The original version of this Voters Guide, published on the Mercury Center site, is no longer available. Some links will no longer function. Rotating banner ads appeared in this space.
     
 
 
 
   
Election 2000 logo (sm) Voters Guide Calif. Primary - Mar. 7

 

NATIONAL AND STATEWIDE
Open primary mixes parties
Smaller parties offer more choices
Presidential primary is a mother lode
The presidential candidates on the issues
Other candidates in the presidenital race
A quiet GOP Senate campaign
Other candidates for the Senate seat

U.S. HOUSE
District 10
District 12
District 13
District 14
District 15
District 16
District 17

CALIFORNIA STATE SENATE
District 11
District 13
District 15

CALIFORNIA STATE ASSEMBLY
District 23
District 24
District 28
Districts 18, 20, 21, 22, and 27
(uncontested)

PROPOSITIONS
Voters facing 20 ballot measures
Pro, con, for and against

LOCAL RACES
Santa Clara County
Board of Supervisors
Superior Court
Los Altos Hills Council
San Jose Council
Water District
Open Space Authority
Ballot measures

Alameda County
Board of Supervisors
Board of Education
Ballot measures

San Mateo County
Board of Supervisors
Half Moon Bay Council
Ballot measures

Santa Cruz County
Board of Supervisors
District Attorney
Superior Court
Ballot measures

San Benito County
Board of Supervisors
Superior Court
Board of Education

GRAPHICS
How to use Pollstar ballot machine

Are we there yet? An explanation of the primary process

NEWS
Politics & Government on Mercury Center

Campaign 2000 at RealCities

RESOURCES ONLINE
California Secretary of State voter information
California Voter Foundation's nonpartisan guide
League of Women Voters' nonpartisan guide
Rough and Tumble, a daily snapshot on California politics

Alameda County
Monterey County
San Benito County
Santa Clara County
Santa Cruz County

CREDITS

 
     

THE PROPOSITIONS

Pro, con, for and against

| 1A | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |

Proposition 1A

If passed Proposition 1A would modify existing gambling prohibitions to authorize the governor to negotiate compacts with federally recognized Indian tribes, subject to legislative ratification, for operation of slot machines, lottery games and banking and percentage card games on Indian lands.

Pro: Supporters say Proposition 1A prevents the shutdown of Indian gaming in California and promotes Indian self-reliance. They say it allows Indian tribes to continue to have regulated gaming on their land to provide jobs and to fund education and health care programs for gaming and non-gaming tribes.

Who's for it? Anthony Pico, tribal chairman of the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians; Paula Lorenzo, tribal chairwoman, Rumsey Indian Rancheria; Mark Macarro, tribal chairman, Pechanga Band of Luise–o Indians; Jeff Sedivec, president, California State Firefighters Association.

Con: Opponents say passage would cause an explosion of gambling in California. They also say that Indian casinos pay no state or federal corporation taxes. They say card clubs and race tracks would try to expand operations to keep pace with casinos - creating an environment unsafe for problem gamblers in California. Gambling opponents say taxpayers would pay for increased law enforcement, health and welfare costs caused by troubled gamblers.

Who's against it? Bruce Thompson, California State Assembly; Leo McCarthy, former California lieutenant governor; Melanie Morgan, recovering gambling addict.

RETURN TO TOP

Proposition 12

If passed this proposition authorizes the state to sell $2.1 billion in bonds to protect land around lakes, rivers, streams and the coast to improve water quality and ensure clean drinking water; to protect forests and plant trees to improve air quality; to preserve open space and farmland threatened by unplanned development; to protect wildlife habitats and to repair and improve the safety of state and neighborhood parks.

Pro: Supporters say Proposition 12 will help make parks safer, keep our water free of pollution, improve air quality and preserve natural resources. They say this proposition does not raise taxes, but uses existing state revenues and provides for annual audits and citizen review to ensure all funds are spent as promised.

Who's for it? Audubon Society; former Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa, chairman of Californians for Safe Parks; Allan Zaremberg, president of California Chamber of Commerce; California Organization of Police and Sheriffs.

Con: Opponents say taxpayers will not see the benefits from this proposal. They say it is primarily for land in inaccessible areas. If these projects were important enough to fund, they say, the state Legislature could have done so with surplus tax money. They also say additional taxpayer money would be needed to manage the new property.

Who's against it? State Sen. Ray Haynes, R-Riverside; Assemblyman Brett Granlund, R-Yucaipa; Lewis K. Uhler, president of The National Tax-Limitation Committee.

RETURN TO TOP

Proposition 13

This proposition authorizes the state to sell $1.97 billion of general obligation bonds to spend on programs designated to provide: safe drinking water; flood protection; watershed protection; clean water and water recycling; water conservation; and water supply, reliability and infrastructure.

Pro: Supporters say this investment is fiscally responsible because it qualifies California for new federal funds, limits administrative costs and does not raise taxes. They say the measure would protect drinking water sources and provide enough new water for 8 million people.

Who's for it? Gov. Gray Davis; Allan Zaremberg, president of California Chamber of Commerce; Leslie Friedman Johnson, water program director, The Nature Conservancy; Californians for Clean, Safe, Reliable Water; Yes on Proposition 13.

Con: Opponents say this is pork-barrel spending, with so many projects included that the voters can't separate the worthwhile projects from the others. They say using bonds this way almost doubles the cost of government projects. Those against the measure ask where the evidence is that drinking water is unsafe.

Who's against it? Gail K. Lightfoot, past chairwoman of the Libertarian Party of California; Thomas Tryon, Calaveras County supervisor; Ted Brown, insurance adjuster/investigator.

RETURN TO TOP

Proposition 14

This act would authorize the sale of $350 million in bonds, with 35 percent in matching funds from local government agencies, to pay for construction and renovation of public libraries in order to expand access to literacy programs in the public education system and to expand access for California residents to public library services.

Pro: Proponents say this proposition is an investment in literacy and lifelong learning. They say adult illiteracy hurts economic competitiveness. Proposition 14, they say, does not raise taxes, and funds cannot be used for local administrative costs. The 35 percent matching fund requirement maximizes the use of limited state funding, supporters say.

Who's for it? State Sen. Richard Rainey R-Walnut Creek; State Sen. Deirdre W. Alpert D-San Diego; Gail Dryden, president, League of Women Voters of California.

Con: Opponents argue that bond financing ties up taxes for 25 years, even if the technological improvements funded by this bond become obsolete or if the economy collapses. They argue that due to the Internet, these new libraries will be obsolete in five years. Opponents say local governments that can't raise 35 percent in matching funds can't participate, but taxpayers will still pay for projects in other communities through their state taxes.

Who's against it? State Sen. Ray Haynes R-Riverside; Lewis K. Uhler, president of the National Tax-Limitation Committee; Carl McGill, chairman Black Chamber of Commerce of Los Angeles County.

RETURN TO TOP

Proposition 15

If approved, this measure would authorize the sale of $220 million in bonds for construction and improvement of local crime laboratories. It would require local authorities to match 10 percent of the funding and establish a seven-member Forensics Laboratories Authority to oversee expenditures.

Pro: Supporters say the measure is an investment in justice. They say better crime laboratories would save money by shortening investigations and trials by providing more accurate forensic information. They also say that an independent annual audit will ensure funds are spent efficiently.

Who's for it? Gov. Gray Davis; William J. Hemby, California Organization of Police and Sheriffs; Daniel A. Terry, president California Professional Firefighters.

Con: Opponents say using bond financing is too expensive, substantially increasing the cost of projects. They say local governments should use private laboratories or rent private space instead of constructing new buildings.

Who's against it? Gail K. Lightfoot, past chairwoman of the Libertarian Party of California; Thomas Tryon, Calaveras County supervisor; Ted Brown, insurance adjuster/investigator.

RETURN TO TOP

Proposition 16

If passed, the measure would authorize the sale of $50 million in bonds to renovate and construct state-owned veterans homes. It would use $24 million of the funds to replace current higher-cost lease-payment bonds and $26 million for new or existing veteran's homes.

Pro: Proponents say these funds are needed to provide care for the growing number of United States veterans who live in California. Supporters say these bonds will not increase taxes and the amount requested is small compared with many other bond measures.

Who's for it? Gov. Gray Davis; U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.; State Sen. Joe Dunn, D-Garden Grove.

Con: Opponents say funds for veterans home repairs have come from the general fund through budget measures for the past 15 years and this practice could suffice for the future. Opponents say that instead of building new veterans homes, the government could place and pay for veterans in private facilities that already exist.

Who's against it? Gail K. Lightfoot, past chairwoman of the Libertarian Party of California; Ted Brown, insurance adjuster/investigator; Larry Hines, U.S. Marine Corps veteran.

RETURN TO TOP

Proposition 17

If passed, the measure would allow raffles to be conducted by non-profit organizations to raise funds for charitable purposes. It would require 90 percent of the gross receipts from the raffle to go directly to charitable purposes in California. A two-thirds vote of each house may amend - by a statute signed by the governor - the percentage of gross receipts that must go to charitable purposes.

Pro: Supporters say the measure would legalize legitimate raffles as fundraising tools for charitable purposes, while requiring oversight and regulation to prohibit abuse. They also say the measure would correct the present situation in which police and prosecutors must either shut down worthy fundraisers or look the other way and not enforce the law.

Who's for it? State Sen. Bruce McPherson, R-Santa Cruz; Dean D. Flippo, Monterey County district attorney; Florence L. Green, California Association of Nonprofits.

Con: Opponents argue that the measure is unnecessary since existing charitable raffles are legal as long as tickets are not sold, but given away with a request for a donation. Opponents say the measure does not include protections or controls, such as regulating the buying and selling of tickets by minors, criminal background checks on professional raffle operators or audits to ensure that funds go to charities.

Who's against it? State Sen. Dick Mountjoy R-Arcadia; Art Croney, executive director for the Committee on Moral Concerns.

RETURN TO TOP

Proposition 18

If passed, this measure would provide special circumstances warranting the death penalty or life without parole for intentional murders committed in connection with kidnapping or arson or committed ''by means of lying in wait'' rather than ''while lying in wait.''

Pro: Supporters say all murderers who ambush a victim should be punished the same, whether or not the killing takes place immediately or occurs later in a different location. Proponents say criminals who use arson or kidnapping to murder deserve the same punishment as murderers who commit arson for some other purpose than to kill the victim.

Who's for it? George Deukmejian, former California governor; Michael D. Bradbury, Ventura County district attorney; Mrs. Quentin L. (Mara) Kopp, retired social worker.

Con: Opponents say expanding the death penalty will not improve public safety or the quality or cost of justice. Those against the measure say capital punishment is immoral and unjust because it is used mostly on people of color, the poor and the uneducated.

Who's against it? State Sen. Patrick Johnston, D-Stockton, Senate Appropriations Committee chairman; the Most Rev. Sylvester D. Ryan, California Catholic Conference president; Mike Farrell, president of MJ&E Productions Inc.

Proposition 19

If passed, the measure would add Bay Area Rapid Transit and California State University police to the list of peace officers whose murders call for stiffer sentences. The required penalty for second-degree murder of these peace officers would become imprisonment for 25-years-to-life with parole eligibility, and in certain cases, life imprisonment without parole.

Pro: Proponents say BART and CSU police do the same types of work and face the same risks as other police officers and therefore deserve the same protection that longer sentences would provide.

Who's for it? State Sen. Richard Rainey, R-Walnut Creek; Thomas M. Blalock, BART board of directors vice president.

Con: Opponents say enlarging the class of peace officers whose murders mandate more severe penalties means incarceration costs will rise. They argue that the measure will expand the power of government so that police on BART trains and at college campuses can force people to help capture criminals, without arms, training or pay or face a $1,000 fine.

Who's against it? Gail K. Lightfoot, past chairwoman of the Libertarian Party of California; Ted Brown, insurance adjuster/investigator; Larry Hines, legal secretary.

RETURN TO TOP

Proposition 20

If approved, the measure would provide that beginning with fiscal year 1998-99, one-half of the increase in state lottery revenues allocated to public education be earmarked for K-14 public school instructional materials.

Pro: Proponents say California is experiencing an alarming textbook shortage and ranks 47th out of 50 states in per pupil textbook spending. They say the measure would ensure continuous funding for textbooks without increasing taxes.

Who's for it? Assemblyman Tony Cardenas, D-Panorama City; Assemblyman Nell Soto, D-Ontario.

Con: Opponents say the state budget provides ongoing funding for textbooks and a new state program will provide $1 billion for textbooks over the next four years. They say this proposition forces schools to spend half of new money for textbooks. If schools already had enough books, they could not use money for other needs such as safety equipment or computers, opponents say.

Who's against it? Assemblyman George R. House Jr., R-Modesto; Assemblyman Steve Baldwin, R-La Mesa.

RETURN TO TOP

Proposition 21

If approved, the measure would increase circumstances under which juveniles are tried as adults and housed in adult facilities if convicted. It would designate more offenses - gang-related felonies, home-invasion robbery, carjacking, witness intimidation and drive-by shootings - as violent and serious.

Pro: Supporters say the ''three strikes, you're out'' law has contributed to a decline in adult crime, while juvenile crime continues to be serious and needs to be addressed. They say law enforcement must have more power to prosecute and convict juvenile offenders for serious crimes and to deal with gang members.

Who's for it? Maggie Elvey, assistant director of Crime Victims United; Grover Trask, president of the California District Attorneys Association; Richard Tefank, president of the California Police Chiefs Association.

Con: Opponents say Department of Justice statistics show that serious juvenile crime has steadily declined in recent years and California already has tough laws against gangs and youth crime. They argue that the measure carries a high price tag; more jails and prisons will need to be built, taking money away from other government services and current efforts to prevent violence.

Who's against it? Lavonne McBroom, president of California State PTA; Gail Dryden, president of the League of Women Voters of California; Raymond Wingerd, president of the Chief Probation Officers of California.

Proposition 22

If passed this measure adds a provision to the Family Code providing that only marriage between a man and woman would be valid or recognized in California.

Pro: Proponents say Californians will continue to have the right to live as they choose, without redefining marriage for the entire society. The argue that without the measure, legal loopholes could force California to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

Who's for it? Jeanne Murray, field director of 60 Plus Association; Gary Beckner, executive director of Association of American Educators; Thomas Fong, president of Chinese Family Alliance.

Con: Opponents say the measure is unnecessary government interference. They argue that the measure does not ban same-sex marriages in California as they are already banned by current law. They say this measure is discriminatory and singles out one group for attack.

Who's against it? The California Interfaith Alliance; the League of Women Voters of California; the California Teacher's Association; U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.; U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.

RETURN TO TOP

Proposition 23

If passed, the measure would allow voters to vote ''None of the Above'' (NOTA) rather than a named candidate in all state and federal elections in California, except for Supreme Court and appellate justices. It would also require that ''NOTA'' votes be tallied and reported in official election results, but only votes for named candidates would count in determining election results.

Pro: Proponents say at times they wish to protest the choices given on the ballot, express discontent over negative campaigning or object to lack of relevant information about candidates, but the only way they could be heard was by not voting. If the measure passes, the candidate with the most votes still gets the job. But each vote would be meaningful, not just a decision between the ''lesser of two evils.''

Who's for it? Amanda Gutwirth, social worker; David James, small-business owner; Susan Howell, waitress.

Con: Opponents say that because the option of voting for ''none of the above'' is non-binding there is no point in instituting it. They say that while voter apathy is appallingly high, NOTA will not bring many more non-voters to the polls. They also say that NOTA votes will draw voters away from third-party candidates.

Who's against it? Sara Amir and John Strawn, representatives for Green Party of California; Dona Spring, Berkeley City Council member.

RETURN TO TOP

Proposition 25

If passed, the measure would institute additional campaign finance disclosure requirements, limits on political contributions and partial public financing of campaign advertising for state candidates and ballot initiative committees.

Pro: Proponents say we must stop the increasing corruption of our government caused by unrestricted political contributions. They say it's worth paying $1 a year per taxpayer for broadcast time and voter information packets to take back our government from the special interests that control it.

Who's for it? James K. Knox, executive director of California Common Cause; Ron Unz, chairman, Voters Rights 2000 - Yes on 25; Tony Miller, former acting secretary of state.

Con: Opponents say if this measure passes wealthy candidates will have a huge advantage over challengers because they can spend as much as they want. They say Californians should not have to pay $55 million in annual tax increases to pay for political advertising which they might disagree with.

Who's against it? Daniel Lowenstein, former chair of California Fair Political Practices Commission; Peter J. Kanelos, president of Responsible Voters for Lower Taxes; Lois Wellington, president of Congress of California Seniors.

RETURN TO TOP

Proposition 26

If passed, the measure would amend the state constitution to allow local school bonds to be approved by a simple majority of voters instead of the current two-thirds. The bonds would be for school construction and improvement and property taxes can exceed the current 1 percent limit to repay bonds.

Pro: Proponents say the two-thirds vote for bond measures translates to ''one-third plus one'' rules, no matter how great the public need. They say the measure would make it easier to invest in schools and help reduce class size. It also guarantees, they say, taxpayers will know how their money is spent before they vote, and requires two annual audits for all projects.

Who's for it? Lavonne McBroom, president of California State PTA; Allan Zaremberg, president California Chamber of Commerce; Wayne Johnson, president California Teachers Association.

Con: Opponents say the current two-thirds requirement protects homeowners from property tax increases voted in by renters who don't pay taxes. They argue that taxpayers are already investing in schools at a record rate; since 1996, they say, voters approved more than $11.8 billion in local school bonds.

Who's against it? Jon Coupal, chairman of Vote No on Proposition 26, a project of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association; Felicia Elkinson, past president of the Council of Sacramento Senior Organizations; Richard H. Close, president of Sherman Oaks Homeowners Association.

RETURN TO TOP

Proposition 27

If passed, the measure would allow California congressional candidates to voluntarily sign a non-binding declaration to serve no more than three terms (six years) in the House of Representatives or two terms (12 years) in the U.S. Senate. Requires placement of information on ballots and state-sponsored voter education materials when authorized by candidates. Candidates may appear on ballot without submitting declaration.

Pro: Supporters say the term limits initiative allows candidates to declare they will abide by the congressional term limits California voters passed overwhelmingly. They say voters deserve to know whether candidates are seeking long-time political careers in Washington or if they intend to serve short terms of public service. Federal elections, they say, favor incumbents - with 98.5 percent of congressional incumbents re-elected in 1998.

Who's for it? George E. Martinez, community activist; Sally Reed Impastato, proponent, California Term Limit Committee; Lewis K. Uhler, president of National Tax Limitation Committee.

Con: Opponents say limiting California's representatives to six years means they will never achieve the seniority needed to chair congressional committees, where federal spending is controlled. They say campaign finance reform - not term limits - is a better way to restore public confidence in Congress.

Who's against it? Mark Whisler, president, Sacramento City Taxpayers' Rights League.

RETURN TO TOP

Proposition 28

If passed, the measure would repeal he 50-cent-per-pack tax on cigarettes and tobacco products enacted by Proposition 10 in 1998. This would eliminate the funding Proposition 10 generated for anti-smoking and child development programs. The proposal would also prohibit any future increase of surtaxes on tobacco products unless passed by the state Legislature.

Pro: Supporters say Proposition 10 duplicates existing programs for children and families, and has created unnecessary state and county commissions. They say Proposition 28 repeals a fundamentally flawed program that lacks oversight.

Who's for it? Ned Roscoe, president of Cigarettes Cheaper! stores.

Con: Opponents say Proposition 28 would eliminate millions of dollars in newly planned programs that benefit the most needy young children and their families. They say tobacco sales have decreased by 30 percent in the state since Proposition 10, and that tobacco companies fear lost revenues due to declining smoking rates.

Who's against it? Paul Murata, M.D., president of American Cancer Society, California Division; William D. Novielli, president, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids; Kay McVay, R.N., president of California Nurses Association.

RETURN TO TOP

Proposition 29

Passage of the measure approves a 1998 law that authorized certain tribal state gaming compacts, provided procedures for future negotiations with tribes and designated the governor to negotiate with tribes. But if Proposition 1A on this ballot is approved, the compacts in Proposition 29 would be replaced by newer ones.

Pro: Supporters say the 1998 Pala Compacts are fair casino agreements, reached by the governor and a number of tribes, and passed by the Legislature. They say the Pala Compacts restrict the number of machines allowed (19,900 statewide), thus preventing California from becoming a gambling haven like Nevada.

Who's for it? Art Croney, executive director, Committee on Moral Concerns; Harvey N. Chinn, California director of the National Coalition Against Gambling Expansion; Cheryl A. Schmit, co-chair of Stand Up for California.

Con: Opponents say Californians voted in favor of Proposition 5 in 1998 to help American Indians achieve self-reliance. But since Proposition 5 has been declared unconstitutional, self-reliance for Indian tribes would require passage of Proposition 1A, not Proposition 29.

Who's against it? Richard M. Milanovich, tribal chairman of Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians.

RETURN TO TOP

Proposition 30

If passed, the measure would put into effect a law that allows an individual's or business's insurance company to sue another person's insurer for unfair claims settlement in some liability cases. The measure, however, would allow binding arbitration if the third-party claimant and insurer agree to settle the original claim. If the case goes to arbitration, the third-party claimant can no longer sue the insurance company.

Pro: Supporters say the measure prohibits drunken drivers from suing and does not give uninsured motorists the right to sue you. They say it requires a drunken driver's insurance company to pay your claim on time. Proposition 30, they say, will reduce lawsuits in California: If an insurance company agrees to resolve your claim through arbitration or decides to treat your valid claim fairly, there is no lawsuit.

Who's for it? Ralph Nader; Candace Lightner, founder of Mothers Against Drunk Driving; the California Nurses Association; American Association of Retired Persons; California Labor Federation, Consumer Federation of California, and the Older Women's League

Con: Opponents say the measure will drive insurance rates higher, increase the number of frivolous lawsuits in accident cases, cost taxpayers millions of dollars, and reward lawbreaking uninsured and drunken drivers with new rights to sue. They say that under current law, if someone thinks a settlement offer is too low they can take the dispute to court or file a complaint with the state Department of Insurance.

Who's against it? Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD); Voter Revolt; Consumers Coalition of California; American Association of Business Persons with Disabilities; California Taxpayers' Association; California Organization of Police and Sheriffs; California Chamber of Commerce.

RETURN TO TOP

Proposition 31

Proposition 31 would amend parts of Proposition 30, limiting to some extent when a third-party individual - but not business - can sue an insurance company for unfair claims practices. Proposition 31 would become law only if the voters also approve Proposition 30 on this ballot.

Pro: Supporters say approving this referendum will protect the newly restored right to hold insurance companies responsible. Insurance companies will not be able to pass on their penalties to consumers by raising premiums, they say.

Who's for it? Howard L. Owens, executive director, Consumer Federation of California; Rosemary Shahan, Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety; Kay McVay, president of California Nurses Association.

Con: Opponents say under Propositions 30 and 31, if your insurer refuses to pay an unreasonable settlement demand made against you, it risks a separate multimillion-dollar lawsuit. They argue that Propositions 30 and 31 would give drunken drivers new rights to sue and recover financial rewards against an insurance company.

Who's against it? Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD); Voter Revolt; Consumers Coalition of California; American Association of Business Persons with Disabilities; California Taxpayers' Association; California Organization of Police and Sheriffs; California Chamber of Commerce.

RETURN TO TOP

   
       

Published February 20, 2000

Return to topThis image allows you to access site resources

The original version of this Voters Guide, published on the Mercury Center site, is no longer available. Some links will no longer function. Rotating banner ads appeared in this space.

© 2000 The Mercury News. The information you receive online from The Mercury News is protected by the copyright laws of the United States. The copyright laws prohibit any copying, redistributing, retransmitting, or repurposing of any copyright-protected material. Mercury News privacy policy