The 12 state propositions

Proposition 1A: High-speed rail

What it would do: Authorize the state to sell $9.95 billion in bonds to help fund a $45-billion bullet train between Orange County and the San Francisco Bay Area. Repayment would cost the state $647 million annually for 30 years.

Chief proponents: California High-Speed Rail Authority; chambers of commerce in Los Angeles, San Francisco and more than a dozen other cities; Consumer Federation of California; Sierra Club California; American Lung Assn.; California Democratic Party

Major donors to “Yes” side: California Alliance for Jobs; State Building & Construction Trades Council of California political fund; engineering firms HNTB Corp., Parsons Brinkerhoff and STV; California American Council of Engineering Companies Issues Fund

Chief opponents: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn., California Rail Foundation, California Chamber of Commerce, Reason Foundation, state Sen. Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks), Assemblyman Chuck DeVore (R-Irvine)

Major donors to “No” side: No contributions reported to the California secretary of state’s office.

Main arguments in favor: Electric-powered bullet trains between major population centers would ease traffic and airport congestion, help curb air pollution and reduce dependence on foreign oil. Nearly $1 billion would be spent to beef up commuter rail systems feeding the high-speed trains.

Main arguments against: It could cost $90 billion or more while failing to achieve projected speeds, trip times or ridership. It would deepen state’s fiscal hole; money would better serve law enforcement, healthcare, education and an upgrade of existing rail and highway systems.

--

Proposition 2: Farm animals

What it would do: Beginning in 2015, farmers would be required to provide room for egg-laying hens, veal calves and pregnant sows to fully extend their limbs or wings, stand up, turn around and lie down. It would outlaw cages and crates that prevent those movements.

Chief proponents: Humane Society of the United States, Farm Sanctuary, California Veterinary Medical Assn., United Farm Workers, Consumer Federation of America, Center for Food Safety, California Democratic Party, California Democratic U.S. Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer

Major donors to “Yes” side: Humane Society of the United States; Farm Sanctuary; Fund for Animals; Les Alexander, owner of the Houston Rockets and a Humane Society board member

Chief opponents: United Egg Producers; Assn. of California Veterinarians; American College of Poultry Veterinarians; United Food & Commercial Workers Western States Council; Unite Here, a labor union; California Farm Bureau Federation

Major donors to “No” side: Moark LLC.; Demler Enterprises; Cal-Maine Foods, a Mississippi company; Foster Poultry Farms; Gemperle Enterprises; two Indiana firms, Midwest Poultry Services LP and Rose Acre Farms; United Egg Producers

Main arguments in favor: Farm animals raised for food deserve to be treated humanely; it is cruel to confine them in tiny cages, where they may be hurt and disease can spread. It would cost producers less than a penny per egg and consumers a few cents extra per dozen. It would not harm the safe production of eggs.

Main arguments against: It would increase the price of California-raised eggs and drive consumers to buy cheaper ones from out-of-state producers, potentially crippling the thriving state egg industry. Out-of-state producers do not have California’s high food-safety standards. Many veterinarians and public health experts believe current animal housing is safe.

--

Proposition 3: Children’s hospitals

What it would do: Authorize $980 million in bonds backed by the state to fund construction, refurnishing, expansion and new equipment at five children’s hospitals at University of California campuses and eight private, nonprofit children’s hospitals. The state would pay the principal and interest, which would cost about $2 billion over 30 years. Annual payments would be about $64 million.

Chief proponents: California Children’s Hospital Assn., California Chamber of Commerce. California Business Roundtable; League of Women Voters of California, former California Gov. Pete Wilson, California Democratic U.S. Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer

Major donors to “Yes” side: Childrens Hospital Los Angeles; Children’s Hospital of Orange County; Miller Children’s Hospital at Long Beach; other nonprofit children’s hospitals that could receive grants from the bond money

Chief opponents: Lewis K. Uhler, president of the National Tax Limitation Committee; Edward “Ted” Costa, president of the nonprofit People’s Advocate; Jon Fleischman, publisher of the political website Flashreport.org

Major donors to “No” side: None reported.

Main arguments in favor: Children’s hospitals treat more than 1 million children with serious illnesses such as cancer and cystic fibrosis but lack space and equipment for a growing number of patients. Construction costs are increasing and cannot be financed with the $750-million bond that voters approved in 2004. The measure would allow designated hospitals to purchase the latest medical technologies.

Main arguments against: New borrowing is a bad idea given the state’s financial difficulties. The initiative process should not be used by groups that stand to gain from their measures. Not all money from the previous children’s hospital bond has been spent.

--

Proposition 4: Abortion

What it would do: Amend the state Constitution to bar abortions by unemancipated minors until 48 hours after a physician notifies the minor’s parent or legal guardian. Permit notification to certain adult relatives if a doctor reports the parent to law enforcement or a child protective services agency.

Chief proponents: Life Legal Defense Foundation, California Right to Life Committee Inc., Knights of Columbus local chapters, Family Research Council, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger

Major donors to “Yes” side: James E. Holman, publisher of weekly San Diego Reader and four lay Catholic papers; vintner and former Republican state legislator Don Sebastiani

Chief opponents: Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, American Civil Liberties Union local chapters, Feminist Majority Foundation, California Medical Assn., California Nurses Assn.

Major donors to “No” side: Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, American Civil Liberties Union local chapters

Main arguments in favor: Parents have a right to know if their minor daughters are seeking abortions, a major medical procedure. Without being notified, parents may be kept ignorant of a sexual assault on their daughter and of the possible cause of medical complications.

Main arguments against: A notification law cannot compel healthy family communication and may drive a wedge between a patient and physician. A minor could be at risk if she fears telling parents or other adult family members and seeks an unsafe abortion or induces an abortion herself.

--

Proposition 5: Drug offenses

What it would do: Allocate $460 million a year in state money, increasing with inflation, for the treatment of those convicted of nonviolent drug-related crimes as an alternative to incarceration. It would give inmates time off their sentences for rehabilitation programs; shorten parole from three years to six months; expand the state parole board; create a secretary for rehabilitation; and add a deputy warden for rehabilitation in each prison. It also would establish state boards overseeing parole and drug treatment.

Chief proponents: Drug Policy Alliance Network, California Nurses Assn., California Society of Addiction Medicine, California Federation of Teachers, League of Women Voters of California

Major donors to “Yes” side: Investor-philanthropist George Soros; New York philanthropist Bob Wilson; investor Jacob Goldfield; John G. Sperling, founder of the University of Phoenix

Chief opponents: Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Crime Victims United, California League of United Latin American Citizens, California State Assn. of Counties, California Chamber of Commerce, National Assn. of Drug Court Professionals

Major donors to “No” side: California Correctional Peace Officers Assn., Barona Band of Mission Indians, Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation, California Narcotics Officers Assn., Pala Band of Mission Indians, Peace Officers Research Assn. of California

Main arguments in favor: Drug offenders and society benefit more from providing treatment than incarceration; sentencing, parole changes and increased rehabilitation would reduce prison overcrowding.

Main arguments against: It would decriminalize drugs. Dangerous criminals would avoid incarceration, participate in ineffective treatment programs and return to crime. The cost to taxpayers is too great.

--

Proposition 6: Criminal justice

What it would do: Increase the annual state funding of state and local criminal justice programs by $365 million to $965 million, adjusting for inflation. It also would boost penalties for gang activity and other crimes and assign the state to pay for satellite tracking of sex offenders and other former state prison inmates.

Chief proponents: State Sen. George Runner (R-Lancaster), Mike Reynolds, author of California’s three-strikes law; San Bernardino County Supervisor Gary Ovitt; state law enforcement associations, including police chiefs, probation chiefs, sheriffs and police officers

Major donors to “Yes” side: Henry T. Nicholas III, co-founder of Broadcom Corp., now under indictment on drug violations and other charges; real estate executive Larry Rasmussen; Crime Victims United (funded by state prison guards union); state Sen. George Runner (R-Lancaster), through his campaign committees

Chief opponents: California Teachers Assn., Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, California Public Defenders Assn., California State Assn. of Counties, American Civil Liberties Union

Major donors to “No” side: Service Employees International Union California State Council, California Teachers Assn., California Democratic Party, California Federation of Teachers

Main arguments in favor: Law enforcement programs receive too little state money. Criminal penalties must be enhanced to deter gang activity and sufficiently punish perpetrators. Funding for probation departments would help rehabilitate criminals and reduce crime.

Main arguments against: The measure is an expensive “Christmas tree” of funding for local law enforcement agencies without accountability and would take money from other priorities, such as schools. New penalties would increase prison overcrowding. Some provisions would give too much power to prosecutors and police.

--

Proposition 7: Renewable energy

What it would do: Require public and private utilities to obtain at least 20% of their electricity from renewable sources by 2010 and 50% by 2025.

Chief proponents: Former state Sen. John L. Burton, former Los Angeles Department of Water and Power chief S. David Freeman, Community Environmental Council in Santa Barbara

Major donors to “Yes” side: Phoenix resident Peter Sperling, son of University of Phoenix founder John G. Sperling; political consultant Jim Gonzalez

Chief opponents: California Municipal Utilities Assn., California Solar Energy Industries Assn., California Wind Energy Assn., Natural Resources Defense Council, California Public Utilities Commission

Major donors to “No” side: Edison International, Pacific Gas & Electric Corp., Sempra Energy

Main arguments in favor: California shouldn’t wait for the Legislature and governor to boost renewable energy production.

Main arguments against: Loopholes would actually stall development of solar, wind and other renewable power.

--

Proposition 8: Same-sex marriage

What it would do: Amend the state Constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman.

Chief proponents: California Catholic Conference of Bishops, Protect Marriage Coalition, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Concerned Women for America

Major donors to “Yes” side: Knights of Columbus, Focus on the Family, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Chief opponents: Equality California, League of Women Voters of California, California Democratic Party, California Labor Federation, Valley Industry and Commerce Assn., United Farm Workers

Major donors to “No” side: Pacific Gas & Electric; Robert Haas, chief executive emeritus of Levi Strauss Co., director Stephen Spielberg, Service Employees International Union’s California State Council, California Teachers Assn.

Main arguments in favor: Eight years ago, California voters passed Proposition 22, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman, by more than 60%. The will of the people was overturned by the California Supreme Court, which allowed same-sex marriage earlier this year. This undermines the value of marriage.

Main arguments against: People should not be treated differently under the law because of their sexual orientation. Gays and lesbians should keep the right to marry like everyone else.

--

Proposition 9: Victims’ rights

What it would do: Amend the state Constitution to give new rights to crime victims and restrict early release of inmates. It would allow victims not to cooperate in criminal defendants’ preparation for trial; would provide mandatory restitution by an offender if a victim suffers a loss; would increase the maximum period between parole hearings from five to 15 years; and allow an unlimited number of victims’ family members to testify at parole hearings.

Chief proponents: Assemblyman Todd Spitzer (R-Orange), Crime Victims United of California, Justice for Homicide Victims, Justice for Murdered Children

Major donors to “Yes” side: Henry T. Nicholas III, co-founder of Broadcom Corp., the brother of a murder victim and now under indictment on fraud, conspiracy and drug charges; Crime Victims United, Peace Officers Research Assn. of California

Chief opponents: California Teachers Assn., Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, California Public Defenders Assn., California State Assn. of Counties, American Civil Liberties Union

Major donors to “No” side: Service Employees International Union’s California State Council, California Federation of Teachers, California Teachers Assn., California Democratic Party

Main arguments in favor: It would strengthen the rights of victims in a system that gives rights to criminals. It would reduce pain for victims by lengthening the period between parole hearings, also saving taxpayer money.

Main arguments against: It would duplicate existing provisions of law. It also would overburden the parole hearing process with victim testimony; improperly make victims party to criminal cases and could violate offenders’ federal constitutional rights. It also could cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars a year by restricting inmates’ early release.

--

Proposition 10: Alternative fuels, renewable energy

What it would do: Borrow $5 billion, most of it to be distributed as rebates to buyers of vehicles fueled by natural gas, hydrogen, electricity and other alternative fuels.

Chief proponents: Clean Energy Fuels Corp. of Seal Beach, former Assemblyman Fred Keeley, past Air Resources Board chairman John Dunlap

Major donors to “Yes” side: Clean Energy Fuels Corp., Chesapeake Energy executive Audrey McClendon, Westport Fuel Systems Inc. of Long Beach

Chief opponents: Consumer Federation of California, League of Women Voters, Consumer Watchdog, California Tax Reform Assn.

Major donors to “No” side: California Federation of Teachers, California School Employees Assn.

Main arguments in favor: It would reduce California’s dependence on foreign oil, help clean the air and create thousands of green technology jobs.

Main arguments against: Rebates would be skewed toward natural-gas vehicle fleets serviced by the initiative’s chief backer. California cannot afford to pay back $10 billion in principal and interest over 30 years for a short-term investment in vehicles.

--

Proposition 11: Redistricting

What it would do: Take away from the Legislature the once-a-decade job of drawing legislative and Board of Equalization districts and give it to a 14-member commission with five Democrats, five Republicans and four others.

Chief proponents: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, AARP, League of Women Voters, California Common Cause, California Chamber of Commerce

Major donors to “Yes” side: A political fund controlled by Schwarzenegger; physicist Charles T. Munger Jr.; New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg; Netflix Inc. executive Reed Hastings

Chief opponents: California Democratic Party, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, California Labor Federation, Asian Pacific American Legal Center

Major donors to “No” side: California Correctional Peace Officers Assn., Democratic State Central Committee of California, State Building & Construction Trades Council of California political committee

Main arguments in favor: Legislators draw their own safe seats under the current back-room system, which leads to a lack of accountability to voters. An independent commission would draw fair districts in an open process.

Main arguments against: The measure sets up a complicated system that does not guarantee representation for all of California’s diverse communities. It is a Republican power grab.

--

Proposition 12: Veterans

What it would do: Issue $900 million in bonds to provide low-cost loans to California veterans for the purchase of farms and homes. It would appropriate money from the state’s general fund to pay off bonds if loan payments from participating veterans are insufficient for that purpose.

Chief proponents: State Sen. Mark Wyland (R-Escondido), California Veterans of Foreign Wars, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger

Major donors to “Yes” side: None reported.

Chief opponents: Mountain View attorney Gary B. Wesley

Major donors to “No” side: None reported.

Main arguments in favor: It would recognize the debt that Californians owe those who have served in the military. There would be no cost to taxpayers because mortgage payments would cover the bond costs. It also would help the state economy.

Main arguments against: The program is too broad; it would allow loans for veterans who served far from combat zones, including those who stayed in the United States. Loans should be offered first to veterans who served in combat zones.