Proposition 49: Amendment to Overturn Citizens United Ruling Question

The California Proposition 49, the Amendment to Overturn Citizens United Ruling Question, will not be on the November 4, 2014 ballot in California as an advisory question. The measure would have asked voters whether the United States Congress shall propose, and the California Legislature ratify, an amendment or amendments to the United States Constitution to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and other related judicial rulings.

The suggested amendment would allow for the full regulation or limitation of campaign contributions and spending for the purpose of ensuring that all citizens, regardless of wealth, may express their views to one another and to make clear that the rights protected by the United States Constitution are the rights of natural persons only. If passed by voters, the California Secretary of State would be required to communicate the results of the measure to the U.S. Congress. There will be no direct fiscal effect on state or local governments if passed.

The biggest arguments for the passage of this initiative lie in the fact that the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights are intended to protect the rights of individual human beings. Corporations, however, are not mentioned in the Constitution, and the people have never granted constitution rights to corporations, nor have we agreed that corporations have authority that exceeds the authority of “We the People.” The corrosive effects of immense wealth that has accumulated as a result of corporations in reality have little or no correlation to the public’s support for the corporation’s political ideas. Corporations also have special advantages not enjoyed by individuals such as limited liability, perpetual life, and favorable treatment of the accumulation and distribution of assets that allow them to spend huge sums on campaign messages that have little or no correlation with the beliefs held by natural persons.

Read more about the amendment by visiting: http://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_49,_Amendment_to_Overturn_Citizens_United_Ruling_Question_(2014)

Proposition 46: Medical Malpractice Lawsuits Cap and Drug Testing of Doctors

California Proposition 46, the Medical Malpractice Lawsuits Cap and Drug Testing of Doctors Initiative, is on the November 4, 2014 ballot in California as an initiated state statute. The initiative was certified on May 15, 2014 by the California Secretary of State.

If approved by voters, the initiative will:

• Increase the state's cap on damages that can be assessed in medical negligence lawsuits to over $1 million from the current cap of $250,000.
• Require drug and alcohol testing of doctors and reporting of positive tests to the California Medical Board.
• Require the California Medical Board to suspend doctors pending investigation of positive tests and take disciplinary action if the doctor was found impaired while on duty.
• Require health care practitioners to report any doctor suspected of drug or alcohol impairment or medical negligence.
• Require health care practitioners to consult state prescription drug history database before prescribing certain controlled substances.

Supporters of the initiative refer to it as the Troy and Alana Pack Patient Safety Act of 2014, after two children who were killed by a driver under the influence of abused prescription drugs. According to a study published in the Journal of Patient Safety, medical negligence is the third leading cause of death in the country behind only heart disease and cancer. As many as 440,000 people die each year from preventable medical negligence. Additionally, the California Medical Board estimates that almost one-in-five doctors (18%) suffer from drug and/or alcohol abuse at some point during their careers – and leading medical safety experts have called for random drug testing to curb substance abuse and ensure patient safety. The Journal of the American Medical Association found that doctors are the biggest suppliers for chronic prescription drug abusers, and called for the mandatory usage of state prescription drug databases while a 2012 Los Angeles Times investigation found that drugs prescribed by doctors caused or contributed to nearly half of recent prescription overdose deaths in Southern California.

In order to prevent another death at the hands of drug abuse, especially by medical professionals in the field, please support this initiative as it will keep those accountable and will provide due process for the lives that could be lost as a result of these negligent actions.

Read more about the Medical Malpractice bill by visiting: http://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_46,_Medical_Malpractice_Lawsuits_Cap_and_Drug_Testing_of_Doctors_(2014)

California Proposition 2: Rainy Day Budget Stabilization Fund Act

The Rainy Day Budget Stabilization Fund Act, a ballot proposition on the November 4, 2014 statewide ballot in California as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment, would force the Legislature to put 3 percent of revenue into the rainy day fund. Budget stabilization or "rainy day" funds allow states to set aside excess revenue for use in times of unexpected revenue shortfall or budget deficit (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/state-local/fiscal/rainy-day.cfm).

The measure, upon voter approval, would alter the state’s existing requirements for the Budget Stabilization Account (BSA), as established by Proposition 58. The BSA is a rainy day fund. ACA 1 would also establish a Public School System Stabilization Account (PSSSA). This proposition would require annual transfer of state general fund revenues to the budget stabilization account. It would also require half the revenues to be used to repay state debts. Additionally, it would limit the use of remaining funds to emergencies or budget deficits.

Major provisions of this initiative will:
· Transfer 3 percent of General Fund Revenues to the Budget Stabilization Fund;
· Strengthen Rainy Day fund with “unanticipated revenues”;
· Increase size of the Rainy Day fund;
· Provide flexibility in “Bad Budget Years”;
· Limits the use of Reserve Funds;
· Limits the use of excess revenues not deposited into the Rainy Day fund;
· And prohibits the Legislature from raiding the Rainy Day fund.

As for fiscal impact, the Assembly Budget Committee estimates that: “This provision would result in increased funding in the states’ “rainy day” reserve funds. It would also increase state spending on repaying budgetary borrowing and debt, and infrastructure projects. Finally, the additional reserve would reduce the extent of state cash borrowing, allowing for some savings in the short-term cash borrowing costs.” There would be no impact on the current state budget (http://www.caltax.org/members/Rainy_%20Day_Fund_Initiative_Analysis.pdf).

Read more about the Rainy Day Budget Stabilization Fund here: http://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_44,_Rainy_Day_Budget_Stabilization_Fund_Act_(2014)

California lawmakers pass bill banning inmate sterilizations

(Reuters) - California lawmakers sent a bill to ban sterilization surgeries on inmates in California prisons to Governor Jerry Brown on Tuesday, after media reports and a later audit showed officials failed to follow the state's rules for obtaining consent for the procedure known as tubal ligation from incarcerated women.

The bill prohibits sterilization in correctional facilities for birth control reasons unless a patient's life is in danger or it is medically necessary and no less drastic procedure is possible.

“It’s clear that we need to do more to make sure that forced or coerced sterilizations never again occur in our jails and prisons,” said state Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, who wrote the bill. “Pressuring a vulnerable population into making permanent reproductive choices without informed consent violates our most basic human rights.”

The measure passed the Senate floor with a unanimous vote of 33-0 and now goes to Democratic Governor Jerry Brown for his signature.

The bill was introduced earlier this year in the wake of allegations, first raised by the non-profit Center for Investigative Reporting, that the state failed to obtain informed consent in cases of women inmates who had their fallopian tubes tied.

An audit released in June showed that errors were made in obtaining informed consent from 39 women inmates out of 144 who had their tubes tied while incarcerated between 2005 and 2011.

Prison rules make tubal ligation available to inmates as part of regular obstetrical care. But until the issue was brought to officials’ attention in 2010 by an inmates rights group, proper authorization for the procedure was rarely obtained, the state auditor’s report said.

In 27 of those cases, a physician failed to sign the consent form as required, the audit showed. In 18 cases, there were potential violations of a mandated waiting period after women gave consent.

The audit was the latest blow to the state's troubled prison system and came as California is struggling to meet court-ordered demands to improve medical and mental healthcare in its overcrowded prisons.

Medical care in California's prisons has been under the supervision of a federally appointed receiver since 2006.

The current receiver, J. Clark Kelso, was appointed in 2008, but did not learn about problems with tubal ligations until 2010, the audit said.

Just one such procedure, deemed medically necessary, was performed after the concerns were brought to Kelso's attention, the audit said.

California support for Affordable Care Act continues to grow

After what most consider a successful implementation of the law in California, support for the Affordable Care Act among Golden State voters is the highest it’s ever been, according to a new Field Poll.

Fifty-six percent of respondents expressed support for the federal health law, up three percentage points from last year, compared to 35 percent who oppose it. That approval was likely bolstered by last fall’s rollout of the state health insurance exchange; 60 percent of California voters feel the state has been successful in implementing the Affordable Care Act, twice as many as do not. (Respondents were more evenly split on federal implementation: 49 percent to 46 percent.)

One goal that Californians do not feel the state has met: limiting the rate increases that insurance companies charge to their customers. Forty-six percent of voters believe the state has not been successful in meeting this goal, while only 37 percent do. That could play into Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones’ efforts to pass Proposition 45, a ballot measure that would allow him to veto insurance rate hikes.

via: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/08/19/6637620/am-alert-california-support-for.html#mi_rss=Capitol%20Alert

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/08/19/6637620/am-alert-california-support-for.html#mi_rss=Capitol%20Alert#storylink=cpy

Jerry Brown sets debate with Neel Kashkari

Gov. Jerry Brown will debate Republican Neel Kashkari in Sacramento early next month, the only debate the incumbent governor will participate in ahead of the November election, his campaign said Monday.

Brown, who leads Kashkari by a wide margin both in fundraising and public opinion polls,previously said he was unsure if he would debate Kashkari. The little-known Republican has pressed Brown to debate him 10 times, echoing a call Brown made four years ago in his race against Meg Whitman.

The one-hour debate, on Sept. 4, was first reported Monday by KQED News, one of the producers of the event. It comes relatively early in the race, and Dan Newman, a spokesman for Brown, said it is the only debate invitation the governor will accept.

KQED reported that the debate is being produced jointly with the Los Angeles Times, The California Channel and Telemundo California. The report said The California Channel will air the debate and offer a satellite feed to television stations around the state, and that Telemundo stations will broadcast a translated version of the debate in major media markets. Newman said the debate will be held at The California Channel’s Sacramento studios.

Brown has declined a debate invitation from a Sacramento-based consortium including The Sacramento Bee, KCRA, Capital Public Radio and California State University, Sacramento. The same media partners sponsored a debate between Brown and Whitman in 2010. 

via: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/08/18/6637856/jerry-brown-sets-debate-with-neel.html#mi_rss=Capitol%20Alert

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/08/18/6637856/jerry-brown-sets-debate-with-neel.html#mi_rss=Capitol%20Alert#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/08/18/6637856/jerry-brown-sets-debate-with-neel.html#mi_rss=Capitol%20Alert#storylink=cpy

Water Bond Initiative of 2014

Proposition 1, a measure formerly known as Proposition 43, the Water Bond, is slated to be on the November 4, 2014 ballot in California as a legislatively-referred bond act.  A "bond" means security of any kind, including money, given to ensure performance of an obligation arising under an enactment, a license, a permit, a contract or another similar obligation, and includes the terms under which the security may be realized (Source: http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96030_01). The measure, upon voter approval, would enact the Safe, Clean and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2012.

More specifically, Proposition 1 will:

• Authorizes $11.14 billion in general obligation bonds for state water supply infrastructure projects, including surface and groundwater storage, ecosystem and watershed protection and restoration, and Bay-Delta Estuary sustainability.
• Appropriate money from the General Fund to pay off bonds.
• Require certain projects to provide matching funds from non-state sources in order to receive bond funds.

As many California residents may already know, our state has been undergoing a severe drought for the past several years. Reservoirs are low, groundwater basins and ecosystems are stressed, water quality is impaired, and wildfire risks are extremely high. Three consecutive dry years have pushed California’s water system to its limits and exposed vulnerabilities that must be addressed now if we are to avoid even more dire challenges in the coming years.

Signs of California’s severe water challenges include:

• Drinking water shortages and mandatory rationing in some areas
• Impaired water quality and contaminated groundwater basins
• Water cutbacks to family farms
• Lost farm jobs and reduced economic activity
• Extreme wildfire danger
• Increased food prices

In order to prevent a future where these water challenges continue, the passage of Proposition 1 will help California prepare for droughts, ensure reliable water for farms, clean contamination of water resources, protect against the collapse of our water system in an earthquake, repair the Delta, one of the most important ecosystems on the West Coast, create jobs now by fixing vital infrastructure, and protect taxpayers with strong fiscal safeguards.

Water is essential—we must act now to protect our economy and quality of life. Proposition 43 will be the solution we need to combat drought and create a more resilient water system for California.

For more information on the Water Bond ballot initiative, please visit: http://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_43,_Water_Bond_(2014)

California water bond: Support for the latest $7 billion plan builds as deadline looms to OK it

SACRAMENTO -- Powerful voices in California's water wars pledged their support Tuesday for a $7 billion state water bond that lawmakers must pass before Wednesday's midnight deadline if they hope to see it on the November ballot.

The California Farm Bureau Federation and Los Angeles County's Metropolitan Water District had hoped for at least $3 billion in the bond for construction of dams, reservoirs and other storage projects.

But with time running out, they called on lawmakers from both parties to support a package crafted over the weekend by Gov. Jerry Brown and Democratic legislative leaders with $2.5 billion for water storage.

"With California experiencing an unprecedented drought on the heels of two dry years, the most important issue on the November ballot is the passage of a water bond," said Paul Wenger, president of the Farm Bureau, the state's largest farm association, whose members have been crippled by the lengthening drought.

Some business and water district leaders saw the bond proposal as a "workable framework" that respects the state's fiscal limitations while acknowledging the need for an array of water projects, including groundwater cleanup and river habitat restoration.

Wenger compared Brown's commitment to increasing the state's water storage capacity to that of his father, former Gov. Pat Brown, who built the enormous network of dams, reservoirs and canals in the 1960s that the state depends on today to move water from north to south.

"It is an absolute necessity that the greatest single component of this bond be dedicated to water storage, something that has been sorely absent in the last five water bonds that have been passed by voters since 1996," Wenger said. "We applaud Gov. Brown."

Still, if Brown and his Democratic allies hope to meet the deadline to replace the bloated, unpopular water bond originally scheduled for the November ballot, they must work feverishly over the next 24 hours to address lingering concerns that threaten to scuttle a deal, Capitol observers say.

Senate Republicans and Central Valley Democrats want more money dedicated to water storage projects, while legislators who represent towns near the San Joaquin River Delta are seeking stronger safeguards to block bond money from being spent on Brown's controversial plan to build twin tunnels beneath the Delta to siphon water south.

Assemblyman Henry Perea, D-Fresno, is actively negotiating with Brown for more than $2.5 billion for water storage. Even a little more will be essential to "landing this plane," he said.

"This is a good first step, but we'll need to do a little better than that to get Central Valley support for this bond," Perea said. "It's a concern I have that others from the region, both Democrats and Republicans, share."

Splitting from the Farm Bureau's position, some agricultural groups, including ones that represent citrus, rice and table grape growers, are also pressing for more water storage funding.

"Where we differ from some of our colleagues in agriculture," said Joel Nelson, president of California Citrus Mutual, "is that they're willing to take a chance.

"We want more guarantees that we're going to create more water and make it available to those tho need it."

via: http://www.mercurynews.com/california/ci_26325189/california-water-bond-support-latest-7-billion-plan

The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act of 2014

Proposition 47: The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act of 2014 is an initiative for the November 2014 California ballot. Over the last 25 years there have been 1,000 changes made to the California penal code, many of those have made misdemeanor offenses become felonies. As a result, people of color have been highly impacted and continue reap the negative affects of mass incarceration in California. Annually, we spend $10 billion on the prison system with more than 130,000 people in prison at a yearly cost of $62,396.

Proposition 47 will permanently reduce incarceration and shift one $1 billion over the next five years alone to K-12 school programs and mental health and drug treatment. More specifically, Prop. 47 will:

• Reclassify six petty theft crimes including: petty theft , shoplifting, receipt of stolen property, writing a bad check, fraud, and drug possession (all under $950). 
• Create retroactive sentencing to those currently incarcerated and not at risk to public safety and any Californian with prior felony convictions (listed above).
• Re-allocate funds that will support rehabilitation; 65% will be shifted into mental health and drug treatment; 25% will support K-12 school programs; and 10% will go to victim services.

Hundreds of thousands of Californians that have paid the time for their crimes will now be able to fix their records which will ultimately eliminate the barriers to employment, housing, student loans, and public assistance. Prop. 47 will save billions in tax payers dollars and reduce the rates of recidivism so that children will not continue in the cycles of incarceration. 

For more information on The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act visit: http://www.safetyandschools.com/