Thursday, August 4, 2016

California Initiatives 2016: There are a whopping 17 propositions on the November ballot. HJTA's new initiative guide summarizes each of them objectively:

With 17 propositions on the ballot, education is the key. Our government relies on the misinformation, apathy, and lack of education of voters. We must educate so that Californians understand exactly what they are REALLY voting on!


Prop 51: K-12 School Bond $17.6 billion: NEUTRAL
Prop 52: Medical Hospital Fee Program: SUPPORT
Prop 53: Voter Approval for Revenue Bonds: SUPPORT
Prop 54: Legislative Transparency: SUPPORT
Prop 55: Prop 30 Tax Extension: OPPOSE
Prop 56: Cigarette Tax: OPPOSE
Prop 57: Civil and Criminal Proceedings: OPPOSE
Prop 58: Bilingual Education Requirement: OPPOSE
Prop 59: Citizens United Statement: OPPOSE
Prop 60: Industry Condom Requirement: SUPPORT
Prop 61: State Prescription Drug Purchases: OPPOSE
Prop 62: Death Penalty Repeal: OPPOSE
Prop 63: Gun Control Omnibus: OPPOSE
Prop 64: Legalizes Marijuana: OPPOSE
Prop 65: Plastic Bag Revenue to Wildlife Fund: OPPOSE
Prop 66: Death Penalty Reform and Streamline: SUPPORT
Prop 67: Plastic Bag Ban Referendum: OPPOSE

 Prop 51: State School Bond: Neutral Position

The CFRW decided to take a neutral position on Prop 51. This means that we recommend you, the voter, decide how this proposition will affect you and your community.

In California, the state has not passed a school bond in ten years. Wealthy school districts are able to pass local bonds to pay for upgrades and construction, but our rural or low income school districts who can’t afford upgrades have been left behind. So how you vote should reflect how this bond may affect you.

As a whole, the state will be on the hook for $17.6 billion; $9 billion paid and $8.6 billion in interest over 35 years. Here it is by the numbers:
  • $3 billion for the construction of new school facilities;
  • $500 million for providing school facilities for charter schools;
  • $3 billion for the modernization of school facilities;
  • $500 million for providing facilities for career technical education programs; and
  • -$2 billion for acquiring, constructing, renovating, and equipping community college facilities
This is the first citizen driven school bond initiative in history. Every other school bond has been placed on the ballot by the legislature.

The California Republican Party and CALTAX support Prop 51.
Tom McClintock says NO

◼ Prop 52: Hospital Fee Program: SUPPORT

This prop extends a fee program whereby hospitals can pay a fee to help the state of California obtain Medic-aid matching federal funds. That program awarded hospitals in California over $2 billion annually for 7 years. If passed, it would mandate that the legislature cannot use these funds for anything other than supporting hospital care unless changed with voter approval.

Fiscal Impact: Uncertain fiscal effect, ranging from relatively little impact to annual state General Fund savings of around $1 billion and increased funding for public hospitals in the low hundreds of millions of dollars annually

Extends the current Medi-Cal hospital fee program that generates more than $3 billion a year in federal matching funds that would not be available otherwise. This money helps provide Medi-Cal health care services to over 13 million Californians, including: children, seniors, and people with disabilities

Proposition 52 strictly prohibits the Legislature from using these funds for any other purpose without a vote of the people

◼ Prop 53: Voter Approval for Revenue Bonds: SUPPORT

Requires statewide voter approval before any revenue bonds can be issued or sold by the state for certain projects if the bond amount exceeds $2 billion

Applies to any projects that are financed, owned, operated, or managed by the state, or by a joint agency formed between the state and a federal government agency, another state, and/or a local government

Prohibits dividing projects into multiple separate projects to avoid statewide voter approval requirement

Typically some bonds do appear on California ballots for voter approval, BUT bonds paid for out of state revenue are not required to be voter-approved. This is a loophole that we should close! Our governments, whether city, county, or state, should be accountable to voters.

California has issued over $50 billion in revenue bond debt over the last 20 years and our state's current total debt is $157 billion, including principal and interest. It's time voters have more of a say on when and how bonds are issued.

◼ Prop 54: Legislative Transparency: SUPPORT

Requires every bill to be posted online and distributed to lawmakers at least 72 hours before each house of the Legislature is permitted to vote on it (except when the Governor declares an emergency).
Prohibits any bill passed in violation of this 72-hour requirement from becoming law.

Makes audiovisual recordings of ALL public legislative meetings and posts those recordings online within 24 hours, to remain online for at least 20 years.

Guarantees the right of every person to also record and broadcast any open legislative meetings.
Requires NO new taxpayer money. The Legislature's existing budget will cover this measure's minor costs.

Republicans in the legislature have been trying to pass bills that do what Prop 54 will do for decades. Each time, the Democrats in power kill these bills, often times before they even clear their first committee. What are Democrats trying to hide from Californians if they do not support increased government transparency?

As we continue to go through all 17 propositions on the November general election ballot, please remember to SHARE THIS INFORMATION! As Republican Women Federated, we are among some of the most educated voters in the state. With 17 ballot measures, our voting populous is going to be more tragically uniformed than they usually are. The legislature knows this, they depend on an uninformed constituency, they thrive on it. It is up to the Republican Women to let the voters know what they are truly voting on, what their vote truly means for their future, and for the future of our state. Please talk to voters EVERYDAY.

◼ Prop 55: Prop 30 Tax Extension: OPPOSE

Remember Prop 30? The “temporary” tax increase touted by Governor Brown and the Democrats? Well, the legislature and Governor Brown want to extend the personal income tax portion of Prop 30 for 12 more years.

This means that income taxes for single earners of $250,000 a year, joint filers of $500,00 a year, and heads of household filers of $340,000 a year

This INCLUDES small business whose owners file their small business earners within their personal income taxes

Prop 55 spells out yet another broken promise made by Governor Brown and legislative Democrats to our taxpayers

Prop 55 extends taxes while higher taxes are not necessary. California takes in more tax dollars than we need each year — we currently have a $2.7 billion surplus. Let’s use the revenue we have wisely, not tax and spend more than we need.

-California’s critical spending- healthcare, education- can be funded without this tax unnecessary tax extension. Unsurprisingly, education and healthcare spending skyrocketed since the original passage of Prop 30. Education spending has soared by $24.6 billion since 2012 — a 52% increase. Medi-Cal spending has increased by $2.9 billion a 13% increase. Let’s get back to 2012 spending instead of extending Prop 30.

◼ Prop 56: Cigarette Tax Increase: OPPOSE

Increases cigarette tax by $2.00 per pack, with equivalent increase on other tobacco products and electronic cigarettes containing nicotine.

Prop. 56 allocates just 13% of new tobacco tax money to treat smokers or for school education to prevent smoking.

The authors of Prop 56 purposefully wrote in a loophole so that revenue will fill their pockets and not go to school funding. California's Constitution (through Proposition 98), requires that schools get at least 43% of any new tax increase. Prop. 56 was written to undermine our Constitution's minimum school funding guarantee, allowing the authors to deceptively divert at least $600 million a year from schools to health insurance companies and other wealthy special interests.

$147 million a year from the higher cigarette tax revenue will go towards just overhead and bureaucracy alone.

This is an intentionally deceptive and regressive tax on a small (generally poor and less educated) population of Californians that will pay the increase because of an addiction. The higher tax does nothing to help prevent or decrease smoking or tobacco usage. It is a farce.

◼ Prop 57: Releasing Criminals: OPPOSE

Prop 57 is another one of Governor Brown’s terrible ideas to keep our prison population down by releasing violent criminals back into our communities. Under Prop 57, certain “nonviolent” felons would be eligible for early release and parole and can gain credit towards early release for good behavior. It also allows judges, not prosecutors, to decide whether or not to try juveniles as adults in certain cases.

Governor Brown has been the worst Governor in our state’s history for crime and public safety. We are much less safe today than we were when he took office. Across our state, crime rates continue to rise, and Governor Brown has little to say about it. Instead, he began with implementing AB 109 (2011), in which tens of thousands of felons were shifted from state prisons and parole to county jail and probation. Many of their crimes were redefined to misdemeanors and/or as “time served”. Then when these felons violate their parole, they don’t go back to prison. Instead, they can serve up to six months in a county jail. As if that wasn’t enough, in 2014 Governor Brown lobbied for and successfully passed Prop 47, which reclassified many felonies as misdemeanors, retroactively applying to felons currently serving time, and allowing many to become eligible for early parole. Doubling-down on his lack of public safety concerns, now Governor Brown is supporting Prop 57, which would allow “nonviolent” felons to petition for early release. As many as 25,000 convicted felons would be eligible for early release under Prop 57, which essentially redefines “nonviolent.”

Here is a partial list of what would classify as “nonviolent” for early release under Prop 57:

  • Rape by intoxication
  • Rape of an unconscious person
  • Human trafficking involving sex act with minors
  • Drive-by shooting
  • Assault with a deadly weapon
  • Taking a hostage
  • Domestic violence involving trauma
  • Supplying a firearm to a gang member
  • Lewd acts upon a child
  • Hate crime causing physical injury
  • Failing to register as a sex offender
  • Arson causing great bodily injury
  • Felon obtaining a firearm
  • Discharging a firearm on school grounds
  • False imprisonment of an elder

Violent crime rates rose in 2012 after AB 109 was implemented. Again they rose in 2015 by 8.4% according to the nonpartisan California Public Policy Institute. But when Governor Brown wants to essentially redefine “nonviolent” as the crimes listed above, violent crime rates are sure to decrease, though the crimes committed will surely rise. Prop 57 will effectively overturn laws that voters have passed over the years that have kept our communities safe, such as Marsy’s Law, “3 Strikes”, the Victim’s Bill of Rights, and the Californians Against Sexual Exploitation Act.

Prop 57 is opposed by every county District Attorney as well as opposed by the California Peace Officers Association and the California Police Chiefs Association. They know better than any other group the problems our state face. Prop 57 will tie one hand behind the backs of our law enforcement agencies. Visit for more information and ways you can help defeat this terrible ballot measure. It’s time for Californians to tell Governor Brown enough is enough. Vote NO on Prop 57!

◼ Prop 58: English Proficiency. Multilingual Education. Initiative Statute: Oppose

If Prop 58 passes, it will repeal most of Prop 227 and allow non-English languages to be used for public K-12 instruction. Prop 227 was passed in 1998 and it established the sheltered English immersion program for English language learners in our schools. They were required to be taught in an English-only intensive course for one year before transitioning into English classes. This was aimed to help English language learners before they are thrown into public school classes taught in exclusively English. Prop 227 passed with overwhelming support and parents across the state, immigrant or not, were still able to decide which direction their child could be taught. Now, Prop 58 seeks to overturn much of Prop 227, and would be a giant step backwards for our English language learners in our public schools. Schools would be able to teach in multi-languages in the classroom, and in some cases, no English at all. English language learners would be at a disadvantage, since they will no longer be as challenged to learn English. These students will be behind in English when they graduate, making applying for jobs and higher education even more difficult than it already is. This should, once again, be an issue of local control and not another statewide mandate handed down from Sacramento. The Legislature placed Prop 58 on the ballot, it was not citizen driven. California parents need to be made aware of Prop 58 and ask them to Vote NO!

◼ Prop 59: Corporations. Political Spending. Federal Constitutional Protections. Legislative Advisory Question: OPPOSE

Pass or fail, this proposition does absolutely nothing. There is no legal authority, no legislative authority, literally nothing. It is a complete waste of taxpayer time and money. Prop 59 asks our legislative body to use all of its constitutional authority to overturn the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC. That’s it. Our California legislature has NO constitutional authority in this or any Supreme Court case, except to propose amendments to the U.S. constitution and hope that other states jump on the bandwagon.

As you will recall, Citizens United v. FEC was a 2010 Supreme Court decision which held that corporation’s political spending rights are protected under the First Amendment as free speech. It should come as no surprise that this is another measure placed on the ballot by the legislature and not citizen driven. It is heavily supported by Tom Steyer, the California Teachers Association and the California Democrat Party. It is costing the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars just to be on the ballot. It does nothing to actually curb political spending by corporations, but instead asks our legislature to consider changing the First Amendment. Our ballots should not be clogged with useless measures that are non-binding advisory questions that do NOTHING. VOTE NO.

◼ Prop 60: Adult Films. Condoms. Health Requirements. Initiative Statute: SUPPORT

First of all, you may be asking yourself, why are we even voting on this issue? That is a valid question, and one we cannot answer. We wish we knew. There is already a law on the books that requires porn actors to wear condoms while filming sexual intercourse scenes. Prop 60 aims to strengthen the current law which is rarely enforced. What this comes down to is basic health and safety standards. Every industry has health and safety standards that are and should be regulated, such as restaurants, offices, and even your dry cleaners. Shouldn’t men and women in the porn industry also be protected from STDs and unplanned pregnancies by simply wearing a condom during sexual intercourse scenes?

Opponents of Prop 60 claim that this requirement will drive the porn industry out of the state and more government intrusion in private business is not a good thing. And the CFRW understands that position. But ultimately the Republican Women Federated decided to support women in this industry who are not able to protect themselves from STDs. Prop 60 would require adult film companies to obtain health licenses and provide vaccinations and health tests for their performers. Many businesses and industries in California are also required to do the same, so why not also the porn industry?

Ultimately, the CFRW supports the use of condoms in adult films. This probably is not a ballot measure that will affect your day to day life. There are more important measures on the ballot.

◼ Prop 61: State Prescription Drug Purchases. Pricing Standards. Initiative Statute: OPPOSE

This is an intentionally deceptive measure. Do not be fooled! Prop 61 claims that it will bring our state drug prescription prices down because they will be bought at the lowest price paid for the same drug by the United States Department of Veteran’s Affairs. But the fact is that the drug companies give a very large discount to the U.S. Veteran’s Affairs, and they will no longer give the Veterans those low prices if Prop 61 passes. Proponents of Prop 61 act like this will help seniors and help veterans, but it will do the opposite. Drug prices will soar for vets and for those whose prescription programs Prop 61 will include.

Prop 61 will not apply to all Californians, only to about 12%, but for those who do have state prescription drug purchasing programs. And for those who do have state drug prescription purchasing programs, Prop 61 will increase prices for them.

Over a dozen Veterans groups oppose Prop 61. They know that their drug prices will increase if Prop 61 passes. Opponents include, but are not limited to, Veterans of Foreign Wars (CA), Vietnam Veterans of American (California Council), American Legion of California, and the Military Officers Association of America (California Chapters).

Congressman Tom McClintock on the Ballot Propositions