Campaign reform, Jessica’s Law on proposition ballots

By Christy Scott
The Alpine Sun

     In addition to voting for candidates in various election races, voters in the Nov. 7 midterm election will have a chance to weigh-in on a number of local and statewide propositions. Ranging from campaign reform, to alternative energy, to Jessica’s Law, voters will be asked to voice their opinions by voting for or against these propositions.

Proposition 83 (Jessica’s Law)
     Prop 83 asks voters, “Should California amend existing laws relating to violent and habitual sex offenders and child molesters to increase penalties and monitoring?”
     It would increase penalties for violent and habitual sex offenders and child molesters as well as expand the definition of a sexually violent predator. It would require lifetime GPS monitoring of felony registered sex offenders and would prohibit them from living within 2,000 of any school or park.
     Arguments for the proposition state that this would give police the tools needed to track known sex offenders. Arguments against include the high cost of the program, as well as simply moving sex offenders out of the city into smaller, more rural communities.

Proposition 85
     Prop 85 asks voter, “Should the California Constitution be amended to require notification of the parent or legal guardian of an unemancipated pregnant minor at least 48 hours before performing an abortion?
     It would allow the minor to obtain a court order waiving based on, “clear and convincing evidence of minor’s maturity or best interests.” It also states that a young girl cannot be forced to have an abortion without her consent.
     Arguments for the proposition state that a parent has the right to know and decide whether a child has an abortion. Arguments against state that this is an attempt to mandate family communication, and in cases of family tensions or abuse, may force pregnant young girls to circumvent the system and seek out illegal and dangerous abortions anyway.

Proposition 86
     Prop 86 asks voters, “Should the state impose an additional tax of $2.60 per cigarette pack to fund new and expanded health services, health insurance for children, and expand tobacco use prevention programs?”
     It would impose a 13-cent tax on each cigarette distributed, and indirectly increases tax on other tobacco products. The money from the new tax would be used to fund hospital emergency services, nursing education, health insurance to eligible children and tobacco-use-prevention programs.
     Arguments for the proposition state that it would decrease the number of young smokers with little disposable money. Arguments against state that this is a tax on a specific group of people and will put millions of dollars into the hospital and HMO system.

Proposition 87
     Prop 87 asks voter, “Should California establish a $4 billion Clean Alternative Energy Program to reduce California's oil and gasoline consumption by 25 percent through incentives for alternative energy, education, and training?
     This $4 billion program would reduce oil consumption through research and production as well as incentives for alternative energy, alternative energy vehicles, energy efficient technologies, and for education and training. It would be funded by a tax of 1.5 to 6 percent (depending on oil price per barrel) on producers of oil extracted in California, and would prohibit producers from passing the tax onto consumers.
     Arguments for the proposition state that this would force companies to look at alternatives forms of energy and fuel-efficient vehicles. Arguments against state that this program will create a billion-dollar bureaucracy with no assurances that the tax will not trickle down to drivers.

Proposition 88
     Prop 88 asks voters, “Should the California Constitution be amended to levy an annual $50 real property tax on most parcels with the funds allocated to five K-12 education programs?”
     It would mean a $50 increase in property taxes each year, with exemptions made for elderly and disabled owners. Funds would be used for class size reduction, textbooks, and school safety.
     Arguments for the proposition state that it would provide money directly to schools to decrease class sizes and provide textbooks and learning materials. Arguments against state that this is a tax increase on land- and homeowners with no assurance that the money will be used appropriately.

Proposition 89
     Prop 89 asks voter, “Should eligible candidates for state elective offices receive public campaign funding that is supported by new taxes on corporations and financial institutions, and should contribution limits be imposed on those candidates that do not receive public campaign funding?”
     It would provide state candidates who use public funding (contributions from actual voters) to receive funds from the Fair Political Practices Commission, and would impose limits on campaign contributions from lobbyists and state contractors. The program would be funded by an increased income tax rate on corporations and financial institutions of .2 percent.
     Arguments for the proposition state that it would curb corruption in Sacramento by reducing the monetary power and influence of lobbyist and special interest groups. Arguments against state that the program is unworkable and that it would limit the voice of small businesses and non-profit groups.

Proposition 90
     Prop 90 asks voters, “Should the California Constitution be amended to require government to pay property owners for substantial economic losses resulting from some new laws and rules, and limit government authority to take ownership of private property?
     It would bar state and local governments from condemning or damaging private property to promote other private projects or uses and would force government to occupy condemned property or lease property for public use. It would also force government to pay property owners in instances where land or property was taken.
     Arguments for the proposition state that it would curb eminent domain powers by local and state governments. Arguments against state that it will impose new categories of lawsuits costing taxpayers more money.

 E-mail the Editor