Proposition 2: State Budget, Budget Stabilization Account. Legislative Constitutional Amendment
By Ben Ford
What is it?
Endorsed by Gov. Jerry Brown, Proposition 2 creates a rainy day fund requiring the State to hold a budgetary savings of 10 percent – just in case. The legislation also requires individual school districts to hold 10 percent as well.
Pros and cons: Supporters say Proposition 2 protects taxpayers and schools during recessions and lean years, by eliminating the “boom and bust” cycles of budgeting. In bad times, the rainy day fund will protect schools and vital services while in good times it can help pay down debt. Supporters also say it forces state legislators to live within their means and protects against future tax increases.
Opponents say Proposition 2 reallocates funds earmarked for education and places it into a slush fund and that Proposition 2 is in conflict with Proposition 98’s minimum funding guarantees for schools. Beside the act of plundering promised funding in place since 1988, opponents also dislike that school boards are forced to keep 10 percent in reserve, no more and no less. Many school districts want to hold more than 10 percent because the State of California has an awful track record when it comes to financing education. According to the Sacramento Bee and Education Week, California’s education system has “subpar financing” and is ranked “the lowest in the nation” for financing education.
Supporters and opponents: Governor Brown, the Democratic Party, the League of Women Voters and a myriad of groups including the California Chamber of Commerce, have all endorsed Proposition 2. The opponents appear to be a rag tag group of unfunded well-written educators who deeply and vehemently oppose Proposition 2.
Who’s funding it? The UBC (the Carpenters Union), California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems, American Council of Engineering Companies, Netflix and Heathnet are all major funders in favor of Proposition 2.
Proposition 46: Medical Malpractice Lawsuits Cap and Drug Testing of Doctors
By Kyle Schmidt
What is it? Proposition 46 has been called the war between medical doctors and trial attorneys.
It aims to enforce random drug and alcohol tests on doctors and require health care practitioners to report suspicious doctors who may be under the influence. If passed, the proposition requires the California Medical Board to suspend doctors who test positive on drug tests and health care practitioners to consult a drug prescription database before prescribing specific drugs. Ultimately, Proposition 46 will raise the MICRA cap of medical negligence lawsuits from $250,000 to more than $1 million, which could raise health care costs for consumers and malpractice insurance for doctors and emergency medical service personnel.
Pros and cons: Chris Micheli, a legislative advocate of the California Ambulance Association, said the CAA believes that, “increasing the MICRA cap will drive up the insurance of ambulance drivers in a state where they are not getting paid much.” With the increase of medical malpractice insurance for doctors, some may flee to other states where insurance is cheaper and access to doctors and health care will be reduced. Proposition 46 also requires $1000 more in health care costs and taxes for families each year.
Lisa Cohen, media contact for the Yes on 46 campaign, said, “Medical negligence is the third leading cause of death in the United States.” Proposition 46 strives to ensure personal safety in the hospital environment by randomly drug testing doctors and keeping frequent checks on prescriptions with patients.
CALA (California Assisted Living Association) officials claim Proposition 46 would lead to more lawsuits, higher health care costs, reduced access to care, and possible violations of people’s private prescription drug information. Criminal attacks on Americans’ health data has doubled since 2000, and with the increase of practitioners accessing data there may be an increase of these injustices.
Supporters and opponents: Supporters to Prop 46 include Minority House Leader Nancy Pelosi and state senator Noreen Evans and U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer, who believe that American families should be given justice for maltreatment. Other endorsers for Proposition 46 include many Democratic Party Leaders and patient safety advocates.
Many doctors and health groups oppose Proposition 46 because they believe it is designed to give trial attorneys higher payouts. Labor unions, public safety groups, ethnic groups and educational groups also oppose Proposition 46.
Who’s funding it? Proposition 46’s funders include many trial lawyers and political parties such as the Veterans Democratic Club of Sacramento County. Opposition funders include doctors and health groups including the American Medical Association and the California Association of Health Facilities.
Proposition 47: Criminal Sentences, Misdemeanor Penalties, Initiative Statute
By Olivia Montalvo
What is it? Proposition 47 reduces certain drug possession offenses from felony to misdemeanor along with petty theft, receiving stolen property and forging/writing bad checks if the amount is under $950. The proposition requires courts to resentence those already serving felony sentences for these offenses. However, these crimes will still be considered felonies for people previously convicted of rape, murder or child molestation.
Pros and cons: Those in favor of Proposition 47 say it will reduce California prison and county jail populations and save the state hundreds of millions of dollars that would be spent on K-12 school dropout prevention, mental health, substance abuse treatment and victim services. County criminal justice systems will also save several hundred million annually.
Those opposed to Proposition 47 fear it will make California unsafe if roughly 10,000 felons are released. They worry about a possible increase in the number of crimes in California.
Supporters and opponents: California for Safe Neighborhoods and Schools is the official supporter while the California Police Chiefs Association is the official voice against the proposition.
Who’s funding it? The funding totals on each side of this proposition couldn’t be farther apart. Supporters have given $3.5 million to help run ads and send out mailers, while the non-supporters have only raised $43,500. Netflix and the Open Source Policy Center, a human rights non-profit, have supplied most of the funding. The opposing side includes several peace officer and victims’ rights organizations.
Proposition 48: Indian Gaming Compacts. Referendum.
By Stephen Radley
What is it?
Proposition 48 aims to allow the North Fork Tribe to build a new casino west of highway 99 in Madera County. If passed Prop. 48 would give the North Fork Tribe the ability to build the first Indian casino located off of an Indian reservation.
The proposed casino would hold up to 2,000 slot machines and be required to make annual payments to the Revenue Sharing Trust Fund (RSTF) and the Special Distribution Fund (SDF). Payments to both RSTF and SDF would annually average $15 million and $1.5 million, respectively, over the life of the compact. The North Folk Tribe is also required to give the Wiyot tribe, located just south of Eureka, 2.5-3.5 percent of slot machine revenue, which equates to about an annual payment of $6 million. North Fork would also be required to give the City of Madera a one-time payment of about $16-35 million for specified services in addition to the estimated $5 million the tribe would be required to pay annually to the city, the County of Madera and the Madera Irrigation District.
Pros and cons: Supporters of the proposition say the new casino would create thousands of new jobs and bring in businesses to the San Joaquin Valley. Opponents say the casino wouldn’t create new jobs but would simply take resources and jobs from nearby casinos and businesses and increase crime rates.
Supporters and opponents: Gov. Jerry Brown fully supports the proposition along with the North Fork and Wiyot tribes, while Stand Up for California, Potrero Hill Democratic Club and CREDO action are all against it.
Who’s funding it? The funding to support Proposition 48 was $392,416 with 83 percent of the funding coming from Station Casinos, LLC and North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians. Funding from the opposition reached just shy of $9 million with most of the support coming from Stand Up for California, Potero Hill Democratic Club and CREDO action.
