No city or county measures on the Nov. 8 ballot
Voters in Morgan Hill won’t see any city or county issues on the Nov. 8 Special Election ballot. They will, however, help Californians decide on eight statewide propositions. Listed below are brief synopses of the eight propositions. Detailed information on each proposition is available at www.smartvoter.org, a nonpartisan web site hosted by the League of Women Voters, and www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/, hosted by the Secretary of State Office.
Proposition 73
Proposition 73 is a proposed amendment to the State of California Constitution regarding the waiting period and parental notification before terminating a minor’s pregnancy. The question before California voters is, “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 on the minor?”
Passage of the initiative would amend the California Constitution, and prohibit abortion for unemancipated minors until two days after a physician notifies the minor’s parent/guardian, except in case of a medical emergency or with a parental waiver. Doctors will be mandated to report minors seeking abortion and those that do not do so will be fined.
Proposition 74
Proposition 74 has to do with increasing the probationary period for public school teachers and modifications for dismissing permanent employees. The initiative poses the following question to voters: “Should the probationary period for public school teachers be increased from two to five years, and should the process by which school boards can dismiss a permanent certificated employee be modified?”
The proposed statute increases the probationary period for new public school teachers from two to five years and permits school districts to dismiss permanent teachers who received two consecutive unsatisfactory performance evaluations using a modified dismissal process.
Proposition 75
Proposition 75 would require government employee unions to obtain written permission from each individual member to spend their dues on political endeavors such as campaigns and lobbying. It excludes contributions that benefit charities or employees. It would also require government employee unions to maintain and, upon request, report member political contributions to Fair Political Practices Commission.
Proposition 76
Proposition 76 concerns state spending and school funding limits and is an initiative Constitutional amendment. It asks: “Should Californians make major Constitutional changes to create an additional state spending limit, grant the governor substantial new power to unilaterally reduce state spending, and revise key provisions relating to Proposition 98, school and community college funding, and transportation funding authorized by Proposition 42?”
If passed, such an amendment would make state expenditures subject to an additional spending limits based on an average of recent revenue growth. It would limit state spending to the prior year’s level, plus three previous years’ average revenue growth. It changes the minimum school funding requirements (Proposition 98), and permits the Governor, under specified circumstances, to reduce budget appropriations. 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.
Proposition 77
Proposition 77 is a Constitutional amendment proposal concerning redistricting, and asks voters: “Should the California Constitution be amended to change the process of redistricting California’s State Senate, State Assembly, Congressional and Board of Equalization districts, transferring the implementation of redistricting from the Legislature to a panel of three retired judges, selected by legislative leaders?”
The initiative would amend the state Constitution’s redistricting process so that boundaries for political districts – California’s Senate, Assembly, Congressional and Board of Equalization districts – would be drawn by a three-member panel of retired judges selected by legislative leaders, 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.
At present, boundaries for political districts are drawn by the Legislature and approved by the Governor and a redistricting plan is developed after each federal census.
Proposition 78
Proposition 78 concerns discount prescription drugs. Voters will be asked: “Should the state adopt a new state drug discount program to reduce the costs of prescription drugs for Californians at or below 300 percent of the federal poverty level?”
Passage of the proposition would establish a discount prescription drug program for certain low- and moderate-income Californians. The program would 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, pay for prescription drugs they purchase. The initiative also authorizes the Department of Health Services to contract with participating pharmacies for discounts and with participating drug manufacturers for rebates.
Proposition 79
Proposition 79 also has to do with prescription drug discounts and asks voters: “Should the state of California create a new prescription drug discount program for residents at or below 400 percent of the federal poverty level, and change state law to make it illegal to engage in profiteering from the sale of prescription drugs?”
Passage of the measure would mean 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. This measure provides drug discounts to Californians with qualifying incomes and is funded by state-negotiated drug manufacturer rebates. It would prohibit Medi-Cal contracts with manufacturers not providing Medicaid best price.
Proposition 80
The last initiative on the ballot, Proposition 80, pertains to the regulation of electric service providers and poses the question, “Should the state expand its regulation of the electric industry?” to voters.
The proposition would allow the California Public Utilities Commission to regulate electric service providers, and restricts the electricity customers’ ability to switch from private utilities to other providers. It also requires all retail electric sellers to increase renewable energy resource procurement by 2010.
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.
