Welcome to your California Pro-Family Election Center
SaveCalifornia.com provides the following information solely for educational purposes. Our pro-family organization takes positions on ballot measures, but our non-profit status does not permit us to support or oppose candidates for public office.
NOVEMBER 4, 2014 CALIFORNIA GENERAL ELECTION
SaveCalifornia.com's positions on ballot measures are based on our pro-family values, which are founded on Biblical principles for the benefit of people everywhere. Scroll to the end of this page for our longer analysis of Prop. 1.
PROP 1 NO
What the California Attorney General calls it: “Water Bond. Funding for Water Quality, Supply, Treatment, and Storage Projects.”
What SaveCalifornia.com says: This deceptive measure doesn’t guarantee new water storage, spends the bulk of the $7.5 BILLION fund on “environmental” projects, makes people statewide pay for something most won’t benefit from, wastes money that you already pay in taxes, actually costs $14.4 BILLION, and is window-dressing for politicians interested in reelection. Vote No on Prop. 1 and send Jerry Brown and the Legislature back to the drawing board.
PROP 2 YES
What the California Attorney General calls it: “State Budget. Budget Stabilization Account. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.”
What SaveCalifornia.com says: Proposition 2 is a baby step in the right direction, immediately saving more taxpayer dollars in a special coffer, purportedly to avoid future state budget deficits. Not great, because it's still too easy to drain this “Rainy Day” fund, but vote Yes on Prop. 2 because it sends a fiscally conservative message and the new “budget stabilization account” would be stronger than the current, meaningless fund, which is full of holes. While some believe it's unfair for Prop. 2 to replace the current law permitting unlimited cash reserves for local school districts with a new state reserve in the "Rainy Day" fund that is dedicated to K-12 government schools, realize that these public school districts still get to keep 3% to 10% of their annual budgets in reserve and it can go higher if county education officials allow it, plus the Legislature can change this statutory limit at any time.
PROP 45 NO
What the California Attorney General calls it: “Healthcare Insurance. Rate Changes. Initiative Statute.”
What SaveCalifornia.com says: Proposition 45 would dramatically increase government control of private health care (as if you thought Obamacare didn't already do that). Under Prop. 45, government -- not the private sector -- would be in charge of prices and treatments. By adding not merely big-government regulation, but big-government control, California families will be allowed fewer treatments, suffer unjustified delays, experience worse hospital-type healthcare, and witness more lawsuits that will cost more time and more money. If you don’t want another layer of government bureaucracy – and a thick layer at that – which takes away even more of your health-care freedom, vote No on Prop. 45.
PROP 46 NO
What the California Attorney General calls it: “Drug and Alcohol Testing Of Doctors. Medical Negligence Lawsuits. Initiative Statute.”
What SaveCalifornia.com says: Proposition 46 is a dream for lawyers who like to sue doctors unjustly, which raise the costs for all of us. Quadrupling the cash awards the State permits for medical malpractice lawsuits? Approving Prop. 46 will definitely increase malpractice insurance rates, which will increase health insurance costs for California families. We believe in honest, competent medical practices, not in unjustly feathering the pockets of lawyers who love to sue for money. Prop. 46 is unnecessary because there are already enough penalties for malpractice and physicians' fears of malpractice lawsuits. Vote No on Prop. 46.
PROP 47 NO
What the California Attorney General calls it: "Criminal Sentences. Misdemeanor Penalties. Initiative Statute."
What SaveCalifornia.com says: Proposition 47 would release even more criminals onto the streets – approximately 40,000 every year, according to the Legislative Analyst’s office. By turning many felonies into misdemeanors, criminals now convicted for grand theft, receiving stolen property, forging checks, shoplifting, and drug possession would be conceivably let go. And there’s a possibility that “violent” or “serious” criminals could be let go too, if Prop. 47 redefines one of their convictions. This initiative is written by people who believe humans are basically good, but this philosophy neither reflects reality nor the word of God. Children and families need more protection, not less. If this passes, your community will see more thefts and more drug abuse – because the fear factor will be decreased. Realize that current law already has "wobblers" and recognition of no prior convictions that give judges discretion and keep certain "non-dangerous" convicts out of state prison. Because hardly anyone is incarcerated anymore for "a first-time low-level offense." The discretion in the current law allows judges to nab "career criminals," which was the point of "Three Strikes and You're Out," which unfortunately has already been watered down enough. Don't water down the law further. Vote No on Prop. 47.
PROP 48 NO
What the California Attorney General calls it: “Indian Gaming Compacts. Referendum.”
What SaveCalifornia.com says: Vote NO on Proposition 48 in order to prevent a huge gambling casino from being built in the Central Valley right next to the 99 freeway, under the auspices of "Indian land." Gambling hurts families, and more families will be harmed unless 48 is defeated. This referendum achieving the ballot is your chance to reverse a bad law that was passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor, even if only temporarily. If Prop. 48 isn’t defeated, you can expect to see highly-addicted slot-machine casinos popping up in major urban areas and next to major freeways, on what corrupt federal bureaucrats and California’s governor deceptively call “Indian land” that has been “newly obtained." Vote No on Prop. 48.
A principle to remember every election on local taxes, bonds, fees, and assessments: SaveCalifornia.com knows that big government often robs people of personal responsibility and saddles working families, property owners, and small business owners with greater financial burdens. It's all because big government refuses to investigate and slash its own waste. Because of the influence of government unions and bureaucracy, independent, tough audits are simply not seen. Therefore, we encourage you to vote NO on ANY AND ALL tax increases, bonds (which is borrowing money, and always more expensive than a direct tax because you must also pay back interest), fees, and assessments. It's pro-family to keep more of your hard-earned money, so it's pro-family to oppose wasteful government taking away more money from your family. They like to take it incrementally, so you must consistently oppose even the smallest tax/bond/fee/assessment increases in order to inhibit the government from taking more and more and more from your family.
DID YOU KNOW...
Don't trust the "Republican voter guide" or "Democrat voter guide" sent to you in the mail. WHY? Its "endorsements" are PAID by the candidates themselves! Look at the FINE PRINT. Don’t rely on voter guides in the mail unless they are from a trusted, recognizable source.
While SaveCalifornia.com does not support or oppose candidates, we provide links to voter guides that list candidates’ positions on issues and scorecards of elected representatives' votes. These links speak for themselves and do not represent the views or opinions of SaveCalifornia.com.
* Supports greater bond indebtedness
Also, see who the 'LGBT' activists and abortionists support
Elected Representatives' Voting Records
How California's congressional delegation voted on 4 issues:
"FRCAction Vote Scorecard 113th Congress" »
On 7 bills (click US House tab)
Eagle Forum Scoreboard »
On 25 votes
American Conservative Union »
How current California state legislators voted on 19 bills:
"CRA 2013 Legislative Scorecard" »
Democrats & Republicans In Their Own Words
"In Their Own Words": Republican and Democratic Platforms (2012) »
Life, Marriage, Health Care & Conscience, Second Amendment (Firearms), Education, The Economy, The United Nations, Right to Work & Unions, Energy & Climate Change
"Democrats & Republicans In Their Own Words" (2002) »
National Party Platforms on Specific Biblical Issues: Abortion, Homosexuality, Prayer in Schools, School Choice & Faith-Based Education
There are strict constructionist judges and there are judicial activists. Do the judicial candidates on your ballot believe in upholding the written law (strict constructionists) or in "re-interpreting" the law to suit their personal agendas (judicial activists)?
Judge recommendations are few because of the heavy research requirements. However, the following sites contain some helpful judge information for you to peruse. SaveCalifornia.com provides this solely for educational purposes and does not support or oppose these candidates:
State government-produced voter guide
Here's how SaveCalifornia.com decided Proposition 1, placed on the ballot by the Legislature and Governor:
Proposition 1 is another example of liberal government doing it wrong. Since the early 1970s, the State of California has refused to build major dams in order to satisfy liberal environmentalists. (The last large dams were Oroville Dam – construction began in 1961; opened in 1968 -- and New Melones Dam -- construction begun 1966; opened 1979). Yet since 1970, the number of thirsty mouths in California has doubled. For decades, the Democrat-controlled Legislature has sat on their hands, and the environmental groups have been kept happy.
The problem is not enough water. Beyond repenting of sins and praying to God for rain, the solution that mankind can provide is to store more water doing the wet seasons to use during the dry. But Prop. 1 doesn’t do that. Of the $7.5 BILLION in borrowed money that Prop. 1 would authorize, only $2.7 BILLION (about 1/3 of the package) will purportedly go toward “dams and groundwater storage.” But here’s the catch – not a single bit of water storage is guaranteed by Prop. 1, because the projects are contingent on local matching funds. In addition, the new water storage (two dams, at most) could be easily blocked by the gauntlet of choking regulations written into Prop. 1. So, despite the rhetoric, Prop. 1 will not reliably increase water storage or water supply. Instead, it’s the dream of liberal environmentalists who have been blocking new water storage for decades. If you read Prop. 1, you’ll see a whole lot of taxpayer dollars being given away to special interests and a whole bunch of bureaucratic blockades to new water storage ever happening.
As Associated Press reported in their story titled, “California water bond won’t be a drought buster,” the dams and reservoirs that are only one-third of Prop. 1 are not at all guaranteed. “Some of these investments are the greatest in decades, but it will take years and additional matching money from local sources to make the projects become reality,” the reporter wistfully writes.
And why is this a bond? A bond is more expensive than a direct tax because a bond is a loan that must be repaid with interest. This is why the California Legislative Analyst predicts Prop. 1 will not cost $7.5 BILLION, but $14.4 BILLION over the life of the loan. Despite what Jerry Brown, the chief backer of Prop. 1 says, this ballot measure is not fiscally prudent, is more burdensome than a huge tax, won’t fix the drought problem, and won’t even reliably build any substantial water storage. Again, the environmental groups that helped craft Prop. 1 are happy at the prospect of getting BILLIONS of new taxpayer dollars. But California families and farmers shouldn’t be happy at all because Prop. 1 uses neither existing tax dollars nor new tax dollars for water storage. To claim otherwise is deception.
If there truly were no money in the General Fund (which is constantly mismanaged with tens of billions of dollars wasted every year), and it was "necessary" to cobble together a costly ballot measure to borrow money (remember, a bond is always more expensive than an outright tax hike), at least a water bond should provide more water, which Prop. 1 doesn’t.
This is why Jerry Brown’s father, Pat Brown, if he were alive today, might oppose his own son’s Prop. 1 -- because it doesn’t guarantee any dams, aqueducts, or reservoirs. In 1987, the elder Brown, a Democrat who was governor from 1959 to 1967, wrote about his own Prop. 1 on the 1960 ballot:
“We proposed and passed a bond issue of $1.75 billion to build the California Water Project. This was the largest statewide bond issue in this or any state. We lost 48 of the 58 counties, but carried the populous counties of Southern California, and it was by less than 150,000 votes. If we had not built the Oroville Dam, the Edmund G. Brown Aqueduct and the San Luis Reservoir, California would be facing a tremendous water shortage."
So why did conservative Republican legislators support placing Prop. 1 on the ballot? They didn’t, until a some “moderate” Republicans were willing to supply enough votes to make this Democrat-backed measure pass. Most legislators, liberal or conservative, wanted to appear supportive of “water” on the ballot, as though they were doing “something” about California's dwindling water supply. If only this posturing reflected the truth.