2
1
9

Legislative
Constitutional
Amendment

Put on the Ballot by
the Legislature

219 - Summary

Requires statewide/local ballot measure
to apply in all parts of jurisdiction,
regardless of how parts of jurisdiction
voted. Prohibits alternative versions of
a measure from becoming law based
upon specified vote percentage. Fiscal
Impact: The number of measures this
proposition would affect in the future,
and the resulting fiscal impact, cannot
be estimated.

219 - Yes

A YES vote on this measure
means: State and local ballot
measures would apply in the
same way in all parts of the
jurisdiction (that is, the state or
a local government) affected by
the measure, regardless of how
any individual part of that
jurisdiction voted. In addition,
ballot measures could not
contain different provisions that
would be enacted depending on
the percentage of votes cast in
favor of the measure.

219 - No

A NO vote on this measure
means: Current laws
affecting ballot measures
would not be changed.

219 - Pro

Several recent state and local ballot
measures contained blackmailing
language designed to force voters into
supporting the ballot measure--or face
having the ballot measure
discriminatorily and selectively applied
to their local jurisdiction's disadvantage
following the election. Proposition 219
would prohibit this extortion and protect
the initiative process' integrity.

219 - Con

 
 
 
NOT PROVIDED

219 - For

Senator John R. Lewis
33rd District,
California Senate
State Capitol, Room 3063
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 445-4264
Attention:
Wade C. Teasdale

219 - Against

 
 
 
NOT PROVIDED

2
2
0

Legislative
Constitutional
Amendment

Put on the Ballot by
the Legislature

220 - Summary

Provides for consolidation of superior
and municipal courts in county upon
approval by majority of county's
superior and municipal court judges.
Makes related changes to court system.
Fiscal Impact: Potential annual net
savings to the state, in the range of
millions to tens of millions of dollars in
the long term, to the extent that most
superior and municipal courts
consolidate.

220 - Yes

A YES vote on this measure
means: Superior and municipal
courts within a county could
consolidate into a single
superior court if approved by a
majority of superior court
judges and a majority of
municipal court judges in the
county.

220 - No

A NO vote on this measure
means: Superior and
municipal courts would
remain separate.

220 - Pro

Yes on Proposition 220 will improve our
courts, save money and streamline
justice. It is estimated that Proposition
220 could save $23,000,000 in taxpayer
dollars. Thousands of prosecutors,
judges, taxpayer advocates, local
governments and law enforcement
groups urge you to vote YES on
Proposition 220.

220 - Con

Municipal courts--the "people'
court"--provide efficient and
effective justice for many small,
but important civil and criminal
matters. Proposition 220
eliminates municipal courts and
makes all muni-court judges
superior court judges--giving them
a huge pay increase without regard
to qualification--all at taxpayer
expense. No on 220.

220 - For

Senator Bill Lockyer
State Capitol, Room 2032
Sacramento, CA 95814
Attn: Nathan Barankin
(916) 445-6671

220 - Against

 
 
 NOT PROVIDED

2
2
1

Legislative
Constitutional
Amendment

Put on the Ballot by
the Legislature

221 - Summary

This measure grants Commission
on Judicial Performance discretionary
authority to discipline subordinate
judicial officers according to same
standards as judges, as specified,
subject to review by California Supreme
Court. Fiscal Impact: Probably minor, if
any, costs to the state.

221 - Yes

A YES vote on this measure
means: The California
Commission on Judicial
Performance could, at its
discretion, oversee and
discipline court commissioners
and referees.

221 - No

A NO vote on this measure
means: Presiding judges of
local courts would
continue to be responsible
for oversight and
discipline of court
commissioners and
referees.

221 - Pro

We need greater accountability in our
courts. This measure grants the
Commission on Judicial Performance
authority to discipline unfair court
commissioners who are biased,
unqualified, or consistently render bad
legal decisions. Prosecutors, the Family
Guardian Network, and the victims of
injustice endorse Senator Tim Leslie's
measure to rein in rogue commissioners.

221 - Con

 
 
 NOT PROVIDED

221 - For

Senator Tim Leslie
State Capitol, Room 4081
Attn: Barbara McPherson
http://www.TimLeslie98.org

221 - Against

 
 
 NOT PROVIDED

2
2
2

Legislative
Initiative
Amendment

Put on the Ballot by
the Legislature

222 - Summary

Provides second degree murder of peace
officer on duty is punishable by life in
prison without parole where
aggravating factors are present.
Eliminates duplicative provision.
Disallows person convicted of murder
from earning credits to reduce the
prison sentence. Fiscal Impact:
Probably minor additional state costs.

222 - Yes

A YES vote on this measure
means: Persons convicted of
murder would no longer be
eligible to receive credits for
good conduct or participation in
work or education programs
that reduce the time they must
stay in prison. Also, a law
enacted last year by the
Legislature and Governor
establishing a penalty of life
imprisonment without
possibility of parole for the
second degree murder of a
peace officer under certain
circumstances would be
replaced by a virtually identical
law enacted by the voters.

222 - No

A NO vote on this measure
means: Most persons
convicted of murder would
continue to be eligible for
credits that reduce the
time they stay in prison.
Also, a law enacted last
year by the Legislature
and Governor establishing
a penalty of life
imprisonment without
possibility of parole for the
second degree murder of a
peace officer under certain
circumstances would not
be replaced by one enacted
by the voters.

222 - Pro

 
 
 NOT PROVIDED

222 - Con

 
 
 NOT PROVIDED

222 - For

 
 
 NOT PROVIDED

222 - Against

 
 
 NOT PROVIDED

2
2
3

Legislative
Constitutional
Amendment

Put on the Ballot by
Petition Signatures

223 - Summary

Prohibits school districts from spending
more than five percent of funds from all
sources for administrative costs.
Authorizes fines for failure to comply.
Fiscal Impact: Requires school districts
to reduce administrative costs (as
defined by the measure) by up to $700
million. To comply with this
requirement, districts could more
accurately account for administrative
costs, move operations from central
locations to school sites, and reduce
administrative spending.

223 - Yes

A YES vote on this measure
means: School districts could
spend no more than 5 percent
on central administrative costs.
The remaining money, at least
95 percent of total funds, would
have to be spent on direct
services to students, school site
employees, and school facilities.

223 - No

A NO vote on this measure
means: School districts
would continue to decide
what portion of their
budgets is spent on central
administration and direct
services.

223 - Pro

Our tax dollars must be spent at our
schools where our children are educated,
not on administrators at central offices.
Currently, non-school site administration
averages 9% statewide, with some
districts spending as much as 20%. The
national average is 4.8%. Proposition 223
puts the money where the kids are!

223 - Con

Takes money from local school
districts and redirects this funding
to larger districts, principally the
downtown Los Angeles Unified
School District. This measure is
sponsored by the LA teacher's
union. Strongly opposed by the
California PTA, California School
Employees Association,
award-winning teachers, and the
California Taxpayers Association.
Recommendation: Vote no.

223 - For

Tyrone Vahedi
903 Colorado Ave.,
Suite 200
Santa Monica, CA 90401
(310) 319-9885
Website Address:
http://www.civicweb.com
/yesprop223

223 - Against

Parents, Teachers and
Educators for Local
Control
400 Capitol Mall,
Suite 1560
Sacramento, CA 95814

2
2
4

Legislative
Constitutional
Amendment

Put on the Ballot by
Petition Signatures

224 - Summary

Imposes restrictions on state-funded
design and engineering contracts.
Requires cost comparison between
private contractors and public
employees performing work. Provides
defined competitive bidding
requirement. Fiscal Impact: Unknown
impact on state and local government
costs to obtain construction-related
services. Impact would depend largely
on factors included in required cost
analyses.

224 - Yes

A YES vote on this measure
means: State and local
governments would have to use
a new process before they could
contract out certain
construction-related services.

224 - No

A NO vote on this measure
means: The current
processes for contracting
out construction-related
services would not change.

224 - Pro

Prop. 224 stops politicians from giving
overpriced, no-bid contracts to campaign
contributors and requires competitive bidding
for state contracts. Hold
contractors responsible for their work.
Require cost effectiveness and
competitive bidding. Protect bridges and
public safety. Join law enforcement,
firefighters, engineers, businesses, labor,
teachers and seniors--Yes on 224!

224 - Con

A deceptive scheme promoted by
state bureaucrats! Virtually
prohibits government contracting
with private earthquake safety
engineers. Delays highway, school
and hospital earthquake
retrofitting! More Bureaucrats!
Higher Taxes! Less Accountability!
Opposed by California Taxpayers'
Association, seismic engineers,
business, schools, labor, cities,
counties. Don't let them fool you.
Vote "No" on 224.

224 - For

Taxpayers for Competitive
Bidding
660 "J" Street, Suite 445
Sacramento, CA 95814
Steve Hopcraft
(916) 457-5546
http://www.prop224yes.org

224 - Against

Taxpayers Against 224
111 Anza Boulevard,
Suite 406
Burlingame, CA 94010
(650) 340-0470 or
(310) 996-2600
www.no224.org

2
2
5

Proposed U.S.
Constitutional
Amendment

Initiative Statute

Put on the Ballot by
Petition Signatures

225 - Summary

Establishes as California's official
position that state and federal
legislators support U.S. Constitutional
amendment establishing Congressional
term limits and requires them to use
their powers to enact Congressional
term limits. Fiscal Impact: Relatively
minor costs to the state and to counties.

225 - Yes

A YES vote on this measure
means: Members of the
California Legislature and
Members of Congress from
California would be instructed
to vote for passage of an
amendment to the United
States Constitution to limit
United States Senators to no
more than two terms (12 years)
and United States
Representatives to no more
than three terms (6 years). If
any candidate for either house
of the Legislature or for
Congress does not support the
proposed amendment, the ballot
would indicate that fact.

225 - No

A NO vote on this measure
means: Members of the
California Legislature and
Members of Congress from
California would not be
directed to support term
limits for Members of
Congress.

225 - Pro

 
 
 NOT PROVIDED

225 - Con

Term Limits are pure folly, passed
for greedy Corporations at our
expense. With term limits,
Corporations can buy Congress.
Corporations will set Con-
gressional spending priorities.
Resist the urge to use term limits
to "throw the bums out." This
proposition replaces Congress with
powerful, hidden self-interest
groups we do not elect.

225 - For

 
 
 NOT PROVIDED

225 - Against

No on 225
Sacramento City
Taxpayers'
Rights League
2509 Capitol Avenue,
Suite 100
Sacramento, CA 95816

2
2
6

Initiative Statute

Put on the Ballot by
Petition Signatures

226 - Summary

Requires employee's or union member's
permission to withhold wages or union
dues for political contributions.
Prohibits foreign contributions to state
and local candidates. Fiscal Impact:
Unknown, probably not major, state
enforcement costs. Additional state
costs (up to $2 million annually,
one-time costs of $2 million to $5
million), offset by fees, and unknown
local government costs for
administrative activities, probably
offset by fees.

226 - Yes

A YES vote on this measure
means: Employers would have
to obtain an annual
authorization from employees
in order to deduct money from
wages that will be used by
recipient organizations for
political campaign activities.
Labor unions would have to
obtain annual authorization
from members in order to use
dues and fees for political
campaign activities. Under
state law, no one could solicit or
accept a political campaign
contribution for a candidate
from a foreign national.

226 - No

A NO vote on this measure
means: Employers would
not have to obtain annual
authorization from
employees in order to
deduct money from wages
that will be used by
recipient organizations for
political campaign
activities. Union dues and
fees could be used for
political campaign
activities without the
annual authorization of
the members. There would
be no separate state law
ban on foreign
contributions to
candidates, and only the
current federal law ban.

226 - Pro

Proposition 226 stops unions and
employers from taking money from
members or employees paychecks for
political purposes without their prior
consent, and prohibits contributions to
state and local candidates from foreign
nationals and foreign corporations. Union
members deserve the same political
freedom of choice as every other
Californian.

226 - Con

226 is an underhanded attempt by
out-of-state interests to
dramatically impact November's
election by limiting the ability of
unions and employee organizations
to participate in the political
process. And, it's not about
reducing foreign contributions into
California campaigns--that's a
trick. Read 226 carefully. You'll see
for yourself.

226 - For

California Foundation for
Campaign Reform
Mark Bucher, President
P.O. Box 365
Tustin, CA 92781
(714) 560-9020
http://www.prop226.com

226 - Against

Californians to Protect
Employee Rights
1510 J Street, Suite 115
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 554-1050
www.defeatprop226.org

2
2
7

Initiative Statute

Put on the Ballot by
Petition Signatures

227 - Summary

Requires all public school instruction be
in English, unless parents request
otherwise and show certain
circumstances. Provides short-term
English immersion programs for
children learning English. Funds
community English instruction. Fiscal
Impact: Impacts on individual school
districts would depend on how schools,
parents, and the state respond to the
proposition's changes. These impacts
could vary significantly by district.
Total state spending on education,
however, probably would not change.

227 - Yes

A YES vote on this measure
means: Students with limited
English ability will be taught in
special classes in which the
teacher speaks English nearly
all of the time. After about one
year in these special classes,
most students will be moved to
regular classes.

227 - No

A NO vote on this measure
means: Schools will teach
students with limited
English ability in a variety
of ways. Some students
will be in classes in which
the teacher speaks their
home language some or
nearly all of the time.
Students might stay in
these classes for several
years before moving to
regular classes.

227 - Pro

Hundreds of thousands of California
schoolchildren are forced into
Spanish-only bilingual education classes
and not taught English. Proposition 227
ensures that all children are taught to
read English, write English, and speak
English as soon as they start school, with
non-fluent students placed in intensive
short-term English immersion classes.

227 - Con

Several years ago, the 1970's law
mandating bilingual education in
California expired. Since then local
school districts have been
developing and using different
programs to teach children
English. Proposition 227 outlaws
the best local programs and
imposes one state mandate that
has never been tested. California
PTA opposes Proposition 227.

227 - For

English for the Children
315 West 9th Street, #920
Los Angeles, CA 90015
(213) 627-0005
Fax: (213) 627-0050
E-mail:
info@OneNation.org
http://www.OneNation.org

227 - Against

Richard Ross
1700 L Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 441-0392
www.noonunz.org