed race tracks to add slot machines.

• Stakes are high in casino referendums, by Chris Bagley, North County Times, January 12, 2008.

  Excerpt:

  Four tribes are attempting to sell voters on agreements that would allow them to add as many as 17,000 slot machines to the 8,000 already at their casinos. In December alone, the tribes poured $15.6 million into a joint campaign backing the four referendums, bringing their total spending to $44.5 million, according to the secretary of state's office.

  One of the referendums, Proposition 94, would allow the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians to add 5,500 slots to the 2,000 now at its casino just south of Temecula. Pechanga has put $20 million into the joint campaign since summer, including a $10 million contribution Dec. 21, and also appears to have stepped up advertising on at least one local television station.

  Under an agreement, or "compact," signed by Pechanga and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in August 2006, Pechanga would pay the state 15 percent of its net winnings on the first 3,000 slots it adds and 25 percent of the net winnings on the next 2,500 machines. The compact calls for a minimum payment of $42.5 million each year, up from the $29 million minimum under its current arrangement. The compact would expire in 2030.

  The other three compacts allow similar terms for the Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation's casino near El Cajon, the Morongo Band of Mission Indians' casino near Banning and the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians' casinos in Palm Springs and Rancho Mirage. The Legislature ratified all four compacts in June over protests from a hotel workers' union and the owners of Bay Area racetracks. The opponents responded by gathering signatures from a half-million voters and placing the issue on the February ballot.

   

This page was first published on December 16, 2007 | Last updated on January 17, 2008
Copyright California Voter Foundation, All Rights Reserved.