California Ballot Measures

Introduction to the ballot measures - CVF's brief and easy-to-read summaries of the propositions.

California Journal Analyses - a more in-depth look at the 15 ballot measures.

CVF proposition pages - with fiscal summaries, what a yes/no vote means, links to campaign web sites and contact information.

Prop. 204 - water bond
Prop. 205 - incarceration facilities
Prop. 206 - veterans' bond
Prop. 207 - sponsor: trial lawyers
Prop. 208 - sponsor: Common Cause
Prop. 209 - (also known as CCRI, the "California Civil Rights Initiative")
Prop. 210 - sponsor: labor groups
Prop. 211 - sponsor: San Diego attorney Bill Lerach
Prop. 212 - sponsor: CalPIRG
Prop. 213 - sponsor: Insurance Commissioner Chuck Quackenbush
Prop. 214 - sponsor: labor groups, Children Now
Prop. 215 - sponsors: AIDS activists and health care professionals
Prop. 216 - sponsors: nurses, Harvey Rosenfield
Prop. 217 - sponsor: California Tax Reform Association
Prop. 218 - sponsor: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers' Association

CVF's Introduction to the ballot measures

On November 5, millions of California voters will head to the polls to decide the fate of fifteen measures covering a wide array of important public issues - affirmative action, drugs, health care, prisons, water, campaign finance practices, legal practices, taxes - many of us are simply overwhelmed at the multitude and complexity of choices we are being asked to make. Feeling bewildered? Don't worry - you're not alone. In fact, a Field Poll taken in September found that nine out of ten likely California voters had no idea what proposition 218 was about.

We'll start at the beginning: there's fifteen measures in all, starting with Proposition 204 and ending with Prop. 218. Many of the initiatives deal with the same subjects. Here's the rundown:

Bond measures:
Prop. 204 - water bond
Prop. 205 - incarceration facilities
Prop. 206 - veterans' bond

Legal practices:
Prop. 207 - sponsor: trial lawyers
Prop. 211 - sponsor: San Diego attorney Bill Lerach
Prop. 213 - sponsor: Insurance Commissioner Chuck Quackenbush

Campaign finance practices:
Prop. 208 - sponsor: Common Cause
Prop. 212 - sponsor: CalPIRG

Affirmative action:
Prop. 209 (also known as CCRI, the "California Civil Rights Initiative")

Minimum wage:
Prop. 210 - sponsor: labor groups

HMO Regulation:
Prop. 214 - sponsor: labor groups, Children Now
Prop. 216 - sponsors: nurses, Harvey Rosenfield

Medical Marijuana:
Prop. 215 - sponsors: AIDS activists and health care professionals

Taxation:
Prop. 217 - sponsor: California Tax Reform Association
Prop. 218 - sponsor: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers' Committee

These summaries are intended to provide you with a brief introduction to the measures and issues at stake in this election - we strongly suggest you research these measures further. At the end of each summary is a link to CVF's web page for each proposition - there you will find all kinds of additional information, such as what a "yes" or "no" vote means, a financial analysis, the Attorney General's summary, the California Journal's full analysis, material from the Secretary of State's ballot pamphlets (such as the text and pro/con arguments), campaign contact information and links to ballot measure web sites.

There is a rich and exciting variety of ballot measure web sites available on the Internet this Fall. We have linked to all the sites we could find, and we're still looking for more, so if you know of any, please let us know.

Bond Measures
If you're like most Californians, you probably have a hard time keeping track of how much the State of California is already in the hole for past bond measures. Fortunately, the Secretary of State provides An Overview of State Bond Debt. This overview tells us that bond financing is a type of long-term borrowing used to raise money for specific projects - projects that are typically used for many years, such as schools and prisons. The expensive cost of such projects makes it difficult to pay for them all at once, so the state finances them by selling bonds to investors. The state then must pay back the bond plus interest. We currently have a bond debt of $20.2 billion.

Prop. 204. This water bond, if passed, will result in the most sizable investment in our state's water infrastructure since the Central Valley Project undertaken during Pat Brown's administration, which facilitated the transfer of water from Northern California to Southern California's growing communities. Prop. 204 would pay for $995 million worth of water projects, most of which would be in the Bay-Delta region, which is considered to be California's most significant source of water, providing the drinking water for 22 million Californians. Those projects will cost an additional $776 million in interest over 25 years. Prop. 204 originated as a legislative measure sponsored by an alliance of business, water and environmental groups, including the Association of California Water Agencies, California Chamber of Commerce and the Environmental Defense Fund; the Libertarian Party of California signed the ballot pamphlet argument in opposition. Go to Prop. 204 web page

Prop. 205. Ever since the passage of the "three strikes" law, there has been a growing need for incarceration facilities - county jails, prisons and juvenile detention centers. Prop. 205, which originated as a legislative measure would provide $700 million to pay for incarceration facilities. One purpose of these new facilities is to help relieve the overcrowding in county jails caused by an increase in the number of offenders who are awaiting their chance to argue in overcrowded courts against being charged with another "strike". In fact, county jails in California are so overcrowded that federal court orders have been issued to 27 counties, requiring them to reduce the overcrowding, causing the early release of inmates. This $775 million bond will cost an additional $550 million in interest over the next 25 years, and is supported by law enforcement groups such as California State Sheriffs' Association, California Police Chiefs Association and the California District Attorneys' Association; the Libertarian Party of California submitted ballot arguments in opposition to this measure. Go to Prop. 205 web page

Prop. 206. This measure would authorize the state to sell $400 million in bonds to help provide farm and home loans to California veterans. The loans would be administered through the Cal-Vet program, established in 1921, which has provided assistance with over 400,000 home and farm loans for military veterans. This particular bond is expected to finance about 2,000 loans to California veterans. Prop. 206 originated as a legislative measure, and is supported by veterans and realtors groups; the Libertarian Party of California argues against this measure in the state ballot pamphlet. Go to Prop. 206 web page

Initiatives

Prop. 207. This measure is a casualty of an initiative war from the last election. Do you remember Props. 200, 201 and 202? These were initiatives on the Primary ballot sponsored by business interests who were trying to limit so-called "strike suits", cap attorneys' contingency fees (these are payments to attorneys that are based on a percentage of any final settlement) and institute a system of no-fault auto insurance. The three initiatives were fought and defeated by tort lawyers. Prop. 207 was written in the heat of the Primary battle, and sought to blunt the impact of Prop. 202, which would have limited contingency fees. This initiative would prevent the government from limiting contingency fees. Opponents say Prop. 207 is an attempt by trial lawyers to protect their high fees. Go to Prop. 207 web page

Prop. 208. Sponsored by California Common Cause, this is one of two initiatives on the ballot dealing with campaign finance practices. Prop. 208 seeks to limit the influence of money in California politics in several ways. First, the measure would impose a $250 contribution limit for most state races. It would also establish voluntary spending limits (the only the kind the courts have found to be constitutional), and would encourage participation by doubling the contribution limit for those candidates who agree to the spending limit. Prop. 208 also bans transfers between politicians, establishes aggregate limits of $25,000 per donor or committee, along with a whole host of other mechanisms designed to restrict the influence of money in state and local politics. Other supporters include United We Stand America, the League of Women Voters and AARP. Opponents - primarily CalPIRG, the backers of the competing initiative, Prop. 212, say this measure doesn't go far enough. Go to Prop. 208 web page

Prop. 209. This measure, also known as the "California Civil Rights Initiative" (CCRI for short), would eliminate state and local government programs that give "preferential treatment" on the basis of sex, race, color, ethnicity, or national origin - in effect, affirmative action programs in the areas of education, public employment and contracting. This initiative represents one of the most significant attempts to undo affirmative action ever made, and is being closely watched throughout the country. Leading proponents include UC Regent Ward Connerly, Governor Pete Wilson, and Stanford University professor Glynn Custred. Opponents include women, minority and civil rights groups, and individuals such as Rosa Parks and Colin Powell. Go to Prop. 209 web page

Prop. 210. This measure would gradually raise the state minimum wage from $4.25 per hour to $5.75 per hour. Here's the history: California's minimum wage was raised to the present level in 1988. A federal wage increase was recently passed by Congress, which will raise the minimum wage to $5.15 per hour by 1998. Approximately two million, or one-sixth, of California's 13 million workers earn less that $5.75 per hour. This measure is sponsored by a coalition of labor unions and religious and community organizations including the California Labor Federation, the California Council of Churches and the League of Women Voters. Opponents include small-business organizations, the California Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Businesses. Go to Prop. 210 web page

Prop. 211. This initiative grew out last year's congressional overhaul of securities litigation law. The new federal law makes it more difficult for shareholders to file lawsuits alleging corporate stock fraud. The new law governs only federal lawsuits, however, and securities cases can be brought to either state or federal courts. Prop. 211 ensures that the state courts remain an option for such lawsuits. This initiative is often referred to as the "Lerach Initiative", so named for Bill Lerach, a San Diego attorney who is leading the fight in support of Prop. 211, along with other plaintiffs' lawyers. Opponents include the same Silicon Valley-based business interests that backed Props. 200, 201 and 202 in the March Primary. Go to Prop. 211 web page

Prop. 212. The second initiative on the ballot that deals with campaign finance practices, this one is supported by CalPIRG. Like Prop. 208, Prop. 212 seeks to limit the influence of money in California politics by enacting several new campaign finance provisions. Prop. 212 would impose a contribution limit of $100 for most state and local candidates, and also seeks to establish mandatory spending limits for state races. This initiative would require candidates to raise at least 75 percent of their contributions from within their district, and establishes aggregate limits per year per donor. Opponents - primarily Common Cause and other supporters of the competing initiative - say the initiative is flawed because it repeals existing bans on gifts and honoraria to state lawmakers. Go to prop. 212 web page

Prop. 213. This initiative would limit the ability of uninsured or drunk drivers to sue after being in an auto accident - specifically, these types of drivers could not go for the potentially big-money "non-economic" damages such as pain and suffering. Prop. 213 is sponsored by Insurance Commissioner Chuck Quackenbush, who argues that drunk drivers and the uninsured cost law-abiding policyholders millions of dollars every year. Opponents, including Harvey Rosenfield of Prop. 103 fame, say Prop. 213 will prevent uninsured motorists from winning even medical or lost-wages damages, since many contingent-fee lawyers will refuse to take their cases without the promise of higher non-economic damage awards. Go to Prop. 213 web page

Prop. 214. There are two initiatives on the ballot dealing with HMO regulation. Both are supported by health care industry workers, who split into two camps because of a disagreement over funding mechanism details. Prop. 214 establishes several requirements for the operation of health care businesses designed to prevent "the bottom line" from influencing health care decisions made by HMOs. The measure is supported by a coalition of groups, including Children Now, California Federation of Teachers, and the United Cerebral Palsy Association. Opponents, including the California Chamber of Commerce and the California Taxpayers Association, argue the provisions of Prop. 214 will dramatically raise the cost of health care insurance. Go to Prop. 214 web page

Prop. 215. This measure would allow for the cultivation or possession of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Specifically, Prop. 215 would exempt patients and "defined caregivers" from criminal laws that otherwise prohibit marijuana possession or cultivation. The measure provides for the use of marijuana when a physician has concluded that the individual's health would benefit in the treatment of cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migrane or "any other illness for which marijuana provides relief". Prop. 215 is supported by physicians and nurses, and opposed by law enforcement groups, who call Prop. 215 a "cruel hoax" that will legitimize widespread use of marijuana in California. Go to Prop. 215 web page

Prop. 216. The second of the two HMO regulation initiatives, this one can be distinguished from the other by its primary backers, the California Nurses Association and Harvey Rosenfield, along with other health care professionals and consumer groups, who, like the Prop. 214 proponents, are worried about the quality of health care being reduced because of HMO concern for the "bottom line". A significant difference is that Prop. 216 imposes new taxes on some health-care businesses and individuals, which would be used to set up a new "Public Health and Preventive Services Fund". Prop. 216 is opposed by the same coalition that is opposing Prop. 214. This group, called Taxpayers Against Higher Health Costs, says the new tax will increase health care costs. Go to Prop. 216 web page

Prop. 217. This "tax the rich" initiative would return California's top income tax brackets to ten and eleven percent. Here's the history: beginning in 1973, California's top income earners were taxed at a rate of ten or eleven percent. In 1987, the top tax rate was dropped to 9.3 percent, in accordance with the federal government's 1986 tax overhaul. Then, in 1991, the state's recession caused state revenue shortages, which led the Governor and Legislature to enact a temporary increase in the top tax rate - for five years, the rate would return to the ten and eleven percent rates. Now, it's 1996, and the temporary increase has expired. Prop. 217's main proponent, the California Tax Reform Association, would instead like to see the tax continue. If enacted, Prop. 217 will tax individuals with more than $100,000 in taxable income at a rate of ten percent; those with $200,000 or more in taxable income will be taxed at a rate of eleven percent. Other supporters of this measure include the California Federation of Teachers, Peace Officers Research Association, and the League of Women Voters. Opponents include the California Taxpayers Association and the National Federation of Independent Business. Go to Prop. 217 web page

Prop. 218. In 1978, California voters passed Proposition 13, which requires local governments to obtain voter approval before implementing new taxes. But Prop. 13 did not prohibit the creation of special districts designed to assess private property owners for specific services and projects, such as parks, fire protection, libraries and street lighting. In fact, since the passage of Prop. 13, California has experienced a rapid growth of special districts. Now the proponents of Prop. 13, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers' Association and Paul Gann's Citizens Committee, are asking voters to limit local governments' use of fees, assessments and taxes. Specifically, Prop. 218 would require that all new fees, and many existing ones, must be approved in an election by a majority of property owners, and assessment district elections would be subject to a proportional voting system where property owners' ballots would be weighed according to the size of the assessment each would pay. This measure is opposed by the League of Women Voters of California, the California Congress of Seniors, the California Teachers Association and many law-enforcement and fire-protection groups. Go to Prop. 218 web page

Much of the material in these summaries was compiled from the California Journal's Ballot Book, written by Noel Brinkerhoff, Sigrid Bathen, Kathleen Les, A.G. Block and John Borland. This page was compiled and edited by Kim Alexander of the California Voter Foundation.

HOME

The California Online Voter Guide is
a project of the California Voter Foundation.