Prop 19 – Fail  46.2%/53.8%

Prop 20 – Pass  61.2%/38.8%

Prop 21 – Fail  42.0%/58.0%

Prop 22 – Pass  60.9%/39.1%

Prop 23 – Fail  38.7%/61.3%

Prop 24 – Fail  41.6%/58.4%

Prop 25 – Pass 54.9%/45.1%

Prop 26 – Pass  52.7%/47.3%

Prop 27 – Fail   40.6%/59.4%

Please note that these percentages are as of 11/2/10. You can check the Secretary of State’s website for current results and changes.

This measure would make it legal for anyone 21 years of age or older to possess, grow and transport up to one ounce of marijuana for their own personal use.  However, while these activities would be legal under California law if Proposition 19 passes, they would still be illegal under federal law and violators could still be subject to criminal penalties.  Proposition 19 would also allow local governments to regulate and tax the production or sale commercial marijuana, would prohibit anyone from having marijuana on school grounds, and keeps in place laws that make it illegal to drive under the influence of marijuana — although the proposal does not indicate what standard should be used to decide what “under the influence” would mean. The measure also says employers can’t prevent the use of marijuana in the workplace unless a person’s job performance is actually impaired.

Supporters of Proposition 19 call it a proposal for “common sense control of marijuana,” saying it will put police priorities where they belong:  on violent criminals instead of non-violent marijuana consumers.  Supporters also say ending arrests of marijuana users will help police departments save hundreds of millions of dollars every year throughout the state, and generate billions of dollars in tax revenues.

Supporters of Proposition 1A include the California NAACP, the ACLU of Northern and Southern California, the California Libertarian Party, the Latino Voters League, and several former and retired police, sheriff and other law enforcement officials.

Opponents of Proposition 19 criticize it as “a jumbled legal nightmare that will make our highways, workplaces and communities less safe.”  Their principal concerns are that Proposition 19 gives drivers the “right” to use marijuana up to the moment they get behind the wheel, and that even school bus drivers using marijuana could not be removed from their job until after an accident occurs.  Opponents also say Prop 19 would make it impossible for any employer in California to meet federal drug-free workplace standards or qualify for federal contracts, and that California schools alone could lose out on more than $9 billion in federal funding as a result.

Opponents of Proposition 1A include Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Police Chiefs Association, Senator Dianne Feinstein and nearly 100 police chiefs, sheriffs and district attorneys.

More info:

Yes on Proposition 19: www.yeson19.com

No on Proposition 19:  www.noonproposition19.com

This is Citizen Voice’s easy-to-use summary of the proposition.  For the ballot pamphlet version go to www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov.

In 2008 voters passed Proposition 11, which took the job of drawing California’s legislative district boundaries out of the hands ofelected officials in the state Legislature and put it in the hands of a special Citizens Redistricting Commission, made up of five Californians who are Democrats, five Republicans and four voters who aren’t registered with either major political party.  That law only applied to the state legislative districts and not to U.S. Congressional districts within California.  Proposition 20 would move the job of drawing the Congressional districts to the same Citizen Commission.

Of note, a competing ballot measure, Proposition 27, also deals with redistricting.  If both Proposition 20 and Proposition 27 are approved by voters, whichever one gets more “yes” votes will be the only one to go into effect.

Supporters of Proposition 20 say Proposition 20 will ensure we have more fair districts that can hold congressional representatives accountable to voters, and make it easier to vote them out of office when they don’t do their jobs.  Supporters also say Proposition 20 would ensure the redistricting process is more public and transparent.  That, they say, would end the “backroom dealing” that enables state legislators to draw district boundaries more favorably for their friends in Congress and make it easier for one major party or the other to keep a particular seat.
Supporters of Proposition 20 include the AARP, California Common Cause, the National Federation of Independent Business, the Latin Business Association, the California Chamber of Commerce, Cal-Tax, and the California State Conference of the NAACP.

Opponents of Proposition 20 criticize it as a waste of taxpayer dollars, saying it will unnecessarily double the budget for redistricting at a time when the state is already $19 billion in debt.  Opponents also state that the Citizens Commission is an unelected body accountable to no one.

Opponents of Proposition 1A include The Sierra Club, Californians Against Waste, the Congress of California Seniors, and the California Coalition for Leadership and Accountability.

More info:

Yes on Proposition 20: www.yesprop20.org

No on Proposition 20: www.noprop20.org

This is Citizen Voice’s easy-to-use summary of the proposition.  For the ballot pamphlet version go to www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov.

Proposition 21 would put an $18 surcharge on vehicles registered after January 1, 2011, with all  money raised used exclusively for state park and wildlife programs.  The state’s Legislative Analyst estimates the program would provide a net increase of $250 million every year which would be used for operations, maintenance and development of California state parks, management and operation of Department of Fish and Game Lands, and other wildlife conservation activities.  The proposition specifically states that money raised from this surcharge cannot be used for any other purpose.  The measure goes further to set up a dedicated trust fund  and establishes a citizens oversight committee to ensure funds are only used for state parks and wildlife conservation.  In exchange for this $18 surcharge, the measure says that all vehicles subject to the charge would have free vehicle admission, parking, and day use at all California state parks (which currently charge $5-$15 per vehicle, per day.)

Supporters of Proposition 21 say California’s state parks are suffering from extreme neglect due to “erratic, severe and damaging funding cuts made at the whim of Sacramento politicians.”  As evidence they point to closed parks, dirty and unsafe bathrooms, contaminated drinking water, eroding trails and a report by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which named California state parks among the 11 most endangered places in America.  Supporters warn that without a protected funding source, California’s state parks will face more cuts, more closures and more decay, despite the role they play in supporting thousands of jobs and generating billions of dollars in business and tax revenues for nearby communities.

Supporters of Proposition 21 include The California Nurses Association, the California League of Conservation Voters, the California Federation of Teachers, California Action for Healthy Kids, and Audubon California.

Opponents of Proposition 21 describe it as nothing but a cleverly packaged attempt to bring back the “car tax” and another bad example of “ballot box budgeting.”  Opponents question whether now is the time to pay more for parks while schools, universities and road construction throughout the state are ignored.  Opponents also say the free admission to the parks is deceptive, as the measure still allows for new additional fees inside the park, and that Proposition 21 could eventually make it more expensive than ever to enter a state park. Finally, opponents say Proposition 21 is a sneaky attempt to raise $1 billion in tax revenues every two years, with no guarantees that state parks will be repaired or kept open.

Opponents of Proposition 21 include The California Taxpayers Association, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and Americans for Prosperity.

More info:

Yes on Proposition 21:  www.yesforstateparks.com

No on Proposition 21:  No website information currently available.

This is Citizen Voice’s easy-to-use summary of the proposition.  For the ballot pamphlet version go to www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov.

Proposition 22 attempts to stop the State of California from borrowing or simply “taking” revenues from certain taxes which are intended to be used for transportation improvement projects, redevelopment projects and programs, or local government project and services.

Supporters of Proposition 22 have named it the “Local Taxpayer, Public Safety and Transportation Protection Act.”  They say it will stop the state’s raid on local government money that is supposed to be used for public services, like 9-1-1- police response, road repairs, and public transportation.  Last year, supporters say, state lawmakers borrowed $5 billion in funds that voters had previously dedicated to local government and transportation services, and that’s just one example.  This money is then placed into the state’s General Fund, where politicians can use the money any way they want.  Supporters say that Proposition 22 protects only existing revenues, and will not reduce the amount of money that California schools are guaranteed by the State Constitution.

Supporters of Proposition 22 include the California Library Association, the California Police Chiefs Association, the California Fire Chiefs Association and the League of California Cities.

Opponents of Proposition 22 say it is little more than a money grab by local government bureaucrats and developers and question whether its supporters are “really blind to California’s budget crisis.”  Opponents claim Proposition 22 would cost California schools $1 billion immediately, and an additional $400 million every year afterward.  They warn that the measure also takes away money firefighters need, and reduces funding available for health care, to the point that “tens of thousands of children in California are at risk of losing their health insurance and access to affordable care if Proposition 22 passes.”  Finally, opponents say Proposition 22 would lock in protections for money that local redevelopment agencies can use to enter into billions of dollars of long term debt without voter approval.

Opponents of Proposition 1C include the California Teachers Association, the National Taxpayer Limitation Committee, California Professional Firefighters and the California Nurses Association.

More info:

Yes on Proposition 22:  www.savelocalservices.com

No on Proposition 22:  www.votenoprop22.com

This is Citizen Voice’s easy-to-use summary of the proposition.  For the ballot pamphlet version go to www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov.

In 2006 California legislators passed (and Governor Schwarzenegger signed) AB 32, creating the California Global Warming Solutions Act.  The law calls for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the state to the same levels they were in 1990, about a 30 percent reduction, by the year 2020.  Proposition 23 would suspend implementation of AB 32 until state unemployment level drops below 5.5 percent for one full year.  California’s current unemployment rate is slightly above 12 percent.

Supporters of Proposition 23 say that without it, California’s Global Warming Law will impose a massive new energy tax on California residents, costing taxpayers billions of dollars and destroying more than a million jobs, all for a law that the California Air Resources Board says cannot “change the course of climate change.”  Under AB 32, supporters say, California households will be burdened with $3,800 a year in higher costs for electricity, gasoline and food.  At the same time, supporters warn California businesses will be forced to charge higher prices, lay off workers or simply close their doors – leading to more lost jobs; all during one of California’s toughest economic times.  Finally, supporters say the Proposition 23 doesn’t revoke AB 32, the measure simply suspends it until California’s economy improves.

Supporters of Proposition 23 include the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the California State Firefighters Association, the National Federation of Independent Business/California, the Coalition of Labor, Agriculture and Business, and the California State Pipe Trades Council (AFL-CIO).

Opponents of Proposition 23 say much more than climate change is at stake and Proposition 23 threatens public health and California’s economy.  Specifically, they say Proposition 23 will cause the loss of 500,000 jobs, many in the state’s emerging green energy field.  Opponents also say the claims that Proposition 23 is only temporary are deceptive.  They state that the measure in fact repeals air pollution standards indefinitely, thereby allowing polluters to avoid laws that require them to reduce harmful greenhouse gases and air pollution, both of which are threats to public health.  Opponents also claim that two giant Texas oil companies, Valero and Tesoro, are behind the measure and have spent millions of dollars in order to escape accountability and increase profits.  Finally, opponents say Proposition 23 prolongs our dependence on foreign oil that comes from countries that support terrorism and are hostile to the U.S.

Opponents of Proposition 23 include the American Lung Association in California, AARP California, the California Nurses Association, the League of Women Voters of California, Sierra Club California and the California Labor Federation (AFL-CIO).

More Info:

Yes on Proposition 23:  www.yeson23.com

No on Proposition 23:  www.stopdirtyenergyprop.com

This is Citizen Voice’s easy-to-use summary of the proposition.  For the ballot pamphlet version go to www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov.

Proposition 24 would repeal three laws passed in 2008 and 2009 concerning business taxes.  The first law, starting in 2011, allows a business to claim a net operating loss in a current year on a previous year’s taxes.  The business would simply refile the previous year’s tax return and get a tax refund.  The second law, also starting in 2011, would allow multi-state businesses to choose from one of two options for determining how much of their income that California could tax.  Under the standard method taxes are based on three factors: property, payroll and sales. The second (new) option allows them to use a formula based on only the portion of their national sales that are based in California. The third law Prop 24 would repeal allows large business organizations comprised of two or more so-called business “groups” to share tax credits among the business groups.

Supporters of Proposition 24 call it the “Tax Fairness Act” and say it would end $1.7 billion in corporate tax loopholes that benefit only California’s wealthiest, multi-state corporations.  Supporters also point to the Legislative Analyst’s report, which says Proposition 24, by increasing the taxes paid by businesses, would add $1.3 billion to the state’s revenues each year, beginning in 2012.  This, supporters say, would make more money available for schools, health care and public safety, while a “no” vote on Proposition 24 would force the Legislature to make more cuts in these areas.

Supporters of Proposition 24 include the California Teachers Association, the League of Women Voters of California, The California Tax Reform Association and the Congress of California Seniors.

Opponents of Proposition 24 call it a massive “Jobs Tax” because it would tax employers for creating jobs in California, at a time when the state needs jobs most.  Supporters also state that California already has one of the worst tax climates for businesses, ranking 48^th out of 50 states, and say Proposition 24 only encourages businesses to leave or locate in other states, taking their jobs with them.  Fewer employers and jobs, they say, ultimately means less long–term revenues for schools, public safety and other vital services.  Supporters also cite the Franchise Tax Board, which says 120,000 California businesses would be impacted by Proposition 24.  Finally, supporters argue that Proposition 24 gives Sacramento lawmakers a blank check to spend billions, with no accountability.

Opponents of Proposition 24 include The California Taxpayers Association, the California Small Business Alliance, The Seniors Coalition, and the California Taxpayers Protection Committee.

More Info:

Yes on Proposition 24:  www.yesprop24.org

No on Proposition 24:  www.stopprop24.com

This is Citizen Voice’s easy-to-use summary of the proposition.  For the ballot pamphlet version go to www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov.

Currently, California’s Constitution requires that in order for a state budget to be passed, two-thirds of each house in the Legislature must vote to approve it.  Proposition 25 would change that requirement to a simple majority vote, meaning only a vote of 50 percent “plus one” would be needed to pass the budget.  State law also requires the budget to be passed by June 15 of each year.  Under Proposition 25, if the budget is late, then state Legislators would lose their pay and expense reimbursements for every day the budget is delayed.

Supporters of Proposition 25 say it reforms California’s badly broken budget process by breaking legislative gridlock and holding legislators accountable when they fail to do their jobs.  Switching to a simple majority requirement, supporters say, would bring California in line with 47 other states that have similar provisions in their state constitutions.  Supporters also emphasize that Proposition 25 will not change the current 2/3 requirement to raise taxes, and that the state needs this reform to end the yearly budget crisis that deprives taxpayers, schools and service programs of the funding they need to do their jobs.  Under the current system, supporters say, a small group of legislators can hold the budget hostage until they can leverage more perks for themselves and more spending for pet projects.

Supporters of Proposition 25 include the California Federation of Teachers, the California Alliance for Retired Americans, the League of Women Voters of California, the Consumer Federation of California and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFL-CIO).

Opponents of Proposition 25 say it is nothing but a sneaky attempt to make it easier to raise taxes on Californians and eliminate voter rights.  Requiring 2/3 of both the Assembly and the Senate in the Legislature to approve the budget, opponents say, is necessary to protect taxpayers from runaway spending which has created California’s current economic woes.  Claims that Prop 25 will not change the 2/3 vote requirement to raise taxes are false, opponents say, because in the budget the word “taxes” will simply be replaced with “fees.” Opponents also criticize the “no pay until the budget is passed” provision of the measure, saying that it actually makes it easier for politicians to double or triple their “extravagant” tax free expense accounts within the state budget itself.  According to opponents, politicians will simply make up for any lost pay by giving themselves higher expense account payments.

Opponents of Proposition 25 include the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the California Taxpayers Association, Citizens for California Reform, he National Taxpayers Union and the California Taxpayer Protection Committee.

More Info:

Yes on Proposition 25: www.yesprop25.org

No on Proposition 25: www.no25yes26.com

This is Citizen Voice’s easy-to-use summary of the proposition.  For the ballot pamphlet version go to www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov.

Proposition 26 broadens the definition of what is a “tax” or a “tax increase” so that more proposals to generate revenue from the public (many of which are described as fees) would have to be approved by two-thirds of the state Legislature or local voters.

Specifically, Prop 26:

• Takes some “fees and charges” that currently only require a simple, majority vote (50 percent “plus one”) for approval and redefines them as taxes requiring a two-thirds majority
• Requires a two-thirds vote in the Legislature to approve laws that increase taxes on any taxpayer
• Automatically repeals any state law passed between January 1 and November 2, 2010 that conflicts with Proposition 26
• At the local (non-statewide) level, two-thirds of voters must approve certain proposed “fees.”

Supporters of Proposition 26 say it will stop politicians from enacting hidden taxes and disguising taxes on things like food, cell phones, gas, water and emergency services as “fees” in order to avoid asking for a broad majority to approve them.  Supporters also say Proposition 26 preserves California’s strong environmental laws and protects “legitimate” fees such as those to clean up environmental damages, fund consumer regulations or punish wrongdoing.

Supporters of Proposition 26 include the California Taxpayers Association, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Citizens for California Reform, and the California Taxpayer Protection Committee.

Opponents of Proposition 26 say it is bad for the environment, public safety and taxpayers and criticize it as “another attempt by corporations to protect themselves at the expense of ordinary citizens.”  Specifically, opponents claim Proposition 26 is being pushed by polluters who don’t want to pay fees used to clean up hazardous waste and oil spills, or to address the adverse health effects of tobacco products.  Opponents also claim Proposition 26 will require expensive lawsuits and endless elections so that local governments can provide basic services.

Opponents of Proposition 26 include the Sierra Club of California, The League of Women Voters, the American Lung Association, and the California League of Conservation Voters.

More Info:

Yes on Proposition 26: www.no25yes26.com

No on Proposition 26: www.stoppolluterprotection.com

This is Citizen Voice’s easy-to-use summary of the proposition.  For the ballot pamphlet version go to www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov.