November 7, 2000 Election
NO ON PROPOSITION 34--CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND SPENDING
Repeals most of Proposition 208, the tough campaign reform measure approved by more than 60% of the voters in 1996, just when it is likely to survive court challenges and go into effect. Replaces 208's reasonable contribution limits with ones among the highest in the nation. Contains loopholes that allow almost unlimited amounts of money to be routed to candidates through parties. Has no limits for "soft money" or "independent expenditures," the loopholes that allow big interests to dominate campaign spending at the national level. Would not go into effect until after 2002 for statewide offices, such as Governor and Insurance Commissioner. A 'phony' reform that allows politicians and their paid campaign consultants to keep on doing business as usual.
NO ON PROPOSITION 37--FEES. VOTE REQUIREMENTS. TAXES
Redefines as taxes fees enacted by state or local government to pay for monitoring, studying or mitigating environmental, societal or economic effects of business activity that causes pollution or similar effects. These local taxes would generally require a two-thirds vote of the electorate, and the state taxes would need a two-thirds vote of the Legislature. Would make it likely that the cost of dealing with pollution would be passed on to taxpayers. Opponents call it the "Polluter Protection Act."
NO ON PROPOSITION 38--STATE-FUNDED SCHOOL VOUCHERS FOR PRIVATE AND RELIGIOUS EDUCATION
State would pay at least $4,000 per pupil for qualifying private or religious schools. Severely restricts the ability of the state to regulate private schools. Voucher schools would not have to meet state educational standards or building and safety codes. Teachers would not need to be credentialed or even have a college degree. Voucher schools would have the right to choose which students they would accept. Would hurt neighborhood schools by taking taxpayer money away from them and shifting it to private schools. Weakens the public school system and does not provide equal access to education for all our children.
YES ON PROPOSITION 39--55% VOTE FOR LOCAL SCHOOL BONDS. ACCOUNTABILITY REQUIREMENTS
Sets the vote required for passage of local school bonds at 55%, rather than the present two-thirds. Has strict accountability standards. School districts would have to provide voters with a detailed plan of projects to be funded; requires independent financial and performance audits of those plans. Funds could not be used for administration. Property tax raises resulting from passage of a local school bond would be capped. Does not itself raise any taxes, but simply makes it easier for local voters to determine what their local schools' needs are.
VOTE WITH THE LEAGUE
The League of Women Voters is always nonpartisan: It does not support or oppose candidates or political parties. However, we are political because we support and oppose legislation, lobby legislators and take stands on ballot measures.
The League of Women Voters of California gives permission to print, copy, or link to this page in its entirety.
© Copyright 2000. League of Women Voters of California.