Maybe by now, you’re sick of the election talk, especially the commercials that have taken over radio and television air-time–you know the ones: those commercials that only tell half the truth or stretch the reality of what your vote on something actually means—but the big day is still ahead of us. This campaign season is not over just yet.
When you walk into that election booth on Nov. 4, in addition to candidates and city and school district measures, there will also be countywide measures—which for Santa Barbara County are Measures P and O—and statewide propositions. There are six propositions on California’s mid-term ballot: Propositions 1, 2, 45, 46, 47, and 48.
Measures
Santa Barbara County residents have spent a tremendous amount of energy talking about Measure P since advocates first hit the streets to gather signatures. The measure would prevent certain types of oil drilling techniques in unincorporated areas of the county; those include, but aren’t limited to, hydraulic fracturing, cyclic steam injection, and acid fracturing. Advocates say the measure will protect the county’s environment while opponents say the measure will kill the county economically. The Yes on P camp reported almost $250,000 in campaign donations and expenses as of the end of September, while the No on P campaign reported more than $4.5 million—which came from local energy companies and a statewide organization known as Californians for Energy Independence.
Measure O was placed on the ballot by the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors in order to increase the transient occupancy tax—also known as a bed or hotel tax—from 10 percent to 12.5 percent in the unincorporated areas of the county. The tax is tacked onto hotel room bills, so it would be levied against travelers and tourists visiting the county. If the measure passes, the extra revenue will be funneled into the county’s general fund.
Propositions
Proposition 1 is known as the Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014—a much shorter thing to call it is the water bond—and it would allocate $7.5 billion from bond sales. Around $2.7 billion would fund water storage efforts that could include new reservoirs, $1.5 billion would be allocated to watersheds around the state, $810 million would go to fortify local water systems, $520 million is allocated for increasing access to potable drinking water, $700 million is set aside for water recycling projects, $395 million for flood protection, and $900 million for groundwater.
Proposition 2 is also known as the Rainy Day Budget Stabilization Fund Act and would alter California’s existing budget reserves. If approved, the act would increase the amount of general fund dollars that go into the rainy day fund, require the state to spend a minimum amount each year to pay down debts, and creates a state reserve for schools and community colleges. According to the state Legislative Analyst’s Office, a yes vote means state debts would likely be paid down faster, there would be new rules for state budget reserves, and local school district budget reserves would be capped in some years.
Proposition 45 requires approval from California’s elected Insurance Commissioner in order for health insurance companies to change the rates for individual and small group health insurance. It’s a similar practice to how the state already governs car insurance rates. A Yes on 45 commercial paid for by the Consumer Watchdog Campaign said the proposition “ends runaway-train rate hikes.” No on P advertisements say it gives a lot of power to one politician and will make health care cost more. The top 10 contributors to the yes side of things spent $3.6 million—which includes $1.2 million from the Consumer Watchdog Campaign and $1 million from the California Nurses Association—while the top 10 on the opposing side contributed almost $60 million—including $18.9 million from the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc. and $12.5 million from Blue Shield of California.
Proposition 46 would increase the state’s limits on malpractice damages awarded in lawsuits as well as require that hospitals randomly test doctors for drug and alcohol use. The cap on medical malpractice damages would increase from $250,000 to $1.1 million for such things as pain and suffering. The proposition’s backers, which include the Consumer Watchdog Campaign, say it will reign in negligent doctors, and opponents say it will help line lawyers’ pockets. This is another high dollar campaign effort with top 10 contributors spending almost $4 million in support, including more than $2 million from the Consumer Attorneys of California, and $54 million in opposition, including $10 million from the Cooperative of American Physicians IE Committee.
Proposition 47 requires misdemeanor sentences instead of felony sentences for certain non-serious and nonviolent drug and property crimes, which would mean those criminal offenders spend less time in jail. The reduction in sentences could mean millions of dollars in savings for the state and county criminal justice systems, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office. Proposition 47 allocates those dollars to things such as school truancy and dropout prevention, mental health and substance abuse treatment, and victim services. Opponents say it could mean the release of thousands of felons from state prisons.
The vote on Proposition 48 will determine the fate of tribal gaming compacts between the state and the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians and the Wiyot Tribe. A yes vote approves the compacts, and a no vote rejects them. If the proposition passes, the tribe would be able to construct and operate a new casino in Madera County, and be required to make both one-time and annual payments to state and local governments as well as other tribes.
To learn more about the countywide measures, visit sbcvote.com.
For statewide propositions, check out voterguide.sos.ca.gov.
Contact Managing Editor Camillia Lanham clanham@santamariasun.com.
This article appears in Oct 30 – Nov 5, 2014.