OFFICIAL CFRW (California Federated Republican Women) BALLOT POSITIONS AND TALKING POINTS
Additional positions taken by:
• CRP (California Republican Party)
• HJTA (Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association) have not commented on all Propositions
Prop 51: School Bonds. Funding for K-12 School and Community College Facilities. Initiative Statute. ➤ CFRW NEUTRAL • CRP YES • HJTA NO
-This general obligation bond will cost a total of $17.6 billion ($9 billion paid and $8.6 billion in interest over 35 years)
-The money spent in this bond will go towards the modernization of school facilities (including charter schools) that have been left behind the last decade. This is the first statewide school funding bond in 10 years. It specifically targets rural and low-income school districts that do not have the local resources to seismically retrofit, modernize, and update technology at their school sites.
– This is the best written bond in recent history. It is the ONLY citizen initiative education bond in our state’s history. Most bonds and all education bonds (before Prop 51) are placed on the ballot by the Legislature.
-The CFRW feels that this is a personal vote, which is why we remained neutral. It is hard to justify another bond when the last several have gone so wrong (High Speed Rail, the “Water Bond”, etc.). This bond will affect students, voters, and parts of the state very differently. Some districts will benefit greatly while other, wealthy or otherwise stable schools won’t be changed at all.
-Prop 51 is supported by the California Republican Party and CalTax. It is opposed by Governor Jerry Brown.
Prop 52: Medi-Cal Hospital Fee Program. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute. ➤ CFRW YES • CRP YES
-Simply put, this measure extends a fee program which hospitals opt-in to in order to earn federal matching funds. Once hospitals pay their fees and obtain the federal funds, they use the funds to provide healthcare for children, the uninsured, Medi-Cal patients. The hospitals have the authority to use the funds how it fits their needs.
-If the current program expires, (meaning Prop 52 fails,) then the Legislature would be
able to allocate and divide up the federal funding meant for the hospitals. Both the California Republican Party and the CFRW believe that the hospitals should have the final say how their program money is spent… not the Legislature.
-Prop 52 would also require statewide voter approval should the Legislature try to reallocate the federal matching funds for hospitals for any other purpose.
Prop 53: Revenue Bonds. Statewide Voter Approval. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. ➤ CFRW YES • CRP YES • HJTA YES
-Currently, the state can issue ANY revenue bond for ANY amount of money with ANY locality, state, or federal government WITHOUT ANY voter approval or oversight. A revenue bond is levied out of our state’s yearly revenue and is not a general obligation bond so therefore, currently, does not require voter approval.
-Prop 53 would change that to REQUIRE statewide voter approval for revenue bonds exceeding $2 billion that are issued or sold by the state. This would apply to any project that the state has any part in (either financed, owned, operated or managed by), whether it is a joint agency with a local government, other state government, or federal government.
-It also prohibits the divvying up of bond projects to make them multiple projects less
than $2 billion to avoid the voter approval requirement.
-The CFRW and the Republican Party believe that more government transparency and more voter oversight would be a good thing for our state. Taxpayers have the right to know where and how our revenue is spent before it’s spent.
Prop 54: Legislature. Legislation and Proceedings. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute. ➤ CFRW YES • CRP YES • HJTA YES
-Easily one of the most important measures on the ballot. Would allow for more governmental transparency in a time when bills are passed out of stacked committees under the cloak of darkness, with dozens of budget trailer bills added at the eleventh hour, and bills are gutted and amended to be something very different from the original bill introduced. Prop 54 would stop these dirty legislative practices.
-Prop 54 would require that ALL bills are in print and available online for 72 hours before either house of the Legislature can vote on them. Any bill passed without adhering to the 72 hour threshold will not be made a law.
-Prop 54 requires that ALL open and public legislative meetings are recorded and made available online 24 hours after they happen and available online for 20 years. Also allows any person to record and broadcast any open legislative hearing.
-Finally, this measure requires NO NEW TAXPAYER MONEY! There is plenty in our state’s
budget to cover the minimal costs associated with the printing and uploading of these bills and meeting recordings.
-Californians are tragically under informed and the Democrat majority in our state legislature takes advantage of the lack of transparency. Prop 54 would allow for a more open legislative process, giving Californians more say in what happens at the state capitol.
Prop 55: Tax Extension to Fund Education and Healthcare. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. ➤ CFRW NO • CRP NO • HJTA NO
Remember Prop 30, back in 2012? That “temporary” tax increase? Well, the powers that be would like to extend your personal income taxes under Prop 30/55 for twelve extra years.
-This would affect single earners of $250,000 and over, joint filers of $500,000 and over, and heads of household filers of $340,000 and over. This INCLUDES small business owners who often file their small business earnings with their personal income taxes, thereby hurting their business and us, the consumer.
-This tax extension simply amounts to yet another broken promise made by Governor Brown and the Democrat majority by selling us a “temporary” tax increase in 2012.
-Prop 55 extends taxes in a time where a tax extension isn’t necessary. We have a $2.7 billion state surplus, and spending has increased in both education and healthcare. Education spending by 52% since 2012 (when Prop 30 was enacted) and Medi-Cal spending by 13%. So is the extension necessary… or, has Sacramento spent away their allowance?
Prop 56: Cigarette Tax to Fund Healthcare, Tobacco Use Prevention, Research, Law Enforcement. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute. ➤ CFRW NO • CRP NO • HJTA NO
-This measure would increase tobacco taxes to $2 per pack, with equivalent tax increases for other tobacco products containing nicotine, such as e-cigarettes.
-The title and summary would have you believe that the tax revenue would go towards prevention, treatment, and education of tobacco use, but only 13% of the revenue would go to that. Instead, Prop 56 allocates 82% of the $1.4 billion in revenue to health insurance companies and health care providers.
-According to our state’s constitution (due to Prop 98), any new tax revenue must allocate 43% of said revenue to K-12 school funding. But the authors of Prop 56 wrote an exemption for themselves in this measure that allows them to circumvent the Prop 98 school funding guarantee. Not a penny of this tax revenue would go to school funding.
-Almost $150 million annually would go towards just overheard and bureaucracy alone. Democrats know that they can always count on new tax revenue on the backs of taxpaying
Prop 57: Criminal Sentences. Parole. Juvenile Criminal Proceedings and Sentencing. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute. ➤ CFRW NO • CRP NO
-Again, one of the most important measures on the ballot. Prop 57 would redefine what a “nonviolent” crime is and allow convicted “nonviolent” felons to petition for early release. Approximately 25,000 felons would be eligible for early release if Prop 57 passes, with 7,000 being immediately eligible.
-Under Prop 57, “nonviolent” would be defined as felons convicted of rape by intoxication, rape of an unconscious person, human trafficking involving sex acts with minors, arson, hostage taking, drive-by shooting, attempting to explode a bomb at a school or hospital, assault with a deadly weapon, domestic violence involving trauma, supplying a firearm to a gang member, hate crime causing physical injury, failing to register as a sex offender, false imprisonment of an elder using violence, discharging a firearm at a school, and more (only a partial list)
-Governor Brown supports Prop 57 and along with Prop 47 (passed in 2014) and AB 109 (prison realignment), Governor Brown has been the worst Governor in our state history on crime and public safety. We are MUCH LESS SAFE than we were when he took office. Crime rates have gone up across the state under his watch, and if Prop 57 passes, violent felons would
be eligible for early release and back into our communities.
-Prop 57 would also allow judges, not prosecutors, to decide whether or not to try juveniles as adults in courts. This is important because many, if not most, of the judges in this state are very liberal while many, if not most, of the prosecutors in the state are more conservative. The authors of Prop 57 are deceptively trying to liberalize our state’s court system.
-Prop 57 is opposed by every single District Attorney in the state as well as opposed by the California Peace Officers Association and the California Police Chiefs Association.
Prop 58: English Proficiency. Multilingual Education. Initiative Statute. ➤ CFRW NO • CRP NO
-Although the title would have you believe that an English language proficiency is a priority for this proposition, it actually repeals the requirement that students be taught in English in our schools. Instead, Prop 58 allows for English language learning students to be taught in Spanish a majority of the time, putting them at a disadvantage once they graduate high school.
-Prop 58 was probably initially well intentioned, but by repealing the requirement for English language proficiency, our students will be left behind when trying to apply for jobs, applying for vocation programs, and at higher learning institutions, without a proper understanding of the English language. Limiting English language requirements will only serve
to harm our English language learning students, not help them.
Prop 59: Corporations. Political Spending. Federal Constitutional Protections. Legislative Advisory Question. ➤ CFRW NO • CRP NO
-A waste of taxpayer time and money, Prop 59 urges our legislature to let the federal government know that Californians (if passed) disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision on Citizens United. That’s it.
-As you will recall, Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission was a Supreme Court case wherein the Court ruled it unconstitutional to place certain limits on political spending by corporations. Essentially corporations have the same First Amendment rights as individuals.
-This is a waste of time and money, costing the taxpayers over half a million dollars just to be placed on the ballot while the proposition does nothing.
Prop 60: Adult Films. Condoms. Health Requirements. Initiative Statute. ➤ CFRW YES • CRP NO
-Already a law passed in 1992, Prop 60 requires that porn film actors where condoms during the filming of sexual intercourse. Prop 60 closes a loophole in the original law where producers, agents, and filmmakers are now held accountable if their actors are not made to
wear condoms but then contract a sexually transmitted disease or become pregnant during the filming of sexual intercourse scenes.
-Taxpayers have been on the hook for treatment of STDs and pregnancy for pornography actors, if they are not made to wear condoms. If Prop 60 passes, perhaps producers, agents, and directors will think twice about the consequences of their actors contracting venereal diseases if they are the ones responsible for the costs.
-There are certain, basic health and safety standards in every employment industry, from restaurants to manufacturers. The pornography industry should be held to basic human and public health and safety measures as well.
-The fact of the matter is that women in the porn film industry cannot protect themselves from STDs or unwanted pregnancies unless their co-actors wear a condom. It’s a very standard and easy measure to ensure the safety of all women working in that industry.
Prop 61: State Prescription Drug Purchases. Pricing Standards. Initiative Statute. ➤ CFRW NO • CRP NO
-While Prop 61 reads like it would reduce prescription drug costs for our state and our veterans, it does exactly the opposite. Prop 61 would allow our state to purchase prescription drugs from drug manufacturers at the lowest price paid for the drug by the United States Department of Veteran’s Affairs.
-The US Dept. of VA gets special, discounted prescription drug pricing. If our state could also have the same drug at the discounted rate, the drug manufacturers would not have the incentive to keep costs low for the VA. Therefore, they would raise drug prices for veterans so that our state had to purchase them at the same price.
-Prop 61 is opposed by over a dozen Veterans groups, who know that this measure would only raise drug prices and hurt our veterans.
Prop 62: Death Penalty. Initiative Statute. ➤ CFRW NO • CRP NO
-Prop 60 would repeal the death penalty and replace it with the maximum sentence for murder as life in prison without the possibility of parole. It would apply retroactively for those already convicted and serving death row sentence.
-Proponents would have you believe that repealing the death penalty would save the state money from the costly and out of control appeals process. While the appeals process needs to be amended, doing away with the death penalty would mean that the taxpayers would be on the hook to feed, clothe, house, guard, and provide healthcare (even heart transplants and gender reassignment surgery) to murderers until they die of old age in prison.
-The death penalty is already used very judiciously in California. Of approximately 2,000 murder convictions in the state every year, only 15 people are sentenced to death row. That’s
only 1.5-2% of murderers a year put on death row.
-Granted, there is much we can fix with our death penalty and appeals process, but repealing it outright is not the answer.
Prop 63: Firearms. Ammunition Sales. Initiative Statute. ➤ CFRW NO • CRP NO
-Prop 63 is Gavin Newsom’s brain child that he seeks to hang his hat on when he runs for Governor in 2018. Prop 63 drastically chips away at our Second Amendment rights by requiring background checks for the purchase of ammunition for any gun. It also requires that the Department of Justice be made aware of all ammunition purchases and requires the DOJ maintain a list of all ammo purchases in the state.
-All magazines with the ability to hold more than 10 rounds would be illegal and Prop 63 would require their “disposal”, requiring law abiding gun owners to give up their magazines or else face fines or worse, criminal consequences. There would also be criminal consequences for sharing ammo at the range or on a hunting trip, and any ammo bought at a gun range must be used there and cannot be taken home.
-Prop 63 is an attack on our Second Amendment rights and undermines law abiding gun owners as well as law enforcement officials who have to purchase their own on-duty and training ammunition.
-Prop 63 would require that ammo be purchased only through licensed ammo vendors, requiring many small business owners to obtain this licensing through the state. Background checks for ammo will cost the consumer $50 with a 30 day waiting period.
Prop 64: Marijuana Legalization. Initiative Statute. ➤ CFRW NO • CRP NO
-Marijuana use would be legal for those 21 and over and a sales and cultivation tax would be imposed on marijuana and marijuana products.
Despite the potential for billions in new tax revenue, Prop 64 is a poorly written initiative with unintended consequences and little gained from the pitfalls of legal marijuana use in Colorado, Washington, and Oregon.
-There is no DUI regulation standard in Prop 64, making it difficult for law enforcement to control and Prop 64 does nothing to keep impaired drivers off the road.
-Prop 64 also fails to regulate indoor cultivation location, and in fact prohibits limits on indoor growth regulations. This means that indoor growers can be right next to schools, parks, and other public places with as many as 6 marijuana plants.
-What we have learned from Colorado and Washington since their passage of marijuana use measures is that those states have seen an increase in cartel and illegal marijuana
possession and sales, not a decrease as proponents would have you believe. Until this can be better dealt with, why would we want to open ourselves up to that?
-Finally, this is still a “cart before the horse” situation. The federal government still considers a marijuana a Class I narcotic. Until that changes, it makes little sense for our state to make the cultivation, sales, and usage of marijuana legal.
Prop 65: Carry-Out Bags. Charges. Initiative Statute. ➤ CFRW NO • CRP YES
-Under the statewide plastic bag ban, grocers and retailers must provide either paper bags or reusable plastic bags for at least 10 cents. Prop 65 would require that 10 cents to instead go to a “Wildlife Fund” for the state to run and allocate the revenue.
-This essentially creates a tax for the mandated use of paper or reusable plastic bags provided by grocers and retailers. The state’s Wildlife Conservation Board would have the authority to regulate and implement the new law and revenue collected from it. The CFRW would prefer that if there is a statewide plastic bag ban and grocers and retailers have to provide reusable or paper bags, then the retailer or grocers should at least be able recoup the cost to provide said bags.
Prop 66: Death Penalty. Procedures. Initiative Statute. ➤ CFRW YES • CRP YES
-Prop 66 seeks to mend our broken death penalty and appeals process by limiting the
state appeals process to 5 years for each murder conviction. The accused would be assigned a special appeals lawyer as soon at the death sentence is handed down. This would eliminate and help to streamline a costly appeals process by which it can take up to 5 years just to be assigned an appeals lawyer. The pool of available lawyers will also be expanded for this purpose.
-The State Supreme Court would be empowered to oversee the limited state appeals process and also protect the rights of the accused since the process will be expedited. Currently inmates on death row can be embattled in a 20-30 year appeals process, costing the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.
-The trial courts that handled the original death sentence will hold the first appeal trial. This again would streamline costs since these courts know these cases best will handle the initial appeal.
-Finally, our State Corrections Department will have the authority to reform death row housing in many ways, will allow transfers of death row inmates to help restructure costs between prisons, and will take away special privileges like secluded, single inmate cell housing, while requiring death row inmates to work to pay victims restitution. If both Prop 62 and 66 pass, then the measure with the most affirmative votes will be the one enacted.
Prop 67: Ban on Single-Use Plastic Bags. Referendum. ➤ CFRW NO • CRP NO
-Referendums are usually tricky, with your NO vote meaning yes you support the referendum and your YES vote meaning you oppose the referendum and support the original law in place. So for Prop 67, the CFRW opposes the statewide plastic bag ban and supports the referendum to overturn the ban, so we urge a NO vote.
-If Prop 67 passes, all grocers and retailers in the state will be required to offer paper and reusable plastic bags and all single use plastic bags will be prohibited. The grocers and retailers will be required to sell the paper or reusable plastic bags for at least 10 cents. The fact is that this ban cost the state thousands of jobs at several plastic bag manufacturing sites. Plastic bags were also recycled much more frequently than paper bags, so the ban does little to actually help the environment.
-If Prop 67 fails, the statewide plastic bag ban would be eliminated. Cities and counties would still have the authority to issue plastic bag bans within their localities. This makes much more sense; instead of a statewide ban, let the local governments work with their consumers to decide what works best for them.