Tobacco Tax Approved but Disputed AIDS Plan Fails

Sifting the longest list of statewide propositions in 66 years, California voters Tuesday approved an increase in the state tobacco tax and AIDS testing of sex crime suspects but rejected radical changes in existing programs for controlling the AIDS epidemic.

A proposal for guaranteed funding for public schools and community colleges passed by a slim margin.

Although Gov. George Deukmejian was rebuffed on Proposition 102, the more severe AIDS measure, and was seeing voters override his recommendation to kill a job safety program, he found some support in the ballot totals. Many voters apparently shared his opposition to Proposition 98, the school financing measure, while the voters approved Proposition 89, which would give him new authority to override paroles for murderers.

Voters authorized at least $3.2 billion in new bonds to finance everything from new prisons to new schools to new low-income housing for the homeless. Another $75 million for public libraries was in a very tight race.

The biggest victory of the day was going to the state’s medical community, which weathered a brutal and controversial $18-million media assault by the tobacco industry and was seeing voters approve Proposition 99, the tobacco tax initiative, by a 3-to-2 margin.

The measure would increase the state tax on cigarettes by 25 cents a pack, raising $600 million a year to pay for indigent health care and fight the negative effects of smoking.

Dr. James Nethery, chairman of Coalition for a Healthy California, the Yes on 99 group, said the estimated $130 million to be allocated to educational campaigns “will mean a lot of young people deciding not to smoke.”

On the defeat of another measure, Proposition 102, which would force disclosure of known and suspected AIDS victims, Dr. Michael Gottlieb, a co-discoverer of the AIDS virus, said, “This is a sign that California voters reject scare tactics,” adding that Deukmejian’s endorsement of the proposition may actually have led to its defeat by causing overwhelmed voters to focus on its controversial proposals.

“The medical community is far more credible to the electorate than the governor,” he said.

Proposition 102’s sponsor, Rep. William E. Dannemeyer (R-Fullerton), declined to concede defeat, citing a Santa Ana newspaper poll predicting that the measure would win.

“That is the latest poll I’ve seen, and I have no reason to believe it’s wrong,” Dannemeyer said, holding out hope that the measure might still win.

He said past state AIDS legislation had been killed by “the political clout of the male homosexual lobby of Sacramento.”

Meanwhile, another, less controversial AIDS measure, Proposition 96, was passing easily. That measure, proposed by Los Angeles County Sheriff Sherman Block, would let sex-crime victims and certain others seek court orders forcing their attackers to take an AIDS test, and would require that jailers be warned which inmates were afflicted with the disease.

Sheer Number

With two or three exceptions, the statewide propositions tended to be pushed out of the public debate this year by the sheer number of ballot measures--as many as 50 state and local proposals in some cities--and by the intensity of races for national and statewide offices.

Except for the five insurance-related ballot measures, Proposition 99, the tobacco tax initiative, was perhaps the most visible proposal to many voters because of the millions of dollars spent by the tobacco industry on highly charged and controversial television ads in an effort to defeat it.

Funded by the nation’s three biggest cigarette makers--R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Philip Morris Cos. Inc. and Lorillard Inc.--the No on 99 campaign labored to paint the tobacco tax as an invitation to crime and a special-interest tax grab. It ignored the proposal’s goals of paying for indigent health care, research on tobacco-related diseases and anti-smoking education.

Proponents of the measure, including virtually every major health group, as well as many firefighter associations and environmentalists, spent most of their time and a $1.6-million budget on campaign stunts and last-minute advertising trying to defend their early lead in opinion polls from the tobacco industry’s relentless $18-million media onslaught.

Divisive Campaign

In contrast, television advertising played hardly any role in the bitter and potentially divisive campaign over Proposition 102, the proposal to end the system of anonymous AIDS testing by requiring doctors to disclose the names of people known or suspected of carrying the disease. It also would require that sexual contacts of AIDS carriers be traced and notified and would repeal laws that bar insurance companies and employers from using AIDS test results.

AIDS experts across the country were anxiously awaiting the vote results, which they said would force a dramatic change in tactics and jeopardize AIDS research in the nation’s most populous state.

Major research studies are already seeing reluctance of some subjects to continue, and there has been a rush to be tested in San Francisco. Leading doctors, including Dr. Laurens White, president of the California Medical Assn., and Dr. Marcus Conant, chairman of the Governor’s AIDS Leadership Committee, have pledged to ignore Proposition 102 and protect the names of their patients who test positive.

Supporters said the initiative was needed to force the medical establishment to attack AIDS like other diseases. But opponents, including the most prominent names in AIDS research and treatment, said it would restrict the authority of public health officials and lead to increased cases by destroying research and scaring people out of being tested.

Radio Spots

Opponents unveiled a big name--Dr. Jonas Salk--in radio spots on the final weekend. They also had Surgeon General C. Everett Koop; the presidents of the University of California, Stanford University and USC, and every major health association in the state attacking Proposition 102.

The biggest weapons for the sponsors were Paul Gann and Deukmejian. Gann, the tax-cutting Populist who has tested positive for the AIDS virus, campaigned tirelessly for the measure. Deukmejian’s endorsement surprised both sides and prompted resignations of three Deukmejian appointees to AIDS panels, including Gottlieb.

On the other hand, the governor surprised no one when he spoke out against Proposition 97, a proposal to reinstate the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Deukmejian had killed the agency last year to save $6.8 million by shifting job-safety regulation to a similar federal agency.

However, labor unions and doctors complained that the return to more lax federal safety standards resulted in perhaps several dozen avoidable deaths in California since Deukmejian’s decision. They mounted a modest advertising campaign asking voters to reinstate the agency. There was virtually no campaign against the idea.

School Funds

Another expensive campaign centered on Proposition 98, the school funding initiative drafted and backed by the California Teachers Assn., state Supt. of Public Instruction Bill Honig and other education interests.

The measure pitted Honig against Deukmejian in a dispute centering on Honig’s arguments that public schools have not been given adequate funding in recent budgets.

Fed up with the kind of budgets that have emerged from the governor’s office, Honig and other school supporters put together a measure ensuring that future budgets will be healthy.

Proposition 98 guarantees that schools will receive annual budget increases at least equal to the rate of inflation or growth in student enrollments, whichever is higher. In years when inflation or student enrollments are low, it prevents cuts by providing that schools receive at least 39% of the state’s general fund budget of $36 billion.

Frosting on the cake is a provision that would give schools the bulk of future state budget surpluses. Such surpluses are now rebated to taxpayers.

Deukmejian complained that the measure would do nothing to improve student performances or the quality of schools and most likely would lead to an increase in taxes. Deukmejian also warned that the measure will jeopardize funding of prison, health, welfare and other programs.

Early Polls

But with early polls showing strong voter support for Proposition 98, Deukmejian and others kept a relatively low profile and struggled to find a way to campaign against the measure without seeming to be against education.

Among the other propositions were nine bond measures authorizing the state to sell $3.3 billion in general obligation bonds, a record volume to be put before voters in one election. The record volume approved by voters at one time was the $2.2 billion authorized last June.

The bonds, an increasingly popular way of raising money for capital expenditures, are scheduled to be paid off over 20- to 30-year periods. Most were unopposed and expected to pass.

Two of the bond measures would raise money for expansion of overcrowded state prisons and county jails. Proposition 80 would net $817 million for state prison construction. Proposition 86 would raise $500 million for construction of county jails.

Deukmejian, the Legislature and local law enforcement officials supported both prison and jail bond measures.

High Schools

Two other bond measures, Propositions 78 and 79, would provide $1.4 billion to build public schools and expand universities. Proposition 78 would raise $600 million for the University of California, California State University and state community college systems. Proposition 79 would raise $800 million for high schools and elementary schools.

Proposition 84 would raise $300 million to aid the homeless. The money would be used to build new affordable and low-income housing, rehabilitate existing low-income housing, help first-time low-income home buyers with below-market-rate mortgages and provide more emergency shelters.