CFRW Ballot Recommendations

CFRW Ballot Recommendations

Below are the official California Federation of Republican Women (CFRW) Ballot Recommendations. Once again, it should be noted that our recommendations are just that- recommendations. It is the hope of the CFRW Voting Body that our Republican Women heed our recommendations but ultimately research these propositions on their own as well so that they can better educate other California voters. Every election is just as important as the last!

AFP's 2014 Election Ballot Guide

Americans for Prosperity California - What about the ballot measures? David Spady explains Americans for Prosperity's position on California ballot measures and why Proposition 1 (the water bond) is drowning in environmental pork and does not pass the Common Sense test. Watch the video.
__________________
◼ CFRW Ballot Recommendations
◼ CAGOP Ballot Recommendations
◼ Tom McClintock Ballot Recommendations
◼ Unofficial Guide to Judges on the Ballot

AFP's 2014 Election Ballot Guide

Americans for Prosperity California - What about the ballot measures? David Spady explains Americans for Prosperity's position on California ballot measures and why Proposition 1 (the water bond) is drowning in environmental pork and does not pass the Common Sense test. Watch the video.
__________________
◼ CFRW Ballot Recommendations
◼ CAGOP Ballot Recommendations
◼ Tom McClintock Ballot Recommendations
◼ Unofficial Guide to Judges on the Ballot

CFRW Ballot Recommendations

CFRW Ballot Recommendations

Below are the official CFRW Ballot Recommendations. Once again, it should be noted that our recommendations are just that- recommendations. It is the hope of the CFRW Voting Body that our Republican Women heed our recommendations but ultimately research these propositions on their own as well so that they can better educate other California voters. Every election is just as important as the last!

Time Donnelly: November 2014 Voter Guide

◼ Statewide Ballot Propositions

Prop 1: No. This proposition is better than the one previously passed, but it is so laden with pork and political payoffs to the enviro-extremists that we wind up paying $14.5 Billion (when you include the interest over 40 years) for $2.7 Billion in water storage funding. There’s no guarantee that they will finish Temperance Flats or Sites Reservoir, and there is language that concern some experts about the possibility of the future removal of Klamath River Dam. Wasting money on bike paths in San Diego and sand dune restoration in Pismo Beach has nothing to do with water storage or conveyance, and shouldn’t be stealing scarce dollars from critically needed water infrastructure.

Prop 2: Yes. Anything that restrains or slows down politicians from spending our money, I’m for! Say yes to the rainy day fund.

Prop 45: No! The last thing in the world we need is to put more power in the hands of the Insurance Commissioner. This is a blatant power grab that would give the insurance commissioner sole authority to implement ObamaCare instead of an independent commission.

Prop 46: No. No need to punish good doctors for the behavior of a handful of bad apples. This will increase the cost of healthcare and make trial lawyers even richer.

Prop 47: No. This bill seeks to address prison overcrowding, and while I favor it’s intent, and even some of it’s provisions, instead of sticking with low-level drug offenses, this bill would allow potential rapists (in possession of date-rape drug) and forgers be charged as misdemeanors.

Prop 48: No recommendation

MORE at the link

Yes, this is a low bar – permitting fixes and not writing legal blank checks – but when it comes to California initiatives, you must lower your expectations.

◼ Three Ballot Initiatives, Not Quite As Awful As Usual - Fox&Hounds

It might be more precise to say: those three initiatives are less awful than usual.

I’m not talking about the policy substance of the initiatives – which involve health insurance rate regulation (45), liability for medical errors and some other things (46) or criminal charges and sentencing (47). One can make arguments for and against those policies. But the issues and the policies aren’t the first question you should ask about California ballot initiatives. The correct first question is, instead: is it possible to fix the errors in these things?

The default for California initiatives is to not permit fixing – or amendment – by the legislative body at all. We’re the only place on earth where this inflexibility is standard on initiative statutes. And it’s the fundamental problem of the process; once you do something by initiative, there’s little you can do to undo it.

Which brings us to the good – well, the not-so-awful news. All three of these measures depart from the norm by permitting legislative amendment. For that, their sponsors should be praised.

Prop. 46: Medical Lawsuits

◼ Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association - Proposition 46 would increase the maximum amount of money patients are able to collect from doctors in malpractice lawsuits to $1 million from a current cap of $250,000. The proposal also requires periodic drug and alcohol testing of doctors with disciplinary action if the doctor is found to have been impaired while working. In addition, the measure institutes a prescription drug database to help prevent prescription drug abuse by doctors. Proposition 46 is backed financially by trial lawyers’ associations.

SUPPORTERS say the measure would help reduce medical negligence, which is the country’s third leading cause of death. They say the measure’s drug and alcohol testing and prescription drug database provisions would protect patient safety by cracking down on doctors who practice medicine while under the influence.

OPPONENTS say trial lawyers wrote Prop. 46 to benefit themselves and if passed costs to doctors associated with medical lawsuits would skyrocket. The costly lawsuits that would result from Prop. 46 would lead to higher costs to patients and possible reductions in services. Furthermore, opponents say the measure creates a new bureaucracy and jeopardizes privacy by putting bureaucrats in charge of a new database of confidential patient records.

◼ CLICK HERE TO READ THE TEXT OF THE MEASURE
◼ CLICK HERE TO VISIT SUPPORTERS WEBSITE
◼ CLICK HERE TO VISIT OPPONENTS WEBSITE
__________________
◼ Congressman Tom McClintock says – If You Thought Prop 45 Was Bad: NO. Another trial lawyers measure that quadruples the amount they can get for pain and suffering awards. Prop. 45 means lower provider reimbursements and Prop. 46 means higher provider costs. It also requires drug testing for doctors, which is a stupid idea but I appreciate the poetic justice in making THEM pee into little cups for a change. Anyway, it won’t matter because your doctor will be out of state.
__________________
◼ CFRW Recommends a NO Vote
Prop 46 Drug and Alcohol Testing of Doctors. Medical Negligence Lawsuits.

Summary: Requires drug and alcohol testing of doctors and reporting of positive test to the California Medical Board. Requires Board to suspend doctor pending investigation of positive test and take disciplinary action if doctor was impaired while on duty. Requires doctors to report any other doctor suspected of drug or alcohol impairment or medical negligence. Requires health care practitioners to consult state prescription drug history database before prescribing certain controlled substances. Increases $250,000 cap on pain and suffering damages in medical negligence lawsuits to account for inflation.

Fiscal Impact: Increased state and local government health care costs from raising the cap on medical malpractice damages, likely ranging from the tens of millions of dollars to several hundred million dollars annually.

Talking Points:

- It is no secret this measure was drafted by trial lawyers who stand to make millions with an increase on the “emotional pain and suffering” cap for medical negligence lawsuits

- This measure forces doctors and pharmacists to use a massive statewide database filled with Californians’ personal medical prescription information. A mandate government will find impossible to implement, and a database with no increased security standards to protect your personal prescription information from hacking and theft – none.

- If California’s medical liability cap goes up, you could also lose your trusted doctor. It’s true. Many doctors will be forced to leave California to practice in states where medical liability insurance is more affordable.

- A recent study found that this initiative will increase health care costs by $9.9 billion annually – or more than $1,000/year in higher health costs for a family of four

- It is deceptive. The drug testing of doctors portion of this measure was only added as an illusion to the real goal of this prop- to raise the cap on emotional pain and suffering
__________________

◼ LA Times Endorsement: No on Proposition 46 - LA Times

◼ 46 REASONS TO VOTE NO ON 46 - NO ON 46 ON FACEBOOK

NO on Prop 45: When liberal politicians and trial lawyers conspire to change laws to benefit themselves, you can bet that taxpayers will get the short end of the stick.

◼ PROP 45: CA DOUBLES DOWN ON OBAMACARE WITH NEW 'HEALTH CARE CZAR' - Jon Fleischman/Breitbart

If you like Obamacare, you’re going to love Proposition 45, the ballot initiative that would give one politician-- liberal Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones--complete authority over health care costs and benefits for individuals and small businesses in California.

Worse, the trial lawyers who fund Jones’s campaigns wrote Prop 45 to help them make more money from frivolous lawsuits. When liberal politicians and trial lawyers conspire to change laws to benefit themselves, you can bet that taxpayers will get the short end of the stick.

It’s frightening to think that one liberal politician could literally make health care decisions for you and me. In addition to single-handedly setting rates, Jones would have power over anything affecting rates, including co-pays, deductibles and even which benefits insurance companies cover. Jones, a trial attorney himself who used to work for Janet Reno, has absolutely zero medical background, as far as I can tell. And he’d be making these decisions about my health care without any input from the medical community.

I’m sorry, but Dave Jones making decisions about my health care is beyond even my worst nightmares of the socialist nanny state that California is becoming. Treatment options should be between me and my doctors and nurses--not a Democrat politician and his trial attorney pals trying to make a buck....

That a politician has written an initiative to become a “czar” underscores how far Democrats are overreaching to expand their power in California. The last thing we need to do in California is give Democrats even more responsibility by creating new “czars” to limit the freedom and liberty of taxpayers....

The initiative is written by the same people who wrote 1988’s Proposition 103, which gave the insurance commissioner sole power over car insurance rates. Backed by Ralph Nader, the measure created “intervenor fees” for trial lawyers and consumer advocates to challenge insurance rates. These intervenors have made $11 million off these lawsuits--costs that, of course, are passed on to California drivers.
__________________
◼ Candidates use politics to become 'czars' - Steven Greenhut/San Diego Union-Tribune

Two prominent California politicians are using their current political powers to advance political changes — in one case a bill, in another an initiative — that would give them vast new powers if they win statewide office in November. Critics find it tacky at best.

__________________
◼ Congressman Tom McClintock says: Prop 45 – If You Thought Obamacare Was Bad: NO. This is a trial lawyers measure that give the state insurance commissioner the power to set health care rates. Sound good? Doctors and other health care providers are already opting out of Obamacare because of artificially low rates; this compounds the problem for California. The good news it you’ll have cheap health insurance. The bad news is you won’t have a lot of providers accepting it.
__________________
◼ CFRW Recommends a NO Vote.

Summary: Requires health insurance rate changes to be approved by Insurance Commissioner before taking effect. Requires sworn statement by health insurer as to accuracy of information submitted to Insurance Commissioner to justify rate changes. Provides for public notice, disclosure and hearing on health insurance rate changes, and subsequent judicial review. Does not apply to employer large group health plans. Prohibits health, auto and homeowners insurers from determining policy eligibility or rates based on lack of prior coverage or credit history.

Fiscal Impact: Increased state administrative costs ranging in the low millions to low tens of millions of dollars annually to regulate health insurance rates, funded with revenues collected from filing fees paid by health insurance companies.

Talking Points:

- A very dangerous measure that would place all insurance rate power in the hands of one politician, who would also have the decision making ability for your treatment options.

- Would create yet another costly state bureaucracy that would be funded by your higher healthcare costs.

- Sponsored by special interest lawyers who included a hidden provision allowing them to charge up to $675/hour and make tens of millions in fees off costly health care lawsuits.

CFRW Ballot Recommendations

CFRW Ballot Recommendations

Below are the official CFRW Ballot Recommendations. Once again, it should be noted that our recommendations are just that- recommendations. It is the hope of the CFRW Voting Body that our Republican Women heed our recommendations but ultimately research these propositions on their own as well so that they can better educate other California voters. Every election is just as important as the last!

Prop 1 Water Bond. 

Funding for Water Quality, Supply, Treatment, and Storage Projects: 

Yes

Summary: Authorizes $7.12 billion in general obligation bonds for state water supply infrastructure projects, such as surface and groundwater storage; ecosystem and watershed protection and restoration; drinking water protection; water supply management; water recycling and advanced water treatment technology; and flood control. Reallocates $425 million of unused bond authority from prior water bond acts, for same purposes. Appropriates money from the General Fund to pay off bonds. Requires certain projects to provide matching funds from non-state sources in order to receive bond funds

Fiscal Impact: Increased state bond repayment costs averaging $360 million annually over the next 40 years. Savings to local governments related to water projects, likely averaging a couple hundred million dollars annually over the next few decades.

Talking Points:

- Republicans in the legislature fought hard to bring down the cost of this bond while increasing the amount of money allocated for surface storage projects to $2.7 billion.

- The bond is not perfect, and in fact still has a good amount of money allocated for some environmental “pet projects.” But Republicans must continue to fight for surface storage projects to be completed with this new bond. Living in a Democrat super majority state, we aren't going to have the "perfect water bond" come out of Sacramento. But this bond is a step in the right direction. If this bond does not pass and legislators must go back to the drawing board, we fear a worse bond will be brought back to the people of California, without the critical water storage the Republicans fought so hard to have included in this bond.

- Language for dam removal projects were removed from this bond and instead money will be allocated to fund two dam and reservoir projects, one in Colusa County and one in Fresno County. The Fresno County site, Temperance Flats, is especially important because our Central Valley Farmers have been relying so heavily on wells and groundwater that now that infrastructure is unstable. Our farmers need more surface storage to keep California growing.

- Again, it is important to note that this bond is not perfect and Republicans cannot rest on their laurels once it is passed. But we believe this is why it is so important to work hard to get Republicans elected to the legislature this cycle. The more Republicans we have protecting our interests in the Capitol, the better!

__________________

Prop 2 State Budget. Budget Stabilization Account. 

Legislative Constitutional Amendment: 

Yes

Summary: Requires annual transfer of 1.5% of general fund revenues to state budget stabilization account. Requires additional transfer of personal capital gains tax revenues exceeding 8% of general fund revenues to budget stabilization account and, under certain conditions, a dedicated K–14 school reserve fund. Requires that half the budget stabilization account revenues be used to repay state debts and unfunded liabilities. Allows limited use of funds in case of emergency or if there is a state budget deficit. Caps budget stabilization account at 10% of general fund revenues, directs remainder to infrastructure

Fiscal Impact: Some existing state debts would be paid down faster, resulting in long-term savings for the state. Changes in the level of state budget reserves, which would depend on the economy and future decisions by the Governor and the Legislature. Reserves kept by some school districts would be smaller

Talking Points:

- Another measure that Republicans worked hard to get to the ballot. Republicans have been working towards a rainy day fund for years. Every single Republican legislator in both the Senate and the Assembly voted in support of this proposition.

- Sets aside state revenues in a fund that cannot be used to further state spending in times of excess.

- Finally works to pay down state debt payments.

- Another caveat though, this bill must have Republican oversight once passed to make sure the fund is safe from greedy Democrat spending even after it is passed.

__________________

Prop 45 Approval of Healthcare 

Insurance Rate Changes. Initiative Statute: 

No

Summary: Requires health insurance rate changes to be approved by Insurance Commissioner before taking effect. Requires sworn statement by health insurer as to accuracy of information submitted to Insurance Commissioner to justify rate changes. Provides for public notice, disclosure and hearing on health insurance rate changes, and subsequent judicial review. Does not apply to employer large group health plans. Prohibits health, auto and homeowners insurers from determining policy eligibility or rates based on lack of prior coverage or credit history.

Fiscal Impact: Increased state administrative costs ranging in the low millions to low tens of millions of dollars annually to regulate health insurance rates, funded with revenues collected from filing fees paid by health insurance companies.

Talking Points:

- A very dangerous measure that would place all insurance rate power in the hands of one politician, who would also have the decision making ability for your treatment options.

- Would create yet another costly state bureaucracy that would be funded by your higher healthcare costs.

- Sponsored by special interest lawyers who included a hidden provision allowing them to charge up to $675/hour and make tens of millions in fees off costly health care lawsuits.

__________________

Prop 46 Drug and Alcohol Testing of Doctors. 

Medical Negligence Lawsuits. Initiative Statute: 

No

Summary: Requires drug and alcohol testing of doctors and reporting of positive test to the California Medical Board. Requires Board to suspend doctor pending investigation of positive test and take disciplinary action if doctor was impaired while on duty. Requires doctors to report any other doctor suspected of drug or alcohol impairment or medical negligence. Requires health care practitioners to consult state prescription drug history database before prescribing certain controlled substances. Increases $250,000 cap on pain and suffering damages in medical negligence lawsuits to account for inflation.

Fiscal Impact: Increased state and local government health care costs from raising the cap on medical malpractice damages, likely ranging from the tens of millions of dollars to several hundred million dollars annually.

Talking Points:

- It is no secret this measure was drafted by trial lawyers who stand to make millions with an increase on the “emotional pain and suffering” cap for medical negligence lawsuits

- This measure forces doctors and pharmacists to use a massive statewide database filled with Californians’ personal medical prescription information. A mandate government will find impossible to implement, and a database with no increased security standards to protect your personal prescription information from hacking and theft – none.

- If California’s medical liability cap goes up, you could also lose your trusted doctor. It’s true. Many doctors will be forced to leave California to practice in states where medical liability insurance is more affordable.

- A recent study found that this initiative will increase health care costs by $9.9 billion annually – or more than $1,000/year in higher health costs for a family of four

- It is deceptive. The drug testing of doctors portion of this measure was only added as an illusion to the real goal of this prop- to raise the cap on emotional pain and suffering

__________________

Prop 47 Criminal Sentences. Misdemeanor Penalties. 

Initiative Statute: 

No

Summary: Requires misdemeanor sentence instead of felony for petty theft, receiving stolen property, and forging/writing bad checks when value or amount involved is $950 or less. Requires misdemeanor sentence instead of felony for certain drug possession offenses. Allows felony sentence for these offenses if person has previous conviction for crimes such as rape, murder or child molestation or is a registered sex offender. Requires resentencing for persons serving felony sentences for these offenses unless court finds unreasonable public safety risk. Applies savings to mental health and drug treatment programs, K-12 schools, and crime victims.

Fiscal Impact: Unknown. Potential savings to criminal justice system. But also potential costs associated to recidivism rates.

Talking Points:

- Felons with prior convictions for armed robbery, kidnapping, car jacking, child abuse, residential burglary, arson, assault with a deadly weapon, and many other serious crimes are still eligible for early release under this prop.

- Judges must rule on a criminal’s early release based only on the most recent felony. Prior felony convictions will not affect a judge’s ruling except in extraordinary circumstances. This means that serious, violent felons will be released and there is little a judge can do about it.

- Under current law, stealing a gun is a felony, period. Prop 47 would redefine grand theft in such a way that theft of a firearm could only be considered a felony if the value of the gun is greater than $950. Almost all handguns (which are the most stolen kind of firearm) retail for well below $950. People don’t steal guns just so they can add to their gun collection. They steal guns to commit another crime. People stealing guns are protected under Proposition 47.

- Proposition 47 will reduce the penalty for possession of drugs used to facilitate date-rape to a simple misdemeanor. No matter how many times the suspected sexual predator has been charged with possession of date-rape drugs, it will only be a misdemeanor, and the judge will be forced to sentence them as if it were their very first time in court.

Prop 48 Referendum to Overturn Indian Gaming Compacts: Neutral or No Position

Summary: If the measure is approved by the state's voters, it will ratify AB 277 (Ch. 51, Stats. 2013), ratify two gaming compacts between California and, respectively, the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians, and the Wiyot Tribe, and exempt execution of the compacts, certain projects, and intergovernmental agreements from the California Environmental Quality Act. This measure is a veto referendum; this means that a "yes" vote is a vote to uphold or ratify the contested legislation (AB 277) that was enacted by the California State Legislature while a "no" vote is a vote to overturn AB 277.

Fiscal Impact: One-time payments between $16 million and $35 million from the North Fork tribe to local governments in the Madera County area to address costs related to the operation of a new casino.Annual payments over a 20-year period averaging around $10 million from the North Fork tribe to the state and local governments in the Madera County area to address costs related to the operation of a new casino. Increased revenue from economic growth in the Madera County area generally offset by revenue losses from decreased economic activity in surrounding areas

Talking Points:

- There are pros and cons to this proposition. That’s why the CFRW has taken a neutral position. It is our hope that the Republican Women research this prop and decide how this will effect them and the future of California.

- It will create thousands of jobs in a depressed economic area. Madera County is in desperate need of jobs.

- But it creates a precedence whereby Indians can game outside of their tribal land. This is currently unprecedented. The current Indian Gaming Pact with our state allows tribes to only game on their tribal land. This referendum would allow tribes to petition to the government to game (build casinos) outside of their tribal land.

__________________