Vote 2005: Ballot Propositions

The California special election is on November 8. Here is a summary of the propositions featured in the California Special Statewide Elections according to the Official Voters Information Guide.

Proposition 73 would amend the California State Constitution by defining and prohibiting abortions for minors until 48 hours after a physician notifies the minor’s parent or guardian.

The only way a physician could proceed with an abortion without notifying the parent or guardian would be in a medical emergency or with a parental waiver. The fiscal impact of this proposition is potential unknown but could cost the state several millions of dollars annually for health and social services programs, the courts, and state administration.

A YES vote on this measure means the California Constitution would be changed to require that a physician notify, with certain exceptions, a parent or legal guardian of a pregnant minor at least 48 hours before performing an abortion.

A NO vote on this measure means minors would continue to receive abortion services to the same extent as adults. Physicians performing abortions for minors would not be subject to notification requirements.

Proposition 74 increases the probationary period for public school teachers from two to five years. Prop 74 also modifies the process by which school boards can dismiss a teaching employee who receives two consecutive unsatisfactory performance evaluations.

The fiscal impact of this proposition is unknown but would have an effect on school district’s costs for teacher compensation, performance evaluations, and other activities. The financial impact would vary significantly by district and depend largely on future district personnel actions.

A YES vote on this measure means the probationary period for new teachers would be extended from two to five years, and school districts could dismiss permanent teachers who received two consecutive unsatisfactory performance evaluations using a modified dismissal process.

A NO vote on this measure means the probationary period for new teachers would remain two years, and no changes would be made to the dismissal process for permanent teachers.

Using public employee union dues for political contributions without individual employees’ prior consent would be prohibited if prop 75 passes. This excludes contributions benefiting charities or employees. Prop 75 requires unions to maintain and, upon request, report member political contributions to the Fair Political Practices Commission.

The fiscal impact will probably be minor to state and local government and could potentially offset in part by revenues from fines and/or fees.

A YES vote on this measure means public employee unions would be required to get annual, written consent from government employee union members and nonmembers to charge and use any dues or fees for political purposes.

A NO vote on this measure means public employee unions could charge and use dues or fees for political purposes without annual, written consent. Fees from a nonmember of a union could not be spent on political purposes if the nonmember objects.

Prop 76 limits state spending to the prior year’s level plus three previous years’ average revenue growth. This changes minimum school funding requirements (Proposition 98) and also permits the Governor, under specified circumstances, to reduce budget appropriations of the Governor’s choosing. If prop 76 passes the state spending would likely be reduced relative to the current law due to an additional spending limit and new powers granted to the Governor. Reductions could apply to schools and shift costs to other local governments.

A YES vote on this measure means state expenditures would be subject to an additional spending limit based on an average of recent revenue growth. The Governor would be granted new authority to unilaterally reduce state spending during certain fiscal situations. School and community college spending would be more subject to annual budget decisions and less affected by a constitutional funding guarantee.

A NO vote on this measure means the state would not adopt an additional spending limit, the Governor would not be granted new powers to reduce state spending during certain fiscal situations, and existing constitutional provisions relating to schools and community college funding would not be changed.

Prop 77 amends the state Constitution’s process for redistricting California’s Senate, Assembly, Congressional and Board of Equalization districts. If passed, prop 77 would require a three-member panel of retired judges selected by legislative leaders to draw up new boundaries for the political districts of California.

There would be a one-time state redistricting costs totaling no more than $1.5 million and county costs in the range of $1 million.

A YES vote on this measure means boundaries for political districts would be drawn by retired judges and approved by voters at statewide elections. A redistricting plan would be developed for use following the measure’s approval and then following each future federal census.

A NO vote on this measure means boundaries for political districts would continue to be drawn by the Legislature and approved by the Governor. A redistricting plan would be developed following each future federal census.

Prop 78 establishes a discount prescription drug program for certain low- and moderate-income Californians. Prop 78 would also authorize the Department of Health Services to contract with participating pharmacies for discounts and with participating drug manufacturers for rebates. The State costs for administration and outreach would be in the millions to low tens of millions of dollars annually.

A YES vote on this measure means a new state drug discount program would be created to reduce the costs that certain residents of the state, including persons in families with an income at or below 300 percent of the federal poverty level, would pay for prescription drugs purchased at pharmacies.

A NO vote on this measure means the state would not expand its drug discount program beyond the existing one, which assists elderly and disabled persons on Medicare.

Prop 79 provides drug discounts to Californians with qualifying incomes. Funded by state-negotiated drug manufacturer rebates prop 79 prohibits Medi-Cal contracts with manufacturers not providing Medicaid the best price. Prop 79 would cost the state in low tens of millions of dollars annually for administration and outreach.

A YES vote on this measure means a new state drug discount program would be created to reduce the costs that certain residents of the state, including persons in families with an income at or below 400 percent of the federal poverty level, would pay for prescription drugs purchased at pharmacies. The new program would be linked to Medi-Cal for the purpose of obtaining rebates on drugs.

A NO vote on this measure means the state would not expand its drug discount program beyond an existing state program that assists elderly and disabled persons on Medicare.Prop 80 subjects electric service providers to regulations by the California Public Utilities Commission. Prop 80 also restricts electricity customers’ ability to switch from private utilities to other providers. This proposition requires all retail electric sellers to increase renewable energy resource procurement by 2010. There could be a potential annual administrative costs ranging from negligible to $4 million, paid by fees.

A YES vote on this measure means the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) would have broadened authority to regulate electric service providers. The PUC’s current policies related to the electricity procurement process, resource adequacy requirements, and the renewables portfolio standard would be put into law. Small electricity customers in existing buildings could not be required to accept time differentiated electricity rates without their consent. The current prohibition on new “direct access” for electricity service would be continued beyond 2015.

A NO vote on this measure means the PUC would not have broadened authority to regulate electric service providers. The PUC’s current policies related to the electricity procurement process, resource adequacy requirements, and the renewables portfolio standard would not be put into law.

The PUC would determine whether and how small electricity customers in existing buildings would be required to have time differentiated electricity service. New “direct access” for electricity service would continue to be prohibited until 2015, after which time it would be allowed.

You can find more information about the upcoming elections at www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov. Official voter information guides are available at you local post office or library.