OPPOSE Proposition 91 (Transportation Funds; Initiative Constitutional Amendment) – As Proposition 91 was being qualified for the ballot, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and a bipartisan group of legislators placed a different constitutional measure on the November 2006 ballot that accomplished what Prop. 91 was supposed to do.  That measure, Proposition 1A, sought to prevent the Governor and Legislature from using state gasoline sales tax revenues for any non-transportation purposes.  PJA supported Prop. 1A and it was approved by an overwhelming 77% of California voters on the November 2006 ballot.  Consequently, there is no longer any need for Proposition 91; its official proponents urge a “no” vote and there is no known support for this measure.  Therefore, PJA opposes passage of Prop. 91 on the grounds that it is no longer necessary.

SUPPORT Proposition 92 (Community Colleges; Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute) – Proposition 92 would reduce community college fees and limit the size of future fee increases; it will change the way community colleges are governed by amending the State Constitution to formally recognize the California Community College system as part of the state’s public school system.  Community colleges provide substantial educational benefits to traditionally under-served students – including high proportions of low-income, minority and first-generation college students.  One quarter of the nation’s community college students are in California, which educates about 2.5 million students annually.  Economic changes also will increase the number of adult workers returning to postsecondary institutions for retraining, new skills and new opportunities.

All of these students  (low-income, first-generation, racial and ethnic minorities and working adults) will be needed in the workforce as the baby boom generation approaches retirement age.  Supporting Prop. 92 will provide necessary resources for these students and the state.  Each year the state guarantees funding for K-12 and community college education (called K-14 education), and related child development, mental health, and developmental service programs through Proposition 98, approved by California voters in November 1988.  K-14 education must receive at least a specified percentage (about 40 percent) of General Fund revenues each year. Proposition 92 will not change the K-12 funding requirement that is met using both state General Fund and local property tax revenues. 

Each year, the Prop. 98 formula calculates a new K-14 minimum amount of financial support by adjusting the previous year’s level based on changes in the economy and K-12 attendance.  Community colleges receive approximately 11% of this K-14 funding.  Proposition 92 will unlink the funding for community colleges from the K-12 system and allow annual funding growth for community colleges to be based on two alternative measures of population growth, either of which will be capped at no more than 5% annually.  PJA supports these changes because of the significant role that community colleges play in educating low-income students who would not otherwise have access to post-secondary education.  The resulting education increases the long-term earning capacity for low-income students, though still at a slower rate than for higher income students.  Prop. 92 will also roll back student fees from the current $20/unit to $15/unit.  It changes the governance mechanism by creating a constitutional basis for community college governance much like that of the CSU and UC systems, removing the undue influences of both the Governor's office and the Legislature over the way in which the Chancellor's Office operates and over the authority of the Board of Governors. 

Opponents, while supporting community colleges, believe that the proposed change in funding formulas will not be funded by new taxes, but rather by cuts in other necessary programs primarily affecting poor people, with expected cuts in health care and other human services.  Though PJA is mindful of these concerns, we nevertheless support Proposition 92 due to its long-term educational and resource benefits to the state.

SUPPORT Proposition 93 (Limits on Legislators’ Terms in Office; Initiative Constitutional Amendment) – PJA has historically opposed term limits on the grounds that it encourages constant campaigning and perpetual fundraising, reduces the effectiveness of legislators, adversely affects institutional memory and inappropriately empowers lobbyists and other special interests. 

A study prepared for the nonpartisan, nonprofit Public Policy Institute of California confirmed these concerns, finding that term limits have eroded legislative capacities in many unhelpful ways.  Among these problems, the PPIC study finds that “legislative oversight of the executive branch has declined significantly” and that “frequent changes in the membership and leadership of legislative committees, especially in the Assembly, diminish their expertise in many important policy areas.”  Though Proposition 93 would reduce the total amount of time that a person may serve in the California Legislature from 14 to 12 years, it would allow a legislator to serve those dozen years in either the State Assembly or Senate, or a combination of both.  By contrast, the present term limits regime restricts an individual’s service to a total of 6 years in the Assembly (three 2-year terms) or to a total of eight years in the Senate (two 4-years terms). 

Thus, Prop. 93 would allow an individual to double the possible amount of time that could be served in the Assembly and to increase by 50% the possible amount of time that could be served in the Senate.  It would have the added benefit of discouraging the movement of legislators from the Assembly to the Senate (or vice versa) simply to maximize one’s total number of years of legislative service.  The most serious complaint against Proposition 93 is that its grandfathering provisions would allow 42 incumbent legislators to remain in their existing positions for more than the 14-year term limit currently in place.  By definition, however, this result is temporary and, in any event, is not one that PJA regards as problematic.  Accordingly, PJA strongly supports passage of Prop. 93.

OPPOSE Propositions 94, 95, 96 & 97 (Referenda on Amendments to Indian Gaming Compacts) – Propositions 94-97 were placed on the ballot by opponents of arrangements made last year by the Schwarzenegger administration with four Indian tribal bands in Riverside and San Diego Counties.  The bands agreed to pay the state 15-20% of the profits gained by the expansion of permitted slot machines from 8,000 to 17,000.  The opponents, a coalition of two other tribes, an owner of race tracks, and the UniteHere union, argue that this is a sweetheart deal that privileges the four Indian bands at the expense of other tribes, lacks worker protections and stymies organizing efforts.  Their argument is for “fairness” -- fair competition and a fair shake for workers.  The proponents of Props. 94-97 argue that California needs these anticipated tribal gaming revenues, estimated to be $9-$18 billion over the 23-year life span of the arrangement.  They assert that this money is critical in this “financially difficult time” to provide needed services like education, fire and police protection.  PJA opposes these propositions on several grounds. 

First, because we see the state as a community of obligation, we believe that revenues to provide needed services should be raised from the general population by progressive forms of taxation.  We all need and benefit from services like education, fire and police protection, and we should all pay for them.  Second, echoing our opposition to Propositions 68 and 70 (the original gaming propositions from November 2004), we are opposed in principle to any measure that increases the reach of gambling because of the destructive ways it preys upon and financially impoverishes the poorest members of our society.  Third, like regressive forms of taxation, we oppose any scheme that would raise needed state funds from gambling revenues which come disproportionately from the incomes of the poorer segments of our population.  Last, but certainly not least, we are concerned about the lack of protection for union organizing and about the absence of adequate worker health and safety provisions in these tribal casinos.  Accordingly, we urge all Californians to vote “no” on Props. 94, 95, 96 and 97.

SUPPORT Los Angeles City Proposition S (Tax Rate Reduction & Modernization of Communications Users Tax) – This proposed measure would amend Los Angeles’ existing utility users tax on telephone services by replacing it with a communications users tax that would reduce the existing tax rate from 10% to 9%, while making this tax applicable to current and evolving communication technologies.  The City has imposed a utility tax on telephone services for the past 40 years; similar taxes exist on phone services in cities throughout the country.  Funds from this utility tax become part of the City’s general funds and are used to finance important public services such as police, fire, street resurfacing, traffic lights, street repairs, library staffing, and recreations and parks programs.  The existing tax annually generates approximately $270 million.  Pending litigation has challenged the legality of the current utility tax on the grounds that certain changes in federal taxation policy (along with the passage of California Proposition 218) should have required voter ratification of the current utility tax.  Regardless of the outcome of that litigation, however, it would be wrong to deprive Los Angeles of this significant funding source upon which its residents have relied for the past four decades.  Moreover, it is unfair that such a communications tax should exempt the plethora of new technologies – including VOIP (or voice-over-Internet-protocol) and private communications lines – that are replacing the older land line and cell phone technologies which are currently subject to the existing utility tax.  In light of the expanded reach of this proposed communications tax, a 1% reduction in the existing 10% tax rate is reasonable.  Moreover, Proposition S would not tax Internet access, e-mail communications or digital downloads (such as books, music, ringtones, games or similar products).  A broad coalition of prominent public officials and community leaders support Prop. S; it is opposed primarily by the usual anti-tax organizations.  Accordingly, PJA supports passage of Los Angeles City Proposition S.