1. law, govt and politics
2. politics
3. elections

Voter Guide for
Los Angeles County
LEAGUE OF
WOMEN VOTERS®
STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2014
Polls open 7 AM – 8 PM
VOTERS WILL BE VOTING:
WHAT IS THE
ELECTION
ABOUT?
IMPORTANT
DATES
SEE PAGE
For LOS ANGELES COUNTY ASSESSOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
For LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
For LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT 3 SUPERVISOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5
For LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT OFFICES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-7
On LOS ANGELES COUNTY MEASURE P.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
On STATE MEASURES 1, 2, 45, 46, 47 and 48. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-15
OCTOBER 20: Last day to register to vote in this election
OCTOBER 28: Last day to request a Vote-By-Mail ballot
NOVEMBER 4: ELECTION DAY
Polls open 7 AM – 8 PM
REGISTER TO VOTE: U.S. citizens 18 year or older are eligible to vote. The
deadline to send in your registration form is October 20, 2014. You can sign up
online at www.registertovote.ca.gov or pick up a form at your library, post office,
county elections office, or get one mailed to you by calling (800) 345-8683.
CAST YOUR VOTE: To vote in person, you must go to your assigned polling
place. Find the address on the label of your Sample Ballot that is mailed to you, or
look it up at www.smartvoter.org. To vote by mail, you must request a “vote by
mail” ballot no later than October 28.
About the Voter Guide
VOTE!
This Voter Guide is provided by the League of Women Voters’ Education Fund.
The Education Fund encourages active and informed participation in government
and increased understanding of public policy through education. The Voter Guide
is nonpartisan which means it provides neutral information that lets you make
your own decisions. For more nonpartisan information, go to www.smartvoter.org.
Los Angeles County
The County Assessor locates all taxable property in the County and
identifies ownership, values all property taxation, reassesses property
upon change of ownership or completion of new construction, appears
before the Assessment Appeals board, lists the value of all property on
the assessment roll by Assessor’s parcel number, produces Assessor’s
parcel maps, and processes all property tax exemptions.
Assessor
term: 4 years
term begins: December 1, 2014
salary: $187,526 annually
John Morris
Jeffrey Prang
occupation :
occupation :
Head Deputy
District Attorney
Special Assistant
Assessor
website :
website :
www.jeffreyprang.com
www.morrisforassessor.com
qualifications :
qualifications :
u23-year
violent gang and white collar crime Prosecutor
years Supervisory and Administrative Experience
u4 years Real Estate Law Experience
uReal Estate Licensed
uMayor/Councilmember,
u14
uBoard
priorities :
priorities :
uProtect
uRestore
Proposition 13 to protect all taxpayers
Fraud and Government Corruption at the
Assessor’s Office
uEstablish transparency and accountability to stop
future fraud
uEliminate
City of West Hollywood
Deputy, State Board of Equalization
uSpecial Assistant, LA County Assessor Kenneth Hahn
uSr. Advisor, LA County Sheriff’s Dept.
uDeputy to LA Councilmember Ruth Galanter
uPublic Information Director, LA Animal Services
public trust in the Office of Assessor
and replace computer systems
uFairly and accurately assess property values and
provide excellent service
uUpgrade
QUESTION: What steps would you take to reduce the possibility of favoritism or corruption when assessing property
in Los Angeles County?
Morris: Establish an Internet-based fraud hotline to
report fraud/corruption. Initiate policies to remove
political influence from assessments. Establish
transparent appeals processes for all taxpayers.
Implement policies that if the Assessor cannot serve
because of pending criminal charges, he/she forfeits
his salary and benefits.
Prang: I will treat all taxpayers the same, ensuring
the same high-quality response to inquiries to all
residents seeking service. I support the ban on
contributions from “tax agents,” to prevent any
appearance of political favoritism. I support limiting
appraiser discretion when settling assessment
disputes and requiring verification by supervisors
when enrolling assessment values.
Complete candidate responses to all questions can be found at: www.smartvoter.org/2014/11/04/ca/la/
2 Voter Guide for Los Angeles County
LOS ANGELE S COUNTY
Los Angeles County
The County Sheriff administers the police function of the County,
and is responsible for enforcement of all laws and regulations as
required or requested by statute, participates in programs for
rehabilitation, prevention of crime and suppression of delinquency;
directs and coordinates emergency services; maintains security and
assists in the functions of the Superior Courts; and operates five
County jail facilities.
Sheriff
term: 4 years
term begins: December 1, 2014
salary: $279,158 annually
Jim McDonnell
Paul K. Tanaka
occupation :
occupation :
Long Beach Police Chief
Retired Undersheriff
website :
website :
www.mcdonnellfor
lacountysheriff.com
www.paultanaka.com
qualifications :
qualifications :
Served as second in command in the Los Angeles
Police Department
u Commissioner, Citizens’ Commission on Jail Violence
(2011-2012)
u Immediate Past President, Los Angeles County Police
Chiefs Association
u Member of the California Commission on Peace
Officers’ Standards & Training (POST)
u US Attorney General’s National Task Force on Children
Exposed to Violence
uMayor,
priorities :
priorities :
u
Restore public trust in LASD integrity and leadership
Uphold the highest principles of professionalism and
constitutional policing
u Implement LASD reforms crafted by the Citizens’ Commission
on Jail Violence and work with the Board of Supervisors
uCrime
u
uFiscal
u
City of Gardena
Public Accountant
u Certified
Reduction and Safer Communities
Responsibility
uNew Direction and Leadership for the
Sheriff’s Department
QUESTION: What can be done to reduce recidivism, and specifically how would you work with outside organizations
to achieve rehabilitation goals set but not yet carried out?
McDonnell: A critical component of effective policing
strategies lies not just in ensuring that best practices are
used in responding to crime, but also in focusing on violence
prevention, support for those with mental illness and
intervention strategies. With over thirty years of experience
working in the community to make our neighborhoods safer,
I am a firm believer that early, proactive youth intervention
programs not only prevent crime, but help struggling families
and strengthen the community at large. As Sheriff, I would also
redouble efforts to address recidivism by bolstering the
education and reintegration programs in the county jail system.
Tanaka: As Sheriff, I will actively engage with community
leaders and community based organizations to proactively
promote a viable path to success through an emphasis
on safe neighborhoods, family values, quality education,
and a vibrant business environment. Having a solid life
foundation is vital to reducing recidivism.
Complete candidate responses to all questions can be found at: www.smartvoter.org/2014/11/04/ca/la/
NOVEMBER 4, 2014 GENER AL ELECTION
League of Women Voters®
3
Los Angeles County
Board of Supervisors
term: 4 years
term begins: December 1, 2014
salary: $181,292 annually
Elections for Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
are held in even numbered years. On November 4,
2014, voters are selecting a Supervisor for the 3rd
District.
The five-member Board of Supervisors acts
as the governing body of Los Angeles County;
has administrative, legislative, and
quasi-judicial duties; provides for
county-wide services; is local
government in unincorporated
areas; governs many special
districts; adopts County
budget. Each district
has a population of
approximately two
million residents.
District 3 includes:
The cities of Agoura Hills, Beverly Hills, Calabasas,
Hidden Hills, Malibu, San Fernando, Santa Monica,
West Hollywood, and Westlake Village; and the
communities of Arleta, Atwater Village, Bel Air,
Benedict-Coldwater Canyon, Beverly Glen, Brentwood,
Canoga Park, Century City, East Hollywood, Encino,
Fairfax, Granada Hills, Hancock Park, Hansen Dam,
Hollywood, Hollywood Hills, Holmby Hills, Lake Balboa,
District No. 3
Los Angeles County
Lakeview Terrace, Laurel Canyon, Los Feliz, Miracle
Mile, Mission Hills, Mount Olympus, North Hills, North
Hollywood, Northridge, Pacific Palisades, Pacoima,
Panorama City, Park La Brea, Rancho Park, Reseda,
Sawtelle, Sepulveda Basin, Sherman Oaks, Studio City,
MAKING
DEMOCRACY WORK
®
The League of Women Voters is a
non-partisan political organization
of women and men that encourages
informed and active participation in
government, works to increase
understanding of major public policy
issues, and influences public policy
through education and advocacy.
Join Us Now!
Sun Valley, Sunland, Sylmar, Tarzana, Toluca Lake,
Valley Glen, Valley Village, Van Nuys, Venice, West Hills,
West Los Angeles, Westwood, Wilshire Center,
Winnetka, and Woodland Hills.
Contact your local chapter of
the League of Women Voters today!
Beach Cities u 310.793.0569 u www.beachvoter.org
Claremont Area u 909.624.9457 u www.claremont.ca.lwvnet.org
East San Gabriel Valley u 626.967.8055 u www.esgv.ca.lwvnet.org
Glendale-Burbank u 818.925.4598 u www.gb.ca.lwvnet.org
Long Beach Area
u
562.930.0573 u www.lba.ca.lwvnet.org
Los Angeles u 213.368.1616 u www.lwvlosangeles.org
Palos Verdes Peninsula u 310.784.7787 u www.lwvpalosverdes.org
Pasadena Area u 626.798.0965 u www.lwv-pa.org
Santa Monica u 310.692.1494 u www.lwvsantamonica.org
LEAGUE OF
WOMEN VOTERS®
4 Voter Guide for Los Angeles County
Torrance u 310.223.6897 u www.lwvtorrancearea.org
Whittier u 562.947.5818 u www.whittier.ca.lwvnet.org
LOS ANGELE S COUNTY
Sheila Kuehl
Bobby S. Shriver
occupation :
occupation :
College Institute
Director
Nonprofit Director/
Businessman
website :
website :
www.
kuehlforsupervisor.com
www.bobbyshriver.com
qualifications :
qualifications :
uFormer
California State Senator and Assembly Member
Speaker Pro Tem of the California State Assembly
uAuthored 171 bills that were signed into law
uFirst openly gay or lesbian person to be elected to
California Legislature
uBA, UCLA; JD, Harvard Law School
uCo-Founder
uFormer
uCo-Founder
priorities :
priorities :
uAffordable,
uExpanding
accessible, high quality healthcare for
everyone in LA County
uImproving the safety and well-being of children in the
foster care system
uCreating a complete public transportation network
from one end of the County to the other
One
(RED)
uFormer Santa Monica City Councilmember
uFormer Santa Monica Mayor
uFormer Chair, CA State Parks Commission
our transit options
job opportunities by attracting new businesses
and supporting existing ones
uConserving our water resources and making sure our
water is clean
uCreating
QUESTION: The County Supervisors sit also on the board of the Metropolitan Transit District. What would be
your top priorities for the MTA?
Kuehl: In order to get people out of their cars we
need a comprehensive plan to get people to and
from train stations, such as a DASH-like system in
various parts of the County, bicycle valets and
lockers. I support the creation of a line from the San
Fernando Valley through the Sepulveda pass all the
way to LAX....We must continue to pay attention to
our bus riders and find other ways to move Metro
from the red to the black that doesn’t involve raising
fares.
Shriver: Get people out of traffic! It wastes time and
money, pollutes and costs good jobs. Finish the subway
to the Westside without the forecasted delay. Provide rail
to LAX and connect the Valley to the rest of the region.
We need immediate local fixes: traffic officers, easy local
access to rail, free student transit passes.
Complete candidate responses to all questions can be found at: www.smartvoter.org/2014/11/04/ca/la/
NOVEMBER 4, 2014 GENER AL ELECTION
League of Women Voters®
5
Los Angeles County
Superior Court
Judge
term: 6 years
term begins: January 2, 2015
salary: $181,292 annually
The California Constitution requires that a candidate for
Superior Court Judge be a member of the State Bar or serve
on a court of record for ten years. Elections for Superior Court
Judges in Los Angeles County are held in even-numbered years at
the scheduled Primary Election. When more than two candidates
run and no one candidate receives more than 50% of the votes,
a run-off between the highest vote-getters is held at the
November General Election.
Superior Court Judge Office 61
Dayan Mathai
Jacqueline H. Lewis
occupation :
occupation :
Gang Homicide
Prosecutor
Superior Court
Commissioner
website :
website :
www.mathaiforjudge.com
www.jacquelinelewis
forjudge2014.com
qualifications :
qualifications :
uDeputy
District Attorney for 15 years
110 FELONY JURY TRIALS, including
36 complex murder cases
uAssigned to HARDCORE GANG DIVISION/ORGANIZED
CRIME DIVISION
uRated “WELL QUALIFIED” by LA County Bar Assn.
uRated “EXCEPTIONALLY WELL
uProsecuted
uSuperior
priorities :
priorities :
uPROTECTION
uTo
OF THE PUBLIC is my top priority
uSWIFT AND JUST punishment of the guilty when appropriate after a consideration of all of the facts and the law
uFAIR AND EQUAL TREATMENT for all within the judicial
process
QUALIFIED” by LA County Bar
Court Commissioner, 2008-present
uSuperior Court Referee, 1997-2008
uGraduate, Boalt Hall School of Law 1990
uGraduate, Loyola Marymount University, 1986
uCalifornia Juvenile Court Judge of the Year, 2010
protect children and serve families
uTo protect the public
uTo allow everyone an opportunity to be heard in court
QUESTION: How much flexibility should judges have in determining the length of sentences?
Mathai: It is important for judges to have some
discretion in sentencing, because the circumstances
of each crime are different, and particular defendants
may have mitigating or aggravating factors that should
be considered in reaching a just sentence. In California,
that discretion is appropriately limited by sentencing
guidelines to ensure equal justice under the law.
Lewis: I believe that judges should have wide latitude in
determining the length of sentences. Seventeen years on
the bench has taught me that the facts of every case as
well as every defendant are different. I believe that judges
should have the authority to appropriately match the facts
of the case with the sentence.
Complete candidate responses to all questions can be found at: www.smartvoter.org/2014/11/04/ca/la/
6 Voter Guide for Los Angeles County
LOS ANGELE S COUNTY
Superior Court Judge Office 87
Tom Griego
Andrew M. Stein
occupation :
occupation :
Criminal Gang Prosecutor
Criminal Trial Attorney
website :
website :
www.griegoforjudge.com
www.steinforjudge.com
qualifications :
qualifications :
uDeputy
CA, Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office,
Anti-Gang Division
uProsecuted over 150 gang and quality of life cases
including manslaughter, child endangerment, sexual
battery, and racial discrimination & harassment
uSupported by Judges and Attorneys
uUCLA, BA; CSULA, MPA; Whittier Law School, JD
uBA
priorities :
priorities :
uTo
uTo
uTo
uTo
be Fair, Independent and Competent
Collaborate, Resolve and Help the Parties
uTo be Patient, Respectful and Mindful
SUNY Buffalo, 1975
Degree from University of San Diego 1978
uSoutheast Bar Association Attorney of the Year 2000
uJohnny Cochran Memorial Award 2011
uLaw
treat the public with dignity and respect
make all parties, including victims, feel like they have
their day in court
uBetter access to the courts
QUESTION: How much flexibility should judges have in determining the length of sentences?
Griego: Judges should sentence within the guidelines
as promulgated by the State Legislature with due
consideration to victims, probation reports, and other
factors.
There are three levels in California’s
state court system:
County
Superior
Court
Each county has a
Superior Court
where criminal and
civil trials take place.
Stein: The judges should have limited flexibility,
allowing for individualized sentences, however there
must be great deference to the suggested sentences.
The reason for our sentencing scheme, was to prevent
the wide disparities that had previously occurred.
Court of
Appeals
These courts review
cases appealed from
county courts if one of
the parties wants to
protest the decision.
Supreme
Court
This is the top court in
the state with seven
judges (“justices”). It
has the final decision
on cases that have
been appealed from
lower courts.
Judges for the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court are appointed and then confirmed. Voters are asked
to vote on whether to keep the judge after confirmation, and again after every twelve years. County Superior
Court judges are appointed by the Governor. However, seats unfilled at the time of an election are filled by
direct election by voters. The term is six years. If a judge is unchallenged, s/he retains the seat.
NOVEMBER 4, 2014 GENER AL ELECTION
League of Women Voters®
7
Tip
How Do I Evaluate
Ballot Propositions?
u
Look
at what the measure is trying to do. Do
you agree with its goals? Do you think the
proposed changes will make things better?
u
Does
the measure deal with one issue that
can be easily decided by a YES or NO vote?
Or, is it a complex issue?
u
Watch
out for distortion tactics and
commercials that rely on image but tell
nothing important about the measure.
Beware of half-truths.
u
Try
to find out who is spending money to
support or oppose the measure.
Looking for more information
on candidates and propositions?
Official Voter Information Guide
★
voterguide.sos.ca.gov
A non-partisan guide to statewide
candidates and ballot propositions.
SmartVoter
★
SmartVoter.org
Nonpartisan election information. Type in
your address for comprehensive information
about everything on your ballot.
Voter’s Edge
★
votersedge.org/california-election-votersguide-to-ballot-measures-and-candidates
Want to know who and what you’re really
voting for? Voter’s Edge, a one-stop shop
for everything you need to know about the
candidates and measures on your ballot.
Find out who’s giving money to the YES
and NO campaigns.
LAVote.net
★
LAVote.net
The official elections website of the
Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder. Get
information on current elections, candidates,
ballot propositions, voter registration, voting
options, and other voting resources.
8 Voter Guide for Los Angeles County
November 2014 General Election
Ballot Measures
& Propositions
are proposed laws presented to
the public to vote on. They may also be called
ballot measures.
u
Propositions
u
This
guide has short descriptions of the County
Measure, and six Statewide Propositions being
decided by voters in the November 4, 2013
election. You may also be asked to vote on
local ballot measures in this election.
P will be voted upon by voters
in Los Angeles County.
u
Measure
1 and 2 were placed on the ballot
by the State Legislature.
u
Propositions
45 through 48 have been placed
on the ballot by people who collected enough
signatures.
u
Propositions
45, 46, and 47 are initiatives.
A YES vote means that you support the way
the proposition would change things and a NO
vote means that you want to leave things the
way they are now.
u
Propositions
48 is a referendum, which asks
voters to decide on a law that is already in
place. A YES vote means that you support the
law and want to keep it and a NO vote means
you want the law overturned.
u
Proposition
u
You
do not have to vote on everything.
Use this guide to choose the ones that are
important to you and learn more about them.
What is a bond?
u
If
you would like to vote for or against
Proposition 1, it is helpful to understand what a
bond is. Governments sell bonds to investors
to borrow money now and then pay the bonds
off over time plus interest. At current rates, to
pay off the bond plus interest is about double
the cost of paying for something all at once.
Bonds are usually used for things that last a
long time, like buildings or bridges.
LOS ANGELE S COUNTY
Measure P
Special Parcel Tax— 2⁄3 Approval Required
2014 Safe Neighborhood and Parks Measure
THE QUESTION: Should Los Angeles County impose an annual $23 per parcel special tax throughout the county to replace
expiring taxes and ensure continued funding for improving, developing, and maintaining parks, beaches, and recreational projects?
THE SITUATION:
FISCAL EFFECTS
In 1992 and 1996, Los Angeles County voters passed
propositions assessing residential and business property to
fund acquisition, development, and maintenance of
beaches, parks, and natural lands; tree-planting; gang
intervention; and improvement of recreational facilities. The
assessment amounts varied with type and extent of
property and with the amount of benefit the property
received. The passage of Proposition 218 (also November
1996) ended the use of benefit assessments for “general
benefits” (parks, recreational facilities, etc.). Proposition
218 says a benefit assessment must provide a specific
benefit, such as trash collection. The 1992 and 1996
measures, grandfathered in since they were adopted by a
vote of the people, are now expiring (in 2015 and 2019,
respectively) and no acceptable progressive assessment
formula varying with property value was found. To continue
funding for the general benefit amenities covered by these
measures, a flat tax of $23 per parcel per year is being
proposed.
Proposition P will raise approximately $1.6 billion over 30
years.
THE PROPOSAL:
Proposition P allows the County to raise about $53 million
per year by imposing a flat tax of $23 per parcel per year
throughout the county for 30 years, beginning June 2015,
to develop, acquire, improve, restore, rehabilitate, and
maintain parks; recreational, cultural, and community
facilities; and open space within Los Angeles County.
WHAT A YES OR NO VOTE MEANS
C
A YES vote says the County should levy the $23 per
parcel per year tax to support parks and recreational
projects throughout Los Angeles County.
A NO vote says that the $23 parcel tax should not be
imposed.
SUPPORTERS SAY
★ Proposition P continues valued and needed parks and
recreational projects.
★ $23 per year per parcel is little enough to support
projects that benefit us all.
★ We all are benefiting from funds wisely invested in
community projects in the last 20 years; the investment
should continue.
OPPONENTS SAY
★ Changing from progressive to regressive funding
advantages those most able to pay.
★ Some of the wealthiest are given a windfall of
thousands of dollars a year by this measure.
Funds would be allocated in these proportions:
★ 30% to the County for regional projects, open space,
★
★
★
★
★
★
foothill, mountain, trail, river, wetland, and stream
projects
20% to cities and unincorporated areas within the
County with allocations based on number of parcels in a
project as a percentage of total parcels in the county
15% to the County for parks, beaches, and clean water/
park projects
15% for maintenance and servicing of projects funded
from 1992 and 1996 measure funds
10% to the County for underserved communities
5% for competitive grants to public agencies and
non-profit organizations
5% for administration
NOVEMBER 4, 2014 GENER AL ELECTION
League of Women Voters®
9
Proposition 1
Legislative Bond Act
Water Bond. Funding for Water Quality, Supply, Treatment, and Storage Projects.
THE QUESTION: Should the state of California sell $7.1 billion in additional general obligation bonds to fund various water-related programs?
THE QUESTION:
FISCAL EFFECTS
Historically, a majority of California’s surface water has come
from Sierra Nevada and Northern California snowmelt that
feeds the state’s two largest rivers, the Sacramento and the
San Joaquin. Groundwater has provided roughly a third of
the state’s water supply, but many of the state’s
groundwater basins are currently dangerously depleted.
The remainder of the state’s water comes from other
sources, such as captured rainwater, water recycling, and
desalination.
Assuming an interest rate just over 5% for bonds sold over
the next 10 years and repaid over a 30-year period, the
cost to taxpayers would average about $360 million
annually over the next 40 years. It is assumed that the
$425 million in unsold bonds would not increase the state’s
anticipated debt payments because the bonds likely would
have been sold in any case.
Much of the state’s surface water is delivered to Central
Valley farmland and to population centers in the Bay Area
and Southern California. Southern California also gets
water from the Owens Valley and the Colorado River. In dry
years, it can be difficult to provide all the water needed by
California’s cities, agriculture, and environment. In very wet
years, the state can experience floods. To address these
challenges, the state has built various projects, including
pipelines, pumping stations, and canals to move water, and
has constructed dams/reservoirs and other types of water
storage to manage available surface water. These supplement
local water storage and delivery systems.
Since the large water projects were built in the mid-20th
century, California’s population has doubled and the value
of its economy has multiplied many times. However,
California’s growth faces natural limits on the total amount
of water available.
In addition to approving water project bonds in the middle
of the last century, voters over the decades have approved
additional water bonds. A portion of these bonds remain
unsold.
THE PROPOSAL:
Prop. 1 would allow the state to redirect $425 million in
unsold bonds and sell $7.1 billion in additional bonds, for a
total of $7.5 billion in general obligation bonds. The funds
would be used to manage water supplies, protect and
restore wetlands, improve water quality, and increase flood
protection. Of the total $7.5 billion, $5.7 billion is available
for water supply and water quality projects only if recipients
provide a local match, in most cases 50% of the total cost.
It’s estimated that there would be savings to local
governments on water-related projects, likely averaging
a couple hundred million dollars annually over the next
few decades.
SUPPORTERS SAY
★ Prop. 1 supports a comprehensive state water plan and
provides a reliable supply of water for farms,
businesses, and communities, especially during
droughts.
★ Prop. 1 does not raise taxes. It is fiscally responsible and
contains strict accountability requirements and public
disclosure to ensure that the money is properly spent.
OPPONENTS SAY
★ Too much of Prop. 1 wrongly focuses on building more
dams. No amount of water storage will produce more
rain and snow.
★ Prop. 1 does little for drought relief in the near term
and doesn’t adequately promote regional water
self-sufficiency or reduce our reliance on an already
water-deprived Delta ecosystem.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Supporters: Yes on Propositions 1 and 2
www.yesonprops1and2.com
Opponents: No on Prop. 1
www.NoOnProp1.org
© 2014 League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
10 Voter Guide for Los Angeles County
LOS ANGELE S COUNTY
Proposition 2
Legislative Constitutional Amendment
State Budget. Budget Stabilization Account.
THE QUESTION: Should the State Constitution be amended to change how the state pays down debt and saves money
in reserves?
THE SITUATION:
When the economy is strong, state tax revenues rise, and
the state transfers funds into its reserves. When the economy
weakens, total tax revenues decline, but reserve funds are
available to help mitigate adverse steps otherwise needed
to balance budgets.
The Budget Stabilization Account (BSA) is the state’s basic
reserve. Currently, about $3 billion per year is transferred
into the BSA, although the Governor may reduce or eliminate
this amount. There is a target maximum, currently $8 billion.
BSA funds can be released by vote of the Legislature. Due
to the recent adverse economic conditions, these transfers
were stopped, and the BSA had no funds at all for several
years, until the current year.
State law requires that local school districts keep reserves
equal to 1-5% of their annual budget, depending on their
size. Many districts keep larger reserves.
The state’s debts total around $300 billion, including about
$150 billion for retirement benefits already earned by
public employees, and several billion dollars owed to local
governments, such as school districts, cities, and counties.
THE PROPOSAL:
Prop. 2 would reduce the annual revenue transfer to the
BSA to approximately $1.6 billion, but add a portion of
capital gains-related taxes in years when such revenues
exceed a certain level. The total annual transfer could thus
possibly increase to $4 billion or more.
For 15 years, half of the foregoing amount would have to be
used to pay down public retirement benefit obligations and
inter-governmental debts. Later, the Legislature could
choose whether to use the BSA transfer funds to further
pay down these debts.
Prop. 2 would increase the target BSA maximum to about
$11 billion. Once the maximum is reached, the BSA transfer
amount would instead be used to build and maintain
infrastructure.
Prop. 2 would also limit the circumstances under which the
transfer could be reduced, or BSA funds could be withdrawn,
and the amounts which could be withdrawn in any year.
In some years when capital gains revenues are strong, and
certain other conditions are met, money would go into a new
state reserve for schools and community colleges. However,
Prop. 2 does not directly change the long-term amount of
state spending for schools and community colleges.
If the new school reserve is funded, under certain circumstances a new state law would limit the size of local school
district reserves to a maximum of 10% of their annual budget,
depending on the size of the district. This new maximum limit
could be changed in the future by the Legislature.
FISCAL EFFECTS
Under Prop. 2, the state would likely pay down existing
debts somewhat faster, leaving less money for other things
in the state budget during at least the next 15 years. Prop. 2’s
impact on state budget reserves over the long run would
depend on the economy, capital gains tax revenues and the
way that state government implements the measure.
The new school reserve would receive funds only occasionally—
likely only during very good economic times. Once this
reserve has funds of any amount, the local school district
reserves would be limited, and some districts likely would
have smaller reserves in bad economic times.
SUPPORTERS SAY
★ Prop. 2 establishes a strong constitutional reserve fund,
which will force state government to save money and
pay down debts.
★ Prop. 2 will shield taxpayers from unnecessary tax
increases and protect schools from devastating cuts.
OPPONENTS SAY
★ Prop. 2 hides a financial time bomb that limits school
districts’ reserves, resulting in possible higher costs and
deeper cuts.
★ Prop. 2 establishes a double standard—prudent reserves
for the state, but limited reserves for school districts.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Supporters: Yes on the Rainy Day Fund
www.yesonprops1and2.com
Opponents: Educate Our State
www.2badforkids.org
Note: Because the Legislature changed the number of this proposition
from Prop. 44 to Prop. 2, you may still find references to Prop. 44 in various
publications and websites.
© 2014 League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
NOVEMBER 4, 2014 GENER AL ELECTION
League of Women Voters®
11
Proposition 45
Initiative Statue
Health Care Insurance. Rate Changes.
THE QUESTION: Should changes in some health insurance rates require the Insurance Commissioner’s approval before
going into effect?
THE SITUATION:
Health care plans are regulated by either the California
Department of Insurance (CDI) or the California Department
of Managed Health Care (DMHC). The DMHC is run by a
director appointed by the Governor, while the CDI is run by
the elected Insurance Commissioner. The majority of
Californians (about 77%) are insured by either large-group
employee plans or government programs. About 16% are
covered by individual or small-group (50 or fewer employees)
employer plans (The remaining 7% are uninsured.) Proposed
rate changes for these individual and small-group plans are
reviewed by the DMHC or the Insurance Commissioner, who
may declare them “unreasonable” but has no authority to
reject them. Insurance companies pay a fee to cover the
costs of each department’s activities.
A new player on the health care scene is Covered California,
the health insurance exchange set up by the state as a result
of the federal Affordable Care Act (ACA). The Covered
California Board is authorized to negotiate rates and other
characteristics with companies that want to sell their product
through the exchange. After Covered California’s negotiations
are completed, rates are subject to review by the carriers’
respective regulator (either DMHC or CDI). This review
does not include specific authority to reject rates.
In 1988, voters passed Prop. 103, an initiative that created
the elective office of Insurance Commissioner, and gave the
Commissioner review and prior approval authority over
automobile and homeowner’s insurance rates.
THE PROPOSAL:
Prop. 45 applies only to individual and employer small-group
plans. The Insurance Commissioner would have to approve
rate changes for those plans before they could be implemented.
The application process would require the company to
publicly disclose and justify its requested rates. Consumers
or insurance companies could challenge the outcome in
court. Rates in effect as far back as November 6, 2012
would be subject to refund if found to be excessive. Under
Prop. 45, “rates” would be defined to include any charges
that affect cost, such as co-payments, deductibles, installment
fees, premium financing, and more.
reject their proposed rate changes. Insurance companies
would continue to be charged a fee to cover the costs of
administering the new law.
Prop. 45 would also prohibit the use of an individual’s
credit history or the absence of prior insurance coverage
when determining rates or eligibility for health, automobile,
or homeowner’s insurance. In practice, insurance companies
generally have not used such factors.
FISCAL EFFECTS
The CDI would have increased administrative costs,
probably not exceeding the low millions of dollars in most
years. Funding would come from the fees paid by insurance
companies. No additional duties would be imposed on
DMHC or Covered California, but their administrative
costs might be affected by any delays in rate approval.
SUPPORTERS SAY
★ Spiraling health insurance rates have risen many times
faster than inflation.
★ Prop. 45 will control health insurance costs just as
Prop. 103 successfully controlled auto insurance costs.
★ Transparency required by Prop. 45 will help prevent
unreasonable rate hikes.
OPPONENTS SAY
★ Prop. 45 adds another level of expensive bureaucracy
to health care regulation.
★ Decisions about health care should not be made by a
politician.
★ Marketplace negotiations under the ACA could be
harmed by the new regulatory approach.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Supporters: Yes on 45—Consumer Watchdog Campaign
www.yeson45.org
Opponents: No on 45—Californians Against Higher
Health Care Costs
www.stophighercosts.org
The DMHC would continue to review and regulate the
small-group and individual insurers that it now oversees,
but only the Insurance Commissioner could approve or
© 2014 League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
12 Voter Guide for Los Angeles County
LOS ANGELE S COUNTY
Proposition 46
Initiative Statute
Drug and Alcohol Testing of Doctors. Medical Negligence Lawsuits.
THE QUESTION: Should California require random drug testing of doctors, require doctors to check a statewide database
before prescribing certain drugs, and raise the cap on noneconomic damages in medical negligence lawsuits?
THE SITUATION:
California does not require drug testing of doctors. The state
has a database to track prescriptions of certain controlled
drugs, but does not require doctors to check the database
before prescribing drugs.
There are two kinds of damages in medical negligence
lawsuits: economic damages, which pay for the financial
costs of an injury, such as medical bills or loss of income,
and noneconomic damages, which pay for items such as
pain and suffering and loss of quality of life. Attorneys in
malpractice cases typically work on contingency; that is,
they don’t charge for their time, but instead take a
percentage of the damages awarded their clients.
In 1975, California enacted the Medical Injury Compensation
Reform Act (MICRA), which placed a cap of $250,000 on
noneconomic damages in medical negligence litigation,
and limited the percentage of a damages award that an
attorney can take. Neither cap has ever been raised. (There
is no cap on economic damages.)
THE PROPOSAL:
Prop. 46 would
★ mandate random drug tests of doctors, in addition to
tests after events of possible medical negligence or if the
doctor is suspected of using drugs or alcohol;
★ require doctors to check a statewide database before
prescribing certain drugs to prevent patients from
“doctor shopping” for multiple prescriptions;
★ raise the cap for noneconomic damages in malpractice
lawsuits to $1.1 million (reflecting inflation since 1975)
and index it to inflation going forward. The cap on
attorney’s fees would remain unchanged.
FISCAL EFFECTS
★ State and local governments fund significant health care
services including Medi-Cal and health care to employees
and retirees. The cap increase likely would increase costs
of malpractice insurance and payments of malpractice
claims. Conversely, the higher cap could encourage
medical providers to practice medicine in a way that
would decrease malpractice claims. There would likely
be a very small percentage increase in health care costs
in the economy overall as a result of raising the cap (less
than 0.5% of the annual general fund budget), but that
increase could have a significant effect on government
health care spending, from tens of millions of dollars to
several hundred million dollars annually.
★ Use of the drug database could reduce the amount of
drugs prescribed, saving drug costs. Prescription drug
abuse would be reduced, lowering governmental costs
associated with drug abuse, including treatment,
rehabilitation, law enforcement and incarceration.
★ Testing doctors could prevent some medical errors.
Savings are uncertain, but potentially significant, and
would offset to some extent the increased governmental
costs from raising the cap on noneconomic damages.
SUPPORTERS SAY
★ Prop. 46 will save lives by cracking down on prescription
drug abuse by doctors and protecting patients from
impaired doctors.
★ Increasing the cap on compensation for pain and
suffering will fairly value lives and hold doctors
accountable for medical errors.
★ Use of a statewide database will reduce over-prescription
of dangerous drugs and save lives.
OPPONENTS SAY
★ Prop. 46 uses drug testing of doctors to disguise its real
intent: to increase the limit on medical malpractice awards.
★ Increasing the cap on damages will cause many doctors
to move to states with lower malpractice insurance rates.
★ Use of the online database of personal prescription
drug history allows for the invasion of an individual’s
privacy.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Supporters: Your Neighbors for Patient Safety
www.yeson46.org
Opponents: Patients and Providers to Protect Access and
Contain Health Costs
www.NoOn46.com
© 2014 League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
NOVEMBER 4, 2014 GENER AL ELECTION
League of Women Voters®
13
Proposition 47
Initiative Statue
Criminal Sentences. Misdemeanor Penalties.
THE QUESTION: Should the penalties for certain offenders convicted of nonserious, nonviolent crimes be reduced from
felonies to misdemeanors?
THE SITUATION:
The California Penal Code classifies a felony as the most
serious crime with some felonies graded as “violent” or
“serious,” and some, such as murder and rape, graded as
both. Felonies not classified as violent or serious include
grand theft and possession of illegal drugs. Felony convictions
result in incarceration for at least one year, usually in a
prison facility rather than a county or local jail. After release,
felony offenders are supervised by either state parole
agents or county probation officers, depending on the
severity of the conviction. Misdemeanors are less serious
crimes, such as petty theft and public drunkenness, that
usually result in fines, community supervision, and/or
incarceration for less than one year in a county or local jail
rather than a prison facility. Some crimes, called “wobblers,”
such as check forgery, can be charged as either felonies or
misdemeanors, depending on the offender’s history and
the details of the crime.
THE PROPOSAL:
Prop. 47 would reduce the penalty for most nonviolent
wobblers and felonies to misdemeanors, unless the
defendant has prior convictions for violent and serious
crimes. Prop. 47 would permit resentencing for anyone
currently serving a prison sentence for any of the offenses
reclassified in Prop. 47 as misdemeanors, and certain
offenders who have already completed a sentence for one
of those felonies may apply to the court to have their
convictions changed to misdemeanors. State savings
from Prop. 47 would go to a newly created fund, “Safe
Neighborhoods and Schools Fund,” for truancy and
drop-out prevention programs in schools, victims’ services,
and mental health and drug treatment services designed
to keep individuals out of prison and jail.
the release of current inmates through resentencing.
County cost savings are estimated to be several hundred
million dollars annually, primarily due to freeing up jail
capacity and having fewer people under community
supervision.
SUPPORTERS SAY
★ Prop. 47 will reduce prison spending and waste on
low-level nonviolent crimes. Law enforcement
resources will be focused on violent and serious
crimes.
★ Savings will be redirected from prison spending to
K-12 school programs, assistance for victims of crime,
mental health programs, and drug treatment.
OPPONENTS SAY
★ Prop. 47 will release thousands of dangerous inmates;
it prevents judges from blocking the early release of
prisoners except in rare cases.
★ Prop. 47 will burden our criminal justice system; it will
overcrowd jails with felons who should be in state
prison and jam the courts with resentencing hearings.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Supporters: Californians for Safe Neighborhoods and
Schools
www.safetyandschools.com
Opponents: California Police Chiefs Association
www.californiapolicechiefs.org
FISCAL EFFECTS
The net state savings as a result of Prop. 47 are estimated
to be in the low hundreds of millions of dollars annually
based on fewer prisoners eligible for prison sentences and
© 2014 League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
14 Voter Guide for Los Angeles County
LOS ANGELE S COUNTY
Proposition 48
Referendum
Indian Gaming Compacts.
THE QUESTION: Should the tribal gaming compacts negotiated by Governor Brown with the North Fork and Wiyot Tribes
and ratified by legislative statute be allowed to go into effect?
THE SITUATION:
In 2000, voters amended the state Constitution to allow
Indian tribes to open casinos on Indian land, if the tribe
and the Governor agree on a compact, and the Legislature
and the federal government approve the compact.
In 2012, Governor Brown negotiated an agreement with
the North Fork Rancheria of the Mono Tribe. The state
Legislature approved, and the federal government accepted,
this compact, which allows the tribe to acquire tribal land
in Madera County, approximately 38 miles from the tribe’s
reservation, and to build a casino and hotel on it.
Federal law usually prohibits tribes from building casinos
on tribal land acquired after 1988; however, an exception
can be approved if the acquisition of new land can be
shown to be in the tribe’s best interest and not harmful to
the surrounding community. The Bureau of Indian Affairs
affirmed that this was the case for the North Fork casino
plan, as the tribe’s preexisting holdings are not sufficiently
large to allow for a casino and hotel, and they are located
in a remote area in the Sierra National Forest.
The compact with the Wiyot Tribe, also covered by this
statute, prohibits the tribe from opening a casino on tribal
lands in Humboldt County, instead providing them a share
of the North Fork casino’s profits.
THE PROPOSAL:
Prop. 48 is a referendum that asks the voters to approve or
reject the gaming compacts with the North Fork and Wiyot
tribes. A YES vote approves the legislative statute that ratifies
the compacts, and allows the compacts to go into effect;
a NO vote rejects the statute and voids the compacts.
FISCAL EFFECTS
★ The tribe would make annual payments to the state and
★ Madera County and city would likely receive between
$16 million and $35 million in one-time payments from
the tribe for specified services, and would receive about
$5 million in annual payments over the life of the
compact, once the casino opens. Other local governments
in the area could receive $3.5 million annually over the
life of the compact.
★ There may be increased revenue from economic growth
in the Madera County area, generally offset by revenue
losses from decreased economic activity in surrounding
counties.
SUPPORTERS SAY
★ The North Fork casino has local support and would
create over 4,000 jobs.
★ The casino would bring revenue to Madera County and
to the state of California.
★ The location of the casino is supported by local, state,
and federal officials.
OPPONENTS SAY
★ These compacts break the promise that Indian casinos
would only be located on original reservation land.
★ Rather than creating jobs, the casino would take jobs
and resources from nearby areas.
★ The door would be opened to an avalanche of new
off-reservation casinos.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Supporters: Vote Yes 48 Campaign
www.VoteYES48.com
Opponents: No on Prop. 48—Keep Vegas-Style Casinos
Out of Neighborhoods
www.StopReservationShopping.com
local governments to offset their costs arising from the
existence of the new casino, which would probably
average about $1.5 million annually over the 20-year
period of the compact.
© 2014 League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
NOVEMBER 4, 2014 GENER AL ELECTION
League of Women Voters®
15
YOUR VOTE COUNTS.
MAKE IT A SMART ONE.
Find out about registration and voting.
Get unbiased information about candidates and issues.
Be an informed and knowledgeable voter.
Go to www.SmartVoter.org
LEAGUE OF
WOMEN VOTERS®
© 2014 League of Women Voters of Los Angeles Education Fund. All copyright and trademark rights reserved.
LEAGUE OF
WOMEN VOTERS®