To all who have voted … thank you for doing your civic duty and helping to improve the governance of California.
While some of us will be disappointed with the results, such is life. It is wise to remember that our founding fathers not only provided a great guideline to an exceptional society, they also provided a way to remedy any mistakes that may have been made by the people – by simply voting in the next election.
Those who wish to check the status of their absentee or provisional ballot, it can be done by calling one of the telephone numbers listed on the California Secretary of State’s “Check Status of Your Ballot” web site.
So for better or worse, here are the RESULTS!
 DEFEATED – CHAOTIC, POORLY WRITTEN LAW THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN CHALLENGED IN FEDERAL COURT.
YES - 3,412,387 (46.1%)
NO - 3,978,314 (53.9%) |
19 - LEGALIZES MARIJUANA UNDER CALIFORNIA BUT NOT FEDERAL LAW. PERMITS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO REGULATE AND TAX COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION, DISTRIBUTION, AND SALE OF MARIJUANA. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
Put on the Ballot by Petition Signature |
|
Allows people 21 years old or older to possess, cultivate, or transport marijuana for personal use. Fiscal Impact: Depending on federal, state, and local government actions, potential increased tax and fee revenues in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually and potential correctional savings of several tens of millions of dollars annually.
|
| OCS |
CA GOP |
PC |
CA DEM |
| NO |
NO |
NO |
NONE |
YES -- A YES vote on this measure means: Individuals age 21 or older could, under state law, possess and cultivate limited amounts of marijuana for personal use. In addition, the state and local governments could authorize, regulate, and tax commercial marijuana-related activities under certain conditions. These activities would remain illegal under federal law.
NO -- A NO vote on this measure means: The possession and cultivation of marijuana for personal use and commercial marijuana-related activities would remain illegal under state law, unless allowed under the state's existing medical marijuana law.
OCS -- I urge a NO vote on Proposition 19 which is little more than a ruse by the democrats to turn out the youth vote in an election with a projected low turnout. This proposition does not affect the current medical marijuana laws and will not supersede federal laws which take precedence over state law.
Even if Prop. 19 passes, federal drug laws will be 'vigorously' enforced, official says
"U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr., in a letter sent Wednesday to nine former chiefs of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, wrote, 'Let me state clearly that the Department of Justice strongly opposes Proposition 19. If passed, this legislation will greatly complicate federal drug enforcement efforts to the detriment of our citizens.'"
This is nothing more than a political ploy to drive turnout. It is not a serious effort to solve the drug problem.
PASSED – MINIMIZES LEGISLATIVE INTERFERENCE WITH REDISTRICTING ACTIVITIES
YES - 4,268,103 (61.2%) NO - 2,712,119 (38.8%)
|
20 - REDISTRICTING OF CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures |
|
Removes elected representatives from process of establishing congressional districts and transfers that authority to recently-authorized 14-member redistricting commission comprised of Democrats, Republicans, and representatives of neither party. Fiscal Impact: No significant net change in state redistricting costs.
|
| OCS |
CA GOP |
PC |
CA DEM |
| YES |
YES |
YES |
NO |
YES -- A YES vote on this measure means: The responsibility to determine the boundaries of California's districts in the U.S. House of Representatives would be moved to the Citizens Redistricting Commission, a commission established by Proposition 11 in 2008. (Proposition 27 on this ballot also concerns redistricting issues. If both Proposition 20 and Proposition 27 are approved by voters, the proposition receiving the greater number of "yes" votes would be the only one to go into effect.)
NO -- A NO vote on this measure means: The responsibility to determine the boundaries of California's districts in the U.S. House of Representatives would remain with the Legislature.
OCS – I urge a YES vote on Proposition 20 because “we the people” are tired of being subject to the “special deals” made by state legislators to keep certain “pre-arranged” districts firmly within the party’s control. Thus our so-called legislators have been able to manipulate elections for years to insure long-term incumbencies which works against “we the people” and promotes a sense of entitlement – often combined with some degree of corruption.
As columnist George Will noted: "If Democrats lose control of the House by a small number of seats, this might be condign punishment for a practice they favor and that Republicans have cynically encouraged — racial gerrymandering. It concentrates African-American voters in majority-minority districts in order to guarantee the election of minority candidates." <Source>
Minority candidates who DO NOT represent ALL of the people -- only their minorities; viewing everything through the prism of the self-serving personal interests. The reason why local corruption blossoms.
We need to put the redistricting process back into the hands of the citizens of California.
Please note: this is one of two redistricting proposals. We also urge a NO vote on the deceptive Proposition 27 which would abolish the Citizen’s Redistricting Commission and return to control over redistricting to corrupt and self-serving legislators.
DEFEATED – USING AUTO-RELATED SURCHARGES TO FUND PARKS.
YES - 3,048,756 (41.9%) NO - 4,227,021 (58.1%)
|
21 - ESTABLISHES $18 ANNUAL VEHICLE LICENSE SURCHARGE TO HELP FUND STATE PARKS AND WILDLIFE PROGRAMS. GRANTS SURCHARGED VEHICLES FREE ADMISSION TO ALL STATE PARKS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
Put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures |
|
Exempts commercial vehicles, trailers and trailer coaches from the surcharge. Fiscal Impact: Annual increase to state revenues of $500 million from surcharge on vehicle registrations. After offsetting some existing funding sources, these revenues would provide at least $250 million more annually for state parks and wildlife conservation.
|
| OCS |
CA GOP |
PC |
CA DEM |
| NO |
NO |
NO |
YES |
YES - A YES vote on this measure means: An $18 annual surcharge would be added to the amount paid when a person registers a motor vehicle. The surcharge revenues would be used to provide funding for state park and wildlife conservation programs. Vehicles subject to the surcharge would have free admission and parking at all state parks.
NO --A NO vote on this measure means: State park and wildlife conservation programs would continue to be funded through existing state and local funding sources. Admission and parking fees could continue to be charged for vehicles entering state parks.
OCS – I urge a NO vote on Proposition 21. This is a legislative ploy to allow the legislature to surcharge vehicles for non-vehicle projects, thus raising vehicle registration fees to fund legislative special projects. It also serves to provide funding to unionized public employees to insure their full employment during times of budgetary crisis. Since there are other methods to fund state parts and wildlife programs, this is a sham to establish the poor precedent of allowing vehicles to be surcharge for legislative “special projects.” One such future project may involve funding medical expenses for illegal aliens hurt in vehicular accidents.
This places a burden on all vehicle owners with the promise of free admission to state parks for only a relatively few Californians.
The measure is deceptive and I urge a NO vote.
| PASSED – PROTECTS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WHILE FORCING THE STATE TO RAISE TAXES OR BORROW MONEY ELSEWHERE
YES - 4,291,832 (61.0%) NO - 2,750,022 (39.0%)
|
22 - PROHIBITS THE STATE FROM BORROWING OR TAKING FUNDS USED FOR TRANSPORTATION, REDEVELOPMENT, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROJECTS AND SERVICES. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures |
|
Prohibits State, even during severe fiscal hardship, from delaying distribution of tax revenues for these purposes. Fiscal Impact: Decreased state General Fund spending and/or increased state revenues, probably in the range of $1 billion to several billions of dollars annually. Comparable increases in funding for state and local transportation programs and local redevelopment.
|
| OCS |
CA GOP |
PC |
CA DEM |
| YES |
NONE |
YES |
NO |
YES -- A YES vote on this measure means: The state's authority to use or redirect state fuel tax and local property tax revenues would be significantly restricted.
NO -- A NO vote on this measure means: The state's current authority over state fuel tax and local property tax revenues would not be affected.
OCS – I urge a YES vote on Proposition 22 to stop the state from grabbing or delaying the disbursement local funds to “paper-over” continuing structural deficits of the state’s own making. By voting YES, you would be forcing the State’s legislature to accept its fiscal responsibility. We the people demand fiscal and budgetary responsibility and this would be a good first step.
 DEFEATED – POTENTIALLY THE MOST DISASTROUS LEGISLATION EVER PASSED AS IT MAY RESULT IN THE DESTRUCTION OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESSES
YES - 2,806,234 (38.9%) - NO 4,404,634 (61.1%)
|
23 - SUSPENDS IMPLEMENTATION OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL LAW (AB 32) REQUIRING MAJOR SOURCES OF EMISSIONS TO REPORT AND REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS THAT CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING, UNTIL UNEMPLOYMENT DROPS TO 5.5 PERCENT OR LESS FOR FULL YEAR. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
Put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures |
|
Fiscal Impact: Likely modest net increase in overall economic activity in the state from suspension of greenhouse gases regulatory activity, resulting in a potentially significant net increase in state and local revenues.
|
| OCS |
CA GOP |
PC |
CA DEM |
| YES |
YES |
YES |
NO |
YES -- A YES vote on this measure means: Certain existing and proposed regulations authorized under state law ("Assembly Bill 32") to address global warming would be suspended. These regulations would remain suspended until the state unemployment rate drops to 5.5 percent or lower for one year.
NO -- A NO vote on this measure means: The state could continue to implement the measures authorized under Assembly Bill 32 to address global warming.
OCS – I urge a YES vote on Proposition 23 to save California from environmentalists who have already put forth onerous rules and regulations which would cripple California’s businesses and drive both people and businesses from California to more business-friendly states.
Without discussing the scientific validity of global warming, suffice it to say that California, acting alone and in a leadership position, will have absolutely no measureable effect on the Earth’s global climate and will place California at a significant competitive disadvantage with other states and nations.
It would be folly, in these hard economic times to cripple California’s economy and raise all energy prices for California residents. Therefore, I most strongly urge a YES vote.
DEFEATED – PRO-BUSINESS INITIATIVE
YES - 2,912,221 (41.5%) NO - 4,101,719 (58.5%)
|
24 - REPEALS RECENT LEGISLATION THAT WOULD ALLOW BUSINESSES TO LOWER THEIR TAX LIABILITY. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
Put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures |
|
Fiscal Impact: Increased state revenues of about $1.3 billion each year by 2012–13 from higher taxes paid by some businesses. Smaller increases in 2010–11 and 2011–12.
|
| OCS |
CA GOP |
PC |
CA DEM |
| NO |
NO |
NO |
YES |
YES -- A YES vote on this measure means: Three business tax provisions will return to what they were before 2008 and 2009 law changes. As a result: (1) a business will be less able to deduct losses in one year against income in other years, (2) a multistate business will have its California income determined by a calculation using three factors, and (3) a business will not be able to share tax credits with related businesses.
NO -- A NO vote on this measure means: Three business tax provisions that were recently changed will not be affected. As a result of maintaining current law: (1) a business will be able to deduct losses in one year against income in more situations, (2) most multistate businesses could choose to have their California income determined based only on a single sales factor, and (3) a business will be able to share its tax credits with related businesses.
OCS – California is not a business-friendly state, both on matters of taxation and onerous rules and regulations. Unions and their public employees want to suck every available dollar out of corporations to fund their social justice programs. Therefore, I strongly urge a NO vote on this matter lest we, once again, disadvantage California’s businesses in a competitive environment – all for the benefit of public employees. Again, I urge a NO vote.
PASSED - MAKES THE PASSING OF A BUDGET IN A ONE-PARTY STATE EASIER
YES - 3,884,542 (54.8%) NO - 3,212,365 (45.2%)
|
25 - CHANGES LEGISLATIVE VOTE REQUIREMENT TO PASS BUDGET AND BUDGET-RELATED LEGISLATION FROM TWO-THIRDS TO A SIMPLE MAJORITY. RETAINS TWO-THIRDS VOTE REQUIREMENT FOR TAXES. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures |
|
Legislature permanently forfeits daily salary and expenses until budget bill passes. Fiscal Impact: In some years, the contents of the state budget could be changed due to the lower legislative vote requirement in this measure. The extent of changes would depend on the Legislature's future actions.
|
| OCS |
CA GOP |
PC |
CA DEM |
| NO |
NO |
NO |
YES |
YES -- A YES vote on this measure means: The Legislature's vote requirement to send the annual budget bill to the Governor would be lowered from two-thirds to a majority of each house of the Legislature.
NO -- A NO vote on this measure means: The Legislature's vote requirement to send an annual budget bill to the Governor would remain unchanged at two-thirds of each house of the Legislature.
OCS – California is a one-party state run by the democrats, therefore I urge a NO vote on proposition 25 to require a two-thirds vote on budgetary items lest the democrats pass funding initiatives without regard to any opposition. Considering the past performance of the democrats who have shown little or no fiscal responsibility in funding their “social justice” initiatives to fund environmental projects and provide aid and comfort to illegal aliens to the detriment of legal California citizens, reducing the voting requirements to a simple majority would be extremely irresponsible and dangerous to California’s continuing survival.
PASSED – ELIMINATES A LEGISLATIVE REVENUE LOOPHOLE
YES - 3,692,156 (52.9%) NO - 3,298,677 (47.1%)
|
26 - REQUIRES THAT CERTAIN STATE AND LOCAL FEES BE APPROVED BY TWO-THIRDS VOTE. FEES INCLUDE THOSE THAT ADDRESS ADVERSE IMPACTS ON SOCIETY OR THE ENVIRONMENT CAUSED BY THE FEE-PAYER'S BUSINESS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures |
|
Fiscal Impact: Depending on decisions by governing bodies and voters, decreased state and local government revenues and spending (up to billions of dollars annually). Increased transportation spending and state General Fund costs ($1 billion annually).
|
| OCS |
CA GOP |
PC |
CA DEM |
| YES |
YES |
YES |
NO |
YES -- A YES vote on this measure means: The definition of taxes would be broadened to include many payments currently considered to be fees or charges. As a result, more state and local proposals to increase revenues would require approval by two-thirds of each house of the Legislature or by local voters.
NO -- A NO vote on this measure means: Current constitutional requirements regarding fees and taxes would not be changed.
OCS – I urge a “YES” vote to force dishonest legislators to face the fact that they can no longer disguise taxes as fees to elude the necessity for a two-thirds vote. It is time that “we the people” demanded fiscal responsibility of our legislators.
| DEFEATED -- MINIMIZES LEGISLATIVE INTERFERENCE WITH REDISTRICTING ACTIVITIES
YES - 2,783,908 (40.6%) NO - 4,072,505(59.4%)
|
27 - ELIMINATES STATE COMMISSION ON REDISTRICTING. CONSOLIDATES AUTHORITY FOR REDISTRICTING WITH ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.
Put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures |
|
Eliminates 14-member redistricting commission. Consolidates authority for establishing state Assembly, Senate, and Board of Equalization districts with elected representatives who draw congressional districts. Fiscal Impact: Possible reduction of state redistricting costs of around $1 million over the next year. Likely reduction of these costs of a few million dollars once every ten years beginning in 2020.
|
| OCS |
CA GOP |
PC |
CA DEM |
| NO |
NO |
NO |
YES |
YES -- A YES vote on this measure means: The responsibility to determine the boundaries of State Legislature and Board of Equalization districts would be returned to the Legislature. The Citizens Redistricting Commission, established by Proposition 11 in 2008 to perform this function, would be eliminated. (Proposition 20 on this ballot also concerns redistricting issues. If both Proposition 27 and Proposition 20 are approved by voters, the proposition receiving the greater number of "yes" votes would be the only one to go into effect.)
NO -- A NO vote on this measure means: The responsibility to determine the boundaries of Legislature and Board of Equalization districts would remain with the Citizens Redistricting Commission
OCS – I urge a NO vote on Proposition 27 because “we the people” are tired of being subject to the “special deals” made by state legislators to keep certain “pre-arranged” districts firmly within the party’s control. Thus our so-called legislators have been able to manipulate elections for years to insure long-term incumbencies which works against “we the people” and promotes a sense of entitlement – often combined with some degree of corruption.
We need to put the redistricting process back into the hands of the citizens of California.
I also urge a YES vote on Proposition 20 to stop corrupt and self-serving legislators from continuing their special deals and using redistricting for their own purposes.
Bottom line …
Once more, we find our formerly golden state in jeopardy from the corrupt democrats and complacent republicans who have managed to perpetuate their one-party rule. With few exceptions, definitely not “honest brokers” to serve “we the people.”
I would be prepared to initiate a recall process involving all of our elected officials if they continue to pander to the illegal aliens and special interests who are destroying our state and pushing us ever onward towards bankruptcy.
-- steve
Reference Links:
Election Results – Official| State of California
State of California – Official Voter Guide
California Republican Party – Official Voter Guide
California Democratic Party – Voter Guide
