STATEWIDE MEASURES ON TUESDAY’S BALLOT

PROPOSITION: Proposition 107 Housing and Homeless Bonds WHAT IT WOULD DO: * Authorize sale of $150 for reduced interest loans for rental units, aid low-income first-time home buyers with interest-deferred second mortgages and help with down payments, grant $15 million for restoration of residential hotels and add homeless shelter beds. ARGUMENTS FOR: * Reduced federal funds forces the state help alleviate the housing shortage. When combined with $450 million in housing bonds approved by voters in 1988, Proposition 107 can have an impact. * Supporters: California Homeless Coalition, Salvation Army, California Building Industry Assn., California Assn. of Realtors, California Labor Federation, State Building & Construction Trades Council, Vietnam Veterans of California, Congress of California Seniors. ARGUMENTS AGAINST: * Spending taxpayers’ money does not attack the excessive government regulation of housing that is a real cause of homelessness and poor housing conditions. * Most of the homeless are either addicts or mentally ill and this program does not address that. * Opponents: Sen. Bill Leonard (R-Big Bear) and Assemblyman Phillip Wyman (R-Tehachapi). PROPOSITION: PROPOSITION 108 The Passenger Rail and Clean Air Bond Act. WHAT IT WOULD DO: * Authorize a $1 billion general obligation bond issue to finance upgrading and expansion of commuter, inter-city and regional rail systems. * Cannot go into effect unless Proposition 111 is also approved by the voters. ARGUMENTS FOR: * California needs to improve and expand its rail transit systems to relieve congestion on the highways. Rail transportation saves energy and reduces pollution. It is cost effective because light rail can be built at one-tenth the cost of highways. * Supporters: Gov. George Deukmejian, California Chamber of Commerce; California Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO; Associated General Contractors of California; California Taxpayers Assn.; Coalition for Clean Air; League of Women Voters of California and California Assn. of Highway Patrolmen. ARGUMENTS AGAINST: Last year California sold more general obligation bonds than at any other time in its history and it cannot afford to increase its debt burden any further. * Opponents: Economist Arthur B. Laffer, Assemblyman Richard L. Mountjoy (R-Monrovia); Assemblyman Eric Seastrand (R-Salinas); Assemblyman Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks), National Tax Limitation Committee, the Orange County-based Citizens Against Unfair Taxation and People’s Advocate. PROPOSITION: PROPOSITION 109 Governor’s review of legislation WHAT IT WOULD DO: * The governor has 12 days to decide whether to sign a bill, except at the end of the second year of a two-year legislative session when the govenor is given up to 29 additional days. This measure would give the governor that additional time at the end of the first year of the legislative session. ARGUMENTS FOR: * Twelve days is insufficient to considerthe large number of bills passed in the closing days of the session. * It will give legislators and others more time to argue their cases before the governor makes a decision. * Supporters: Gov. George Deukmejian, Assemblyman Richard L. Mountjoy and Sen. Ken Maddy. ARGUMENTS AGAINST: * Would delay decision making. * Increase the time for “back room deals” on legislation. * Opponents: Assemblyman Richard E. Floyd (D-Carson). PROPOSITION: PROPOSITION 110 Property Tax Exemption for Disabled WHAT IT WOULD DO: * Authorizes Legislature to permit severely disabled homeowners who move within the same county to retain the lower assessed value of their old home for property tax purposes. Such a break currently is available only to property owners over 55. * Would prohibit assessors from reappraising a property because of improvements done to make the property more usable by the disabled owner. ARGUMENTS FOR: * Would provide needed relief from additional taxes for those who must move or make improvements to their homes because of disability. * Would provide incentive to allow disabled to remain independent and in their homes for longer periods of time. * Supporters: Center for Independent Living, California Assn. of the Physically Handicapped, California Paralyzed Veterans Assn., Developmental Disabilities Board Area 11; California Council of the Blind. ARGUMENTS AGAINST: * Would result in loss of an estimated $1 million to $2 million in property tax revenues. Cities, counties, and special districts would bear two-thirds of the revenue loss. * Opponents: No formal opposition. PROPOSITION: PROPOSITION 111 Spending Limit and Gas Tax WHAT IT WOULD DO: * Modify the state spending limit approved in 1979. * Establish a spending ceiling based on state population growth and the increase in personal income of residents. Current limit is tied to the national inflation rate and population growth. * Exempt any increase in the state gasoline tax from the spending limit. * Trigger hikes in the state gasoline tax, now at 9-cents per gallon. Initially the gas tax would increase five-cents-per-gallon followed by increases of one cent per gallon every year for the next four years. * Help finance a 10-year, $18.5 billion transportation program designed to ease congestion. * Include projects that provide seismic repairs to freeways, bridges and roads; highway construction already approved but not funded; expansion of rail systems and improvements to traffic flow. ARGUMENTS FOR: * While retaining limits on government spending, it would permit them to grow with the economy. * Provide increased funding for a variety of transportation projects needed to relieve California’s unbearable traffic congestion. * Without this proposition, traffic congestion will get worse because current revenues are insufficient to keep pace with growth. * Supporters: Gov. George Deukmejian; Lt. Gov. Leo McCarthy; Superintendent of Public Instruction Bill Honig; gubernatorial candidates Dianne Feinstein, John Van de Kamp and Pete Wilson; and 130 business, labor and civic organizations including Californians for Better Transportation; California Taxpayers’ Association; League of Women Voters of California; California Chamber of Commerce; California Republican Party and the California State Legislative Committee of the American Association of Retired Persons. ARGUMENTS AGAINST: * Modifications of the spending limit would lead to higher taxes and runaway spending by government. * This tax increase is unnecessary. * State officials should review the operations of the California Department of Transportation where administrative costs are abnormally high before it seeks a tax increase. * Opponents: Assemblyman Richard Mountjoy (R-Monrovia); Los Angeles County Supervisor Peter F. Schabarum; economist Arthur B. Laffer; Assemblyman Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks), National Tax Limitation Committee, the Orange County-based Citizens Against Unfair Taxation and People’s Advocate. PROPOSITION: PROPOSITION 112 Ethics standards, salary commission for state officials. WHAT IT WOULD DO: * Ban outside speaking fees for legislators, the governor and other elected state officials and restrict gifts and lobbying. * Limit gifts to legislators and other officials to $250 a year per donor. * Require most legislative meetings be held in public * Create salary commission to set compensation for legislators, governor and other elected state officials. ARGUMENTS FOR: * Reduce influence of special interest groups. * Remove the power of the Legislature and governor to set their own salaries, giving that authority to an independent commission that has no conflict-of-interest. * Would allow a needed salary increase for legislators, who now make $40,816 a year, plus an $88-a-day expense allowance and state-subsidized car. * Supporters: Common Cause, California Chamber of Commerce, League of Women Voters and most members of the Legislature. ARGUMENTS AGAINST: * Allow a large salary increase for legislators, perhaps rising to as much as $94,000 a year. * Stricter ethical standards should not be linked to the possibility of a pay increase. * Ethics standards do not go far enough in cracking down on improper conduct by legislators and other officials. * Ethics standards are too strict and would unfairly eliminate sources of outside income for legislators. * Opponents: Atty. Gen. John Van de Kamp and individual legislators, including Assemblyman Richard L. Mountjoy (R-Monrovia), Assemblyman Phillip Wyman (R-Tehachapi) and Sen. Diane Watson (D-Los Angeles). PROPOSITION: PROPOSITION 113 Practice of Chiropractic WHAT IT WOULD DO: * Raises minimum fine from $50 to $100 and the maximum fine from $200 to $700 for violations of chiropractic law. * Raises maximum jail term from 90 days to six months. * Changes licensing dates. ARGUMENTS FOR: * Penalties have not been increased since 1922. * Will allow Board of Chiropractic Examiners to function more efficiently. * Supporters: Put on ballot by unanimous vote of both houses of Legislature. ARGUMENTS AGAINST: * None filed with the Secretary of State. * Opponents: None filed. PROPOSITION: PROPOSITION 114 Murder of a Peace Officer WHAT IT WOULD DO: * Would clarify and expand categories of peace officers, the murder of whom would be a special circumstance under the 1978 death penalty initiative. ARGUMENTS FOR: * Since voters approved an initiative imposing the death penalty on persons who kill various classes of peace officers, the categories in other sections of the law have been changed. This initiative is needed to include all those categories. * Voters have already determined that the murder of a peace officer whould carry the death penalty, and this initiative would guarantee that this applies to the correct categories. * Supporters: Passed both houses of the legislature by unanimous votes. ARGUMENTS AGAINST: * Penalties should not be tied to the victim’s identity. * Categories of peace officers are too broad. * Opponents: Libertarian Party candidates. PROPOSITION: PROPOSITION 115 Criminal law WHAT IT WOULD DO: * Amend state Constitution to afford criminal defendants no greater rights than granted under the federal Constitution. * Impose a wide range of reforms, modeled after federal procedures, that are aimed at speeding criminal proceedings. * Expand death penalty to allow executions of certain accomplices in murder during commission of a felony and for killers of a witness to prevent testimony in juvenile proceedings. * Establish a new crime of torture, punishable by life in prison with the possibility of parole. ARGUMENTS FOR: * Would overturn state Supreme Court rulings granting criminal defendants unwarranted constitutional protections. * Reduce inordinate delay in criminal proceedings, saving taxpayers money and easing burdens on victims and witnesses. * Supporters: U.S. Sen. Pete Wilson, Gov. George Deukmejian, California District Attorneys Assn., California Police Chiefs’ Assn., Crime Victims’ California Justice Committee. ARGUMENTS AGAINST: * Raise costs because more judges, courtrooms, public defenders and court-appointed defense lawyers would be needed to meet speedy-trial provisions. * Jeopardize abortion rights and other civil rights, limiting such protections to those established by the U.S. Supreme Court. * Cause more court congestion because many defendants, denied a preliminary hearing to test the prosecution’s case, would go to trial instead of pleading guilty. * Opponents: California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, California Trial Lawyers Assn., American Civil Liberties Union, California Abortion Rights League, Californians for Privacy. PROPOSITION: PROPOSITION 116

Clean Air and Transportation Improvement Bond WHAT IT WOULD DO: * Authorize $2 billion in general obligation bonds to finance construction, expansion and improvement of a variety of designated rail transportation projects. * Make limited funds available for public mass transit guideways, paratransit vehicles, bicycle and ferry facilities and railroad technology museum. ARGUMENTS FOR: * Expansion of rail systems would help relieve traffic congestion by providing the traveling public with an efficient alternative. * Provide financing for these projects without raising taxes. * Importance of rail system was demonstrated during the Bay Area earthquake when BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) became a lifeline to the city. * Supporters: Planning and Conservation League; League of Women Voters; Californians for Better Transportation; Sierra Club of California, U. S. Sen. Pete Wilson, Attorney General John Van de Kamp and former San Francisco Mayor Dianne Feinstein. ARGUMENTS AGAINST: * Would add more to the state’s bonded indebtedness. * California communities do not have density to support an elaborate rail transportation system. Money is better spent on bus services, ridesharing programs, bicycle and pedestrian amenities. * Costs for rail projects have soared well beyond predictions while forecasts of ridership have been overly optimistic. * Opponents: Has no organized opposition but individual opponents include Martin Wachs, transportation planning professor at UCLA’s Graduate School of Architecture and Urban Planning; Ryan Snyder, an urban planner and transportation specialist, and Charles L. Smith, retired transportation engineer. PROPOSITION: PROPOSITION 117

Wildlife Protection WHAT IT WOULD DO: * Guarantees $30 million a year for 30 years for buying conservation habitat. * Designates mountain lions as a specially protected mammal and bans sport hunting of the cats. ARGUMENTS FOR: * Needed to protect plant and animal species that are endangered by urban encroachment. * Mountain lion hunting for sport is cruel and unnecessary. * Supporters: Wilderness Society, Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, Natural Resources Defense Council, California Park and Recreation Society, National Audubon Society chapters, Attorney Gen. John Van de Kamp, State Sen. Ed Davis, Assemblyman Richard Katz, Assemblyman Terry Friedman. ARGUMENTS AGAINST: * Favors two species--mountain lions and deer--at the expense of other threatened species and plants. * By using some money from the 1988 Tobaccco Tax Initiative, Prop 117 would divert dollars from health programs. * Opponents: California Wildlife Federation, California Waterfowl Assn., Ducks Unlimited Inc., Sen. Robert Beverly (R-Manhattan Beach). PROPOSITION: PROPOSITION 118 Redistricting; Legislative ethics WHAT IT WOULD DO: * Require that any redistricting plan be approved by two-thirds of the votes in each house of the Legislature, signed by the governor and ratified by the voters. * Limit the number of times any city or county can be divided among various districts. * Prohibit legislators from receiving gifts or honorariums from sources who employ lobbyists in Sacramento. Prohibit former legislators from lobbying state officials for one year after leaving office. ARGUMENTS FOR: * Would prevent the majority party from adopting lines grossly unfair to members of the party not in power. * Would prevent the “Balkanization” of counties and cities. Would stop party in power from using its strength in one county to overwhelm another party’s strength in a neighboring county. * Would curb the practice of incumbents drawing “safe” districts that all but guarantee reelection for life. * Would limit ability of special interests to influence legislators by giving them gifts and honorariums. Would reduce the unfair advantage enjoyed by lobbyists who are former legislators. * Supporters: The state Republican Party, the Republican National Committee, Republican legislative leaders. ARGUMENTS AGAINST: * Could prompt a “sweetheart deal” in which incumbents from both major parties agree to draw non-competitive districts that virtually ensure their reelection. * By forcing districts to follow civic boundaries, might not reflect “communities of interest.” Latinos in one city, for example, might have more in common with Latinos in another city than they do with other voters in their own town. * Requirement for “competitive districts” unfairly favors Republicans because the number of Democratic voters, who tend to be poorer and move more often, is exaggerated on the registration rolls. * Could dilute the stronger legislative ethics provisions contained in Proposition 112 if both pass but this measure gets more votes. * Opponents: State Democratic Party, Democratic legislative leaders, National Organization for Women, Sierra Club, California Common Cause, NAACP, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, consumer advocate Ralph Nader. PROPOSITION: PROPOSITION 119 Redistricting WHAT IT WOULD DO: * Create a 12-member commission to draw new political district lines, taking that power away from the Legislature. Commission members would include five Republicans, five Democrats and two people not registered with either party. They would be appointed by a panel of three retired appellate court justices. * Limit the number of times any city or county can be divided among various districts; require as many districts as possible be “competitive” by containing proportions of registered voters within 2% of each party’s statewide registration. ARGUMENTS FOR: * Would eliminate conflict of interest that exists when legislators draw their own district lines. * Would prevent the “Balkanization” of counties and cities. Would stop party in power from using its strength in one county to overwhelm another party’s strength in a neighboring county. * Would curb the practice of incumbents drawing “safe” districts for reelection. Competitive districts would force legislators to be more accountable to the voters. * Supporters: League of Women Voters, California Republican Party, California Chamber of Commerce, Center of Public Interest Law, and Paul Gann Citizens Committee. ARGUMENTS AGAINST: * Would give too much power to an unelected and unaccountable panel that might not be representative of the state as a whole. * Forcing districts to follow civic boundaries might not reflect “communities of interest.” Latinos in one city, for example, might have more in common with Latinos in another city than they do with other voters in their own town. * Requirement for “competitive districts” unfairly favors Republicans because the number of Democratic voters, who tend to be poorer and move more often, is exaggerated on the registration rolls. * Opponents: State Democratic Party, Democratic legislative leaders, National Organization for Women, Sierra Club, California Common Cause, NAACP, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, consumer advocate Ralph Nader. PROPOSITION: PROPOSITION 120 Prison Construction Bonds WHAT IT WOULD DO: * Authorize $450 million bond issue for new state prisons. ARGUMENTS FOR: * Funds are necessary to relieve overcrowding and provide continued deterrent to crime. * Supporters: Gov. George Deukmejian and ovrwhelming majority of the Legislature. ARGUMENTS AGAINST: * State has spent $3.6 billion on prison construction since 1981. Current system is inefficient. * Money would be better spent on alternatives such as drug and alcohol treatment facilities and and work-furlough programs. * Expensive prison construction would do less to curb crime than job training and drug treatment programs. * Opponents: Friends Committee on Legislation and the California Council of Churches. PROPOSITION: PROPOSITION 121 Higher Education Facilities Bond Act WHAT IT WOULD DO: * Provide $450 million for the acquisition of building sites and the construction of facilities at the University of California, the California State University system, and the state’s community colleges. ARGUMENTS FOR: * Necessary to accommodate increasing enrollments, upgrade facilities and install earthquake safety features on older buildings. * Supporters: Gov. George Deukmejian, university and college presidents and chancellors, California Manufacturers Assn. and majority of Legislature. ARGUMENTS AGAINST: * Students should finance college and university improvements because they already receive a large enough subsidy. * Opponents: Thomas Tryon, chairman of the Calaveras County Board of Supervisors; Libertarian Party candidates. PROPOSITION: PROPOSITION 122 Earthquake Safety and Public Buildings Rehabilitation Bond WHAT IT WOULD DO: * Provide $300 million in bond revenue to improve earthquake safety in state and local government buildings and to improve technologies for making those buildings more safe. ARGUMENTS FOR: * State needs to improve earthquake safety in its public buildings. * Supporters: Members of the California Legislature. ARGUMENTS AGAINST: * State should not float additional bonds. * Opponents: William McCord, a retired state administrator. PROPOSITION: PROPOSITION 123 School Facilities Bond Act WHAT IT WOULD DO: * Authorize state to sell $800 million in general obligation bonds to pay for the construction, rennovation and modernization of public school buildings. ARGUMENTS FOR: * Rapidly expanding school populations require new schools to keep up with needs. * Local districts are strapped for cash and need state help. * Supporters: Gov. George Deukmejian, state Superintendent of Public Instruction Bill Honig, California Taxpayers’ Assn., California PTA. ARGUMENTS AGAINST: * Education should be a private activity and costs should not be borne by taxpayers. * Opponents: Libertarian Party candidates.