Prop 19 : Authorizes Local Government to Legalize, Tax, and Regulate Marijuana. Legalizes the possession, transportation, cultivation and use of marijuana by any person age 21 or older, with limitations, and authorizes local governments to regulate and tax commercially grown marijuana. No position

Prop 20: Independent Redistricting for Congressional Districts. The measure authorizes a non-partisan, independent commission to draw congressional district lines just like the voters supported for the state legislative district redrawing. No position

Prop 21: $18 increase in car tax to pay for parks. In another case of ballot box budgeting, this measure increases the car tax – misleadingly described as a “fee” in the initiative – to raise additional money for the state park system with an $18 per vehicle per year hidden on auto renewal. The state parks system will gain much more revenue than it receives now. NO

Prop 22:Restricts State Use of Local Funds. Prohibits the Legislature from borrowing, transferring, shifting, or reallocating redevelopment funds, gas tax, property tax and car tax revenues that are intended for local government purposes. Repeals Proposition 1A. CoCoTax took a Yes Position, but is being asked to reconsider by 3 Board members

Prop 23: Suspends AB32 until California’s unemployment rate drops below 5.5% for a year. YES

Prop 24: Repeals previously approved tax cuts. Those tax increases will total more than $1.7 billion per year, and specifically taxes jobs located within California – thus providing an incentive for employers to move jobs out of the state. NO

Prop 25: Changes the passage of the state budget to simple majority. By allowing the Legislature to approve tax increases with a simple majority vote if included in a budget appropriations bill. It also takes away voters’ right to use the referendum process to such things as taxes that are disguised as “fees” by allowing them to become effective immediately. NO

Prop 26: Tightens up the Definition of a tax to help stop State and Local Governments from using “fee” to mask a tax. Politicians frequently disguise taxes as “fees” because they can pass with a 50% + 1 vote. This specifies that tax-like “fees” require the same vote as taxes. YES

Prop 27: Overturns the Redistricting process for Legislative Districts previously enacted by voters. Puts the process back in the hands of the Legislature. No Position

Prop 16 – YES: Imposes Two-Thirds Vote for Local Public Electricity Providers.

CoCoTax did not take positions on other issues. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association did not take a position on Prop 16, but did take a “Yes” position on Prop 13 and “NO” on Props 14 and 15.

LOCAL MEASURES:

Measure C – NO: Mount Diablo Unified School District Bonds
Measure D – NO: West Contra Costa Unified School District Bonds

PROP 1B: NO EDUCATION FUNDING. This measure requires supplemental payments to local school districts and community colleges. There are annual payments beginning with the 2011-12 budget to be paid from the state’s Budget Stabilization “rainy day” Fund until the total amount has been paid. The Legislative Analyst estimates a potential savings of several billions of dollars in 2009-10 and 2011-12, but with the potential of state costs of billions of dollars thereafter. So much for the Rainy Day Fund.

PROP 1C: NO LOTTERY MODERNAZATION ACT. This measure does modernize the lottery, but also allows the state to borrow $5 billion from future lottery winnings. It is not in the best interest of the state to take on more debt in an attempt to “balance” the 2009-10 state budget while burdening the state with debt payments that will make it more difficult to balance state budgets in the future. This is bad fiscal policy.

PROP 1D: NO TEMPORARILY TRANSFERS PROP 10 FUNDS TO GENERAL FUND. This measure temporarily redirects existing tobacco tax money into the General Fund in theory to protect the very services that Prop 10 was supposed to cover. Money would be transferred ($608 million in 2009-10 and $268 million from 2010-11 through 2013-14) by temporarily redirecting a portion of funds from the California Children and Families Program in place of state General Fund support. CoCoTax concerns: 1) what will replace those funds in the future, and 2) the voters of California supported Prop 10 and the money should be used as the voters intended.

PROP 1E: NO TEMPORARILY TRANSFERS PROP 63 FUNDS TO GENERAL FUND. This measure amends the Mental Health Services Act (Prop 63 – passed in 2004) to transfer funds for a two-year period from mental health programs to the General Fund. The Legislative Analyst estimates that this will cause a reduction in funding available for Prop 63 community mental health programs. This is another “temporary” fix that takes money from Prop 63 leaving the state with another General Fund hole when this funding source expires.

PROP 1F: YES PREVENTS RAISES IN YEARS OF BUDGET DEFICITS. This measure encourages balanced state budgets by preventing legislators and constitutional officers from receiving pay increases in years when the state is running at a deficit and gives the Director of Finance the power to determine whether a given year is a deficit year. The Legislative Analyst estimates a “minor state savings” which is not the reason to vote for it. While a weak incentive, CoCoTax supports any issue that sends the message that encourages the state actually have a genuine balanced budget.

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office has detailed financial analyses at http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/ballot_source/Propositions.aspx