STATEWIDE MEASURES ON TUESDAY’S BALLOT

PROPOSITION PROPOSITION 78 Higher Education Bonds WHAT IT WOULD DO Authorize sale of $600 million in general obligation bonds to finance construction and remodeling projects for University of California, California State University and California Community Colleges. ARGUMENTS FOR Rising enrollments have left universities and community colleges without enough classrooms, libraries and laboratories. Many facilities need renovations to meet state safety standards and increase access to campuses for people with disabilities. Supporters: Gov. George Deukmejian, UC President David P. Gardner, W. Ann Reynolds, chancellor of California State University, David Mertes, chancellor of California Community Colleges. ARGUMENTS AGAINST Bonds are a poor way to finance construction projects because they carry high interest costs. Interest payments on this measure will be $400 million. Financing projects on “pay-as-you-go” basis would save money. Opponents: Libertarian Party candidates. PROPOSITION PROPOSITION 79 School Bonds WHAT IT WOULD DO Authorize state to sell $800 million in general obligation bonds for construction and modernization of high schools and elementary schools. ARGUMENTS FOR More than 140,000 new students are entering the public school system each year, requiring construction of new classrooms or the upgrading of existing ones. Schools also need money for asbestos-removal projects. Supporters: Gov. Deukmejian, state Supt. of Public Instruction Bill Honig. ARGUMENTS AGAINST Even with the bond money, school construction needs won’t be met. Instead of pouring more money into school system, adopt a voucher system to provide state aid for private schools. Taxpayers statewide should not be responsible for financing schools in local communities. Opponents: Roger Magyar, state director, Parents CARE. PROPOSITION PROPOSITION 80 Prison Bonds WHAT IT WOULD DO Authorize $817-million general obligation bond issue to finance construction of new adult and juvenile prison facilities. ARGUMENTS FOR Despite three previous prison bond issues, state prisons remain badly overcrowded because of tougher sentencing and probation policies. Some facilities hold two to three times the number for which they were designed. Supporters: Gov. Deukmejian. ARGUMENTS AGAINST Increased number of prisoners is due to economic and social policies, such as criminal penalties for using drugs, which if changed could result in less-crowded prisons. Opponents: Libertarian Party candidates. PROPOSITION PROPOSITION 81 Drinking Water Bonds WHAT IT WOULD DO Authorize state to sell $75 million in general obligation bonds for loans and grants to water agencies to improve quality of drinking water systems. ARGUMENTS FOR Significant numbers of Californians served by small water systems now drink water that fails to meet state and federal health standards. This measure would help small water companies raise money for improvements to meet state and federal standards. Supporters: Members of California Legislature. ARGUMENTS AGAINST State taxpayers should not be responsible for footing the bill of individual water districts. Local ratepayers who benefit from the improvements should pay for them. Opponents: Libertarian Party candidates. PROPOSITION PROPOSITION 82 Water Bonds WHAT IT WOULD DO Authorize sale of $60 million in bonds for local water projects, water conservation programs and underground reservoirs. ARGUMENTS FOR Water conservation programs are a cost-effective way of expanding state’s water supply. Rapidly growing population, plus increased demands of agriculture and industry require constant expansion of water supply. Supporters: Members of California Legislature. ARGUMENTS AGAINST Cheaper water is not the answer. Raising the price of water, particularly for big water users in agriculture and industry, would ensure more efficient water delivery system. Opponents: Libertarian Party candidates. PROPOSITION PROPOSITION 83 Water Pollution Bonds WHAT IT WOULD DO A $65-million general obligation bond issue that would provide funds for water pollution control and water reclamation projects. Continues earlier voter-approved bond programs raising money for local agencies to build or improve sewage treatment plants. Money would also finance projects to “reclaim” once-used water so it can be reused for landscaping or agriculture. ARGUMENTS FOR With California currently in second year of a drought, all possible steps must be taken to make more efficient use of existing water supplies. Reclamation is one answer. Improving sewage systems is the most effective way to improve water quality of streams, lakes and estuaries. Supporters: Members of California Legislature. ARGUMENTS AGAINST Cost of cleaning up pesticides, industrial waste and other pollutants should be responsibility of those who create the pollution. This amounts to bailout of polluters by general taxpayers. Opponents: Libertarian Party candidates. PROPOSITION PROPOSITION 84 Housing and Homeless Bond Act of 1988 WHAT IT WOULD DO Authorize bond issue of $300 million to fund construction of emergency and transitional housing for homeless; new and rehabilitated low-cost rental housing and assistance for first-time home buyers. ARGUMENTS FOR Severe shortage of affordable housing is central to growing problem of homelessness in California. After decade of neglect, this bond issue is a responsible and effective way to help solve local housing problems. Supporters: Senate President Pro Tem David Roberti, California Council of Churches, Salvation Army, Vietnam Veterans of California, the California Homeless Coalition, California Grocers Assn., California Taxpayers Assn. ARGUMENTS AGAINST Public housing does not work. Private sector can do a more effective job of providing housing. Opponents: June Genis, Libertarian candidate for Assembly; William McCord, retired state administrator. No organized opposition. PROPOSITION PROPOSITION 85 Library Construction and Renovation Bonds WHAT IT WOULD DO Authorize $75 million in bonds to build new libraries and expand or improve existing ones. Cities, counties and districts would compete for the money. ARGUMENTS FOR Pays for buildup in state where population is far outpacing existing library service. Extra demands made by adult literacy programs. Many communities have no local libraries; others are not safe in earthquakes. Supporters: State PTA; California Taxpayers Assn.; Gov. Deukmejian; state Legislature; Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley. ARGUMENTS AGAINST Libraries are local responsibilities. Since a minority of Californians actually use libraries, they are subsidized by the non-library-patronizing public. Opponents: Libertarian Party members Ted Brown, Kim J. Goldsworthy, Sarah E. Foster. PROPOSITION PROPOSITION 86 County Jail Bonds WHAT IT WOULD DO Authorize sale of $500 million in general obligation bonds for construction and remodeling of county adult and juvenile jail facilities. ARGUMENTS FOR Would relieve overcrowding now so bad that 24 of California’s 58 counties are under court order to improve county jails and prisoners often are released before their terms are up. Many jails are outdated and do not meet basic health and safety needs. Supporters: California Legislature, Gov. Deukmejian, Los Angeles County Sheriff Sherman Block and Supervisor Barbara Shipnuck, president of the County Supervisors Assn. of California. ARGUMENTS AGAINST Jail overcrowding could be alleviated by speeding up trials. Persons accused of “victimless” crimes, such as prostitution, gambling or drug use, should not be incarcerated. Opponents: Libertarian Party candidates. PROPOSITION PROPOSITION 87 Property Tax, Redevelopment Agencies WHAT IT WOULD DO Provide that revenues from voter-approved property tax increases go to cities, counties or school districts that levy the rate increase, not to redevelopment agencies. Redevelopment agencies now automatically get a share of property taxes within their boundaries. ARGUMENTS FOR Corrects flaw in California Constitution. Now, cities, counties or school districts have to levy higher rate than necessary to pay off voter-approved bonds because of share that must go to redevelopment agencies. Supporters: Assemblyman Jack O’Connell (D-Carpinteria), Richard P. Simpson, executive vice president, California Taxpayers Assn., Bob Epple, candidate for state Assembly. ARGUMENTS AGAINST Opponents: No known opposition. PROPOSITION PROPOSITION 88 Deposit of Public Money WHAT IT WOULD DO Authorize deposit of public funds in industrial loan companies. ARGUMENTS FOR State and local governments now can deposit money only in federally insured banks, savings and loans and credit unions. Proposition 88 would expand the law to include federally insured industrial loan companies. It would allow governments to access the most competitive interest rates for their deposits. Supporters: California Taxpayers Assn., California Assn. of Thrift and Loan Cos., California Chamber of Commerce, State Controller Gray Davis, Los Angeles County Treasurer Sandra Tracey, Los Angeles City Controller Rick Tuttle. ARGUMENTS AGAINST Opponents: No organized opposition. PROPOSITION PROPOSITION 89 Parole Review WHAT IT WOULD DO Amend Constitution to allow the governor 30 days to affirm, modify or reverse state adult and youth parole board decisions on releasing prisoners serving indeterminate sentences for murder. The governor would report to the state Legislature on each review. ARGUMENTS FOR The measure would provide extra measure of safety for citizens by allowing the governor to reverse parole board decisions releasing murderers. Supporters: Sen. Daniel E. Boatwright (D-Concord), Gov. Deukmejian, Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Ira Reiner, Assemblyman Gary A. Condit (D-Ceres) and the Board of Prison Terms. ARGUMENTS AGAINST The measure would politicize parole decisions, denying parole to especially unpopular convicts involved in highly publicized murder cases. Opponents: The Rev. Paul W. Comiskey, S.J., general counsel for the Prisoners Rights Union, the American Civil Liberties Union and the California Probation, Parole and Correctional Assn. PROPOSITION PROPOSITION 90 Property Tax, Older Taxpayers WHAT IT WOULD DO Allow persons 55 years of age or older to transfer assessed value of their home if they sell it and move to another county, subject to approval of county they are moving into. Now, those 55 or older can keep their more favorable assessed value if they move from one home to another but only if they stay in same county. ARGUMENTS FOR Because of favorable property tax rates established when voters approved tax-cutting measure Proposition 13 in 1978, a wide gap exists in property tax assessments on new homes, as compared to those that have been held a long time. Disparity disproportionately affects persons on limited or fixed incomes. Supporters: Members of California Legislature, Josephine D. Barbano of American Assn. of Retired Persons. ARGUMENTS AGAINST Flaws in Proposition 13 tax rates should be addressed for all taxpayers, not just those over 55. All taxes should reflect realistic, current values. This measure helps some of the state’s wealthiest taxpayers. Opponents: Gary B. Wesley, attorney; Pebbles Trippet, San Francisco Grassroots. PROPOSITION PROPOSITION 91 Justice Courts WHAT IT WOULD DO Would make Justice Court actions as binding as those of Municipal Courts, set a five-year minimum level of experience for a lawyer to be a Justice Court judge and prohibit Justice Court judges from practicing law on the side. ARGUMENTS FOR Justice Court rulings should carry the same weight as Municipal Court rulings, including on issues such as search warrants and extradition matters. Supporters: P. Terry Anderlini, president of the State Bar Assn., V. Gene McDonald, president, California Judges Assn., and Assemblyman Larry Stirling (R-San Diego). ARGUMENTS AGAINST No minimum years of experience should be required for any judicial position. Opponents: San Jose lawyer Gary B. Wesley PROPOSITION PROPOSITION 92 Commission on Judicial Performance WHAT IT WOULD DO Permit open disciplinary hearings for judges formally charged with misconduct involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption. Create new category of discipline called “public reproval.” At present, commission may privately admonish judge or recommend censure or removal by state Supreme Court. ARGUMENTS FOR Would open to public a process now taking place almost always behind closed doors. In 24 other states, confidentiality is lifted once formal charges are filed, while in California these hearings are always confidential. Public reproval offers some judges a form of plea bargain and an option to avoid more serious consequences of public censure. Supporters: Sen. Ed Davis (R-Valencia), Sen. Bill Lockyer (D-Hayward), Assemblyman Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks), Commission on Judicial Performance. ARGUMENTS AGAINST Opponents: No organized opposition. PROPOSITION PROPOSITION 93 Veterans Property Tax Exemption WHAT IT WOULD DO Would remove residency requirement required of veterans to qualify for $1,000 property tax exemption. Currently veterans receive the exemption only if they were living in California upon entering the service, or were residents on Nov. 3, 1964. ARGUMENTS FOR U.S. Supreme Court has stricken residency requirements in other states, making it only a matter of time before California’s law is ruled unconstitutional. Supporters: members of the Legislature; Ernest J. Dronenburg Jr., chairman, state Board of Equalization; Andrew Steffanic, American Legion commander. ARGUMENTS AGAINST Opponents: No known opposition. PROPOSITION PROPOSITION 94 Judges WHAT IT WOULD DO Would allow judges to teach part-time at public universities, just as they now are permitted to teach part-time at private colleges. ARGUMENTS FOR Public university students should be allowed to benefit from instruction from sitting judges, just as private college students do. Teaching hours need not interfere with a judge’s duties on the bench. Supporters: P. Terry Anderlini, president of State Bar Assn., V. Gene McDonald, president of the Calif. Judges Assn., and Assemblyman Peter R. Chacon (D-San Diego). ARGUMENTS AGAINST The large backlog in California courtrooms will worsen by allowing judges to do more part-time teaching. Opponents: San Jose lawyer Gary B. Wesley PROPOSITION PROPOSITION 95 Hunger and Homelessness Funding Initiative Statute WHAT IT WOULD DO Would create state agency to raise $50 million to $90 million annually for various food, shelter and job training programs through new fines on health, safety and building code violations. Would raise an additional $150 million in revenue bonds. ARGUMENTS FOR It is first comprehensive, statewide approach to dealing with problems of hunger and homelessness that would not use any tax dollars. Would coordinate existing homeless programs as well as increase funding. Would strengthen enforcement of health, safety and building codes. Supporters: State Board of Equalization member Conway Collis, state Sen. William Campbell, Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, City Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky, Archbishop Roger M. Mahony, Dr. Armand Hammer, Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, California Business Properties Assn., California Assn. of Food and Drug Officials, actors Jon Voight and Valerie Harper. ARGUMENTS AGAINST Proposition 95 is costly, unfair and ineffective. Would single out grocery, restaurant and apartment owners to support homeless programs. Up to one-third of funds raised would go to administration of the program. Would disrupt current system of voluntary compliance with health, safety and building codes. Opponents: California Grocers Assn., California Restaurant Assn., California Environmental Health Assn., Health Officers Assn. of Calif., California Taxpayers Assn., Assemblyman Trice Harvey (R-Bakersfield.) PROPOSITION PROPOSITION 96 Tests for AIDS and Other Communicable Diseases WHAT IT WOULD DO Allow victims of sex crimes, as well as peace officers, firefighters or paramedics who were assaulted, to obtain court order requiring testing of certain criminal suspects for communicable diseases and human immunodeficiency virus that causes AIDS. Court must find there is reasonable cause to believe bodily fluids were exchanged in a sex crime or assault. Provides for reporting results to the person who asked for the test, to the suspect tested, and to jailers. Requires that prison or jail staff be informed if an inmate tests positive for HIV. Makes it misdemeanor to disclose test results beyond what is allowed. ARGUMENTS FOR Victims of violent crime have a right to know if they were exposed. Allows them the peace of mind of knowing whether they received the AIDS virus or a communicable disease. Does not allow testing for casual contact, but requires there to be an exchange of blood, semen or other bodily fluid during the assault. Protects prison and jail workers from exposure to communicable diseases. Supporters: Los Angeles County Sheriff Sherman Block, state Sen. Ed Davis, Dr. Monroe Richman, member of the Los Angeles County Commission on AIDS, most California county sheriffs, Los Angeles City Council. ARGUMENTS AGAINST Would undermine state AIDS effort without helping crime victims or public safety officers. Recent laws already give crime victims and public safety officers the right to know if they were exposed. By not limiting the term “bodily fluids” to blood and semen, sends erroneous signal that AIDS can be casually transmitted. Provision allowing prison workers to know the AIDS status of inmates would lead to breakdown of medically crucial confidentiality. Opponents: San Francisco Sheriff Michael Hennessey; state associations of physicians, nurses and public health officers; County Supervisors Assn. of California; California Assn. of AIDS Agencies, Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley. PROPOSITION PROPOSITION 97 Cal/OSHA WHAT IT WOULD DO Compel the governor to restore funding for state’s private sector worker health and safety program, which he vetoed last year. ARGUMENTS FOR California’s occupational safety and health program was considered the best in the nation and has been replaced by an inferior federal program. Federal OSHA does not regulate exposure to 170 toxics that were controlled by Cal/OSHA. Workplace inspections have fallen under federal OSHA. Supporters: California Labor Federation (AFL-CIO), Sierra Club, California Medical Assn. ARGUMENTS AGAINST Federal government has good worker safety and health program. Restoring Cal/OSHA would cost taxpayers about $8 million a year and add bureaucrats to state payroll without increasing workplace safety. Opponents: Gov. Deukmejian; Robert Stranberg, chief, state division of occupational safety and health. California Chamber of Commerce. PROPOSITION PROPOSITION 98 School Funding WHAT IT WOULD DO Establish minimum level of funding for public schools and community colleges based on share of the state budget received during 1986-87 fiscal year, about 39%. Thereafter, give schools annual increases equal to rate of inflation or increase in pupil enrollment. Also amend state spending limit so that schools, not taxpayers, get first call on tax rebates when state exceeds legal limit. Require school districts to submit annual report cards. ARGUMENTS FOR Share of state budget going to schools has been declining despite growing enrollments and cost of textbooks and other expenses. School districts need guaranteed source of funding from the state to assist them in drawing up budgets. Classrooms are overcrowded, teachers underpaid; the academic system is in need of upgrade. Supporters: California Teachers Assn., state Supt. of Public Instruction Bill Honig, California State Parent Teachers Assn., California Federation of Teachers, Assn. of California School Administrators. ARGUMENTS AGAINST Would take funds away from state-supported universities, prisons, health, welfare and other programs. Would repeal essential elements of state spending limit approved overwhelmingly by voters in 1979. Opponents: Gov. Deukmejian, California Taxpayers Assn., Peace Officers Research Assn., California Chamber of Commerce, California Assn. of Public Hospitals, California Tax Reduction Movement. PROPOSITION PROPOSITION 99 Tobacco Tax Increase WHAT IT WOULD DO Increase state cigarette tax to 35 cents per pack from 10 cents with comparable increase on products such as chewing tobacco, snuff and pipe tobacco; exempt added tax from state constitutional spending limit; raise $600 million a year for indigent health care, anti-smoking education, research into tobacco-related diseases and state parks and wildlife projects. ARGUMENTS FOR Health officials say each pack of cigarettes costs nation $2.17 in lost productivity, fire damage and unreimbursed medical costs. Tax would help offset such costs by providing health care to uninsured poor people, developing new cures for smoking-related diseases and keeping young people from developing the habit. Supporters: American Cancer Society, American Heart Assn., American Lung Assn., California Assn. of Public Hospitals, California State Fireman’s Assn., Planning and Conservation League of California, state Sen. Art Torres (D-Los Angeles), Assemblywoman Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles). ARGUMENTS AGAINST California smokers already pay millions in state and federal taxes; 250% increase would burden the poor and inhibit personal freedom. Using tax to pay for indigent health care forces one group to bear what has been a general social obligation. Big tax hike could encourage cigarette smuggling. Opponents: R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Philip Morris Cos. Inc., Lorillard Inc., California Republican Party, California Taxpayers Assn., Gov. Deukmejian, Paul Gann, Assemblyman Ross Johnson (R-La Habra). PROPOSITION PROPOSITION 102 Change AIDS Laws WHAT IT WOULD DO Require health authorities to abandon anonymous testing for AIDS in California. Require doctors and others to report names of those testing positive for human immunodeficiency virus antibodies, or anyone who they suspect may have been exposed to HIV. Require authorities to trace sexual contacts of those testing positive and notify spouses and sexual partners. Eliminate laws that require a person’s consent to be tested and that prohibit using test results to determine employment or insurability. Make it a felony to donate blood or engage in prostitution knowing one is infected with HIV. Allow mandatory testing of certain criminal suspects and increase jail terms for certain convictions if person tests positive. ARGUMENTS FOR AIDS and virus infection should be treated as any communicable disease. Current AIDS laws were politically motivated, and the prevailing medical strategy has failed. Public health authorities may investigate other diseases, but cannot legally be told if someone tests positive for HIV. Majority of those infected with the virus are unaware they are communicable to others. Public health authorities have proven record of maintaining confidentiality with other diseases. Will reduce insurance costs. Supporters: Rep. William E. Dannemeyer (R-Fullerton); tax crusader Paul Gann; Gov. Deukmejian; California Physicians for a Logical AIDS Response; medical societies in Santa Cruz, Yuba, Colusa, Merced and Mariposa counties; 12 Republican members of Congress from California; Republican womens clubs. ARGUMENTS AGAINST Motivated by extremist politicians, not good medical practice. AIDS is not like other communicable diseases. Goes against AIDS strategy advocated by Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, Centers for Disease Control and both presidential candidates. Would cripple research and medical efforts to stop AIDS and cause virus to spread faster by scaring people away from being tested. Legislative analyst says cost could be hundreds of millions of dollars to investigate all 300,000 to 500,000 suspected cases of infection and to care for AIDS patients who lose jobs and health insurance. Opponents: Governor’s AIDS advisers; California Medical Assn. and associations made up of California doctors, dentists, nurses, hospitals and public health officials; American Red Cross; UC President David Gardner and heads of Stanford, USC, UCLA and UC Berkeley; Lt. Gov. Leo T. McCarthy; U.S. Sens. Alan Cranston and Pete Wilson; Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and Mayor Tom Bradley. PROPOSITION PROPOSITION 105 Disclosures WHAT IT WOULD DO Require additional information for consumers on household toxic products (paints, solvents, etc.), senior citizen health insurance plans, nursing home health and safety violations, supporters of state ballot initiatives and referendums, and California companies doing business in South Africa. ARGUMENTS FOR Special interests have repeatedly blocked legislative efforts to pass such a bill. Measure would provide valuable information to consumers in important areas without creating a large new bureaucracy. Supporters: Consumers United for Reform, Californians Against Waste and Congress of California Seniors. ARGUMENTS AGAINST Many of the activities covered by the measure already are subject to state and federal regulation so no further regulation or disclosure is needed. An expensive new bureaucracy would be needed to carry out the measure’s provisions. Also, the initiative violates the state constitutional requirement that a statute deal only with a single subject. Opponents: Household Products Disposal Council and California Assn. of Health Facilities.