November 7, 2006 General Election

YES ON PROPOSITION 1B -- Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, Port Security Bond Act of 2006

Proposition 1B is part of the bond package developed to help rebuild California’s infrastructure. It will raise $19.9 billion for transportation improvements that reduce congestion on roads and highways, expand public transportation and improve air quality.

YES ON PROPOSITION 1C -- Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2006.

Proposition 1C will fund housing programs that assist the most vulnerable Californians and provide affordable homes for working families. It will help cities and counties finance infrastructure, parks, and environmental cleanup to support infill development.

A quality education is the best investment in our children’s future. California has not kept up with the need for school modernization and new school construction. Proposition 1D funds will reduce overcrowding, build vocational education facilities, and provide for our growing community college population.

This bond measure will provide funds for flood protection, levee repairs and improvements in the Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta, and storm water management. The League supports Proposition 1E to protect our existing water supply infrastructure and prevent pollution in our streams and the ocean.

This initiative continues the League’s past support of efforts to insure that California has adequate water supplies. Proposition 84 will fund projects for safe drinking water, flood control, protection of rivers, lakes and streams, forest and wildlife conservation, coastal protection, and state parks.

NO ON PROPOSITION 85 -- Termination of Minor's Pregnancy. Waiting Period and Parental Notification.

Parents rightfully want to be involved in their teenagers’ lives, but good family communication can’t be imposed by government. Mandatory notification laws may sound good, but in the real world, they just put the health and safety of teenagers at risk. Proposition 85 isn’t really about parental rights; it’s about the political agenda of abortion opponents.

YES ON PROPOSITION 86 -- Tax on Cigarettes.

Proposition 86 increases the state tax on cigarettes by $2.60 per pack. The estimated $2.1 billion in annual revenue will fund children’s health coverage, emergency care services, nursing education, tobacco-use prevention and control programs, and research, prevention and treatment of serious health conditions including cancers, heart disease, stroke, asthma, and obesity. Proposition 86 will cut tobacco use drastically and keep hundreds of thousands of kids from starting to smoke. It will save billions of dollars in health care costs.

NO ON PROPOSITION 88 -- Classroom Learning and Accountability Act. Real Property Parcel Tax.

This measure would impose a $50 tax on each real property parcel to help fund several K-12 education programs. While the League supports access to quality education for all, this measure contradicts good government finance principles of equity and adequacy. It proposes to earmark funds via a constitutional amendment without providing sufficient funding to even bring education spending up to the national average. It would also involve the state for the first time in taxing property—a precedent we do not support.

YES ON PROPOSITION 89 -- California Nurses Clean Money and Fair Elections Act of 2006. Public Financing of Campaigns. Corporate Tax Increase.

Proposition 89, the California Clean Money and Fair Elections Act, will limit influence by special interests and level the playing field so elections are decided by ideas, not by money. Candidates who demonstrate broad-based support and agree to limit their spending will receive public campaign financing. This measure also imposes sensible new limits on campaign contributions and bans contributions by lobbyists and state contractors. Funding will be provided by an increase of 0.2 percent in the corporate income tax rate. With Proposition 89 we can clean up the system and make politicians accountable to voters, not to big money donors.

NO ON PROPOSITION 90 -- Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property

Californians deserve protection from eminent domain abuse, but Proposition 90 is a radical proposal that goes too far. Its extreme provisions would make it difficult for government to protect the environment, regulate growth and development, or enact new consumer protection laws. This “Taxpayer Trap” would drive up the cost of infrastructure projects our communities need. It is poorly worded and would likely result in costly litigation.

The League has no position on Proposition 83 (Sex Offenders, Sexually Violent Predators. Punishment, Residence Restrictions and Monitoring) and is neutral on Proposition 1A (Transportation Investment Fund) and Proposition 87 (Severance or Extraction Tax on California Oil Producers).

BE AN ADVOCATE FOR GOOD GOVERNMENT
VOTE WITH THE LEAGUE ON NOVEMBER 7