Special Election

California Special Election and Los Angeles local races

Voting for the California special election and local Los Angeles races begins today at 7 a.m. and ends at 8 p.m. Several proposals would cut state funding to the University of California by millions of dollars. If the propositions pass, funding to the UC would be slashed by $255 million, and $130 million of that would be replaced by federal stimulus money. If the propositions fail, cuts to the University would be even greater, and an additional $50 million of state funding and $31 million from academic preparation programs would be cut. Should the propositions fail, state general fund support will decrease by 10 percent.

1A: “Rainy Day” Budget Stabilization Fund

“¢bull; Would limit the growth of state government spending and change the budget process

“¢bull; Would increase California’s “Rainy Day” fund from 5 to 12.5 percent of the general fund

“¢bull; Part of the annual deposits in the fund would be put toward savings in the event of future economic downturns

“¢bull; “Yes” vote: State budgeting practices would be changed; state would set money in “Rainy Day” funds; higher state taxes would be extended for at least two years.

“¢bull; “No” vote: No changes would be made to current budgeting or reserve funds; recently passed higher state taxes would end by 2010-2011.

1B: Education Funding Payment Plan

“¢bull; Would require supplemental payments to community colleges and other local school districts that would begin in 2011

“¢bull; Would restore $9.3 billion to schools if Proposition 1A also passes

“¢bull; “Yes” vote: State would make supplemental payments to schools and community colleges.

“¢bull; “No” vote: State would not make supplemental payments.

1C: Lottery Modernization Act

“¢bull; Would allow modernization of the state lottery and require state to maintain ownership of the lottery and authorize additional accountability measures

“¢bull; Would protect funding levels for schools currently provided by lottery revenues

“¢bull; Would increase revenue used to address current budget deficit and reduce need for tax increases and state program cuts

“¢bull; “Yes” vote: State would be able to borrow $5 billion from future lottery profits; California Lottery would have greater flexibility to increase sales and profits.

“¢bull; “No” vote: State would not be able to borrow money from lottery profits; lottery would continue to operate as it does now.

1D: Children’s Service Funding

“¢bull; Would provide more than $600 million to protect children’s programs

“¢bull; Would redirect tobacco tax money to protect health and human services for children

“¢bull; Would temporarily allow existing money to be redirected toward health and human service programs for children 5 years and younger

“¢bull; “Yes” vote: A portion of the funds approved by the California Children and Families Program would be redirected temporarily toward state general fund savings.

“¢bull; “No” vote: The California Children and Families Program would continue to receive all the funding currently used for expansion of early childhood development programs.

1E: Mental Health Funding

“¢bull; Would amend Mental Health Services Act to transfer funds from mental health programs to pay for mental health programs for children and young adults

“¢bull; Would transfer funds for two years

“¢bull; Would provide more than $225 million in flexible funding for mental health programs

“¢bull; “Yes” vote: Funds currently used to support expansion of community mental health programs would be redirected toward state general fund savings.

“¢bull; “No” vote: All Mental Health Services Act funds would continue to support expansion of community mental health programs.

1F: Elected Officials’ Salaries

“¢bull; Would prevent elected members of the legislature and statewide constitutional officers such as the governor from receiving pay raises in deficit

“¢bull; “Yes” vote: Elected state officials would be able to receive salary increases during deficit years.

“¢bull; “No” vote: Salary increases could still be given to members of the legislature, the governor and other elected state officials.

Los Angeles City Contests

“¢bull; Los Angeles City Attorney: Attorney Carmen Trutanich opposes Westside City Councilman Jack Weiss.

“¢bull; Westside City Councilman: Los Angeles City Council District 5 Former Assemblyman Paul Koretz opposes neighborhood councilmember David T. Vahedi.

SOURCES: Los Angeles City Clerk Web site; LAVote.net; SmartVoter.org

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *