LWVC HOME - ELECTION '98 - VOTING Q&As - SMART VOTER - ABOUT US

League of Women Voters of California Education Fund Nonpartisan Pros & Cons of November 1998 State Ballot Measures

Note: This page has been formatted so that the Pros & Cons of all 12 propositions may be printed as one page. Go to index of propositions to see one proposition per page. See also the In Depth analysis of the Ballot Measures.

The League of Women Voters of California is a nonpartisan organization committed to informed and active citizen participation in government. All citizens, men and women, of voting age are welcomed to join. The League has two roles, citizen education and advocacy. Our election services are carried out by the League of Women Voters of California Education Fund (LWVCEF) and exclude all advocacy.

These PROS & CONS are researched and developed by the LWVCEF. They are an unbiased presentation of the measures on the November 3, 1998 California General Election ballot. The League does not judge the merits of the arguments or guarantee their validity. Arguments come from many sources and are not limited to those found in the state ballot pamphlet.

The League of Women Voters of California Education Fund publishes these Pros & Cons on the State Ballot Measures as a tabloid newspaper. Copies are available from your local League of Women Voters; if your community does not have a local League, you may contact LWVCEF at 916-442-7215.

• Proposition 1A. Class Size Reduction Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 1998.
• Proposition 1. Property Taxes: Contaminated Property.
• Proposition 2. Transportation: Funding.
• Proposition 3. Partisan Presidential Primary Elections.
• Proposition 4. Trapping Practices. Bans Use of Specified Traps and Animal Poisons.
• Proposition 5. Tribal-State Gaming Compacts. Tribal Casinos.
• Proposition 6. Criminal Law. Prohibition on Slaughter of Horses and Sale of Horsemeat for Human Consumption.
• Proposition 7. Air Quality Improvements. Tax Credits.
• Proposition 8. Public Schools. Permanent Class Size Reduction. Parent-Teacher Councils. Teacher Credentialing. Pupil Suspension for Drug Possession. Chief Inspector's Office.
• Proposition 9. Electric Utilities. Assessments. Bonds.
• Proposition 10. State and County Early Childhood Development Programs. Additional Tobacco Surtax.
• Proposition 11. Local Sales and Use Taxes--Revenue Sharing.

THE QUESTION

Should the state sell $9.2 billion in general obligation bonds for construction and renovation of schools and higher education facilities and also place restrictions on sources of required local matching funds?

THE SITUATION

The Department of Education estimates that in the next ten years $41 billion will be needed for K-12 schools and $13 billion for higher education facilities.

Since 1986, the voters have approved $8.8 billion in general obligation bonds for K-12 school construction and renovation, and nearly $3.4 billion for capital improvements at public higher education campuses. In addition, the Governor and the Legislature have provided about $2.4 billion for public higher education facilities from lease-payment bonds.

Local funds for K-12 school facilities come from three sources:

• local general obligation bonds, which were the traditional sources of local funding until Proposition 13 was passed in 1978. Since then many school districts have been unable to get the required 2/3 voter approval for bond issues

• special assessment districts, which cities, counties, special districts, and school districts form to levy special taxes to fund a wide variety of facilities and services

• development fees--school districts can impose a direct fee on residential and commercial development of $1.93 and $0.31 , respectively.

As a result of a series of appellate court decisions in 1988, called the Mira cases, school districts can also reject new developments because of inadequate school facilities.

PROVISIONS

• During the next four years, Proposition 1A would provide a total of $6.7 billion for schools, specifically for K-12:
  • $2.9 billion for new construction related to growth
  • $2.1 billion for rehabilitation of older schools
  • $700 million for class size reduction
  • $1 billion for hardship situations.

• The total amount spent for public school construction would be $10.1 billion: $6.7 in Proposition 1A funds and $3.4 in local matching funds.

• The Act would also provide $2.5 billion for higher education facilities, including $165 million for new campuses.

• Districts would have to provide local matching funds to pay for half of the cost of new construction, and 20 percent of the cost for most modernization projects.

• Developer fees would be capped at the present rate of $1.93 per square foot for new homes, with exceptions permitted under certain conditions, including a district's reasonable efforts to obtain funding from other sources.

• The power of school districts to turn down construction projects because of inadequate financing for schools (Mira powers) would be suspended for eight years.

• State funds would also be provided to offset all or part of the cost of some developer fees for homebuyers in high unemployment areas, buyers of homes costing less than $100,000, low-income or very low-income first-time homebuyers, and developers of rental housing for very low-income tenants.

• A majority vote is required for passage of Proposition 1A.

The Legislative Analyst estimates that the cost for debt payments would be $15.2 billion over 25 years or about $600 million per year. In addition, the homebuyer and renter assistance program would cost $40 million a year for four years ($160 million).

SUPPORTERS SAY

• Essential school buildings and higher education facilities would be built and renovated without raising taxes.
• School districts would have to demonstrate community support by raising matching funds.

• Proposition 1A is three times larger than the largest bond measure in California's history.
• This measure obligates a family of four to repay $2,000 in taxes to retire this debt.

THE QUESTION

Should owners of environmentally contaminated property be allowed to repair or replace it without causing an increase in the assessed valuation of the property?

THE SITUATION

Under Proposition 13, property owners must pay higher property taxes if they move or rebuild, even if they are forced to do so as the result of environmental contamination that causes their home or business to be uninhabitable or unusable.

THE PROPOSAL

Proposition 1 amends the Constitution (Proposition 13) to allow property owners to transfer their current tax assessment to new or rebuilt property within their county if:

• a home or structure is rendered "uninhabitable or unusable" as the result of health hazards caused by environmental problems
• the property owner did not know about the contamination before purchasing or building the residence or structure; the property is designated a toxic hazard by a governmental agency
• the environmental clean-up effort effectively destroys the home or business; and
• the lead governmental agency determines that the owner's actions did not make the property uninhabitable or unusable.

The Legislative Analyst estimates that the tax revenue loss would be less than $1 million because few properties qualify. If large environmental hazards occur or are discovered, this tax revenue loss estimate could change dramatically.

SUPPORTERS SAY

• Proposition 1 will provide property tax relief for homeowners who are innocent victims of environmental disasters.
• Current law provides this kind of protection to victims of natural disasters so the same degree of fairness should be extended to those whose property is destroyed by toxic or hazardous material.

• This measure would increase the unfairness of the present Proposition 13 property tax system.
• Instead of tinkering with the system to benefit very few, the Legislature should overhaul it to lessen the wide differences in tax rates.

THE QUESTION

Should the state Constitution impose conditions on the repayment of loans of transportation revenues to the General Fund and local entities?

THE SITUATION

Californians pay state and local taxes and fees on their motor vehicles and fuel to pay for highway and mass transit construction. Funds also help enforce state traffic laws and the Air Resources Board. County boards of supervisors can also impose a uniform local sales and use tax rate up to 1 1/4 percent, a portion of which can be deposited in the county's local transportation fund to be used primarily for transit purposes.

During the early 1990s, when the state faced a severe recession and General Fund deficit, the Legislature and Governor borrowed transportation funds temporarily to balance the General Fund. Although the Constitution requires that these funds be repaid, it does not specify when. So these temporary loans have, in many cases, been diverted permanently to the General Fund. In 1995-96, the Legislature also authorized the diversion of $800 million in local transportation funds to mitigate Orange County's bankruptcy and a general funding shortfall in Los Angeles. Thus a total of almost $1.2 billion in state and local transportation resources has been diverted since 1991-92.

THE PROPOSAL

• Loans or transfers from transportation funds must be repaid within the same fiscal year.
• State transportation funds may be loaned to the General Fund for three years if the Governor proclaims a "state fiscal emergency," or if General Fund revenues are significantly less than the previous fiscal year.
• Under certain conditions, the Legislature can authorize the loan of state transportation funds for up to four years to city and county transportation agencies.

FISCAL EFFECT

According to the Legislative Analyst, this measure would have little or no fiscal impact on state or local governments.

SUPPORTERS SAY

• This is the voters' opportunity to stop the bureaucrats from siphoning transportation funds to other government programs.
• Funding for road and bridge improvements has lagged 30 percent.

• Borrowing these funds prevents additional cuts in education, welfare, and MediCal.
• Proposition 2 does not require the return of nearly $1.2 billion in transportation funds that have been loaned to the General Fund.

THE QUESTION

Should the existing open primary law be changed to require a closed, partisan primary for the purpose of selecting delegates to presidential nominating conventions of national political parties?

THE SITUATION

In 1996, voters passed the Open Primary Act. It allows all voters in primary elections, regardless of party affiliation, to cross party lines and vote for any candidate, including delegates for presidential candidates. Voters do not actually vote for a presidential candidate in the primary but for a slate of delegates pledged to the candidate who vote at the party's national nominating convention. Voting for county central committees is still restricted by party affiliation.

THE PROPOSAL

Voters registered in political parties would receive partisan ballots to select delegates. Independent voters not registered in a party would not be allowed to vote for presidential delegates. Primary election voters could still cross party lines to vote for state offices and U.S. senators and congressmen.

FISCAL EFFECT

According to the Legislative Analyst, this initiative would result in minor costs to state and local governments.

SUPPORTERS SAY

• Political parties might refuse to seat delegations from open-primary states at national presidential nominating conventions.
• Voters can still cross party lines to vote for state and other federal candidates.

• Both political parties have procedures to allow seating of delegates from open primary states at national nominating conventions.
• Independent voters would not be allowed to vote for presidential delegates.

THE QUESTION

Should state law prohibit commercial and recreational animal trappers from using body-gripping and leghold traps? Should the use of two specific poisons for killing animals be banned?

THE SITUATION

California law currently permits the use of body-gripping and leghold traps to capture and kill certain fur-bearing and nongame mammals for commercial and recreational purposes. The state Department of Fish and Game issues these trapping licenses.

Landowners and certain government employees are also allowed to capture or kill specified mammals that cause damage or threaten crops, livestock, and wildlife, or public health and safety. Permissible methods to capture or kill these mammals include shooting, trapping, and poisoning.

THE PROPOSAL

Proposition 4 would ban body-gripping and leghold traps in California for commercial and recreational trapping mammals classified as nongame or fur-bearing. It would also prohibit the use of sodium flouroacetate (Compound 1080) and sodium cyanide to poison animals, and makes violations misdemeanors. It does not affect the current use of cage or box traps, and common rat and mouse traps, nor the governmental animal control use of conibear and snare traps, and padded steel-jawed leghold traps when absolutely necessary.

FISCAL EFFECT

According to the Legislative Analyst, there could be additional enforcement costs for the Department of Fish and Game, and there would also be unknown additional state and local costs ranging from several thousand dollars to a couple of million dollars annually for animal control to comply with the provisions of this measure.

SUPPORTERS SAY

• The steel-jawed leghold trap and other body-gripping traps are cruel and injurious tools for the capture and killing of animals.
• Using Compound 1080 and sodium cyanide to poison animals also poisons the environment and threatens humans and their pets.

• Today's wildlife management tools are the most humane ever, and this measure would ban tools needed to conserve threatened and endangered species.
• Alternate methods of capture are not as effective and can be just as harmful and deadly as the methods that would be banned by this measure.

Should the State of California be required to make compacts with Indian tribes permitting specified gambling activities on Indian lands, in facilities owned and regulated by the tribes themselves, with limited state oversight?

THE SITUATION

Thirty-seven of 100 federally recognized Indian tribes in California operate gambling casinos. The casinos directly and indirectly employ 45,000 Indian and non-Indian workers. Games include approximately 13,000 video slot machines. However, the machines are illegal because tribes do not have compacts with the state, as required by federal law. The U.S. Department of Justice intends to seize these illegal machines.

To resolve the question of video slot machines, the Governor negotiated a model compact with the Pala Band of Mission Indians in San Diego County. The compact allows a video slot machine that would operate like a lottery terminal. Each tribe is limited to 199 video slot machines, and no more than 19,900 machines would be allowed statewide. The compact also has provisions regarding casino sites, unionization, and workers' compensation.

THE PROPOSAL

Proposition 5 would:

• provide a model compact between Indian tribes and the state that sets terms and conditions for gambling on tribal lands
• require the state to offer this compact on request by an Indian tribe and the Governor to sign it
• require the model compact to state that specified gambling activities are legal in Indian casinos--video slot machines, card games, lotteries, raffles, and off-track parimutuel betting
• require gaming tribes to contribute to up to 3 percent of net win to trust funds for non-gaming tribes, to nearby communities, and for statewide emergency medical programs.

Gambling could divert revenues to California from neighboring states; but tribes don't pay certain taxes, so some state revenues would be lost. State and local governments would receive a portion of trust funds that could total in the low tens of millions of dollars annually. Overall, though, the Legislative Analyst says "…on average, each dollar spent in tribal operations generates less tax revenue than an equivalent dollar spent in other areas of the California economy."

SUPPORTERS SAY

• This would help California's Indians to be self-reliant.
• California would benefit economically from hundreds of millions of dollars that would be spent in gaming in this state rather than in neighboring states.

• Tribes already have the right to operate casinos on their lands.
• Indian casinos pay no taxes on winnings and would be exempt from most of California's environmental, health, safety, and worker protection laws..

Should state law make the slaughter of horses for human consumption and the sale of horsemeat for human consumption illegal?

THE SITUATION

In California horses can legally be slaughtered for both human consumption and for use in pet food; however, there are no licensed slaughterhouses. According to the state Department of Food and Agriculture, last year over 3,000 documented horses were sent from California to other states to be slaughtered for human consumption, and unreported transactions could increase this figure to 10,000 a year. It's also legal to sell horsemeat for human consumption, although no market appears to exist in this country.

THE PROPOSAL

Proposition 6 would make it a felony offense to buy, sell, or obtain a horse, pony, burro or mule in California with the intent to slaughter it for human consumption. In addition, the sale of horsemeat for human consumption would be a misdemeanor.

FISCAL EFFECT

The Legislative Analyst estimates this measure would have minor fiscal effects related to "some increased law enforcement and incarceration costs at both the state and local level."

SUPPORTERS SAY

• Horses are companion and sporting animals, not food animals, and they should have the same protection against slaughter and export as dogs and cats.

• Horses are livestock and owners should be able to manage their horse stock as they see fit.

Should the state Air Resources Board, or local districts designated by that board, be authorized to award $218 million in state tax credits yearly, until January 2011, to encourage reduction in emissions of air pollutants either through (1) acquisition, conversion and retrofitting of vehicles and equipment or (2) research or business development of technologies to reduce air pollution?

THE SITUATION

In 1997, the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) strengthened air pollution standards based on public health studies. These studies indicate that previous standards for ozone (smog) and fine particulates (soot) do not adequately protect against health problems. In California, air pollution is still above EPA standards.

THE PROPOSAL

Proposition 7 authorizes the California Air Resources Board (ARB):

• to offer incentives in the form of tax credits:
• to immediately reduce air-pollution emissions;
• provide $218 million in tax credits each year, through 2010, with monies from the General Fund.

The ARB would establish priorities and criteria for the reduction of emissions on the basis of specific air quality attainment needs of each category within a district. Tax credits would be available for projects in specific percentages of the available funds that are awarded to each category. Projects eligible for tax credits include new vehicles, engines and equipment; retrofit of existing vehicles; conversion or use of agricultural waste; and research and development of technologies developed to reduce air pollution.

FISCAL EFFECT

The Air Quality Improvement tax credits would reduce personal and corporate income tax revenues; however, sales tax revenues could increase because of additional purchases of vehicles, equipment, or retrofit devices. The Legislative Analyst estimates a net loss of General Fund revenue in the tens of millions to over a hundred million dollars annually.

SUPPORTERS SAY

• Tax credit incentives will encourage the private sector to reduce toxic emissions and help California comply with state and federal clean air acts.

• Reducing air pollution will protect the health of children, the elderly, and people with lung disease or asthma.

OPPONENTS SAY

• Proposition 7 gives tax breaks to multinational corporations that will receive a guaranteed market for their equipment.

• Proposition 7 diverts funds from higher education, law enforcement, child protection and resource protection programs.

Should voters add six provisions to the Education Code that would make major changes in the state's K-12 education system?

SITUATION

The State Department of Education, with a $34 million annual budget, oversees the 8,000 public schools in California. In addition, public schools answer to the elected Superintendent of Public Instruction, the appointed State Board of Education, the Governor, and the Legislature.

THE PROPOSAL

Proposition 8 would:

• create a new school oversight office, headed by a Chief Inspector of Public Schools, which would report annually on the quality of K-12 schools

• require each school district to have a governing council of parents/teachers, which would have decision-making power and responsibilities for budgets and curriculum

• give principals more control over their choice of teachers

• require teachers to submit lesson plans for approval

• impose new credential requirements and require that all new and some experienced teachers be tested to demonstrate subject-matter competency

• expel students immediately for illegal drug possession and require that they attend a continuation school

• create a permanent fund to ensure a maximum 20-student K-3 classroom size.

FISCAL EFFECT

The Legislative Analyst estimates the new state programs required by Proposition 8 would add up to $60 million. Some of these costs would be offset by increased fee collections.

SUPPORTERS SAY

• Parents deserve a timely, unbiased report on their child's school.

• Proposition 8 ensures that funds for the Class Size Reduction Program cannot become a political pawn.

OPPONENTS SAY

• The new Chief Inspector would have too much power--a 10-year term with no legislative confirmation.

• Classroom funds would be diverted to triple the size of the educational bureaucracy.

THE QUESTION

Should private electric utility companies be prohibited from using tax, bond and surcharge assessments to pay for the cost of nuclear power plants and also be limited in how they recover costs for non-nuclear power plants? Should they be prohibited from issuing rate reduction bonds and assessing customers for payment of bond costs? Should a 20 percent rate reduction be required in residential and business customers' rates?

THE SITUATION

In 1996 California legislators restructured the laws governing the electricity industry to deregulate the production of electricity but not its transmission or distribution. Competition will determine the prices consumers pay for electricity.

THE PROPOSAL

Proposition 9 would prohibit electric companies from:

• recovering the costs of nuclear power plants through the use of utility taxes, bond payments or surcharges.
• charging customers for the costs of non-nuclear power plants, except when adequately justified through public hearings with the Public Utilities Commission {PUC)
• assessing customers for payments of bond principal, interest or related costs.

FISCAL EFFECT

The Legislative Analyst estimates that Proposition 9 will result in net losses to state and local governments in the tens of millions because of:

loss in tax revenue should electric companies be unable to collect about $10 billion in outstanding debts

• reduction in rates and fees paid by residential customers and small businesses resulting in increased sales and income taxes paid to government; and
• spending on schools would be reduced proportionally as the state budget is reduced.

The state, however, would have to offset any losses sustained by local school districts if fewer property taxes are collected.

SUPPORTERS SAY

• Consumers should not have to pay the debts utility companies incurred through poor investments in nuclear plants.
• State law already prohibits taxpayer liability for the utilities $6 billion bond debt.

OPPONENTS SAY

• Proposition 9 will jeopardize electric rates and reliability and ultimately force higher electric rates.
• Taxpayers will be liable for $6 billion in previously sold bonds.

Should an additional tobacco surtax be levied to fund supplemental early childhood development and anti-smoking programs throughout the state?

THE SITUATION

While a variety of federal, state, and local programs, called early childhood development programs, have been established to help children develop into healthy, well-adjusted adults, affordable, accessible childcare programs for children under five are in short supply for employed low-income families.

California currently imposes an excise tax on cigarettes of 37 cents per pack. This includes a 25-cent excise tax voters authorized by passing Proposition 99, the Tobacco Tax Initiative, in 1988, which is earmarked for programs to reduce smoking and promote good health.

THE PROPOSAL

Proposition 10 would:

• create a new state commission, the California Children and Families First Act of 1998, to develop statewide guidelines for early childhood development and smoking prevention programs
• create county commissions to develop strategic plans and programs that supplement and do not replace existing services
• impose an additional 50 cents per pack tax on cigarettes to fund these programs, plus an equivalent amount on other tobacco products, for a total increase in state excise taxes equivalent to $1 per pack
• exclude new tax revenues from the provisions of Proposition 98.

The Legislative Analyst estimates that the new tax will raise $750 million for the Children and Families First Trust Fund, not the General Fund, in its first full year. Annual amounts will decline after that because of a decrease in consumption of tobacco products and a likely increase in out-of-state purchases of tobacco products.

SUPPORTERS SAY

• Our youngest children would get the healthy foundation they need to succeed in school and in life
• After Proposition 99 added a 25-cent cigarette tax, tobacco use declined 27 percent in five years.

• Unnecessary state and county commissions would add to the educational bureaucracy.
• Revenues from increased tobacco tax are exempt from a Constitutional requirement that a percentage of all state revenues goes to schools.

THE QUESTION

Should local governments be authorized to contract to share sales tax or use tax revenues without a vote of the people?

THE SITUATION

The state Constitution allows cities and counties to impose a 1.25 percent tax on retail sales. However, there are often imbalances between communities that collect the sales tax revenue and neighboring communities that shoulder the burdens of infrastructure, traffic, and public services. Communities compete to attract large retailers by offering sales tax refunds, diverting tax revenues that would be used for public services.

The Constitution allows cities and counties to contract to share sales tax revenue, but these contracts must be approved by a majority of the voters in each jurisdiction. No California community has proposed such a contract.

PROVISIONS

This measure adds an alternate process for sharing sales tax revenues that requires a 2/3 vote of each city council and/or county board of supervisors instead of approval by a majority of the voters in each jurisdiction. In effect, it shifts the power to share tax revenues from the voters to their elected representatives.

FISCAL EFFECT

The State Board of Equalization may incur additional costs to administer an increased number of jurisdictions that have elected to enter into the contracts authorized by this proposition.

SUPPORTERS SAY

• Proposition 11 makes it easier for local officials to divide scarce revenues and stop the all-or-nothing duels between cities and counties.
• Revenue sharing reduces the pressure to give away public funds.

• Decisions on tax revenues, such as revenue sharing agreements, should not be made without voter approval.
• Agreements to share tax revenues could be linked to other obligations, such as annexation.

(Nonpartisan analysis prepared by the League of Women Voters of California Education Fund.)

About Ballot Measures

Criteria for Evaluating Ballot Propositions (en español !!)

Some questions to ask yourself while deciding on your vote

FAQs on Bonds

Questions and Answers about bond issues

The Initiative Process (en español !!)

How measures get put on the ballot and how future changes can be made

Initiatives in the Making

On Propositions: Evaluation Criteria - About Initiatives - Smart Voter
LWVC Home - Voting Q&As - Election '98 - About Us

Last updated: November 1, 1998
Send comments and suggestions concerning this page to lwvc@vcwatts.org
lwvc@vcwatts.org

You may print and circulate this copyrighted material if you use it in its entirety and give credit to the League of Women Voters of California Education Fund.