ACLU/SC Voter Guide
Californians will consider important ACLU/SC issues on the November 7 ballot, including measures to extend equal access to housing and education and one that limits reproductive rights. Here are the ACLU/SC board's recommendations.
The ACLU is a nonpartisan organization and does not take positions endorsing candidates. The ACLU endorses selectively; for background on some ballot measures on which we took no position, see the bottom of this page.
Proposition 83 : No
(sex offenders)
What it does: So-called "Jessica's Law" increases penalties for sex offenders and imposes lifelong GPS monitoring. It also restricts registered sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of any school or park.
Why we oppose it: The ACLU/SC has opposed increasing penalties and imposing lifelong monitoring on sex offenders. The initiative would exile registered sex offenders to rural areas with limited services, and these measures have been proven to be ineffective.
Proposition 85 : No
(parental notification of abortion)
What it does: Amends the California Constitution to prohibit abortion for unemancipated minors until 48 hours after a physician notifies the minor's parent or guardian. Teens seeking an exception must get a court hearing.
Why we oppose it: Proposition 85 delays medical care and counseling for vulnerable teens and puts those in dangerous homes at risk of abuse. The ACLU/SC helped defeat parental-notification Proposition 73 last November, and this measure is its virtual twin. The Los Angeles Times wrote Sept. 25 that "Proposition 73 was a bad idea last year, and Proposition 85 is a bad idea now." We agree. Visit our No on 85 website - www.aclu-sc.org/prop85 - to help us defeat Proposition 85.
Proposition 90 : No
(eminent domain)
What it does: Bans governments from condemning private property for private uses. It also limits governments' authority to adopt land-use, housing, consumer, environmental, and workplace laws and regulations, except to preserve public health or safety. It sets resale rules and voids unpublished eminent domain court decisions.
Our position: California already has strong eminent domain protections, and it is rarely used. The measure could harm small cities and restrict governments' ability to act in the "common good" on environmental, public health, or affordable housing.
Proposition 1C : Yes
(affordable housing bond)
What it does: The $2.9-billion housing bond measure would build battered women's shelters and housing for low-income seniors and working families.
Why we support it: The ACLU/SC has a clear policy in favor of economic rights and affordable housing.
Proposition 1D : Yes
(education bond)
What it does: The $10.4-billion education bond will fund modernization and new construction at the state's K-12 schools, universities and community colleges, especially those that are severely overcrowded or provide vocational training.
Why we support it: The ACLU/SC has taken a firm stance on equal access to education, such as the Williams case. This bond has strong oversight measures to meet that goal.
Measure H : Yes
(Los Angeles affordable housing bond)
What it does: Nearly half of this $1-billion bond to build affordable housing would go to the homeless and those at risk of homelessness, including battered women and their children, veterans, seniors and the disabled. One quarter of the money would also go to first-time homebuyers, and $350 million to build rental housing for low-income working families.
Why we support it: The ACLU/SC has a long-standing commitment to affordable housing, and this bond will help the city's homeless and working poor.
Tough Questions on Tobacco and School Taxes, Clean Money, and Term Limits
The ACLU/SC took no position on the following measures:
Proposition 86 (tobacco tax increase for public programs):
A new $.13 tax on each cigarette ($2.60 per pack) would fund emergency services, nursing education, health insurance for children, and treating smoking-related illnesses. We are troubled by an antitrust exemption for recipient hospitals that could offer blanket immunity to any hospital involved in crafting an emergency plan. We are also concerned about possible regressive taxation, and the wisdom of making it a constitutional amendment.
Proposition 88 (parcel tax for school funding):
Like Proposition 1D, this measure supports school improvements. But we're endorsing Proposition 1D and taking no position on Proposition 88. While Proposition 1D is a statewide bond measure, Proposition 88 would impose a $50 tax on each real-estate parcel. While Proposition 1D broadly supports much-needed repairs and construction, Proposition 88 by contrast narrowly funds a limited set of priorities that may not be tailored to what individual schools need most. It also leaves up to the Legislature when and which schools would receive funding and allocates no money to administration at the local level to meet school needs.
Proposition 89 (public campaign financing):
Provides public financing for statewide candidates who meet certain eligibility requirements. Funds come from a .2% income tax increase on corporations and financial institutions. Corporations and nonprofits that accept corporate donations may not spend more than $10,000 on advertising expenditures concerning ballot measures, unless they set up a political action committee (or PAC) for that purpose. They are also prohibited from spending on television ads that mention a candidate 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election.
The ACLU/SC has long been a strong supporter of campaign finance reform and clean money public financing to level the playing field and expand the range of voices participating in the political process. In this case, however, we are concerned that some of the proposition provisions could violate the First Amendment by limiting nonprofits' ability to campaign, particularly on ballot measures, and by preventing advocacy groups from influencing pending legislation during designated election periods. While we continue to believe in campaign finance reform and clean money public financing, and even though constitutional portions of Proposition 89 could be implemented even if some parts are ruled unconstitutional, these concerns led us to refrain from taking a postion on Proposition 89.
Measure R (L.A. term limits and ethics reform):
Extends Los Angeles City Council term limits from two to three, and also revises ethics rules for elected officials and lobbyists. For instance, it restricts lobbyists from making campaign contributions and gifts and joining city commissions, amends rules governing elected officials after they leave office, and alters some requirements for independent expenditure and campaign contributions.
The ACLU/SC strongly opposes term limits, but we are concerned about possible undermining of ethics enforcement, particularly because the L.A. City Ethics Commission did not have input into the measure as it was moved onto the ballot.
