Proposition 1A, Transportation Funding Protection, is a proposed constitutional amendment that would limit the Legislature's ability to suspend the transfer of motor vehicle fuel sales tax funds to the Transportation Investment Fund (TIF), which supports state and local transportation programs. This transfer was approved by voters as Proposition 42 of 2002. The Legislature currently has the authority to suspend the transfer during a budget crisis. Proposition 1A would allow the state to borrow the funds up to twice in a 10-year period, and would require repayment with interest within three years. Proposition 1A would also allow the Legislature, with the approval of the governor but not the voters, to issue bonds backed by vehicle fuel sales tax revenues
Proposition 1B makes safety improvements and repairs to state highways, upgrades freeways to reduce congestion, repairs local streets and roads, upgrades highways along major transportation corridors, improves seismic safety of local bridges, expands public transit, helps complete the state's network of car pool lanes, reduces air pollution, and improves anti-terrorism security at shipping ports by providing for a bond issue not to exceed nineteen billion nine hundred twenty-five million dollars ($19,925,000,000).
Proposition 1C, the Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act, would authorize the state to sell $2.85 billion in general obligation bonds to fund new and existing housing and development programs. The programs would be aimed at increasing development in urban areas, transportation, homeless shelters, and construction and renovation of rental housing projects. The measure would also provide funds to low income home buyers. The measure allows the legislature to institute future changes to the programs to make them more effective. The funds generated would be allocated over a number of years with the state making payments on the bonds from the general fund over a 30 year period.
Proposition 1D, the Education Facilities Bond, would permit the state to sell $10.4 billion of general obligation bonds for renovation and construction projects for K-12 school facilities and higher education facilities. The proposition would target different facilities projects including modernization of existing K-12 schools, construction of new facilities, retrofitting school facilities, new technical education facilities, and modernization and construction of charter schools. Funds will also be used to repair and modernize public college and university buildings. The cost to the state would be approximately $20.3 billion to pay off both the $10.4 billion principal and the interest on the bonds. This would amount to payments of about $680 million per year.
Proposition 83, if passed and signed into law, would put into effect several measures to increase penalties against and restrictions on the estimated 85,000 convicted "habitual" sexual offenders and child molesters who live in the state. Most controversially, these measures would include a prohibition on sexual offenders living within 2000 feet of any school or public park. The law would also require lifetime Global Positioning System tracking of sexual offenders; increase criminal penalties for sexual offenders; and require sexual offenders to submit to an indeterminate period of "civil commitment" before being released from incarceration into the general public.
Proposition 84 (Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006) would authorize California to sell $5.4 billion in general obligation bonds to pay for water safety and supply projects, as well as for natural place preservation.
Proposition 85 would require doctors to notify a minor's parent or legal guardian 48 hours before performing an abortion. Parental consent is not required, only a 48-hour waiting period. The minor can apply for a waiver from a judge, and a physician may perform an abortion without notification in a medical emergency. The initiative also requires that physicians report abortions, and that the State compile statistics.
Proposition 86 would raise the excise taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products to pay for additional hospital funding, health coverage of children, nursing education, anti-smoking education programs, and funding for nonprofit clinics. The price per pack would be raised $2.60. Other tobacco products would indirectly experience higher taxes as well. The proposition is hotly contested, with large tobacco companies backing the opposition to the measure with an expensive campaign. Proponents from the medical industry have also devoted large amount of money to pushing the proposition forward.
Beginning in January 2007, Proposition 87 would establish program that would impose a severance tax of anywhere between 1.5% and 6% (depending on the price of petroleum on the open market) on oil production in the state of California to generate revenues to fund $4 billion in alternative energy programs. The measure defines a "producer" as any person who extracts oil from the ground or water, owns or manages an oil well, or owns a royalty interest in oil.
Proposition 88 would impose an annual $50 tax on each parcel of property in California. The revenues from the tax would be used to provide additional K-12 public school funding. Class size expansion, instructional materials, grants to facilities upgrades, and other examples of educational needs would receive the funds. Critics believe the proposition is flawed, creating an unfair tax that landowners will have to pay without end. Proponents believe that education is deeply underfunded in the state and that Proposition 88 will fund major improvements.
Proposition 89, the California Clean Money and Fair Elections Act, would establish voluntary public campaign financing for candidates meeting certain eligibility requirements. It would create a public campaign fund of $200 million from a 0.2% increase to the income tax rate on corporations and financial institutions. It would also impose new limits on contributions to state-office candidates, campaign committees, and ballot measure campaigns, and would add new restrictions on contributions by lobbyists, state contractors, and corporations.
Proposition 90 would amend the California Constitution by requiring the government to pay property owners for economic losses when new laws and rules are enacted that cause a decrease in property value. It would also limit the government's power to take ownership of private property. The measure's requirements would apply to all forms of California government, including city and county governments. Many backers of the proposition oppose the government taking away citizens property without recompense and believe the Prop. 90 will provide regulations to protect property owners. Opposition forces believe Proposition 90 is poorly written and will cost Californians millions when corporate landowners are reimbursed under the measure.