STATEWIDE PROPOSITIONS ON TUESDAY’S BALLOT

PROPOSITION Proposition 53 School Bonds WHAT IT WOULD DO Authorize the state to issue $800 million in bonds to build new schools and expand or upgrade existing campuses. ARGUMENTS FOR State officials expect 600,000 new students by 1994. The bond funds would help finance new classrooms, particularly in badly overcrowded districts, as well as repairs and air-conditioning in year-round schools. Supporters: Gov. George Deukmejian, Supt. of Public Instruction Bill Honig, Assemblywoman Teresa Hughes (D-Los Angeles). ARGUMENTS AGAINST Public schools receive ample funding already. Lottery funds should be made available for school construction. Opponents: United Voters League. PROPOSITION Proposition 54 Prison Bonds WHAT IT WOULD DO Authorize the state to sell $500 million in general obligation bonds, most to be used to continued the ongoing $2-billion-plus expansion of the adult prison system, 10% to be earmarked for a new juvenile detention facility. ARGUMENTS FOR California state prisons are seriously overcrowded with 55,000 convicts held in space designed for 32,000. The bond money would provide more prison space for felons who might otherwise be released by courts because of overcrowding. Additional prison construction would mean tens of thousands of jobs. Supporters: Gov. George Deukmejian; Dick Simpson, executive vice president of the California Taxpayers Assn.; Robert H. Kress, vice president of the Citizens for Law and Order; Brad Gates, sheriff of Orange County and president of the California State Sheriffs’ Assn. ARGUMENTS AGAINST Assemblyman Richard E. Floyd (D-Hawthorne) urges a no vote on the grounds that new prisons could be built on a tighter budget if the state Department of Corrections were not so inept and wasteful. Others say that too many people are being locked up for too long and that much of the prison expansion money should be used for programs to prevent crime. PROPOSITION Proposition 55 Drinking Water Bonds WHAT IT WOULD DO Allow the state to issue $100 million in bonds for loans and grants to local water districts to clean up tainted drinking water supplies. Loans would be repaid by fees charged to users, but as much as $25 million could be used for grants repaid from state tax funds. ARGUMENTS FOR A large number of water districts have discovered contaminants in drinking water supplies posing a serious health threat. Many districts lack money for needed improvements. Grants and loans would be made to districts most in need of cash and those that face the most severe health problems. Supporters: Assn. of California Water Agencies, Health Officers Assn. of California, California Parent Teacher Assn., California Muncipal Utilities Assn. and League of Women Voters. ARGUMENTS AGAINST State funds should not be used to help a few local water districts. Instead, the water agencies should ask users to increase fees. Opponents: Libertarian Party candidates. PROPOSITION Proposition 56 Higher Education Bonds WHAT IT WOULD DO Authorize the state to issue $400 million in bonds to finance expansion and modernization of University of California, California State University and community college campuses. ARGUMENTS FOR Higher education campuses have relied on tideland oil revenues to pay for capital improvements, but these funds have been shrinking, while the need for new and better facilities has not diminished. Supporters: Sen. Gary K. Hart (D-Santa Barbara), Gov. George Deukmejian, UC President David Gardner. ARGUMENTS AGAINST The bonds would place too heavy a burden on taxpayers, and any improvements needed should be financed with state general funds. Opponents: Assemblymen Nolan Frizzelle (R-Huntington Beach) and Don Sebastiani (R-Sonoma). PROPOSITION Proposition 57 Retirement Benefits WHAT IT WOULD DO Block pension increases for 18 former state officeholders, several of whom are scheduled to receive substantial pension hikes next January. Future pension increases of these ex-officeholders would no longer be tied to the salaries of successive incumbents. ARGUMENTS FOR Windfall pension increases for ex-public officials should be eliminated. Several of the pensions, if allowed to increase next January, would rocket into the $100,000 range, thus giving these former officeholders a monthly income far in excess of what they were making while in office. Supporters: State Sen. Wadie P. Deddeh (D-Chula Vista), Lt. Gov. Leo T. McCarthy, state Board of Equalization member Ernest Dronenburg, California Taxpayers Assn. ARGUMENTS AGAINST Pension contracts express the will of the Legislature and, under state and federal constitutional protections, cannot be broken--as was affirmed in a unanimous 1978 ruling of the California Supreme Court. If the measure becomes law, no public or private pension in California would be safe. Opponents: San Jose attorney Gary B. Wesley. PROPOSITION Proposition 58 Taxation Family Transfers WHAT IT WOULD DO Liberalize Proposition 13 property tax reassessment rule on residential and business property transfers between parents and children. When primary residence is transferred, it would be exempted from automatic reassessment of its market value--usually translating into higher taxes for the new owner. ARGUMENTS FOR Because of a flaw in Proposition 13, steep property tax increases are levied when parents transfer residences or businesses to their children. This measure corrects the error. Without this protection, many small businesses and farms could be placed in financial jeopardy. Supporters: Assemblyman Thomas M. Hannigan (D-Fairfield), Lt. Gov. Leo T. McCarthy. ARGUMENTS AGAINST Some opponents maintain that an exemption is justified for residences, but not for commercial and industrial property. Others say that a “no” vote would send a message to legislators to move on comprehensive overhaul of state’s automatic property reassessment formula. Opponents: League of California Cities, San Jose attorney Gary B. Wesley. PROPOSITION Proposition 59 Elected District Attorneys WHAT IT WOULD DO Amend the California Constitution to require that district attorneys in the state’s 58 counties be elected. All are elected now, but not as a constitutional requirement. ARGUMENTS FOR County district attorneys are important and powerful public officials who must be held accountable not by some political appointing power--which present law would allow--but directly by the people. Supporters: California District Attorneys Assn., Senate President Pro-Tem David Roberti (D-Los Angeles), Sen. Dan McCorquodale (D-San Jose). ARGUMENTS AGAINST Voters in some counties may, in the future, prefer to allow their elected board of supervisors to appoint a qualified attorney to serve as district attorney and remove the appointee if he or she is found unsatisfactory. Opponents: San Jose attorney Gary B. Wesley, County Supervisors Assn. of California. PROPOSITION Proposition 60 Taxation on Replacement Homes WHAT IT WOULD DO Give tax break to senior citizens by allowing them to carry the assessed value of their home to a new residence without having the new residence reassessed, which usually means higher property taxes. ARGUMENTS FOR The so-called “empty nesters,” senior citizens whose children have grown up and moved away, would be freed from paying higher property taxes when they move to a smaller residence. A ripple effect on the real estate market would open up more houses at the lower end of the economic spectrum to first-time home buyers. Supporters: Assemblyman Dave Elder (D-Long Beach), Los Angeles County Assessor Alexander Pope, American Assn. of Retired Persons. ARGUMENTS AGAINST The measure would create losses of revenue for local governments at a time when cities and counties already are under severe fiscal restraints. The legislative analyst forecasts passage would mean losses of “several millions of dollars per year, beginning in 1987-88.” Opponents: League of California Cities, County Supervisors Assn. of Calif. PROPOSITION Proposition 61 Public Officials’ Compensation (Gann Amendment) WHAT IT WOULD DO Limit the salary of the governor to $80,000 and of other government officials to no more than 80% of the governor’s salary, or $64,000, and bar carryover by any government worker of accumulated sick pay or vacation pay from year to year. ARGUMENTS FOR Plenty of people would be willing to run for office under these salary limitations. If special circumstances required it, higher salaries could be approved by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature. Supporters: Tax crusader Paul Gann, economist Arthur Laffer. ARGUMENTS AGAINST Hundreds of government lawyers, doctors, University of California professors and administrators whose salaries would be cut would resign en masse, followed by thousands of police and other public safety officials also affected. Also, public agencies would face a one-time buyout of vacation and sick-pay benefits totaling $7 billion. Opponents: California Taxpayers Assn., California Chamber of Commerce, League of California Cities, County Supervisors Assn. of California, AFL-CIO, League of Women Voters, California Police Chiefs Assn. PROPOSITION Proposition 62 Local Government Taxes WHAT IT WOULD DO Require a two-thirds vote of local governing bodies and a majority popular vote before new or increased general taxes, such as business or utility user levies, could be imposed. It would penalize local governments that failed to comply. ARGUMENTS FOR Authored by the late Howard Jarvis, the measure expresses the intent of property tax-cutting Proposition 13. It would change the Supreme Court ruling that allowed local governments to adopt a myriad of local taxes without popular votes. Supporters: Gov. George Deukmejian, California Taxpayers Assn., California Chamber of Commerce, California Manufacturers Assn., California Farm Bureau, California Tax Reduction Movement. ARGUMENTS AGAINST The measure is cumbersome, complicating local government’s ability to raise funds to underwrite critical services such as police and fire protection. Its blanket restrictions on California cities are inappropriate to financing problems that vary from city to city. Opponents: Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, police, fire and teacher groups, League of Women Voters, Common Cause, League of California Cities. PROPOSITION Proposition 63 English Only WHAT IT WOULD DO Declare English to be the official language of California, require the Legislature to see that English is “preserved and enhanced” and give persons the standing to bring suit against the state to enforce these provisions. ARGUMENTS FOR There is a serious erosion of English as the common bond of the state and nation, and this is an effort to halt the trend. A constititional amendment is needed to recognize in law the status of English as the principal language. No other constitutional rights are threatened. Supporters: Former Sen. and semanticist S.I. Hayakawa; Stanley Diamond, California English Campaign chairman; U.S. English, a national organization for upholding English. ARGUMENTS AGAINST Nothing positive would be accomplished to increase English proficiency. Rather, those who have not had an opportunity to learn it would be punished. No guarantees are contained for needed exceptions, such as communicating in other languages for purposes of health, safety and justice. Opponents: Representatives of Armenian, Chinese, Japanese, Latino and Korean groups, Gov. George Deukmejian, Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, Supt. of Public Instruction Bill Honig. PROPOSITION Proposition 64 AIDS WHAT IT WOULD DO The language is unclear. The measure would require health authorities to continue collecting names of people with AIDS and also require them to begin collecting names of anyone who tests positive for AIDS antibodies. Health officers may be required to remove anyone testing positive from food handling and school jobs, and the measure may encourage the quarantine of AIDS patients and non-ill carriers of antibodies. ARGUMENTS FOR Public health officials must be compelled to regard AIDS as a dangerous pandemic and not a “civil rights issue.” These officials would simply be required to apply traditional public health practices, including quarantine where justified. AIDS is spread by insects, airborne particles and “casual contact.” Supporters: Groups affiliated with political extremist Lyndon H. LaRouche, Rep. William E. Dannemeyer (R-Fullerton). ARGUMENTS AGAINST The capacity for confidential AIDS testing and education crucial to slowing the AIDS spread would be jeopardized. Blood banks would be devastated. Rather than control AIDS, there would be a rise in AIDS deaths. People would be forced from jobs and a costly life-long quarantine could occur without medical justification. AIDS is not spread by insects, airborne particles and “casual contact.” The initiative is a political ploy by Lyndon H. LaRouche. Opponents: U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, Gov. George Deukmejian, American Red Cross, all major doctor, nurse and health organizations. AIDS researchers, gay groups, business and labor groups, leaders of both major political parties. PROPOSITION Proposition 65 Toxics WHAT IT WOULD DO Restrict the release into drinking water sources of toxic substances thought to cause cancer or birth defects. Governor would prepare a list of such chemicals, initially more than 200. Businesses would have to warn consumers and employees of exposure to listed substances, unless they could show levels were low and presented no significant risk. ARGUMENTS FOR The present system for protecting the public is not working, largely because government must prove a danger exists before acting. A large number of water supplies are contaminated with toxics. Citizen suits would improve enforcement of anti-pollution laws. Supporters: Sierra Club and other environmental groups; California District Attorneys Assn.; California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO; California Parent Teacher Assn.; California Trial Lawyers Assn.; California National Organization for Women; U.S. Sen. Alan Cranston; and Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley. ARGUMENTS AGAINST The present system for regulating toxic chemicals is the toughest in the country and is beginning to work. But under the measure, businesses would be forced to show that the chemicals they use are safe, an almost impossible burden that would harm many of the state’s most important industries. Exemptions for public agencies are unfair and anti-business. Opponents: California Chamber of Commerce; California Farm Bureau Assn.; California Manufacturers Assn.; California Medical Assn.; California Council for Environmental & Economic Balance; Chemical Industry Council of California; Assn. of California Water Agencies; Rep. Ed Zschau; and Gov. George Deukmejian.