Our California Election Center will be updated in 2012

Nov. 2, 2010 Election Information

SUBSCRIBE to SaveCalifornia.com » | DONATE to help SaveCalifornia.com »

ELECTION DAY: Tuesday, November 2, 2010, 7am - 8pm

SaveCalifornia.com provides the following information solely for educational purposes. While our organization represents conservative family values, we take positions on ballot propositions but our non-profit status does not allow us to support or oppose candidates for public office.

On this page: (scroll down for each section)

	LISTEN: Get unconfused about the 9 ballot props
	BOTTOM LINE: Yes or No on Props. 19-27
	CANDIDATES: Voter guides and scorecards
	DIG IN: Read our positions on the 9 ballot props

Listen now: Facts about the 9 California props »

The mailers, TV ads and radio commercials can sound so convincing -- from both sides. What are the facts about the 9 California ballot propositions?

Know WHY you're voting yes or no. Listen as principled State Board of Equalization tax attorney, parliamentarian, legislative expert, and Executive Director of the California Taxpayers Protection Committee Tom Hudson joins SaveCalifornia.com President Randy Thomasson to explain the big picture and the details.

LISTEN NOW » | DOWNLOAD mp3 » (right click, save)

Got iTunes? Listen or subscribe to this podcast on iTunes » Need iTunes? Free iTunes program download here »

**Scroll to the BOTTOM of this page for reasons behind our prop picks**

Why marijuana legalization is a very bad idea: See the video and get the facts at MarijuanaHarmsFamilies.com »

DID YOU KNOW...

Don't trust that "Republican voter guide" or "Democrat voter guide" sent to you in the mail. Its "endorsements" are PAID by the candidates themselves! Look at the FINE PRINT. Don’t rely on voter guides you receive in the mail – unless they come from a trusted, recognizable source.

We have provided links to candidate voter guides and scorecards listing candidates’ positions on issues and the past votes of elected representatives.

Disclaimer: SaveCalifornia.com provides this solely for educational purposes and does not support or oppose candidates, nor does it support or oppose the positions taken by the independent groups below. We suggest you also do your own research of candidates.

Food for thought: Christian voters' moral dilemma: The lesser of two evils? by Craig Huey of Election Forum.

Voter Guide Links

U.S. Senate race: Boxer/Fiorina issues comparison »
From AFA Action, the legislative arm of American Family Association

California Election Forum (Craig Huey) »

California ProLife Council Voter Guide »

Conservative California Election Website (Robyn Nordell) »

ProFamilyVoterInfo (Statewide and San Diego County) »
Spanish language version »

Pro-Family Candidate List (Orange County) »

Biblical Values Voter Guide (Sacramento and Placer counties) »

Who do the "LGBT" (lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender) activists want? »
"All EQCA-endorsed candidates support full equality" (marriage, legal status same as race, school curriculum, etc.)

Who are the "pro-choice" candidates (who support abortion without any restrictions)? »
Planned Parenthood of California Voter Guide

Elected Representative Voting Records

"See how your Representative voted" + Boxer/Fiorina issues comparison »
From AFA Action, the legislative arm of American Family Association

See how U.S. House members and U.S. Senators voted on key issues:
"FRCAction Vote Scorecard 111th Congress" » (slow download)

How California state legislators voted on 18 bills:
"CRA 2009 Legislative Scorecard" »

"Democrats & Republicans In Their Own Words" (Wallbuilders) »
National Party Platforms on Specific Biblical Issues

What about the Judges?

Thanks to good research done by concerned citizens, there is better information about judges on the ballot this year. It is very important that you know whether the judicial candidates believe in upholding the written law (strict constructionists) or "re-interpreting" the law to suit their personal values (judicial activists).

Below are websites with judge information. Disclaimer: SaveCalifornia.com provides this solely for educational purposes and does not support or oppose candidates, nor does it support or oppose the positions taken by the independent groups below. We suggest you also do your own research of candidates.

Judge Voter Guide (statewide / Craig Huey) »

Judicial Recommendations (Craig Alexander) »

3 California Supreme Court Candidates (Biblical Values Voter Guide) »

Research the Associate Justices for the state Court of Appeals
Our suggestions

1. Enter the associate justice's full name in a search engine along with a search term on an issue that matters to you. After entering in a few different search terms, you may be able to determine where the judge stands on moral and constitutional issues.

2. California has 6 state appeals court districts. Find your district and read the bio on the judge. Caution: Bios can impress, despite the judge being a judicial activist or a strict constructionist. The key is to determine which governor appointed them. Governors generally, but not always, appoint judges who share their own philosophy. Seach the state appeals court judges

Misplaced your official voter information? Official Secretary of State Voter Pamphlet »

Here's why SaveCalifornia.com is supporting four and opposing five propositions:

Prop. 19 NO
Legalizes marijuana possession, smoking, growing, transporting, selling

What Prop. 19 would do: This measure dramatically increases access to, and decreases the public stigma of, highly-potent marijuana, a mind-altering drug. While currently no Californian is jailed solely for marijuana use, and a new law in January will lower marijuana possession to an infraction with a maximum fine of $100, Prop. 19 would dramatically legalize the possession, cultivation, and transportation of marijuana for “personal use.” In addition, cities and counties could permit marijuana interests to sell pot in grocery stores and mini-marts, and subject it to taxation. Under Prop. 19, it would be legal to drive drugged with marijuana in your system (as long as you don’t ingest it while actually driving). And because Prop. 19 declares it a new “right” and prohibits marijuana smokers from being “discriminated against,” people could “be high” while at their job, and smoke pot at job sites. (See documentation from the California Chamber of Commerce.) And what about restaurants and other “no smoking” places? Existing “no smoking” laws only apply to tobacco products, so Prop. 19 means marijuana smoking (as well as growing it, transporting it, and selling it) would be powerfully mainstreamed.

Why we urge a NO vote on Prop. 19: Studies show marijuana is a gateway drug to cocaine and meth. Teens and young adults are especially at risk from today's potent, mind-altering marijuana, which can permanently damage their developing brains and young lungs. If pot is legalized, your health and auto insurance will likely cost more because increased addictions, accidents, and drug rehab will burden all Californians. “Drugged driving” will become commonplace. It will be a new "right" to get high on marijuana at work, even in transportation jobs. Marijuana legalization means cities and counties can OK selling pot in grocery stores and permit marijuana operatives to buy thousands of acres of farmland. Vote no on Prop. 19, and visit our special website, MarijuanaHarmsFamilies.com to learn more and tell others. If you believe the Bible is the Word of God, consider these commands: Mark 12:29-31, Matt. 18:5-6, Eph. 5:18-20

Prop. 20 YES
Strips state legislators of power to draw congressional districts

What Prop. 20 would do: This measure strips away from the California Legislature and Governor the power to draw district lines for California’s U.S. congressional seats. Instead, this authority would go to the recently-authorized 14-member redistricting commission, made up of five Democrats, five Republicans, and four voters who are independents or with minor parties. Any new district lines, based on U.S. Census figures collected every 10 years, requires agreement by nine commissioners, including three Democrats, three Republicans, and three from neither party. Learn more about the California Citizens Redistricting Commission

Why we urge a YES vote on Prop. 20: We the people can do something to achieve fairness, and to motivate more public service and less self-serving attitudes in Congress. California currently has 53 congressional representatives. Some of their districts are so unnaturally shaped, you know they have been “gerrymandered” to include either a preponderance of Democrat voters or Republican voters. (See some eye-opening examples here.) “Safe seats” don’t represent communities. Instead, “safe seats” puff up political self interest, lower accountability, and threaten our representative form of government. Prop. 11, approved in 2008, created the Citizens Redistricting Commission, taking away redistricting authority from the California Legislature and the Governor in regards to State Assembly, State Senate, and Board of Equalization districts. Vote yes on Prop. 20 to increase fairness, and “plug the hole” left by Prop. 11, by also removing the Legislature and Governor from drawing up U.S. congressional districts.

Prop. 21 NO
Raises car tax on California drivers

What Prop. 21 would do: This measure would impose an $18 annual surtax on all non-commercial motor vehicles, whether or not they ever drive into California’s 278 state parks. Vehicles would no longer have to pay the $5 to $15 day-use parking fee, but fees could still be increased for camping, sports, and other state park activities.

Why we urge a NO vote on Prop. 21: California’s car tax (Vehicle License Fee) is already the highest in the nation. The state should not hike the car tax by taking more money from the many (most California drivers) in order to serve the few (Californians who visit state parks) – especially when this is a recreational activity, not a government or personal necessity. If state parks need to increase fees, it would be fairer to hike fees on actual park users, not on California drivers across the board. It’s just not right to make most California drivers pay for something they rarely use. Do park fees really need to increase? No, they don’t. The big-spending Democrats who are the majority in the California Legislature specialize on mismanaging funds and corruption. Get this: In arguing against $140 million in new funding for states parks, Democrat State Senator Alan Lowenthal of Long Beach, an advocate of Prop. 21, told his committee colleagues, “Why would anyone vote for the park pass (Prop. 21) if we’ve already fully funded it (state parks)? I mean why do you need to vote for a park pass if we’re fully funded?” (Source: Dan Walters: "California legislators again pulling election strings".) You see, Prop. 21 enables Sacramento politicians to continue their wasteful spending practices while finding deceptive ways to increase our taxes. Because we have an untrustworthy State Legislature that misspends the money we already send them, here’s a good rule of thumb: Vote no on Prop. 21 and all other tax increases.

Lastly, a man wrote in with this practical argument against Prop. 21: "I also like retaining a small fee to get into California state parks as it really cuts down on the drifters and shady people you see hanging out there. Some of the free spots draw these types and I wouldn't feel safe with small children there...especially if it was just with a woman."

Prop. 22 YES
Restricts state government from using or redirecting local government funds

What Prop. 22 would do: This measure would restrict the state’s ability to take or borrow transportation funds that are assigned to local governments, and would bar the state from taking or redirecting city and county funding streams. Specifically, Prop. 22 would reduce or eliminate the state’s authority to a) use fuel tax revenues to pay debt service on state transportation, b) borrow or change the distribution of state fuel tax revenues, c) redirect redevelopment agency property taxes to any other local government, d) temporarily shift property taxes from cities, counties, and special districts to government schools, and e) use existing car tax (Vehicle License Fee) revenues to reimburse local governments for state-mandated costs.

Why we urge a YES vote on Prop. 22: For years, California’s big-spending, foolish state legislators have been raiding local tax revenues to “balance” the budget. This is both irresponsible and unfair because this “billion-dollar dipping” stalls real reform, continues the cycle of waste and inefficiency at the state level, and breaks agreements with local governments. While there is a plethora of foolish politicians in the State Legislature, we have found that there is, per capita, less foolishness on local city councils and county boards of supervisors. We say this despite local governments cutting basic services or raising rates while, at the same time, operating “redevelopment agencies” that spend millions in taxpayer dollars to subsidize auto malls, theater complexes, shopping centers, golf courses, sports arenas. While there are indeed unethical “sweetheart deals” being done by local governments and we don’t trust most local redevelopment agencies, we still trust local governments, on average, more than we trust the corrupt California State Legislature. Consider that it’s easier to fight your city hall than the state government. Prop. 22 is not the best ballot measure, but it makes a bad situation better. While some conservatives don’t like how Prop. 22 locks in local funding protection for redevelopment agencies, that’s a relatively small part of this proposal and we’re not bothered by guarantees that prevent our state government from getting bigger. Vote yes on Prop. 22.

Prop. 23 YES
Suspends oppressive, job-killing, unscientific “man-made global warming” law

What Prop. 23 would do: This measure would stop or suspend the implementation of a statewide cap on greenhouse gas emissions from businesses and automobiles until California’s unemployment rate is 5.5% or lower for one year.

Why we urge a YES vote on Prop. 23: Voting YES on Prop. 23 is one of the most important votes you will ever cast. In 2006, the Democrat-controlled Legislature passed and Governor Schwarzenegger signed AB 32, which mandates draconian restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions (called “greenhouse gas emissions). Carbon dioxide is what businesses and automobiles emit, but it’s also what humans naturally exhale. The most abundant production of carbon dioxide occurs when water evaporates (think oceans, lakes, rain, residential watering). Liberal environmentalists (the forces that lobbied to pass AB 32) claim global warming is caused by humans. Yet this is a failed hypothesis because global temperatures have increased by just 0.5 degrees in the last century. You don’t hear about this in the big media, but 31,000 U.S. scientists, including 9,000 Ph.D.’s, have signed a document rejecting the claims that “human release of greenhouse gases is damaging our climate.” (Source: "31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda".)

Given the extremely bad science of “global warming,” the harmful effect of AB 32 would be disastrous to the economy of California. It is unreasonable and oppressive to require electricity suppliers to get a third of their energy from wind or solar. Doing so will raise prices and kill many jobs. Do the math: AB 32 means higher prices from businesses that remain in California and fewer jobs when businesses move out of the state to escape these radical restrictions. AB 32 means California families will pay more for electricity, natural gas, gasoline, and food. And get this: Not only does the California Air Resources Board (CARB) acknowledge that AB 32 cannot “change the course of climate change,” the CARB Economic Allocation and Advisory Committee states that “AB 32 will cause California households to face higher prices both directly for electricity, natural gas, and gasoline, and indirectly as businesses pass costs for GHG reduction on to consumers.”

Know this: If Prop. 23 fails, AB 32 will go into effect, triggering the equivalent of an energy tax on individual households, meaning higher gasoline, electricity, natural gas, and propane prices. (See “Prop. 23: We should not implement AB32, right now”.) At a time when California is in an economic recession, with record-high 12.4% unemployment and multi-billion-dollar state budget shortfalls and multi-million-dollar local government deficits, now is definitely not the time to raise prices and terminate jobs, especially when a Legislature-passed law is founded on such a baseless notion. Vote YES on Prop. 23 to suspend this price-raising, job-killing law. (See a Christian perspective on this subject.)

Prop. 24 NO
Raises taxes on businesses, punishing success, raising prices, killing jobs

What Prop. 24 would do: This measure would, by all practical purposes, raise taxes on California businesses by denying them certain tax deductions, tax credits, and options on determining taxable income.

Why we urge a NO vote on Prop. 24: The liberal special interests and the Democrats in the California Legislature love to raise taxes and they think you’ll vote for tax hikes if they paint corporations as the bad guys. But if Prop. 24 passes and California corporations pay $1.7 BILLION in higher taxes, do you think that won’t cost you too? To stay in business, corporations have to pay their expenses somehow. They’ll raise prices, cut wages, cut jobs, or leave the state. Therefore, Prop. 24 is a tax on California’s working families. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, nearly all of the Democrat state legislators, and six Republican legislators already increased taxes and businesses by $18 BILLION in 2009. The State Franchise Tax board estimates Prop. 24 could impact 120,000 businesses. This will be negative impact, raising prices and cutting jobs. Vote NO on Prop. 24 to tell the tax-and-spenders in Sacramento to cut their waste and inefficiency and bloated “social spending” instead of taxing us more.

Prop. 25 NO
Eliminates 2/3rds legislative protection against bad budgets and higher taxes

What Prop. 25 would do: This measure would allow the California state budget and related bills (including spending bills, fee increases, and probably tax increases) to be passed by a majority vote, rather than the existing two-thirds vote, of legislators.

Why we urge a NO vote on Prop. 25: This proposition is a liberal’s dream and a conservative’s nightmare. But even if you’re a liberal who doesn’t want higher taxes, you should still vote no. Prop. 25 will means no practical protection against bloated budgets, more out-of-control spending, higher taxes disguised as fees, and depending on the courts, higher outright taxes period. The San Diego Union-Tribune calls Prop. 25 “a recipe for disaster”:

Put on the ballot by large government unions and Democrat politicians, Prop. 25 means more spending by lowering the two-thirds vote requirement down to a majority vote to a) pass state budgets that spend more but doesn’t contain structural reforms, b) increase legislators’ tax-free expense accounts and other perks, and c) depending on court rulings, direct taxes could increased in the Assembly with 41 votes, not the current 54 votes; and in the Senate with 21 votes, not the current 27 votes. When the text of Prop. 25 states, “Notwithstanding any other provision of law of this Constitution,” it has the legal effect of overriding Prop. 13 from 1978 (now Article 13A of the California Constitution), which required a two-thirds vote to increase taxes. As the Union-Tribune explains:

According to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, while “the measure states that its intent is not to change the existing two-thirds vote requirement regarding state taxes,” it allows the Legislature to use simple majority votes to pass bills that lawmakers decree are “related to the budget in the budget bill.” Opponents say this is an intentional loophole opening the door to massive tax hikes. Backers say this is a phony issue. The LAO is in the middle, which should make taxpayers nervous. (For further detail, see the Cal-Tax analysis.)

In addition to making it easier to pass bloated budgets, legislator perks, fee hikes, and probably direct tax hikes, Prop. 25 allows the State Legislature to impose very bad budgets and related bills without giving the voters the opportunity to reject them. While current law allows 90 days for voters to place a referendum on the ballot, giving voters the opportunity to reject fees, including tax-like “fees,” Prop. 25 would take away this important right by requiring budget and related bills “to take effect immediately.”

Lastly, having passing budgets by a majority vote instead a two-thirds vote means giving up all hope of someday passing a budget restriction on taxpayer-funded abortions. Currently, there are a majority of pro-abortion-funding state legislators, including all of the Democrats in both houses. Prop. 25 not only makes it easier for state politicians to misspend your money, but to continue subsidizing abortion of pre-born children at any stage of pregnancy, for any reason, even for teen daughters with no parental notification whatsoever.

For all these reasons, please vote no on Prop. 25. California families need a strong financial defense, and the two-thirds vote on budgets and taxes need to remain rock-solid.

Prop. 26 YES
Requires 2/3rds citizen vote to increase state and local “fees” and “charges”

What Prop. 26 would do: At the state level, this measure would require a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to impose higher “fees” or “charges,” just like for tax hikes. Likewise, at the local level, Prop. 26 would require two-thirds voter approval before cities and counties could impose higher “fees” or “charges.”

Why we urge a YES vote on Prop. 26: The sad history of California politics for the last couple decades has been replete with state and local politicians raising taxes by disguising them as “fees.” By exploiting this “loophole” in the California Constitution (Prop. 13 from 1978), Democrat politicians have increased taxes on goods such as food, gas, cell phones, and even emergency services. These fees, charges, surcharges and assessments add BILLIONS of dollars in higher costs that California families pay. Prop. 26 closes this loophole, protecting taxpayers and consumers against the deceptive, thieving ways of many state legislators and local politicians. With Prop. 26, Californians gain financial security because certain fees and charges that don’t have popular support cannot be levied.

Prop. 27 NO
Returns power to California Legislature to draw all legislative district lines

What Prop. 27 would do: This measure would eliminate the Citizens Redistricting Commission, which has been assigned authority to draw fair legislative districts for Assembly, Senate, and Board of Equalization seats, and instead return this power to the State Legislature. Additionally, California voters could reject the Legislature’s redistricting plans and all districts for the same office must be the same population.

Why we urge a NO vote on Prop. 27: This proposition is corrupt. Liberal politicians hated it when voters took most redistricting powers away from the California Legislature. So the friends of these self-serving politicians qualified Prop. 27 for the ballot to kill off the fledgling 14-member Citizens Redistricting Commission, and return full power to the Legislature to draw unfair, gerrymandered districts again. They want safe seats and intend to choose their own voters! Despite its attempt to portray itself as improving “voter accountability,” Prop. 27 is full of politicians’ selfishness, far removed from accountability and a servant’s heart. Philosophically and morally, Prop. 27 is the polar opposite of Prop. 20. Vote yes on 20 and no on 27.

THANK YOU FOR VISITING OUR ELECTION CENTER. LET'S STAY IN TOUCH.

Connect with us: SUBSCRIBE to SaveCalifornia.com »
Empower our work: DONATE to help SaveCalifornia.com »