In the Name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful
MPAC Recommendations on
2010 California Propositions
June 8, 2010 – Primary Election
The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) is pleased to present its analysis of the five propositions appearing on
the California primary election ballot on June 8, 2010. We have conducted our research by reviewing voting
material produced by the state, analyzing the arguments of the proponents and opponents of each proposition, and
attempting to view propositions from a holistic American Muslim perspective. As always, we urge all voters to
familiarize themselves with the propositions and vote their conscience. We hope that this will serve as a useful tool
as you decide how to vote. All summaries of propositions below are taken from the California Voter Guide. For
more information, visit http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/.
Quick Reference
Proposition Title Recommended Vote
Number
13 Limits on Property Tax Assessment Yes
14 Elections No
15gt California Fair Election Act No
16 Imposes New Two-Thirds Voter Approval Requirement No
17 Allows Auto Insurance Companies to Base Prices on Driver History No
PROPOSITION ANALYSIS
Prop. 13: Vote Yes. Limits on property tax assessment. Seismic retrofitting of existing buildings.
Legislative constitutional amendment.
Summary: Provides that construction to seismically retrofit buildings will not trigger reassessment of property tax value. Sets statewide
standard for seismic retrofit improvements that qualify. Fiscal Impact: Minor reduction in local property tax revenues related to the
assessment of earthquake upgrades. Put on the Ballot by the Legislature
MPAC Analysis: Many large buildings, such as hospitals and other existing structures, are being mandated to do
seismic retrofitting. On paper, this increases the value of the building and would trigger a higher property tax bill.
As this is a double hit on the owners beyond paying for the retrofit, it does not make sense. Building owners
should be exempt as long as they continue to own the building. A Yes vote means that higher property taxes will
not go into effect until the building is sold.
Prop 14: Vote No. Elections. Increases right to participate in primary elections.
Summary: Changes the primary election process for congressional, statewide, and legislative races. Allows all voters to choose any
candidate regardless of the candidate’s or voter’s political party preference. Ensures that the two candidates receiving the greatest number
of votes will appear on the general election ballot regardless of party preference. Fiscal Impact: No significant net change in state and local
government costs to administer elections. Put on the Ballot by the Legislature
MPAC Analysis: While it appears to give more opportunity to third party candidates, this proposition also requires
them to run in an open primary, which works like a general election. This favors the independently wealthy and,
more frequently, those tied to big business funding. Moreover, in the general election, we could be stuck with two
candidates from the same party.
Prop 15: Vote No. California fair election act.
Summary: Repeals ban on public funding of political campaigns. Creates a voluntary system for candidates for Secretary of State to
qualify for a public campaign grant if they agree to limitations on spending and private contributions. Each candidate demonstrating
enough public support would receive same amount. Participating candidates would be prohibited from raising or spending money beyond
the grant. There would be strict enforcement and accountability. Funded by voluntary contributions and a biennial fee on lobbyists,
lobbying firms, and lobbyist employers. Fiscal Impact: Increased revenues (mostly from charges related to lobbyists) totaling over $6
million every four years. These funds would be spent on public financing for campaigns of Secretary of State candidates for the 2014 and
2018 elections. Put on the Ballot by the Legislature.
MPAC Analysis: This is a test case to guage how public funding would result in less special interest influence in
elections, by lifting the ban on the use of public funding of election campaigns. It will publicly fund the Secretary of
State elections, which we believe is an inappropriate use of taxpayer dollars.
Prop 16: Vote No. Imposes new two-thirds voter approval requirement for local public electricity
providers. Initiative constitutional amendment.
Summary: Requires two-thirds voter approval before local governments provide electricity service to new customers or establish a
community choice electricity program using public funds or bonds. Fiscal Impact: Unknown net impact on state and local government
costs and revenues—unlikely to be significant in the short run—due to the measure’s uncertain effects on public electricity providers and
on electricity rates. Put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures
MPAC Analysis: This proposition, introduced and endorced by PG&E, would give private companies greater
monopoly capabilities. Misleading, it has been promoted as the “right to vote act”; however, this proposition would
actually take power away from the public interest.
Prop 17: Vote No. Allows auto insurance companies to base their prices in part on a driver’s
history of insurance coverage. Initiative statute.
Summary: Permits companies to reduce or increase cost of insurance depending on whether driver has a history of continuous insurance
coverage. Fiscal Impact: Probably no significant fiscal effect on state insurance premium tax revenues. Put on the Ballot by the Petition
Signatures
MPAC Analysis: Primarily backed and financed by Mercury Auto Insurance, this proposition rewrites laws to favor
Mercury’s own business interests. This is not a citizen-based proposition; instead, it’s being propogated by private
companies. If passed, it would allow insurance companies to increase rates on drivers who are not continuously
covered by auto insurance. Thus, if someone sells their car for a time and takes public transport for a few years
while going to school, their discontinued coverage in insurance would allow companies to hike up that individual’s
premiums.