Proposition 13
Ballot Title and Official Summary:
Limits on Property Tax Assessment. Seismic Retrofitting of Existing Buildings. Legislative Constitutional Amendment
The measure provides that construction to seismically retrofit buildings will not trigger reassessment of property tax
value. Sets statewide standard for seismic retrofit improvements that qualify.
Proposal:
Proposition 13, if approved by the state's voters, will prohibit tax assessors from re-evaluating new construction for
property tax purposes when the point of the new construction is to seismically retrofit an existing building.
Estimated fiscal impact: Minor reduction in local property tax revenues related to the assessment of earthquake
upgrades.
What Your Vote Means:
A YES vote on this measure means: Earthquake safety improvements made to unreinforced masonry (such as brick)
buildings would not result in higher property taxes until the building is sold.
A NO vote on this measure means: Earthquake safety improvements made to unreinforced masonry buildings would
continue to be excluded from property taxes but for only up to 15 years.
Support:
The primary arguments in support of the measure are that it has clear benefits, broad support and no identifiable
opposition. The benefit of the measure is increased public safety in that it provides an incentive in the form of tax
relief to ensure that buildings are retrofitted to be more resistant to earthquakes.
Opposition:
No opponents submitted arguments to the state’s official voter guide opposing the measure.
Proposition 14
Ballot Title and Official Summary:
Elections. Increases Right to Participate in Primary Elections. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.
This measure reforms the procedure by which candidates are selected in primary elections and thereby encourages
increased participation in elections for congressional, legislative and statewide offices. Allows voters to choose any
candidate in a primary regardless of the candidate’s or voter’s political party affiliation. The measure provides that
candidates may choose not to have a political party affiliation indicated on the primary ballot and that only the two
candidates receiving the greatest number of votes in the primary will appear on the general election ballot regardless of
political party affiliation. The proposition also prohibits political parties from nominating candidates in a primary,
although political parties would be allowed to endorse, support or oppose candidates. The measure does not change
primary elections for President, party committee offices and nonpartisan offices.
Proposal:
If approved by voters, the proposal will require that candidates run in single primary open to all registered voters, with
the top two vote-garnering candidates meeting in a runoff. The new system would take effect in the 2012 elections.
Estimated Fiscal Impact:
Data is insufficient to identify the amount of any increase or decrease in costs to administer elections.
What Your Vote Means:
A YES vote on this measure means: All voters would receive the same primary election ballot for most state and
federal offices. Only the two candidates with the most votes—regardless of political party identification—would
advance to the general election ballot.
A NO vote on this measure means: Voters would continue to receive primary election ballots based on their political
party. The candidate with the most votes from each political party would continue to advance to the general election
ballot.
Support:
The main argument that supporters make in favor of Proposition 14 is that it might cause voters to elect more moderate
members of the California State Legislature.
Opposition:
Opponents of Proposition 14 make two main arguments: they say that in states where a similar system is in use, it has
not resulted in the election of more moderate politicians, and that if the Proposition 14 is approved, it will result in the
destruction of California’s minor and independent political parties. California voters defeated Proposition 62, a similar
measure, in 2004 by 54-46%.
Proposition 15
Ballot Title and Official Summary:
California Fair Elections Act
This act repeals the ban on public funding of political campaigns and 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. Candidates would have to qualify before receiving the grant and those who demonstrate sufficient
public support would receive the same amount. Participating candidates would be prohibited from raising or spending
money beyond the grant. There would be strict enforcement and accountability with published reports open to the
public. Funded by voluntary contributions and a biennial fee on lobbyists, lobbying firms, and lobbyist employers.
Proposal:
If approved by voters, this measure would lift the ban on public funding for political campaigns. It establishes a public
funding system for campaigns for the office of Secretary of State. Finally, it requires lobbyists to pay higher charges
for this public campaign funding.
Estimated 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.
What Your Vote Means:
A YES vote on this measure means: The state ban on public funding for political campaigns for elected offices would
be lifted. For the 2014 and 2018 elections, candidates for the office of Secretary of State could choose to receive public
funds to pay for the costs of campaigns if they met certain requirements. Charges related to lobbyists would be
increased to pay for these costs.
A NO vote on this measure means: The state ban on public funding for political campaigns for elected offices would
continue. Candidates for the office of Secretary of State would continue to pay for their campaigns with private funds
subject to current rules. Existing charges related to lobbyists would not change.
Support:
Supporters argue that candidates who voluntarily accept public financing will not be indebted to corporate and lobbyist
donors for their political success. Campaign fundraising diverts politicians attention and priorities from actual
governance and resolution of State’s problems. Supporters also argue that there will be better representation of
minorities in government since a fair elections system will allow candidates without wealthy connections to become
candidates for office. Finally, supporters point to states like Arizona and Maine where Fair Elections funding is used
by the majority of candidates from both major parties and voter turnout has improved.
Opposition:
Opponents base opposition on a hidden provision in the measure stating that if new taxes aren’t enough to fund every
eligible candidate’s political campaign, then the Legislature can use ―any other sources of revenue from the General
Fund or from other sources as determined by the Legislature.‖ Also, Proposition would not stop the influence of
special interest money because it authorizes politicians to ask for money from special interests for legal fees, inaugural
parties and ―officeholder expenses.‖ Moreover, opponents argue that Proposition 15 places no restrictions on how
candidates spend taxpayer. Finally, in 2006, 74 percent of voters said no to Proposition 89, a similar scheme to use tax
dollars for political campaigns. And in 2000, two-thirds of voters rejected Proposition 25, which would have allowed
public financing.
Proposition 16
Ballot Title and Official Summary:
Imposes new two-thirds voter approval requirement for local public electricity providers. Initiative Constitutional
Amendment.
The measure 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.
Proposal:
If Proposition 16 is approved by voters, it will take a two-thirds of the electorate before a public agency could enter the
retail power business. This will make it more difficult than it is currently for local entities to form either municipal
utilities, or community wide clean electricity districts called Community Choice Aggregators (CCAs).
Estimated 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.
What Your Vote Means:
A YES vote on this measure means: Local governments would generally be required to receive two-thirds voter
approval before they could start up electricity services or expand electricity service into a new territory.
A NO vote on this measure means: Local governments generally could continue to implement proposals involving the
start-up or expansion of electricity service either through approval by a majority of voters or actions by governing
boards.
Support:
Supporters of Proposition 16 argue that it provides voters with a say in how their money should be spent. Currently,
local governments in California can take over private electric businesses without letting local voters have the final say
in the decision. Proposition 16 changes that by making taxpayers part of the equation. Supporters argue that in these
days with government spending out of control, Proposition 16 is a financial safeguard for taxpayers by giving them a
final say in important decisions like whether local government should take over a private enterprise.
Opposition:
Opponents argue that Proposition 16 is being bankrolled by the private electric company PG&E and therefore is really
more of a means of eliminating competition and setting up a monopoly. Opponents also argue that holding local
elections where people vote on whether to have a private or public utility company would be incredibly expensive.
Proposition 17
Ballot Title and Official Summary:
Allows Auto Insurance Companies To Base Their Prices In Part On A Driver’s History Of Insurance Coverage.
Initiative Statute.
This measure permits companies to reduce or increase cost of insurance depending on whether driver has a history of
continuous insurance coverage.
Proposal:
If approved by voters, Proposition 17 will allow insurance companies in the state to give what are known as
"persistency discounts" to new customers. "Persistency discounts" are discounts for those who have had continuous or
nearly continuous auto insurance coverage.
Estimated Fiscal Impact:
Probably no significant fiscal effect on state insurance premium tax revenues.
What Your Vote Means:
A YES vote on this measure means: Insurance companies could offer new customers a discount on their automobile
insurance premiums based on the length of time the customer had maintained bodily injury liability coverage with
another insurer.
A NO vote on this measure means: Insurers could provide discounts to their long-term automobile insurance
customers, but would continue to be prohibited from providing such discounts to new customers switching from other
insurers.
Support:
Proponents argue that the initiative allows drivers to take their continuous coverage discount with them if they decide
to change auto insurance companies – saving drivers up to $250 a year. Responsible drivers who maintain their
insurance coverage pay a surcharge of hundreds of dollars if they switch insurance companies, because they lose their
continuous coverage discount. Proposition 17 ends that penalty and allows drivers to keep their continuous coverage
discount even if they change insurers. The measure will increase competition in the auto insurance market and provide
drivers with more choices and lower auto insurance rates.
Opposition:
Opponents argue that Proposition 17, which is bankrolled by Mercury Insurance Group, is nothing more than an
attempt by a private insurance company to increase premiums. The measure would allow insurance companies to
increase rates or deny coverage altogether to insurance applicants who are not continuously covered by auto insurance,
regardless of their driving record.
For more information, visit http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/ as well as
http://www.californiachoices.org/ballot-measures