The California Secretary of State has qualified five ballot measures for the state’s June 2010 ballot. The water bond will appear on the November 2010 ballot, along with other initiatives which are likely to qualify in the coming months. The following is a summary of the measures complete with their fiscal impact, proponent and opponent arguments, and political committee spending to date.
Proposition 13: Technical, Non-Controversial Property-Tax Exclusion for Seismic Retrofitting
Summary: This measure was placed on the ballot with unanimous support of the California Legislature with the passage of SCA 4 (Ashburn, 2008). The measure revises the 15-year property tax exclusion for seismic safety improvements made to unreinforced masonry buildings. To view the language of the measure click here.
The author states, “The purpose of SCA 4, and its companion bill SB 111, is to ensure equal treatment of property owners who incorporate seismic safety improvements when they remodel an existing building regardless of the type of building. Currently, two types of property owners who install seismic safety technologies are treated differently for property tax purposes. One receives an exclusion from reassessment, and the other, the owner of an unreinforced masonry structure, receives only a 15-year exclusion from reassessment. This is problematic, particularly since the older unreinforced masonry buildings are in greatest need of retrofitting. These proposals correct this flaw in the law.”
Fiscal Impact: The State Board of Equalization (BOE) would incur minor absorbable costs related to informing and advising local county assessors, the public, and staff of the law changes. This measure would have a negligible revenue impact. (Source: BOE)
Proponents: California Assessor’s Association.
Opponents: None.
PAC: No committees have been formed to support or oppose the ballot measure.
Proposition 14: The Top Two Candidates Open Primaries.
Summary: This measure was requested by Senator Abel Maldonado (R) as a condition of gaining his vote to break the 2009 impasse over the state budget. This measure proposes a constitutional amendment to voters that would create a “top two” primary system in California for elective state offices and for Congress. Under this system voters in the primary election would receive a ballot that lists all candidates for a given office and would be free to vote for any candidate, regardless of the partisan affiliation of the voter or of the candidate. The two candidates who receive the largest number of votes in the primary election would move on to the general election–even if one voter receives more than 50% of the vote in the primary election. Under such a system, it would be possible that the two candidates who appear on the general election ballot could be members of the same political party. Variations of the “top two” primary system are used in Washington and Louisiana. To view the floor analysis for the measure click here. To view the language of the measure click here.
Fiscal Impact: Unknown
Proponent Argument: Proponents assert that Proposition 14 will help reduce partisan gridlock by ensuring that more moderates are elected to the Legislature and Congress. Proposition 14 would also give independent voters an equal voice in primary elections. “The best part of the open primary is that it would lessen the influence of the major parties, which are now under control of the special interests.” (Fresno Bee, 2/22/09.)
Opponent Argument: Opponents argue that Prop. 14 will increase the cost of elections and will not help moderates get elected.
Proponents: Senator Abel Maldonado, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Steve Westly, and the California Chamber of Commerce are supporters of this measure, among others. The largest contributors to the Yes on 14, “Californians for an Open Primary,” are Hewlett-Packard $100,000, California Association of Health Underwriters PAC $100,000, and Blue Shield of California $50,000. The political action committee (PAC) in support of Prop. 14 had just over $137,000 as of February 22, 2010.
Opponents: The chairs of both the California Republican Party and California Democratic Party, among others. The registered opposition PAC named “Protect the Democratic Primary – Say No To the Open Primary” has not electronically filed with the Secretary of State as of February 22, 2010.
Proposition 15: Political Reform Act of 1974: California Fair Elections Act of 2008.
Summary: This measure was placed on the ballot by the California Legislature on a party line vote in 2008 with the passage of AB 583 (Hancock). The Governor signed the measure. The measure would create a pilot project whereby candidates for Secretary of State will be eligible to receive public campaign funds for the 2014 and 2018 elections if they agree not to accept most private contributions and if they collect a specified number of $5 contributions. To view the supporters’ website for the measure click here. To view the floor analyses of the measure click here. To view the language of the measure click here.
Fiscal Impact: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee: 1) Anticipated special fund revenue between $6 million and $7 million during each four-year election cycle, with all public campaign financing and administrative expenses paid for by that special fund revenue. 2) General Fund costs of approximately $480,000 in 2009-10 to include the provisions of this measure on the June 2010 primary election ballot. The special fund revenue would be raised through a $700 fee every two years on lobbyists and lobbyist employers and a newly-created voluntary tax check-off that allows taxpayers to donate to the special fund on their income tax returns.
Proponent Argument: According to the author, “The current campaign finance system is widely decried across the political spectrum. It requires elected officials and candidates to devote substantial amount of time to incessant fundraising diminishing the time which candidates have to communicate with voters. The ever-increasing amounts spent in campaigning are a substantial hurdle that diminish the free speech rights and create a pressure that focuses campaigns on fundraising rather than emphasizing competition in the marketplace of ideas. The increasing influence of money and special interests in campaigns is one of the biggest challenges facing our democratic system. As legislators’ time spent on fundraising has increased, both the confidence in elected officials and voter participation has decreased. Providing public funds for campaigns is a voluntary alternative form of financing which provides candidates with the means to run a competitive, issues-based campaign on a level playing field. Experience in other states shows that Clean Money holds down spiraling campaign costs while increasing voter participation in the process.”
Opponent Argument: NA
Proponents: There are three registered PACs in support of this measure: California Common Cause Fair Elections Committee, Californians for Fair Elections Sponsored by California Clean Money Action Fund, and the California Clean Money Action Fund. Californians for Fair Elections Sponsored by California Clean Money Action Fund is the only PAC of the three that has filed, according to the Secretary of State. The largest contributor is the California Nurses Association $100,000.
Other supporters of this measure include: League of Women Voters of California, Sierra Club, and a number of elected officials, among others.
Opponents: There was no registered opposition PAC as of February 22, 2010.
Proposition 16: New Two-Thirds Vote Requirement for Local Public Electricity Providers, “Taxpayers Right to Vote Act.”
Initiative Constitutional Amendment: Qualified January 12, 2010.
Summary: Requires local governments to obtain the approval of two-thirds of the voters before providing electricity to new customers or expanding such service to new territories if any public funds or bonds are involved. Requires same two-thirds vote to provide electricity through a community choice program if any public funds or bonds are involved. Requires the vote to be in the jurisdiction of the local government and any new territory to be served. Provides exceptions to the jurisdiction of the voting requirements for a limited number of identified projects (Source: California Secretary of State).
Fiscal Impact: Summary of impact on state and local governments by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance: Unknown impact on state and local government costs and revenues, depending on future voter decisions, due to the measure’s potential effects on electricity rates and publicly owned utility operations.
Proponent Argument: The Taxpayers Right to Vote Initiative does one thing: It requires voter approval before local governments can spend public money or incur public debt to get into the electricity business. And like most other major local special tax and bond decisions in California, this would require two-thirds voter approval. Currently, local governments in California can take over private electric businesses without letting local voters have the final say in the decision. This measure establishes clear voter approval requirements before local governments can go into the retail electricity business (Source: Yes on 16 Website).
Opposition Argument: PG&E sponsored this initiative to try to prevent local efforts to switch from private investor-owned utilities, such as PG&E, to public providers which may be a better deal for taxpayers. The Sacramento Bee editorial board called the measure a “power grab” that would “protect the investor-owned utility from dissatisfied customers angry about bad service and high costs.” “In recent years PG&E has spent tens of millions of dollars to fend off efforts by ratepayers in San Joaquin, San Francisco, Marin and Yolo counties who’ve tried to form their own public utilities or annex themselves to public power agencies…the constitutional amendment makes it virtually impossible for any jurisdiction to escape the PG&E monopoly,” states the Bee editorial which is available by clicking here. To view the text of the measure click here.
Proponents: Despite the “Yes on 16” PAC being billed as a coalition of taxpayers, environmentalists, renewable energy, and business and labor, PG&E was the only contributor to the PAC as of February 17, 2010. PG&E has contributed over $19 million to “Yes on 16” PAC to date. PG&E is likely to spend $25 to $35 million on the campaign, according to the Oakland Tribune. The California Taxpayers Association and the California Chamber of Commerce are also in support of the measure.
Opponents: The “No on 16” PAC is sponsored by the Utility Reform Network (TURN), a consumer watchdog and consumer rights group. The Sierra Club, City of Palo Alto, and SMUD all oppose this measure. In December Senator Darrell Steinberg along with eight of his colleagues sent an opposition letter to PG&E CEO Peter Darbee criticizing the measure. The letter ends by asking PG&E to “refrain from pursuing this initiative.”
Proposition 17: Allows Auto Insurance Companies to Base Their Prices in Part on a Driver’s History of Insurance Coverage.
Summary: This initiative is sponsored by Mercury Insurance. The measure changes current law to permit insurance companies to offer a discount to drivers who have continuously maintained their auto insurance coverage and establishes that lapses in coverage due to nonpayment of premiums may prevent a driver from qualifying for the discount. (Source: California Secretary of State)
Fiscal Impact: Summary fiscal impact on state and local governments by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance: This measure would probably have no significant fiscal effect on state and local governments.
Proponent Argument: Under current California insurance laws, drivers who have been insured with the same insurance company are eligible for a “continuous coverage” discount. But, an inconsistency in the law prohibits drivers from taking this continuous coverage discount with them if they switch insurers. Proposition 17 corrects that inconsistency and ensures that all drivers who continually maintain their automobile insurance are eligible for this discount even if they change insurance companies. Proponents assert that the measure will provide more choice and more competition for California consumers by allowing them to shop around for the lowest auto insurance rates without being punished if they want to change insurers. (Source: Yes on Proposition 17 Website)
Opponent Argument: The Campaign for Consumer Rights has already challenged this measure in court. The group, primarily sponsored by Consumer Watchdog.org, has criticized the measure for trying to “trick voters into paying higher auto insurance premiums.” The groups says the measure would “surcharge” drivers who have had a lapse in car insurance coverage for virtually any reason during the past five years, including people such as soldiers who did not need insurance. “The measure would gut a provision of the 1988 insurance reform measure Prop. 103, which prohibits companies from raising rates on people because they did not have auto insurance in the past,” states a press release by the Campaign for Consumer Rights. To visit the website against the measure click here: www.stopthesurcharge.org. To view the text of the measure click here.
In its analysis of Proposition 17, the Department of Insurance said, “If an insurer offers a continuous coverage discount for some drivers it will result in a surcharge for other drivers. This is because automobile insurance discounts and surcharges must offset one another.”
Proponents: Mercury General has contributed over $3.5 million to Californians for Fair Auto Insurance Rates and Mercury Insurance and affiliates, a PAC for Yes on Proposition 17. The California Chamber of Commerce and a number of a number of taxpayer groups support this measure.
Opponents: The opposition PAC is funded by Campaign for Consumer Rights. The PAC has just over $96,000 cash on hand. USSA, an organization that offers military veterans and military families auto insurance, opposes Proposition 17.
Summary of November 2010 Ballot Measures
Changes California Law to Legalize Marijuana and Allow It to Be Regulated and Taxed, “Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010.”
Status: Signatures pending verification.
Summary: Allows persons 21 years old or older to possess, cultivate, or transport marijuana for personal use. Permits local governments to regulate and tax commercial production and sale of marijuana to people 21 years old or older. Prohibits persons from possessing marijuana on school grounds, using it in public, smoking it while minors are present, or providing it to anyone under 21 years old. Maintains current prohibitions against driving while impaired.
Fiscal Impact: Summary of fiscal impact on state and local governments by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance: Savings of up to several tens of millions of dollars annually to state and local governments on the costs of incarcerating and supervising certain marijuana offenders. Unknown but potentially major tax, fee, and benefit assessment revenues to state and local government related to the production and sale of marijuana products.
Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2010
Summary: Governor Schwarzenegger and state lawmakers successfully crafted a plan to meet California’s growing water challenges. A comprehensive deal was agreed to, representing major steps towards ensuring a reliable water supply for future generations, as well as restoring the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and other ecologically sensitive areas. The plan is comprised of four policy bills and an $11.14 billion bond act.
The Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2010 is an $11.14 billion general obligation bond proposal that would provide funding for California’s aging water infrastructure and for projects and programs to address the ecosystem and water supply issues in California. The bond is comprised of seven categories, including drought relief, water supply reliability, Delta sustainability, statewide water system operational improvement, conservation and watershed protection, groundwater protection and water quality, and water recycling and water conservation. (Source: California Department of Water Resources). Recent polling indicates that this measure is in serious trouble.
Fiscal Impact: Provides for a $11.14 billion general obligation bond.
Accompanying Legislation
SBX7 1 (Simitian; D-Palo Alto): Creates a seven-member council to develop a comprehensive management plan for the Delta by 2012.
SBX7 6 (Steinberg; D-Sacramento): Requires water agencies to report water levels in underground basins or risk losing grants for non-compliance.
SBX7 7 (Steinberg): Contains conservation provisions, including a 20 percent reduction in per capita water use for urban water agencies statewide by 2020, with water agencies not meeting the targets being ineligible for state grants and loans. Not all water districts would have to meet the requirement. Farm water suppliers would have to submit efficiency plans.
SBX7 8 (Steinberg): Gives state water regulators more power to police illegal water diversions. Specific penalties are to be added later by the Legislature.
How the Bond Money Will Be Spent: Summary of Water Bond Projects
Drought Relief – $455 million. This funding would be available for local and regional drought relief projects that reduce the impacts of drought conditions, including the impacts of reductions to Delta diversions. Projects will include water conservation and water use efficiency projects, water recycling, groundwater cleanup and other water supply reliability projects including local surface water storage projects that provide emergency water supplies and water supply reliability in drought conditions.
Delta Sustainability – $2.25 billion. This funding would provide funds for projects to assist in maintaining and restoring the Delta as an important ecosystem. These investments will help to reduce the seismic risk to water supplies derived from the Delta, protect drinking water quality and reduce conflict between water management and environmental protection.
Water Supply Reliability – $1.4 billion. This funding would provide funds for water supply projects in 12 regions throughout the state and would also be available for local and regional conveyance projects that support regional and interregional connectivity and water management.
Statewide Water System Operational Improvement – $3 billion. This funding would be dedicated to the development of additional water storage, which, when combined with other water management and flood system improvement investments being made, can increase reliability and offset the climate change impacts of reduced snow pack and higher flood flows. Eligible projects for this funding include surface storage projects identified in the CALFED Bay-Delta Record of Decision; groundwater storage projects and groundwater contamination prevention or remediation projects that provide water storage benefits; conjunctive use and reservoir reoperation projects; and local and regional surface storage projects that improve the operation of water systems in the state and provide public benefits.
The bond act provides that water suppliers who would benefit from new storage pay their share of the total costs of the project while the public benefits of new water storage can be paid for by the bond act.
Groundwater Protection and Water Quality – $1 billion. To protect public health, this funding would be available for projects to prevent or reduce the contamination of groundwater that serves as a source of drinking water.
Water Recycling and Water Conservation – $1.25 billion. This funding would be available for water recycling and advanced treatment technology projects that recycle water or that remove salts and contaminants from water sources. Funds will also be available for urban and agricultural water conservation and water use efficiency plans, projects, and programs.
Conservation and Watershed Protection – $1.79 billion. This funding would be available, through a 50-50 cost share program, for ecosystem and watershed protection and restoration projects in 21 watersheds throughout the state, including coastal protection, wildlife refuge enhancement, fuel treatment and forest restoration, fish passage improvement and obsolete dam removal.
Proponents: Association of California Water Agencies, California Chamber of Commerce, California Cotton Growers Association, California Groundwater Coalition, California Farm Bureau, Friant Water Authority, Kern County Water Agency, Contra Costa Water District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, State Building and Construction Trade Council of California, Wateruse Association, Westlands Water District.
Opponents: California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, California School Employees Association, Environmental Justice Coalition for Water, Friends of the River, Planning and Conservation League, Restore the Delta, Service Employees International Union, Sierra Club California, Yolo County Board of Supervisors.
###