Editorials

Proposition 40: 

“The California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks and Coastal Protection Act.” 

• Issues $2.6 billion in debt to pay to improve water and air quality; protect beaches; improve parks; and preserve open space, farmland and wildlife habitat. 

• Estimated cost: $4.3 billion over 25 years, including $1.7 billion in interest, or $172 million a year from the state’s general fund. Potential annual cost of tens of millions of dollars to maintain or operate parks. 

• Supporters include the National Audubon Society, National Wildlife Federation, League of Women Voters of California. 

• Opponents including the National Tax Limitation Committee say the state can’t afford more debt in a faltering economy, and that the money will be spent “on more pork, not ... parks.” They note voters approved $4 billion in bonds for parks and clean water efforts in 2000. 

Proposition 41: 

“Voting Modernization Bond Act.” 

• Issues $200 million in debt for grants to counties to buy modern voting equipment to replace punch card (“chad”) systems such as caused problems in Florida in the 2000 presidential election. 

• Estimated cost: $255 million over 10 years, including $55 million in interest, or $26 million a year from the state’s general fund. Annual operating cost estimated at tens of millions of dollars. 

• Supporters including California Common Cause, the League of Women Voters of California and the secretary of state say California needs to eliminate the punch card systems. 

• Opponents including the National Tax Limitation Committee and Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association say existing tax money could be used to buy new voting machines. 

Proposition 42: 

“Transportation Congestion Improvement Act.” 

• The state’s 6 percent sales tax on gasoline traditionally goes into the state’s general fund, but a law last year dedicates the money to transportation improvements from 2003-2009. Proposition 42 would write that law permanently into the state Constitution. 

• Estimated revenue: $1.4 billion in 2008-2009. Of that, 40 percent would go to local street repairs, 40 percent to major road projects and 20 percent to public transit. 

• Supporters, including the California State Automobile Association and California Organization of Police and Sheriffs, say roads, bridges and mass transit systems badly need repair that should be supported with a dedicated gasoline sales tax. 

• Opponents, including the California Teachers Association and California State Firefighters’ Association, say the money is needed more for education, health and public safety. 

Proposition 43: 

“Right to Have Vote Counted.” 

• Explicitly guarantees the right of a voter to have his or her vote counted, letting county elections officers petition the Superior Court to extend postelection deadlines so votes can be counted or recounted. 

• Supporters, including California Common Cause and the League of Women Voters of California, say California could find itself in the same predicament as Florida, where postelection deadlines stopped recounts during the 2000 presidential election. 

• Opponents, including the Voter Information Alliance, say the measure could prompt lawsuits or invalidate elections by requiring that every vote be counted even when those votes have no chance of affecting the outcome of the election. 

Proposition 44: 

“Chiropractors. Unprofessional Conduct.” 

• Bars chiropractors from employing others to procure patients; revokes a chiropractor’s license for 10 years upon two or more insurance fraud convictions; and requires the State Board of Chiropractic Examiners to investigate insurance fraud charges against chiropractors unless the district attorney objects. 

• Supporters, including the California District Attorneys Association, say the measure would deter insurance fraud. 

• Opponents say license revocation should be reserved for chiropractors who harm patients, and there should be no limit on methods chiropractors employ to attract patients. 

Proposition 45: 

“Legislative Term Limits. Local Voter Petitions.” 

• Voters could petition to let their incumbent legislator run for re-election and serve a maximum of four years beyond the current two four-year terms allowed for state senators and three two-year terms permitted for Assembly members. The provision could be used just once by each legislator. 

• Supporters say the proposition would keep the term limits adopted by voters in 1990, while letting voters extend the terms of extraordinary lawmakers. 

• Opponents say the measure would destroy term limits, reinstating career politicians and special interests who are backing the proposition.