Prop. 219 Ballot Measures Prop. 220 Court Consolidation Prop. 221 Commission on Judicial Performance Prop. 222 Murder - Punishment Prop. 223 Schools. Spending Limits on Administration Prop. 224 Design and Engineering Services Prop. 225 Congressional Term Limits Prop. 226 Labor Union and Employee Political Contributions Prop. 227 Bilingual Education

BALLOT MEASURES The California 1998 Primary ballot features nine ballot measures, also known as propositions. Voters decide if ballot measures become law or not. There may also be ballot measures for your local area. State ballot measures are assigned numbers by the Secretary of State. The 1998 Primary ballot starts with Proposition 219, and ends with Proposition 227. Local ballot measures are assigned letters rather than numbers. Propositions 219 through 222 are measures that were put on the ballot by the State Legislature. Propositions 223 through 227 are initiatives that were put on the ballot after proponents gathered enough signatures from voters to qualify their measures. To qualify an initiative statute, proponents must gather about 433,000 signatures. To qualify an initiative constitutional amendment, proponents must gather about 693,000 signatures. You do not have to vote on every ballot measure -- you can vote on just the ones that are important to you. Below are the California Voter Foundation's summaries of each measure, including brief pro and con arguments, campaign contact information, and links to other important resources where voters can find more information.

PROPOSITION

219

Official Title: Ballot Measures. Application. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.



Official election results are available from the Secretary of State

Yes:	67 %
No:	33 %
Measure:	Passed

The way it is now: Californians are asked to vote on many different state and local ballot measures. In 1993, there was a ballot measure to create a special tax that had money from the tax going only to those counties that approved the measure even though all Californians would pay the tax. What Prop. 219 will do: Require all state and local ballot measures to apply in the same way to all areas. What it would cost: There have only been a few ballot measures of this kind that this law would prevent in the future. The cost is unknown.   P R O C O N ARGUMENTS Prop 219 will stop measures that force people into voting yes on a tax they do not want because they fear that it will pass anyway and they won't get the benefits. Ballot measures are the way the public can get political results. We should not put limits on how ballot measures can be written. CONTACT INFORMATION Senator John R. Lewis 33rd District, California Senate State Capitol, Room 3063 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 445-4264 Attn: Wade C. Teasdale none available WHO SIGNED THE BALLOT PAMPHLET ARGUMENTS Senator John R. Lewis, 33rd District, California Senate; Matthew E. Webb, Member, Western Valleys Group of Riverside County. no arguments against this measure were submitted FOR MORE INFORMATION, CVF RECOMMENDS: The California Journal's analysis - provides an independent, in-depth look at this measure; The Secretary of State's Voter Information Guide - features the Attorney General's summary, official pro/con arguments, the Legislative Analyst's analysis (including background information, details of the proposal, and the fiscal effect of the measure) and the text of this measure. The Senate Office of Research - offers background information, policy and fiscal effects, related state and federal law, a description of how the measure will work, and a list of supporters and opponents. The League of Women Voters' Pro/Con Analysis - provides an excellent, nonpartisan review of this measure.

PROPOSITION

220

Official Title: Courts. Superior and Municipal Court Consolidation.



Official election results are available from the Secretary of State

Yes:	64 %
No:	36 %
Measure:	Passed

The way it is now: There are two types of trial courts in California. Each county has a "superior" court which handles felony cases and civil cases over $25,000. "Municipal" courts handle lesser crimes and civil cases under $25,000. The number of municipal courts in a county depends on the number of people in that county. What Prop. 220 will do: If a majority of the superior court judges and a majority of the municipal court judges in a county agree, this law would let them combine into one larger superior court. What it would cost: There would be higher salary costs to upgrade municipal court judges and staff to superior court wages. But, depending on how many counties choose to combine courts, up to tens of millions of dollars could be saved in the long term due to better management.   P R O C O N ARGUMENTS Many millions of dollars can be saved by better administration of combined resources. Combining courts will provide more flexibility in how judges get assigned to cases which could help reduce the serious backlog in our courts. Municipal court is the people's court, where smaller cases are decided. These judges need to stay close to the people. Municipal court judges need to get more experience before they are paid the same as superior court judges. They should not get a "free" raise and promotion. CONTACT INFORMATION Senator Bill Lockyer 10th District, California Senate State Capitol, Room 2032 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 445-6671 Attn: Nathan Barankin none available WHO SIGNED THE BALLOT PAMPHLET ARGUMENTS Senator Bill Lockyer, California State Senate; Joel Fox, President, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association; Sheriff Charles Byrd, President, California State Sheriffs' Association; Honorable Marvin Baxter, Associate Justice of the California Supreme Court; James Fox, San Mateo District Attorney; Antonio Villaraigosa, Speaker of the Assembly Lewis K. Uhler, President, National Tax Limitation Committee; Edward Jagels, Kern County District Attorney; Mike Reynolds, Author of Three Strikes and You're Out Law FOR MORE INFORMATION, CVF RECOMMENDS: The California Journal's analysis - provides an independent, in-depth look at this measure; The Secretary of State's Voter Information Guide - features the Attorney General's summary, official pro/con arguments, the Legislative Analyst's analysis (including background information, details of the proposal, and the fiscal effect of the measure) and the text of this measure. The Senate Office of Research - offers background information, policy and fiscal effects, related state and federal law, a description of how the measure will work, and a list of supporters and opponents. The League of Women Voters' Pro/Con Analysis - provides an excellent, nonpartisan review of this measure.

PROPOSITION

221

Official Title: Subordinate Judicial Officers. Discipline.



Official election results are available from the Secretary of State

Yes:	81 %
No:	19 %
Measure:	Passed

The way it is now: A judge can appoint a lawyer with at least 5 years experience to serve as a court commissioner or referee who handles less complex matters like traffic, juvenile and small claims. These people are called "subordinate judicial officers". What Prop. 221 will do: Give the Commission on Judicial Performance, the group who oversees judges, the same authority to oversee court commissioners and referees. What it would cost: Some additional costs which would probably be small.   P R O C O N ARGUMENTS Court commissioners and referees can make important decisions, like awarding custody. They need to be accountable to someone besides the judge who appointed them. There is already a discipline system in place for court commissioners. CONTACT INFORMATION Senator Tim Leslie District 1, California Senate State Capitol, Room 4081 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 445-5788 www.timleslie98.org none available WHO SIGNED THE BALLOT PAMPHLET ARGUMENTS Senator Tim Leslie, Vice Chair, Senate Judiciary Committee; Kate Killeen, President, Women Prosecutors of California; George Kennedy, President, California District Attorneys Association no arguments against this measure were submitted FOR MORE INFORMATION, CVF RECOMMENDS: The California Journal's analysis - provides an independent, in-depth look at this measure; The Secretary of State's Voter Information Guide - features the Attorney General's summary, official pro/con arguments, the Legislative Analyst's analysis (including background information, details of the proposal, and the fiscal effect of the measure) and the text of this measure. The Senate Office of Research - offers background information, policy and fiscal effects, related state and federal law, a description of how the measure will work, and a list of supporters and opponents. The League of Women Voters' Pro/Con Analysis - provides an excellent, nonpartisan review of this measure.

PROPOSITION

222

Official Title: Murder. Peace Officer Victim. Sentence Credits.



Official election results are available from the Secretary of State

Yes:	77 %
No:	23 %
Measure:	Passed

The way it is now: Persons convicted of murder can earn credits based on good conduct or work that can help them get out of prison faster. What Prop. 222 will do: No person convicted of murder would be able to earn credits for early release. Prop 222 also make it a life sentence without parole for the second degree murder of a police officer. What it would cost: There would be increased costs from longer prison sentences, but only a small number of offenders would be affected.   P R O C O N ARGUMENTS Convicted murderers should serve their entire sentences. Any prisoner serving less than a life sentence should have the opportunity to reduce their time with work or good behavior credits. CONTACT INFORMATION Assemblymember Rod Pacheco District 64, California Assembly State Capitol, Room 2130 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 445-0854 none available WHO SIGNED THE BALLOT PAMPHLET ARGUMENTS Rod Pacheco, Assemblyman, 64th District; John R. Lewis, State Senator, 33rd District; Pete Wilson, Governor, State of California no arguments against this measure were submitted FOR MORE INFORMATION, CVF RECOMMENDS: The California Journal's analysis - provides an independent, in-depth look at this measure; The Secretary of State's Voter Information Guide - features the Attorney General's summary, official pro/con arguments, the Legislative Analyst's analysis (including background information, details of the proposal, and the fiscal effect of the measure) and the text of this measure. The Senate Office of Research - offers background information, policy and fiscal effects, related state and federal law, a description of how the measure will work, and a list of supporters and opponents. The League of Women Voters' Pro/Con Analysis - provides an excellent, nonpartisan review of this measure.

PROPOSITION

223

Official Title: Schools. Spending Limits on Adminstration.



Official election results are available from the Secretary of State

Yes:	45.5 %
No:	54.5 %
Measure:	Failed

The way it is now: There are about 1,000 public school districts in California, serving students K-12. Together, they spend about $34 billion each year. The average school district spends 7.3% of its budget on administration. What Prop. 223 will do: Limit the amount each school district could spend on administration to 5% of its total budget. Prop 223 would also require each district to base its annual budget on goals for improving student performance, with a performance evaluation every five years. If districts do not comply with these rules, they would have to pay fines. What it would cost: This will not change the total state budget for education, just how the money is spent.   P R O C O N ARGUMENTS By spending less on administration, there will be more dollars for direct classroom services. The national average for spending on school administration is less than 5%. Right now, 95% of school districts pay over 5% in administrative costs. Many small districts will have difficulty meeting this limit. This is a one-size-fits all measure which may not help all districts perform better. CONTACT INFORMATION Tyrone Vahedi 903 Colorado Avenue, Suite 200 Santa Monica, CA 90401 (310) 319-9885 www.civicweb.com/yesprop223 Parents, Teachers and Educators for Local Control 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1560 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 446-8866 ext. 6 email: campaign@jps.net www.jps.net/campaign/no95-5 WHO SIGNED THE BALLOT PAMPHLET ARGUMENTS Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordoan; United States Senator Dianne Feinstein; Tyrone Vahedi, Senior Staff, State Board of Equalization, 4th District; Congressman Howard Berman; Steven Soboroff, Chairman, Big Brothers of Greater Los Angeles Rosaline Turnbull, President, California State PTA; Stephen C. Bock, California Teacher of the Year, 1997; Rusty Herod, President, California School Employees Association; James A. Livingston, President, California Association of Suburban School Districts; Alvin G. Sandrini, President, Small School Districts' Association; Rhoda Coleman, California Teacher of the Year, 1995 FOR MORE INFORMATION, CVF RECOMMENDS: The California Journal's analysis - provides an independent, in-depth look at this measure; The Secretary of State's Voter Information Guide - features the Attorney General's summary, official pro/con arguments, the Legislative Analyst's analysis (including background information, details of the proposal, and the fiscal effect of the measure) and the text of this measure. The Senate Office of Research - offers background information, policy and fiscal effects, related state and federal law, a description of how the measure will work, and a list of supporters and opponents. The League of Women Voters' Pro/Con Analysis - provides an excellent, nonpartisan review of this measure.

PROPOSITION

224

Official Title: State-funded Design and Engineering Services.



Official election results are available from the Secretary of State

Yes:	38 %
No:	62 %
Measure:	Failed

The way it is now: State and local governments usually use a competitive bidding process to award construction projects. Services related to the construction, like design and engineering services, are awarded by selecting a qualified firm and agreeing on a price (without the bidding process). What Prop. 224 will do: Make state and local governments follow a new process to contract for construction-related services. They would do a cost comparison of whether a private firm could do the work cheaper than state employees. If so, then there would be a competitive bidding process. What it would cost: It could cost about $2 million per year to prepare the cost comparisons. Other costs or savings are unknown.   P R O C O N ARGUMENTS This will keep politicians from giving contracts to their friends without any competitive bidding. Competitive bidding will make contractors more responsible for their work. This is a plan to increase the size of state government instead of private companies. Prop 224 would slow down important construction projects that we need to complete as soon as possible. CONTACT INFORMATION Taxpayers for Competitive Bidding 660 J Street, Suite 445 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 457-5546 Attn: Steve Hopcraft email: info@prop224yes.org www.prop224yes.org Taxpayers Against 224 111 Anza Boulevard, Suite 406 Burlingame, CA 94010 (650) 340-0470 or (310) 996-2600 www.no224.org additional web site: home.earthlink.net/~osmanthus/ WHO SIGNED THE BALLOT PAMPHLET ARGUMENTS Don Brown,President, California Organization of Police & Sheriffs, COPS; Ben Hudnall, Business Manager, Engineers & Scientists of California; Woody Allshouse, President, CDF Firefighters; Arthur P. Duffy, Chairman, Taxpayers for Competitive Bidding; Lois Wellington, President, Congress of California Seniors; Edmundo Lopez, President, Hispanic Contractors Association Larry McCarthy, President, California Taxpayers' Association; Loring A. Wyllie, Jr., Past President, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute; Ron Bates, President, League of California Cities; Professor Paul Fratessa, Former Chair, Seismic Safety Commission; Allan Zaremberg, President, California Chamber of Commerce; Jane Armstrong, State Chairman, Alliance of California Taxpayers and Involved Voters FOR MORE INFORMATION, CVF RECOMMENDS: The California Journal's analysis - provides an independent, in-depth look at this measure; The Secretary of State's Voter Information Guide - features the Attorney General's summary, official pro/con arguments, the Legislative Analyst's analysis (including background information, details of the proposal, and the fiscal effect of the measure) and the text of this measure. The Senate Office of Research - offers background information, policy and fiscal effects, related state and federal law, a description of how the measure will work, and a list of supporters and opponents. The League of Women Voters' Pro/Con Analysis - provides an excellent, nonpartisan review of this measure.

PROPOSITION

225

Official Title: Limiting Congressional Terms. Proposed U.S.
Constitutional Amendment.



Official election results are available from the Secretary of State

Yes:	53 %
No:	47 %
Measure:	Passed

The way it is now: There are two parts to the US Congress: US Senators elected for 6 year terms and Representatives elected for 2 year terms. They can be re-elected as many times as they win. What Prop. 225 will do: Make it the official position of California that US Senators should serve no more than two terms (12 years total) and Representatives serve no more than three terms (6 years total). Prop 225 says that California legislators should support an amendment to make this change to the US Constitution. What it would cost: Some small costs for administration.   P R O C O N ARGUMENTS We have term limits for the state legislature and we should have term limits for Congress too. The only way to limit terms in Congress is by changing the United States Constitution. Term limits get rid of good politicians as well as bad ones. We already can vote out the bad ones and keep the good ones. Ballot measures similar to this one have been found unconstitutional. CONTACT INFORMATION none available No on 225 Sacramento Taxpayers' Rights League 2509 Capitol Avenue, Suite 100 Sacramento, CA 95816 WHO SIGNED THE BALLOT PAMPHLET ARGUMENTS Sally Reed Impastato Mark Whisler, President, Sacramento City Taxpayers' Rights League FOR MORE INFORMATION, CVF RECOMMENDS: The California Journal's analysis - provides an independent, in-depth look at this measure; The Secretary of State's Voter Information Guide - features the Attorney General's summary, official pro/con arguments, the Legislative Analyst's analysis (including background information, details of the proposal, and the fiscal effect of the measure) and the text of this measure. The Senate Office of Research - offers background information, policy and fiscal effects, related state and federal law, a description of how the measure will work, and a list of supporters and opponents. The League of Women Voters' Pro/Con Analysis - provides an excellent, nonpartisan review of this measure.

PROPOSITION

226

Official Title: Political Contributions by Employees, Union Members,
Foreign Entities.



Official election results are available from the Secretary of State

Yes:	46.5 %
No:	53.5 %
Measure:	Failed

The way it is now: Labor unions can make political contributions with members' dues. Corporations can also make political contributions using money from their operating budgets or money collected from employee payroll deductions. What Prop. 226 will do: Make a labor union get written permission from their members if it wants to use any of their dues to support political activities. If employers deduct money from employees' wages for political purposes, they must also get written permission. Prop 226 would also make it illegal for foreign citizens or corporations to make contributions to candidates. What it would cost: About $2 million for set up and $2-5 million for ongoing administration. These costs could be offset by fees paid by unions or companies who use this process.   P R O C O N ARGUMENTS It is wrong to take money from union members or employees to pay for political causes they may not support. If the cause is one that the members do support, they can give their permission. Prop 226 makes it harder for unions to make political donations but still lets corporations donate all they want from their operating budgets. This measure will cost millions to enforce. CONTACT INFORMATION California Foundation for Campaign Reform Mark Bucher, President PO Box 365 Tustin, CA 92781 (714) 560-9020 email: yeson226@aol.com www.prop226.com Californians to Protect Employee Rights 1510 J Street, Suite 115 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 554-1050 www.defeatprop226.org WHO SIGNED THE BALLOT PAMPHLET ARGUMENTS Pete Wilson, Governor, State of California; Elizabeth Lee, Member, California Teachers' Association; Robert Eisenbeisz, Member, United Electrical Workers--local 99; Mark Bucher, President--California Foundation for Campaign Reform; Linda Hunt, Member--California Nurses Association; Roger Hughes, Member--California Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO Lois Tinson, President, California Teachers Association; Howard Owens, Executive Director, Consumer Federation of California; Dan Terry, President, California Professional Firefighters; Don Brown, President, California Organization of Police and Sheriffs; Lois Wellington, President, Congress of California Seniors; Kit Costello, Rn, President, California Nurses Association FOR MORE INFORMATION, CVF RECOMMENDS: The California Journal's analysis - provides an independent, in-depth look at this measure; The Secretary of State's Voter Information Guide - features the Attorney General's summary, official pro/con arguments, the Legislative Analyst's analysis (including background information, details of the proposal, and the fiscal effect of the measure) and the text of this measure. The Senate Office of Research - offers background information, policy and fiscal effects, related state and federal law, a description of how the measure will work, and a list of supporters and opponents. The League of Women Voters' Pro/Con Analysis - provides an excellent, nonpartisan review of this measure.

PROPOSITION

227

Official Title: English Language in Public Schools.



Official election results are available from the Secretary of State

Yes:	61 %
No:	39 %
Measure:	Passed

The way it is now: One out of four public school students in California does not understand English well enough to keep up at school. These students are called "limited English proficient" (LEP). Schools are required to help these students learn English and at the same time master subjects such as math, reading, and history. Almost all LEP students get special services to learn English. Some of these services are in the student's native language (often called bilingual education) and may last several years. What Prop. 227 will do: Require schools to use special classes taught almost all in English for LEP students. Prop 227 also reduces the time LEP students can stay in special classes to one year. Most bilingual classes would be stopped but there could still be bilingual classes if enough parents at a school request it. What it would cost: Total spending for schools would probably not change, just how the money is spent.   P R O C O N ARGUMENTS Too many students are stuck in bilingual classes and are not learning English fast enough. Each school knows best what its students need. Prop 227 replaces many good programs with a new state requirement that has not been tested. CONTACT INFORMATION English for the Children 315 West 9th Street, #920 Los Angeles, CA 90015 (213) 627-0005 email: info@onenation.org www.yeson227.org additional web site: www.onenation.org Richard Ross 1700 L Street Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 441-0392 Attn: Sal Gonzales www.noonunz.org additional web site: www.smartnation.org WHO SIGNED THE BALLOT PAMPHLET ARGUMENTS Alice Callaghan, Director, Las Familias del Pueblo; Ron Unz, Chairman, English for the Children; Fernando Vega, Past Redwood City School Board Member; Jaime A. Escalante, East LA Calculus teacher portrayed in "Stand and Deliver" John D'Amelio, President, California School Boards Association; Mary Bergan, President, California Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO; Lois Tinson, President, California Teachers Association; Jennifer J. Looney, President, Association of California School Administrators FOR MORE INFORMATION, CVF RECOMMENDS: The California Journal's analysis - provides an independent, in-depth look at this measure; The Secretary of State's Voter Information Guide - features the Attorney General's summary, official pro/con arguments, the Legislative Analyst's analysis (including background information, details of the proposal, and the fiscal effect of the measure) and the text of this measure. The Senate Office of Research - offers background information, policy and fiscal effects, related state and federal law, a description of how the measure will work, and a list of supporters and opponents. The League of Women Voters' Pro/Con Analysis - provides an excellent, nonpartisan review of this measure.

This page first published May 5, 1998

Last updated June 3, 1998



Back to the '98 Primary Online Voter Guide homepage



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


http://www.calvoter.org
© Copyright 1994-98.
All rights reserved.