Proposition 53

Revenue Bonds. Statewide Voter Approval.

"No Blank Checks Initiative"

initiative constitutional amendment

*pending*

Official Summary

Requires statewide voter approval before any revenue bonds can be issued or sold by the state for certain projects if the bond amount exceeds $2 billion.

Fiscal Impact: State and local fiscal effects are unknown and would depend on which projects are affected by the measure and what actions government agencies and voters take in response to the measure's voting requirement.

• Official CA Voter Guide Summary
• Legislative Analyst Office Analysis
• Show Me The Money (as of Oct 22)
  • support: $4,800,000
  • oppose:  $1,750,000
• Ballotpedia Summary

Notes

• Requires statewide voter approval for revenue bond of projects over $2 Billion that are financed, owned, operated or managed by the state (alone or with a partner)
• $2 Billion amount is in current dollars, and would be adjusted for inflation going forward
• Currently,statewide voter 2/3 approval is necessary for all general obligation bonds but not revenue bonds.
• general obligation bonds have lower interest rates than revenue bonds
• Prohibits dividing big projects into pieces under $2 Billion, if they are geographically proximate or dependent on each other
• "project" not defined, and would need claification by the courts
• Applies to revenue bonds
• Very few projects exceed $2 Billion. Possible future projects: WaterFix project to move water through Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California High-Speed Rail project (this is mentioned multiple times as an example by those in favor of this proposition, and is in the text of the law) .

Proposition 54

Legislature. Legislation and Proceedings.

"California Legislature Transparency Act"

initiative constitutional amendment & statute

*PASSED*

Official Summary

Prohibits Legislature from passing any bill unless published on Internet for 72 hours before vote, except in the case of an emergency. Requires Legislature to record its proceedings and post on Internet. Authorizes use of recordings.

Fiscal Impact: One-time costs of $1 million to $2 million and ongoing costs of about $1 million annually to record legislative meetings and make videos of those meetings available on the Internet.

• Official CA Voter Guide Summary
• Legislative Analyst Office Analysis
• Show Me The Money (as of Oct 22)
  • support: $10,700,000
  • oppose:  $27,000
• Ballotpedia Summary

Notes

• authorizes any person to record legislative proceedings by audio or video, except closed session proceedings
• allows recordings to be used for any "legitimate" purpose without payment of any fees to state
• requires that the Legislature records all meetings (except closed sessions) and have those recordings available on the internet within 24 hours, downloadable for 20 years
• Exemption for "emergency": Governor has declared a state of emergency, and 2/3 of house votes to pass the bill faster than 72 hour waiting period allows
• State Constitution currently requires meetings that are not closed-door of Legislature to be open to the public; live videos of most of these meetings are available on the internet, archived and available for use.
• Currently, these recordings cannot be used for political or commercial purposes.

Proposition 59

Corporations. Political Spending. Federal Constitutional Protections.

legislative advisory question

*PASSED*

Official Summary

Asks whether California's elected officials should use their authority to propose and ratify an amendment to the federal Constitution overturning the United States Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Citizens United ruled that laws placing certain limits on political spending by corporations and unions are unconstitutional.

Fiscal Impact: No direct fiscal effect on state or local governments.

• Official CA Voter Guide Summary
• Legislative Analyst Office Analysis
• Show Me The Money (as of Oct 22)
  • support: $235,000
  • oppose:  $0
• Ballotpedia Summary

Notes

• non binding
  • reverse the effects of Citizens United
  • allow regulation and limitastion of political campaign spending
  • ensure individuals are able to express political views
  • make clear that corporations should not have the same constitutional rights as human beings
• asks California legislature to propose US Constitutional amendment
• Citizens United v Federal Election Commission ruled that laws placing certain limits on political spending by corporations and unions are unconstitutional
• unlimited independent expenditures can be made by corporations or unions