California Elections : STATEWIDE PROPOSITIONS ON TUESDAY’S BALLOT

PROPOSITION Proposition 66 Elected County Assessors

WHAT IT WOULD DO Amends the state Constitution to require that assessors be chosen by public elections in both general law and chartered counties.

ARGUMENTS FOR All county assessors should be elected and not appointed to ensure that the office remains independent and free from the influence or control of elected officials. Although all 58 current county assessors have been elected, there have been efforts to make it an appointive position. * Supporters: California Assessors Assn., state Sen. Barry Keene (D-Benicia), Senate Republican Leader Ken Maddy, Board of Equalization member William Bennett.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST This measure is unnecessary since all county assessors are already elected. Also, the constitutional amendment threatens local autonomy by taking away the right of individual counties to choose whether to appoint or elect their county assessor. * Opponents: County Supervisors Assn. of California

PROPOSITION Proposition 67 Second-Degree Murder of Peace Officer

WHAT IT WOULD DO Imposes a mandatory 25-year prison sentence for second-degree murder of peace officers.

ARGUMENTS FOR The current law is too lax, allowing persons convicted of killing a peace officer to serve as little as 10 years in prison. * Supporters: Gov. George Deukmejian, L.A. County Sheriff Sherman Block, Dist. Atty. Ira Reiner, Atty. Gen. John Van de Kamp, Calif. Organization of Police and Sheriffs, California Peace Officers Assn., California Assn. of Highway Patrolmen, Calif. Correctional Peace Officers Assn., Los Angeles Police Protective League

ARGUMENTS AGAINST Some classes of peace officers, such as probation officers and arson investigators, are not covered by the proposition, which is so poorly drafted it should be rewritten. * Opponents: Assemblyman Robert Campbell (D-Richmond), California Attorneys for Criminal Justice (an organization of some defense attorneys), ACLU.

PROPOSITION Proposition 68 Campaign Financing

WHAT IT WOULD DO Provide matching tax dollars to qualified legislative candidates. Impose campaign spending limits on candidates who accept public financing. Impose campaign contribution limits ranging from $1,000 to $5,000. Prohibit contributions in non-election years. Ban transfers of campaign money among candidates. Limit the size of gifts and speaking fees to $2,000 every two years. Legislative analyst estimates cost at $11 million annually.

ARGUMENTS FOR Would reduce the influence special-interest contributors have on legislation. Would reduce cost of legislative campaigns, making it easier to defeat incumbents. Would encourage local participation and make members of the Legislature more responsible to the public. Would reduce the power of legislative leaders to determine who is elected. * Supporters: Common Cause, League of Women Voters, California Business Roundtable, Mayor Tom Bradley, Atty. Gen. John Van de Kamp, PTA, the Sierra Club, American Assn. of Retired Persons, Consumers Union, the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, dozens of other groups.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST Would give politicians tax dollars to use in their campaigns. Would permit extremist candidates to receive public money. May not reduce cost of campaigns because candidates could ignore spending limits if they declined matching tax funds. Would perpetuate the advantage for incumbents. * Opponents: Gov. George Deukmejian, Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco), Senate President Pro Tem David A. Roberti (D-Los Angeles), Senate Republican leader Ken Maddy of Fresno, Assembly Republican leader Pat Nolan of Glendale, the California Medical Assn.

PROPOSITION Proposition 69 AIDS

WHAT IT WOULD DO 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 AIDS antibodies.

ARGUMENTS FOR Would give health officers the legal authority to do their job. Public health officials would be required to use traditional public health practices, including quarantine where justified. Government officials are hiding the extent of the AIDS epidemic in order to avoid spending funds to stop the disease. * Supporters: Groups affiliated with political extremist Lyndon LaRouche.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST Measure is virtually identical to Prop. 64, also sponsored by LaRouche and overwhelmingly defeated by the voters in 1986. Public health officials already have authority they need to deal with AIDS. Prop. 69 would slow confidential AIDS testing and education. Victims would be forced from their jobs and unjustified quarantines would be imposed. The language is unclear. * Opponents: Gov. George Deukmejian, state Health Director Kenneth W. Kizer, all major doctor, nurse and health organizations, AIDS researchers, homosexual groups, business and labor groups, leaders of Republican and Democratic parties.

PROPOSITION Proposition 70 Park Bonds

WHAT IT WOULD DO Authorize the state to issue $776 million in general obligation bonds to fund the Wildlife, Coastal and Park Land Conservation Program, which would help local, regional and state park agencies buy and develop new and existing parkland. Bonds would be paid off with general fund money.

ARGUMENTS FOR Rapid population growth has put pressure on remaining open space, so land preservation is essential. The initiative, placed on the ballot by a massive grass-roots environmental coalition, sets aside two-thirds of the $776 million for buying land. * Supporters: Californians for Parks and Wildlife, many local governments and park districts, Sen. Pete Wilson (R-Calif.), Lt. Gov. Leo T. McCarthy and former President Gerald R. Ford.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST The measure is nothing more than a “park barrel” that awards environmental groups with needless park projects in return for their support of the Proposition 70 initiative. There is too much emphasis on buying land and not enough on developing existing parks. Also, the initiative bypassed the governor and Legislature and their system of checks and balances. * Opponents: Gov. George Deukmejian, state Chamber of Commerce, California Farm Bureau Federation, California Cattlemen’s Assn.

PROPOSITION Proposition 71 Appropriations Limit

WHAT IT WOULD DO Replace current formula that limits state spending with new one that allows more spending by basing annual growth on higher measures of inflation. Removes highway taxes and user fees from spending control. Would allow additional spending of up to $700 million annually.

ARGUMENTS FOR Current spending limit is unworkable because state is not allowed to spend all the taxes it collects. If unchanged, limit will require service reductions of $23 billion over next decade. Prop. 71 provides flexibility needed to meet spending needs. * Supporters: State Supt. of Public Instruction Bill Honig, Atty. Gen. John Van de Kamp, League of Women Voters, American Assn. of Retired Persons, Parent-Teacher Assn., California Teachers Assn.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST Changes spending limit approved by voters in 1979. Increased spending would lead to higher taxes. Current limit is reasonable. * Opponents: Anti-tax crusader Paul Gann, California Chamber of Commerce, Gov. George Deukmejian, Californians Against Higher Taxes, numerous taxpayer groups.

PROPOSITION Proposition 72 Appropriations Limit

WHAT IT WOULD DO Adjusts spending limit to allow increased spending of up to $1.6 billion a year. Also requires that state’s share of 6% sales tax on motor vehicle fuel be used only to finance transportation projects, and not general government programs. Would shift about $725 million from various government programs to highway projects after three years. Creates permanent budget reserve.

ARGUMENTS FOR Adjusts appropriations limit to provide more flexibility and provides more money for under-funded highway projects. * Supporters: Anti-tax crusader Paul Gann, California Tax Reduction Movement, land developers and highway construction firms, Californians for Better Transportation.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST Increases spending on highways at expense of schools, health, law enforcement and other programs. Removes authority to set spending priorities from governor. Current limit is reasonable. * Opponents: California Teachers Assn., California Fire Chiefs Assn., Gov. George Deukmejian, California School Boards Assn., Supt. of Public Instruction Bill Honig, state Parent-Teachers Assn., California Tax Reform Assn.

PROPOSITION Proposition 73 Campaign Financing

WHAT IT WOULD DO Would prohibit the use of tax dollars in local, legislative or state races. Would impose no spending limit but would restrict campaign contributions to amounts ranging from $1,000 to $5,000 per fiscal year. Limit gifts and speaking fees to $1,000 a year, but with exceptions for travel expenses. Ban newsletters mailed by incumbents at taxpayers’ expense. Legislative analyst estimates net savings of $700,000 a year.

ARGUMENTS FOR Would prevent politicians from being able to use tax dollars to finance their campaigns. Would limit campaign spending by restricting the size of campaign contributions. Would reduce the influence of wealthy special interest groups on the Legislature. Would remove the incumbents’ advantage of sending out newsletters at taxpayers’ expense. * Supporters: Assemblyman Ross Johnson (R-La Habra), Sen. Joseph B. Montoya (D-Whittier), Sen. Quentin Kopp (I-San Francisco).

ARGUMENTS AGAINST Would do nothing to limit runaway campaign spending because it places no restrictions on expenditures. Would ban public financing, which would make the Legislature more accountable to the public. Would continue to give incumbents the advantage in fund raising. The limit on gifts and speaking fees has so many loopholes it would not cut down on gifts from special interest groups. * Opponents:* Supporters of Prop. 68, including Common Cause, the League of Women Voters, a broad coalition of consumer, senior citizen, environmentalist and civic groups.

PROPOSITION Proposition 74 Transportation Bonds

WHAT IT WOULD DO Authorize the state to issue $1 billion in bonds to pay for transportation projects including streets and roads, state highways and public mass transit guideways. Bonds to be paid back in 20 years or less.

ARGUMENTS FOR Prop. 74 and a second bond issue to be placed on the ballot in 1990 would provide $2.3 billion in a five-year plan to increase state transportation funding by 40% without a gas tax increase. Bonds could be paid back in five years by using funds above the constitutional spending limit that otherwise would have to be rebated to taxpayers. * Supporters: Gov. George Deukmejian, Sen. Wadie Deddeh (D-Chula Vista), California Transportation Commission Chairman Tom Hawthorne, the California Chamber of Commerce.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST The measure provides too little considering that future needs may be as high as $20 billion. State will not have enough money to repay the bonds in five years so interest costs over 20 years could total nearly $800 million. That would have to be repaid with money that otherwise would go to other programs. A gas tax increase is the only long-term solution. * Opponents: Sen. John Garamendi (D-Walnut Grove), Sen. Bill Lockyer (D-Hayward), Assembly Speaker Pro Tem Mike Roos (D-Los Angeles), the Automobile Club of Southern California.

PROPOSITION Proposition 75 School Construction

WHAT IT WOULD DO Would authorize the state to issue $800 million in bonds to build and renovate schools.

ARGUMENTS FOR Public school enrollment is growing by more than 140,000 students a year--and many schools are overcrowded. State has nearly run out of construction money and cannot pay for $900 million worth of projects already approved. * Supporters: Gov. George Deukmejian, Supt. of Public Instruction Bill Honig, California Taxpayers Assn., California Teachers Assn., Assn. of California School Administrators, California Building Industry Assn., California Chamber of Commerce, California School Boards Assn.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST * Opponents: No organized opposition.

PROPOSITION Proposition 76 Veterans Bonds

WHAT IT WOULD DO Provides $510 million in bonds to provide low-interest farm and home mortgage program for California veterans.

ARGUMENTS FOR Veterans repay bonds at no expense to taxpayers. Continues popular Cal-Vet program. * Supporters: Major veterans groups, Gov. George Deukmejian, Legislature.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST Past and current bond measures have led to too much borrowing, putting state in financial danger zone. * Opponents: State Sen. H.L. Richardson (R-Glendora).

PROPOSITION Proposition 77 Earthquake Safety

WHAT IT WOULD DO Would authorize the sale of $150 million in bonds to provide low-interest, deferred-payment loans to rehabilitate single-family homes and apartment buildings that house the poor and to strengthen unreinforced masonry apartment buildings that are prone to earthquake damage.

ARGUMENTS FOR The measure is needed to prevent widespread damage and injury in the case of a major earthquake and to generally improve the state’s stock of low-income housing. * Supporters: Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco), Assemblymen Dominic L. Cortese (D-San Jose) and Richard Floyd (D-Hawthorne)

ARGUMENTS AGAINST The bonds, which will be paid off out of the state’s general fund, are too expensive, as interest payments over 20 years would total $120 million. Homeowners and landlords should take it upon themselves to finance safety improvements. * Opponents: The Libertarian Party of California.