A Justice Site
Mirror Sites:
CSUDH - Habermas - UWP - Archives
California State University, Dominguez Hills
University of Wisconsin, Parkside
Created: October 31, 2004
Latest Update: October 31, 2004
jeannecurran@habermas.org
takata@uwp.edu
California Propositions 2004
- Proposition 59: Transparency in Government Agency Operations - Records Availability to Public
Proposition 59 LA Times Election 20004. This is the proposition that is designed to shift the burden of proof when a government agency refuses to give requested information. If you request information from a government agency and that agency refuses to divulge that information, you are given the burden of proving that the information should be made public. Shifting the burden of proof is a legal term that means that instead of you having to prove why the information should be made public, the agency will have to prove why the information should be kept private.
The LA Times suggests that this change in the burden of proof would force agencies to be more transparent. Transparent here means that the agency would have to be forthcoming in telling the public what happens in its meetings, why it makes certain decisions. In other words, it would be held more immediately accountable, and not be able to say that its workings are private.
There is no organized opposition to this proposition, which suggest that the time for transparency has come. Maybe just a little shift in dominant discourse to more openness and more inclusion of the people in government workings.
From League of Women Voters of California:
" Proposition 59 adds a provision to the State Constitution requiring that meetings and writings of government entities and of.cials be open to the public. It requires that statutes and government decisions be broadly interpreted to further the people's right to access. . . " " A YES vote means Californians would have a constitutional right to access government information. A government entity would have to demonstrate to a greater extent why information requested by the public should be withheld."A NO vote means the public's rights to obtain government information would not be addressed in the California Constitution."
http://ca.lwv.org/lwvc/edfund/elections/2004nov/pc/prop59.html
The effect of voting NO means that this justwon't be added to the California Constitution.
- Propositions 60 and 62: California Primaries
"Proposition 60 places into the State Constitution a requirement that all parties participating in a primary election be able to advance their top vote-getting candidate to the general election. This requirement is met by the current election process . . .Proposition 62 on this ballot also contains provisions affecting which primary candidates advance to the general election ballot. The State Constitution provides that if the provisions of two approved propositions are in conflict, only the provisions of the measure with the higher number of yes votes will take effect.
"A YES vote means any political party that participates in a primary election would have the constitutional right to have its nominee on the subsequent general election ballot.
"A NO vote means that the California Constitution would not address the right of political parties to appear on a general election ballot.
Again, voting NO in the case of the primaries means that this language would not enter the California constitution.
Yes ion 60 YES on Proposition 60 would mean a continuation of our primary system.
Open Primary.org YES on Propositiion 62 would mean basically an open primary instead of our present primary system as described in Proposition 60.
The Proposition with the most number of votes would take effect. Look at the respective sites for an idea of which group best represents your beliefs and values.
- Proposition 61: Bond Measure to Support Children's Hospitals
From the LA Times:
"Summary: Measure would authorize the state to issue $750 million in bonds for construction, expansion and renovation of children's hospitals."From the League of Women Voters of California:
" A YES vote means the state could issue $750 million in general obligation bonds for construction, remodeling, furnishing and equipping children’s hospitals."A NO vote means the state would not be able to issue new general obligation bonds for construction, remodeling, furnishing and equipping children’s hospitals."
- Proposition 63: Funding for Mental Health
From the LA Times:
"This measure would raise the tax on incomes of more than $1 million a year by adding a 1% surcharge. The money would be spent on creating new county mental health programs and expanding existing programs. The programs involved would provide services for the poor who lack insurance, expand preventive treatment, add staff at mental health facilities and provide services for families with a mentally ill child. "The state would begin collecting the tax in January 2005."*****
I'm sorry. I give up on the propositions. You've got the LA Times and The League of Women Voters of California. I can't do much more than that. Go for it. You can figure it out. And I'm trying to cope with water heaters that can't get put in and comments sheets for you to check out your confirmation of A status.
Vote. Have a good day. God bless us all. We need it. jeanne
