PROPOSITION 3
Summary: Would authorize $980 million in bonds to build children's hospitals and help them purchase new medical equipment.
Why we oppose it: Supporters – including pediatricians at the UC Davis Children's Center – argue persuasively that more space is needed to treat children with serious injuries and diseases. Four years ago, voters approved $750 million for children's hospitals, but higher construction costs have eaten through that money faster than expected, supporters say.
In better economic times, it might be possible to justify a second major investment in children's hospitals, but not now. If passed, this measure would add $67 million more per year to the state's debt service. That's money that would have to come out of schools, social services or state health programs.
Vote "no"
PROPOSITION 4
Summary: Would change the constitution to require doctors to notify a parent or guardian 48 hours before performing an abortion for a girl under the age of 18.
We why oppose it: Voters defeated similar propositions in 2006 and in 2005. They should defeat this one as well. While everyone would prefer that teens talk with parents about an unexpected pregnancy, the state should not be forcing that conversation. It also should not be adding to the legal liabilities of doctors who would be compelled to meet the notification provisions in this initiative.
Other states with notification laws have seen an increase in the number of second-trimester abortions because teens, wary of having their parents notified, delay decisions. Seeking medical treatment as early as possible in these circumstances is in the best interest of minors and public health.
Vote "no"
PROPOSITION 5
Summary: Would require California to spend an extra $1 billion to pay for rehabilitation services for drug offenders in prison, on parole and in the community.
Why we oppose it: At a time when the state is struggling to pay its bills and reform governance, this initiative would add to those bills and create a new state bureaucracy.
The Legislative Analyst's Office says the measure potentially could save $1 billion by diverting drug felons from prison and into treatment. It might save another $2.5 billion in one-time capital costs if the state could forgo the construction of another prison. But these are only potential savings that would come sometime in the distant future. They are not guaranteed.
By contrast, the massive new spending required under Prop. 5 starts immediately, tapping into a state general fund that has already run dry. The measure creates a new Cabinet-level secretary responsible for prison rehabilitation services. The shift from incarceration to treatment mandated in this bill is, in many respects, laudable, but it comes at a hefty cost.
Vote "no"
PROPOSITION 6
Summary: Would require at least $965 million to be spent annually on police and local law enforcement.
Why we oppose it: This initiative writes into law new crimes, increases penalties for old crimes, and mandates more spending for police, sheriffs, district attorneys, probation and parole. But it provides not a single penny of new funding to pay for it.
The Legislative Analyst's Office estimates this measure will cost close to $500 million in new general fund spending in its first year with an increase of tens of millions of dollars annually in subsequent years. It will require another $500 million in capital expenditures to build new prisons to house new felons kept in prison longer.
It means less money for schools, health care, parks, roads or any of the other state's important priorities. We can't afford it.
Vote "no"
PROPOSITION 7
Summary: Would require government-owned utilities to generate 20 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2010. It would require all utilities to generate 40 percent by 2020 and 50 percent by 2025.
Why we oppose it: This ballot initiative is bankrolled by an Arizona billionaire, John Sperling, who, with good intentions, has gotten behind an initiative that is badly drafted and poorly vetted. The goals contained in this law are ambitious and necessary for California to reduce carbon emissions and transition to a clean-energy economy. But without provisions to realistically achieve a 50 percent use of renewable energy by 2025, Proposition 7 is doomed to failure.
