Allows people 21 years old or older to possess, cultivate, or transport marijuana for personal use. Fiscal Impact: Depending on federal, state, and local government actions, potential increased tax and fee revenues in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually and potential correctional savings of several tens of millions of dollars annually.Allows people 21 years old or older to possess, cultivate, or transport marijuana for personal use.Permits local governments to regulate and tax commercial production, distribution, and sale of marijuana to people 21 years old or older.Prohibits people from possessing marijuana on school grounds, using in public, or smoking it while minors are present.Maintains prohibitions against driving while impaired.Limits employers' ability to address marijuana use to situations where job performance is actually impaired.A YES vote on this measure means: Individuals age 21 or older could, under state law, possess and cultivate limited amounts of marijuana for personal use. In addition, the state and local governments could authorize, regulate, and tax commercial marijuana-related activitites under certain conditions. These activities would remain illegal under federal law.A NO vote on this measure means: The possession and cultivation of marijuana for personal use and commercial marijuana-related activities would remain illegal under state law, unless allowed under the state's existing medical marijuana law.PRO COMMON SENSE CONTROL OF MARIJUANA. Stops wasting taxpayer dollars on failed marijuana prohibition. Controls and taxes marijuana like alcohol. Makes marijuana available only to adults. Adds criminal penalties for giving it to anyone under 21. Weakens drug cartels. Enforces road and workplace safety. Generates billions in revenue. Saves taxpayers money.CON Opposed by Mothers Agains Drunk Driving (MADD) because allows drivers to smoke marijuana until the moment they climb behind the wheel. Endangers public safety. Jeopardizes $9,400,000,000.00 in school funding, billions in federal contracts, thousands of jobs. Opposed by California's Sheriffs, Police Chiefs, Firefighters and District Attorneys. Vote "No" on 19.Summary of Legislative Analyst's Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:The fiscal effects of this measure could vary substantially depending on: (1) the extent to which the federal government continues to enforce federal marijuana laws and (2) whether the state and local governments choose to authorize, regulate, and tax various marijuana-related activities.Savings of potentially several tens of millions of dollars annually to the state and local governments on the costs of incarcerating and supervising certain marijuana offenders.Increase in state and local government tax and fee revenues, potentially in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
Removes elected representatives from process of establishing congressional districts and transfers that authority to recently-authorized 14-member redistricting commission comprised of Democrats, Republicans, and respresentatives of neither party. Fiscal Impact: No significant net change in state redistricting costs.Removes elected representatives from the process of establishing congressional districts and transfers that authority to the recently-authorized 14-member redistricting commission.Redistricting commission is comprised of five Democrats, five Republicans, and four voters registered with neither party.Requires that any newly-proposed district lines be approved by nine commissioners including three Democrats, three Republicans, and three from neither party.No significant net change in state redistricting costs.A YES vote on this measure means: The responsibility to determine the boundaries of California's districts in the U.S. House of Representatives would be moved to the Citizens Redistricting Commission, a commission established by Proposition 11 in 2008. (Proposition 27 on this ballot also concerns redistricting issues. If both Proposition 20 and Proposition 27 are approved by voters, the proposition receiving the greater number of "yes" votes would be the only one to go into effect.)A NO vote on this measure means: The responsibility to determine the boundaries of California's districts in the U.S. House of Representatives would remain with the Legislature.PRO TAXPAYER, GOOD GOVERNMENT GROUPS SUPPORT 20 so the voter-approved Citizens Redistricting Commission will draw fair districts for the Legislature AND Congress. POLITICIANS oppose 20 so they can keep power to draw "safe" Congressional districts. YES on 20 helps us vote politicians out of office for not doing their jobs.CON Vote No on 20. Accountability to the people is the fundamental principle of our form of government. But 20 gives a non-accountable fourteen-person bureaucracy even more power. And this bureaucracy will cost you money! Our state is in crisis! Unemployment, crime, massive debt. Stop the nonsense. No on 20.
Exempts commercial vehicles, trailers and trailer coaches from the surcharge. Fiscal Impact: Annual increase to state revenues of $500 million from surcharge on vehicle registrations. After offsetting some existing funding sources, these revenues would provide at least $250 million more annually for state parks and wildlife conservation.Requires deposit of surcharge revenue in a new trust fund and requires that trust funds be used solely to operate, maintain and repair state parks and to protect wildlife and natural resources.Exempts commercial vehicles, trailers and trailer coaches from the surcharge.Requires annual audit by the State Auditor and review by a citizens oversight committee.Increased state revenues of about $500 million annually from an annual surcharge on vehicle registrations.New revenues would be used to offset about $50 million loss of park day-use fee revenues, and could be used to replace up to $200 million annually from existing state funds currently spent on state parks and wildlife conservation programs.Increased funding for state parks and wildlife conservation of at least $250 million annually.A YES vote on this measure means: An $18 annual surcharge would be added to the amount paid when a person registers a motor vehicle. The surcharge revenues would be used to provide funding for state park and wildlife conservation programs. Vehicles subject to the surcharge would have free admission and parking at all state parks.A NO vote on this measure means: State park and wildlife conservation programs would continue to be funded through existing state and local funding sources. Admission and parking fees could continue to be charged for vehicles entering state parks.PRO California's state parks and beaches are in peril and face irreparable damage. Prop. 21 establishes vitally-needed Trust Fund to keep parks open, maintained, and safe. Protects economic benefits to California from parks-related tourism. Prohibits politicians' raids, and mandates Annual Audits and Citizens' Oversight.CON Prop. 21 is a cynical plan to bring back the car tax. Politicians in Sacramento are already scheming to divert existing park funds to other wasteful programs so overall park funding doesn't increase but car taxes do. Say No to car taxes and wrong priorities. No on 21.
Prohibits State, even during severe fiscal hardship, from delaying distribution of tax revenues for these purposes. Fiscal Impact: Decreased state General Fund spending and/or increased state revenues, probably in the range of $1 billion to several billions of dollars annually. Comparable increases in funding for state and local transportation programs and local redevelopment.Prohibits the State, even during a period of severe fiscal hardship, from delaying the distribution of tax revenues for transportation, redevelopment, or local government projects and services.Due to restrictions on state authority over fuel and property taxes, the state would have to take alternative actions--probably in the range of $1 billion to several billion dollars annually. This would result in both:Reductions in General Fund program spending and/or increases in state revenues of those amounts.Comparable increases in funding for state and local transportation programs and local redevelopment.A YES vote on this measure means: The state's authority to use or redirect state fuel tax and local property tax revenues would be significantly restricted.A NO vote on this measure means: The state's current authority over state fuel tax and local property tax revenues would not be affected.PRO YES on 22 stops state politicians from taking local government funds. 22 stops the State from taking gas taxes voters have dedicated to transportation. 22 protects local services: 9-1-1 emergency response, police, fire, libraries, transit, road repairs. Supported by California Fire Chiefs Association, California Police Chiefs Association, California Library Association.CON California's teachers, firefighters, nurses, and taxpayer advocates say NO on 22. If 22 passes, public schools stand to lose billions of dollars. 22 takes money firefighters use to fight fires and natural disasters while protecting redevelopment agencies and their developer friends. Another proposition that sounds good, but makes things worse.
Fiscal Impact: Likely modest net increase in overall economic activity in the state from suspension of greenhouse gases regulatory activity, resulting in a potentially significant net increase in state and local revenues.Suspends State law that requires greenhouse gas emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020, until California's unemployment drops to 5.5 percent or less for four consecutive quarters.Suspends comprehensive greenhouse-gas-reduction program that includes increased renewable energy and cleaner fuel requirements, and mandatory emissions reporting and fee requirements for major emissions sources such as power plants and oil refineries.The suspension of AB 32 could result in a modest net increase in overall economic activity in the state. In this event, there would be an unknown but potentially significant net increase in state and local government revenues.Potential loss of a new source of state revenues from the auctioning of emission allowances by state government to certain businesses that would pay for these allowances, by suspending the future implementation of cap-and-trade regulations.Lower energy costs for state and local governments than otherwise.A YES vote on this measure means: Certain existing and proposed regulations authorized under state law ("Assembly Bill 32") to address global warming would be suspended. These regulations would remain suspended until the state unemployment rate drops to 5.5 percent or lower for one year.A NO vote on this measure means: The state could continue to implement the measures authorized under Assembly Bill 32 to address global warming.PRO Yes on 23 saves jobs, prevents energy tax increases, and helps families, while preserving California's clean air and water laws. California can't afford self-imposed energy costs that don't reduce global warming. 2.3 million Californians are unemployed; Proposition 23 will save over a million jobs that would be otherwise be destroyed.CON Texas oil companies designed 23 to kill clean energy and air pollution standards in California. 23 threatens public health with more air pollution, increases dependence on costly oil, and kills competition from job-creating Califoria wind and solar companies. American Lung Association in California, California Professional Firefighters: NO on 23.
Fiscal Impact: Increased state revenues of about $1.3 billion each year by 2012-13 from higher taxes paid by some businesses. Smaller increases in 2010-11 and 2011-12.Repeals recent legislation that would allow businesses to shift operating losses to prior tax years and that would extend the period permitted to shift operating losses to future tax years.Repeals recent legislation that would allow corporations to share tax credits with affiliated corporations.Repeals recent legislation that would allow multistate businesses to use a sales-based income calculation, rather than a combination property-, payroll-, and sales-based income calculation.Increased state revenues of about $1.3 billion each year by 2012-13 from higher taxes paid by some businesses. Smaller increases in 2010-11 and 2011-12.A YES vote on this measure means: Three business tax provisions will return to what they were before 2008 and 2009 law changes. As a result: (1) a business will be less able to deduct losses in one year against income in other years, (2) a multistate business will have its California income determined by a calculation using three factors, and (3) a business will not be able to share tax credits with related businesses.A NO vote on this measure means: Three business tax provisions that were recently changed will not be affected. As a result of maintaining current law: (1) a business will be able to deduct losses in one year against income in more situations, (2) most multistate businesses could choose to have their California income determined based only on a single sales factor, and (3) a business will be able to share its tax credits with related businesses.PRO Prop. 24 stops $1.7 billion in new special tax breaks for wealthy, multi-state corporations. They get unfair tax loopholes without creating one new job while small businesses get virtually no benefit. Public schools, healthcare and public safety should come before tax loopholes. Vote YES on 24--the Tax Fairness Act.CON CALIFORNIA NEEDS JOBS, NOT A JOBS TAX! Prop. 24 doesn't guarantee $1 for our classrooms and REDUCES long-term revenues for schools and vital services. It would hurt small businesses, tax job creation, send jobs OUT of California--costing us 144,000 jobs. Families can't afford 24's new taxes. No on 24!
Legislature permanently forfeits daily salary and expenses until budget bill passes. Fiscal Impact: In some years, the contents of the state budget could be changed due to the lower legislative vote requirement in this measure. The extent of changes would depend on the Legislature's future actions.Changes the legislative vote requirement necessary to pass the state budget and spending bills related to the budget from two-thirds to a simple majority.Provides that if the Legislature fails to pass a budget bill by June 15, all members of the Legislature will permanently forfeit any reimbursement for salary and expenses for every day until the day the Legislature passes a budget bill.In some years, the contents of the state budget and related legislation could be changed due to the lower legislative vote requirements in this measure. The extent of these changes would depend on a number of factors, including the state's financial circumstances, the composition of the Legislature, and its future actions.In any year the Legislature has not sent a budget to the Governor on time, there would be a reduction in state legislator compensation costs of about $50,000 for each late day.A YES vote on this measure means: The Legislature's vote requirement to send the annual budget bill to the Governor would be lowered from two-thirds to a majority of each house of the Legislature.A NO vote on this measure means: The Legislature's vote requirement to send an annual budget bill to the Governor would remain unchanged at two-thirds of each house of the Legislature.PRO Prop. 25 reforms California's broken state budget process. Holds legislators accountable for late budgets by stopping their pay and benefits every day the budget is late. Ends budget gridlock by allowing a majority of legislators to pass the budget, but DOES NOT LOWER THE 2/3 vote required to raise taxes.CON Politicians and special interests are promoting Prop. 25 to make it easier for politicians to raise taxes and restrict our constitutional right to reject bad laws. 25 doesn't punish politicians. They'll just increase their lavish expense accounts. NO on 25--Protect constitutional safeguards against higher taxes and wasteful spending.
Fiscal Impact: Depending on decisions by governing bodies and voters, decreased state and local government revenues and spending (up to billions of dollars annually). Increased transportation spending and state General Fund costs ($1 billion annually).Requires that certain state fees be approved by two-thirds vote of Legislature and certain local fees be approved by two-thirds of voters.Increases legislative vote requirement to two-thirds for certain tax measures, including those that do not result in a net increase in revenue, currently subject to majority vote.Decreased state and local government revenues and spending due to the higher approval requirements for new revenues. The amount of the decrease would depend on future decisions by governing bodies and voters, but over time could total up to billions of dollars annually.Additional state fiscal effects from repealing recent fee and tax laws: (1) increased transportation program spending and increased General Fund costs of $1 billion annually, and (2) unknown potential decrease in state revenues.A YES vote on this measure means: The definition of taxes would be broadened to include many payments currently considered to be fees or charges. As a result, more state and local proposals to increase revenues would require approval by two-thirds of each house of the Legislature or by local voters.A NO vote on this measure means: Current constitutional requirements regarding fees and taxes would not be changed.PRO Yes on 26 stops state and local politicians from raising Hidden Taxes on goods like food and gas, by disguising taxes as "fees" and circumventing constitutional requirements for passing higher taxes. Don't be misled. 26 preserves California's strong environmental and consumer laws AND protects taxpayers and consumers from Hidden Taxes.CONBig oil, tobacco, and alcohol corporations want you to pay for the damages they cause. Prop. 26 was written behind closed doors and without public input. Don't protect polluters. League of Women Voters of California, Firefighters, Police Officers, Nurses, and Sierra Club all say NO on 26.
Eliminates 14-member redistricting commission. Consolidates authority for establishing state Assembly, Senate, and Board of Equalization districts with elected representatives who draw congressional districts. Fiscal Impact: Possible reduction of state redistricting costs of around $1 million over the next year. Likely reduction of these costs of a few million dollars once every ten years beginning in 2020.Eliminates 14-member redistricting commission selected from applicant pool picked by government auditors.Consolidates authority for establishing state Assembly, Senate, and Board of Equalization district boundaries with elected state representatives responsible for drawing congressional districts.Reduces budget, and imposes limit on amount Legislature may spend, for redistricting.Provides that voters will have the authority to reject district boundary maps approved by the Legislature.Requires populations of all districts for the same office to be exactly the same.Possible reduction of state redistricting costs of around $1 million over the next year.Likely reduction of state redistricting costs of a few million dollars once every ten years beginning in 2020.A YES vote on this measure means: The responsibility to determine the boundaries of State Legislature and Board of Equalization districts would be returned to the Legislature. The Citizens Redistricting Commission, established by Proposition 11 in 2008 to perform this function, would be eliminated. (Proposition 20 on this ballot also concerns redistricting issues. If both Proposition 27 and Proposition 20 are approved by voters, the proposition receiving the greater number of "yes" votes would be the only one to go into effect.)A NO vote on this measure means: The responsibility to determine the boundaries of Legislature and Board of Equalization districts would remain with the Citizens Redistricting Commission.PRO VOTE YES ON 27 TO SAVE TAXPAYER DOLLARS AND END NONSENSE REAPPORTIONMENT GAMES. California is in crisis. We are broke, deeply in debt, unemployment is far too high. Proposition 27 is the only chance for voters to say "Enough is enough! Stop wasting taxpayer dollars on nonsense." Yes on 27.CON Politicians behind 27 want to repeal the voter-approved Citizens Redistricting Commission. They want the power to draw safe districts for themselves and will spend or say anything to get it back. Don't buy it. TAXPAYER GROUPS, GOOD GOVERNMENT GROUPS, SENIORS SAY STOP THE POWER GRAB: NO on 27.