On June 26th, Secretary of State Debra Bowen announced that eleven measures had qualified for the November 4, 2008 ballot. While the deadline to qualify ballots has come and gone, it is still technically possible to add a supplemental ballot package to the November ballot should the Legislature come to an agreement on the lottery, prison bond, or a budget deal.

What did not make the ballot was the College Affordability Act of 2008, which was proposed by the Students and Families for Tuition Relief Now, and was supported by the Greenlining Action group. Beginning in 2009, their proposal would have added a one percent tax on personal income above $1 million. Sixty percent of the new revenues would have gone to the CSU and UC for undergraduate education, with K-12 receiving the remaining 40 percent. This proposal also would have required the CSU to freeze resident undergraduate fees at their 2008-09 level for five years. After that period, the proposal would limit subsequent fee increases to no more than the annual percentage change in the California Consumer Price Index. One of our concerns with the proposal was that it did not guarantee a commitment from the State to provide additional funding as the system and the state grew; potentially damaging the system irrevocably.

This proposal was also submitted through the legislative process, in AB 2372 by Assembly Member Joe Coto of San Jose. However the measure was primarily introduced as an attempt to generate interest in the signature drive for the initiative.

Proponents of the initiative noted that they had come very close to meeting their goal and making the November ballot. They plan to start again in hopes of placing a new proposal on the ballot soon.

Below is a summary of the eleven measures that will appear on the November ballot, as provided by the Secretary of State. What the voters will see are numerous proposals for new bonds, a proposal to limit marriage in California, and yet another attempt at redistricting.

Proposition 1 – Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century
The Train Bond Act would enact the issuance of $9.95 billion of general obligation bonds to fund a safe, reliable high-speed passenger train. Nine billion of which would be used in conjunction with available federal funds for the purpose of funding the planning and construction of a high-speed train system in this state pursuant to the business plan of the authority.

Proposition 2 - Treatment of Farm Animals
Proponent: Joe Ramsey (916) 967-8102
Requires that an enclosure or tether confining specified farm animals allow the animals for the majority of every day to fully extend their limbs or wings, lie down, stand up, and turn around. Specified animals include calves raised for veal, egg-laying hens, and pregnant pigs. Exceptions made for transportation, rodeos, fairs, 4-H programs, lawful slaughter, research and veterinary purposes. Also provides misdemeanor penalties, including a fine not to exceed $1,000 and/or imprisonment in jail for up to 180 days.

Proposition 3 - Children’s Hospital Bond Act
Proponent: Diana S. Dooley (916) 552-7111
Children’s Hospital Bond authorizes $980 million in bonds, to be repaid from the state’s General Fund, to fund the construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation, furnishing and equipping of children’s hospitals. Designating 80 percent of bond proceeds go to hospitals that focus on children with illnesses such as leukemia, cancer, heart defects, diabetes, sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis. This bond also requires that qualifying children’s hospitals provide comprehensive services to a high volume of children eligible for governmental programs and meet other requirements. Designates that 20 percent of bond proceeds go to University of California general acute care hospitals. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: State costs of about $2 billion over 30 years to pay off both the principal ($980 million) and the interest ($1 billion) costs of the bond; payments of about $67 million per year.

Proposition 4 - Waiting Period and Parental Notification before Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy
Proponent: John Smith
Amends the California Constitution to prohibit abortion for an un-emancipated minor until 48 hours after physician notifies minor’s parent, legal guardian, or if parental abuse is reported, an adult family member. Provides exceptions for medical emergency or parental waiver, and permits courts to waive notice based on clear and convincing evidence of minor’s maturity or best interests. Mandates reporting requirements, including reports from physicians regarding abortions on minors and authorizes monetary damages against physicians for violation. Requires minor’s consent to abortion, with exceptions; permits judicial relief if minor’s consent is coerced.

Proposition 5 – Expansion of Sentencing, Parole and Rehabilitation of Nonviolent Offenders
Proponent: Daniel N. Abrahamson (510) 229-5211
Requires State to expand and increase funding and oversight for individualized treatment and rehabilitation programs for nonviolent drug offenders and parolees. Reduces criminal consequences of nonviolent drug offenses by mandating three-tiered probation with treatment and by providing for case dismissal and/or sealing of records after probation. Limits court’s authority to incarcerate offenders who violate probation or parole and shortens parole for most drug offenses, including sales, and for nonviolent property crimes. Creates numerous divisions, boards, commissions, and reporting requirements regarding drug treatment and rehabilitation, and changes certain marijuana misdemeanors to infractions. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Increased state costs that could exceed $1 billion annually primarily for expanding drug treatment and rehabilitation programs for offenders in state prisons, on parole, and in the community. Savings to the state that could exceed $1 billion annually due primarily to reduced prison and parole operating costs. Net savings on a one-time basis on capital outlay costs for prison facilities that could exceed $2.5 billion, but there is an unknown net fiscal effect on expenditures for county operations and capital outlay.

Proposition 6 – Public Safety Spending for Gang Crime
Proponents: George C. Runner, Jr., Gary Ovitt and Mike Reynolds
Requires new state spending on various programs to combat crime and gangs, and to operate prison and parole systems. Increases penalties for several crimes, including violating gang injunctions, using or possessing methamphetamine with an intent to sell, or carrying loaded or concealed firearms by certain felons; eliminates bail for illegal immigrants charged with violent or gang-related felonies, establishes crime for removing or disabling a monitoring device affixed as part of a criminal sentence, and changes evidence rules to allow use of certain hearsay statements as evidence when witnesses are unavailable. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Net state costs likely to exceed a half billion dollars annually primarily for increased funding of criminal justice programs, as well as for increased costs for prison and parole operations. Unknown one-time state capital outlay costs potentially exceeding a half billion dollars for prison facilities. Unknown net fiscal impact for state trial courts, county jails, and other local criminal justice agencies.

Proposition 7 - Renewable Energy
Proponent: Jim Gonzalez c/o Randall W. Keen (310) 312-4000
Proposition 7 requires all utilities, including government-owned utilities, to generate 20 percent of their power from renewable energy by 2010; a standard currently applicable to only private electrical corporations. Raises requirement for all utilities to 40 percent by 2020 and 50 percent by 2025, and imposes penalties for noncompliance. Fast-tracks approval for new renewable energy plants; requires utilities to sign longer contracts (20 year minimum) to procure renewable energy. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: State administrative costs of up to $3.4 million annually for the regulatory activities of the Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission and the California Public Utilities Commission, paid for by fee revenues. Potential, unknown increased costs and reduced revenues, particularly in the short term, to state and local governments resulting from the measure’s potential to increase retail electricity rates, with possible offsetting cost savings and revenue increases, to an unknown degree, over the long term to the extent the measure hastens renewable energy development.

Proposition 8 - Limit on Marriage
Proponents: Dennis Hollingsworth, Gail J. Knight, Martin F. Gutierrez, Hak-Shing William Tam, and Mark A. Jansson c/o Andrew Pugno (916) 608-3065
Proposition 8 amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: The measure would have no fiscal effect on state or local governments. This is because there would be no change to the manner in which marriages are currently recognized by the state.

Proposition 9 – Notification during Criminal Justice Process
Proponents: Henry Nicholas, Marcella Leach and LaWanda Hawkins c/o Ashlee N. Titus (916) 442-7757
Requires notification to victim and opportunity for input during phases of the criminal justice process, including bail, pleas, sentencing and parole, and it establishes victim safety as consideration in determining bail or release on parole. Increases the number of people permitted to attend and testify on behalf of victims at parole hearings. Reduces the number of parole hearings to which prisoners are entitled and requires that victims receive written notification of their constitutional rights. It also establishes timelines and procedures concerning parole revocation hearings. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Unknown potential increases in state prison and county jail operating costs due to provisions restricting early release of inmates. To the extent that any such costs were incurred, they could collectively amount to hundreds of millions of dollars annually. A potential net savings in the low tens of millions of dollars for the administration of parole reviews and revocations if the changes related to parole revocation procedures were not overturned by potential legal challenges.

Proposition 10 – Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Renewable Energy
Proponents: Allison Hart, Mitzi Dudley and Thomas Daly c/o Daniel K. Abramson
(213) 624-6200
Authorizes $5 billion in bonds paid from the state’s General Fund, allocated approximately as follows: 58 percent in cash payments of between $2,000 and $50,000 to purchasers of certain high fuel economy and alternative fuel vehicles; 20 percent in incentives for research, development and production of renewable energy technology; 11 percent in incentives for research and development of alternative fuel vehicle technology; five percent in incentives for purchase of renewable energy technology; four percent in grants to eight cities for education about these technologies; and three percent in grants to colleges to train students in these technologies. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: State costs of about $9.8 billion over 30 years to pay both the principal ($5 billion) and interest ($4.8 billion) costs on the bond at payments of about $325 million per year. Increase in state sales tax revenues of an unknown amount, potentially totaling in the tens of millions of dollars, over the period from 2009 to beyond 2018. Increase in local sales tax and Vehicle License Fee revenues of an unknown amount, potentially totaling in the tens of millions of dollars, over the period from 2009 to about 2018-19. Potential state costs of up to about $10 million annually, through about 2018 -19, for state agency administrative costs not funded by the measure.

Proposition 11 – Member Redistricting
Proponents: Kathay Feng, Jeannine English and David Fleming
Creates a 14-member redistricting commission responsible for drawing new district lines for State Senate, Assembly, and Board of Equalization districts, and requires the State Auditor to randomly select commission members from voter applicant pool to create a commission with five members from each of the two largest political parties, and four members unaffiliated with either political party. It requires nine votes to approve final district maps. Establishes standards for drawing new lines, including respecting the geographic integrity of neighborhoods and encouraging geographic compactness and permits State Legislature to draw lines for congressional districts subject to these standards. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Probably no significant increase in state redistricting costs.