Ovitt Outlook Banner Image
San Bernardino County Logo

Proposition 19

Proposition 20

Proposition 21

Proposition 22

Proposition 23

Proposition 25

Proposition 27


Send an email to Gary Ovitt: SupervisorOvitt@sbcounty.gov

Click Here to Subscribe to
Ovitt Outlook

To unsubscribe to the
Ovitt Outlook, please email SupervisorOvitt@sbcounty.gov
with the subject:
Unsubscribe Newsletter


Main Office:
385 N Arrowhead Avenue
San Bernardino, CA 92415
909-387-4866


Chino Hills District Office:
14010 City Center Drive
Chino Hills, CA 91709
909-465-1895


Staff Members:
Larry Enriquez,
Chief of Staff

Joy Chadwick,
Deputy Chief of Staff

Brian Johsz,
District Director

Annette Taylor,
Executive Secretary

Naseem U. Farooqi,
Analyst

Burt Southard,
Media Relations

Roman Nava,
Small Business Liason

Grace Hagman,
Field Representative

Jeanna Pomierski,
Field Representative
October 2010

2010 NOVEMBER GENERAL ELECTION PROPOSITIONS

The following information highlights the propositions on the November 2010 ballot to help you when you cast your vote. In no way is this an effort to influence your decision.

PROPOSITION 19 - LEGALIZES MARIJUANA UNDER CALIFORNIA BUT NOT FEDERAL LAW. PERMITS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO REGULATE AND TAX COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION, DISTRIBUTION, AND SALE OF MARIJUANA

Proposition 19 would allow people 21 years old or older to possess, cultivate, or transport marijuana for personal use, permit local governments to regulate and tax commercial production and the sale of marijuana to people 21 years or older. Proposition 19 would prohibit people from possessing marijuana on school grounds, using it in public, smoking it while minors are present, or providing it to anyone under 21 years old. It would maintain the current prohibitions against driving while impaired.

Legislative Analyst’s Office Summary of Estimated Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact
  • Savings of up to several tens of millions of dollars annually to state and local governments on the costs of incarcerating and supervising certain marijuana offenders.
  • Unknown but potentially major tax, fee, and benefit assessment revenues to state and local government related to the production and sale.
Proposition 19 Supporters
  • The name of the official “Yes on 19” committee is Yes on 19 – Tax Cannabis 2010. Groups that are in support include:
    • Drug Policy Alliance
    • Marijuana Policy Project
Proposition 19 Opponents
  • The name of the official “No on 19” committee is Public Safety First. Opponents include:
    • California Narcotics Officers Association
    • California Police Chiefs Association
    • California District Attorneys Association
On September 9, 2010, the California State Association of Counties’ Board of Directors adopted an oppose position on Proposition 19.

PROPOSITION 20 - REDISTRICTING OF CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS

Proposition 20 would remove elected representatives from the process of establishing congressional districts and transfer redistricting to the recently-authorized 14-member redistricting commission. It requires that any newly-proposed district lines be approved by nine commissioners including three Democrats, three Republicans, and three from neither party.

Legislative Analyst’s Office Summary of Estimated Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact
  • Probably no significant change in state redistricting costs
Proposition 20 Supporters
  • The name of the official “Yes on 20” Committee is Yes on 20, No on 27. Supporters include:
    • David Pacheco, California President, AARP
    • Kathy Feng, Executive Director, California Common Cause
    • John Kabatek, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Business/California
Proposition 20 Opponents
  • The name of the official “No on 20” committee is California Coalition for Leadership and Accountability in Budget and Redistricting. Opponents include:
    • Californians Against Waste
    • Congress of American Seniors
PROPOSITION 21 - ESTABLISHES $18 ANNUAL VEHICLE LICENSE SURCHARGE TO HELP FUND STATE PARKS AND WILDLIFE PROGRAMS. GRANTS SURCHARGED VEHICLES FREE ADMISSION TO ALL STATE PARKS

Proposition 21 would establish an $18 annual state vehicle license surcharge for noncommercial vehicles and grant free admission to all state parks for the surcharged vehicles. According to the Legislative Analysts’ Office, “Over the last five years, state funding for the operation of state parks have been around $300 million annually. Of this amount, approximately $150 million has come from the General Fund, with the balance coming largely from park user fees and state gasoline revenues.”

Legislative Analyst’s Office Summary of Estimated Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact
  • Annual increase to state revenues of $500 million from surcharge on vehicle registrations. After offsetting some existing funding sources, these revenues would provide at least $250 million more annually for state parks and wildlife conservation.
  • A majority of this amount would go to state parks and could be used to address the significant deferred maintenance in state parks or to develop and enhance existing park programs. The remainder of the new funding would be available to enhance the management of state lands for wildlife conservation purposes and for new wildlife habitat restoration projects (for example, marine habitat protection).
Proposition 21 Supporters
  • The names of the two official “Yes on 21” committees include Conservation Action Fund and Californians for State Wildlife and Conservation. Groups that are in support include:
    • The Nature Conservancy California
    • State Park Rangers Association
    • Pacific Region National Wildlife Federation
Proposition 21 Opposition
  • The name of the official “No on Proposition 21” committee is Californians Against Car Taxes. Opponents include:
    • California Tax Payers Association
    • Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
PROPOSITION 22 - PROHIBITS THE STATE FROM BORROWING OR TAKING FUNDS USED FOR TRANSPORTATION, REDEVELOPMENT, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROJECTS AND SERVICES

Proposition 22 would prohibit the State, even during a period of severe fiscal hardship, from delaying the distribution of tax revenues for transportation, redevelopment, or local government projects and services. On March 23, 2010 (Item #3), the Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution in support of the Local Taxpayer, Public Safety and Transportation Act of 2010 (Proposition 22).

Legislative Analyst’s Office Summary of Estimated Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact
  • This measure would leave more fuel tax revenues available for local transportation projects
  • Limit the state’s authority to redirect revenues resulting in increased resources being available for redevelopment and state and local transportation programs
  • The savings for local agencies is difficult to quantify, but could be in the range of about $1 billion (in most years) to several billions (in some years).
Proposition 22 Supporters
  • The name of the official “Yes on 22” committee is California to Protect Local Taxpayers and Vital Services. Groups that support include:
    • League of California Cities
    • California Redevelopment Association
    • California Special Districts Association
    • County of San Bernardino
Proposition 22 Opponents
  • The name of the “No on 22” committee is Citizens Against Taxpayer Giveaways. Opponents include:
    • California Teachers Association
    • California Nurses Association
    • Alliance of Contra Costa Taxpayers
PROPOSITION 23 - SUSPENDS IMPLEMENTATION OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL LAW (AB 32) REQUIRING MAJOR SOURCES OF EMISSIONS TO REPORT AND REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS THAT CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING, UNTIL UNEMPLOYMENT DROPS TO 5.5 PERCENT OR LESS FOR FULL YEAR

Proposition 23 would suspend AB 32 until the unemployment rate in California is 5.5% or less for four consecutive calendar quarters. The measure states, “no agency shall propose or adopt any regulation implementing AB 32 until the unemployment rate criterion is met”. It is important to note, that the provisions of SB 375 are not included under Proposition 23 because it derives its statutory authority outside of AB 32. On April 13, 2010 (Item #7), the Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution in support of the California Jobs Initiative. Furthermore, on March 11, 2009, the Board adopted a support position on SB 295 Dutton (R-Rancho Cucamonga). The bill would have delayed the development of regulations to implement AB 32 until California’s unemployment rate fell below 5.8% for three consecutive months. However, the bill died in policy committee.

Legislative Analyst’s Office Summary of Estimated Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact
  • The suspension of AB 32 could result in a modest net increase in overall economic activity in the state. In this event, there would be an unknown but potentially significant net increase in state and local government revenues
  • Potential loss of a new source of state revenues from the auctioning of emission allowances by state government to certain businesses that would pay for these allowances, by suspending the future implementation of cap-and-trade regulations
Proposition 23 Supporters
  • The name of the official “Yes on Proposition 23” committee is the California Jobs Initiative. The proposition is sponsored by Assemblyman Dan Logue (R-Chico). Other supporters include:
    • Valero Energy
    • Tesoro Corporation
    • San Bernardino County
    • Butte County
Proposition 23 Opponents
  • The name of the official “No on Proposition 23” committee is Californians to Stop the Dirty Energy Proposition. Opponents include:
    • League of Women Voters of California
    • California Teachers Association
    • American Academy of Pediatrics – California
    • American Lung Association of California
PROPOSITION 25 - CHANGES LEGISLATIVE VOTE REQUIREMENT TO PASS BUDGET AND BUDGET-RELATED LEGISLATION FROM TWO-THIRDS TO A SIMPLE MAJORITY. RETAINS TWO-THIRDS VOTE REQUIREMENT FOR TAXES

Proposition 25 changes the legislative vote requirement necessary to the state budget and spending bills related to the budget from two-thirds to a simple majority and provides that if the Legislature fails to pass a budget bill by June 15, all members of the Legislature will permanently forfeit any reimbursement for salary and expenses for every day until the day a budget is passed.

Legislative Analyst’s Office Summary of Estimated Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact
  • In any year the Legislature has not sent a budget to the Governor on time, there would be a reduction in state legislator compensation costs about $50,000 for each late day.
Proposition 25 Supporters
  • The name of the official “Yes on Proposition 25” committee is Citizens for an On-Time Budget. Groups that are in support include:
    • California Federation of Teachers
    • League of Women Voters of California
Proposition 25 Opponents
  • The name of the official “No on Proposition 25” committee is Stop Hidden Taxes. Groups that are opposed include:
    • California Chamber of Commerce
    • California Taxpayers’ Association
PROPOSITION 26 - REQUIRES THAT CERTAIN STATE AND LOCAL FEES BE APPROVED BY TWO-THIRDS VOTE. FEES INCLUDE THOSE THAT ADDRESS ADVERSE IMPACTS ON SOCIETY OR THE ENVIRONMENTCAUSED BY THE FEE-PAYER’S BUSINESS

Proposition 26 increases the legislative vote requirement to two-thirds for state levies and charges, with limited exceptions, and for certain taxes currently subject to majority vote. It changes the Constitution to require voters to approve, either by two-thirds or majority, local levies and charges with limited exceptions.

Legislative Analyst’s Office Summary of Estimated Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact
  • By expanding the scope of what is considered a tax, the measure would make it more difficult for state and local governments to pass new laws that raise revenues
  • The fiscal effect of this change would be contingent upon future actions by the Legislature, local governing bodies and local voters
  • Given the range of fees and charges that would be subject to the higher approval threshold for taxes, the fiscal effects of this change could be major. The LAO estimates that it could reduce government revenues and spending statewide by billions annually
Proposition 26 Supporters
  • The names of the two official committee that have been formed in support of Proposition 26 include
  • Californians Against Higher Taxes and Stop Hidden Taxes – No on 25/Yes on 26. Groups that are in support include:
    • California Taxpayers Association
    • California Chamber of Commerce
    • Small Business Action Committee
    • Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Proposition 26 Opponents
  • The name of the official “No on Proposition 26 Committee” is Taxpayers Against Protecting Polluters. Groups that are opposed include:
    • The League of California Cities
    • Health Access California
    • League of Women Voters of California
    • The American Lung Association of California
On September 9, 2010, the California State Association of Counties’ Board of Directors adopted an oppose position on Proposition 26.

PROPOSITION 27 - ELIMINATES STATE COMMISSION ON REDISTRICTING. CONSOLIDATES AUTHORITY FOR REDISTRICTING WITH ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES

Proposition 27 would eliminate the 14-member redistricting commission selected from an applicant pool picked by government auditors, consolidates authority for establishing state Assembly, Senate, and Board of Equalization district boundaries with elected state representatives responsible for drawing congressional districts, and imposes limits on the amount the Legislature may spend for redistricting.

Legislative Analyst’s Office Summary of Estimated Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact
  • Possible reduction of state redistricting costs of around $1 million over the next year
  • Likely reduction of state redistricting costs of a few million dollars once every ten years beginning in 2020
Proposition 27 Supporters
  • The name of the official “Yes on 27” committee is Yes on Fair, Yes on 27. Supporters include
    • Daniel H. Lowenstein, Founding Chairman, California Fair Political Practices Commission
    • Hank Lacayo, President, Congress of California Seniors
Proposition 27 Opponents
  • The name of the official “No on 27” committee is Yes on 20, No on 27 – Hold Politicians Accountable. Groups that are in support include:
    • California Common Cause
    • Latin Business Association