Propositions

* Arguments for: Homeowner victims of natural disasters, including floods, fires and earthquakes, are protected from paying increased property taxes when they rebuild or replace their residences. The same opportunity should be extended to people whose properties are left uninhabitable or unusable by toxic or hazardous materials.

* Arguments against: Could reduce tax money that local governments spend on schools, community colleges and local services.

* Supporters: Assemblyman Curt Pringle (R-Garden Grove); Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn.; Sierra Club.

* Opponents: None

PROPOSITION 1A

Record $9.2-billion bond measure would help pay for construction and repair of public schools, colleges and universities over four years. More than 70% of the money, $6.7 billion, would be spent at the primary and secondary level; $700 million of that would be set aside to help pay the costs of class size reduction efforts already undertaken. New state building standards designed to reduce costs would apply. Funds would be available to relieve inner-city school overcrowding, based on a 20% local match. An additional $2.5 billion would be spent on construction and repair of higher education facilities.

* Arguments for: Schools urgently need these funds to repair deteriorating, ill-equipped classrooms and relieve severe overcrowding that has contributed to falling academic performance.

* Arguments against: Bonds are the wrong financing tool. With interest, a $9.2-billion bond would cost closer to $15 billion. School needs could be met with funds already on hand in the state treasury.

* Supporters: Gov. Pete Wilson, gubernatorial candidates Lt. Gov. Gray Davis and Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren, California Taxpayers Assn., California Teachers Assn., California Chamber of Commerce, California Business Roundtable, California Building Industry Assn.

* Opponents: California Republican Assembly, a conservative grass-roots group; National Tax Limitation Committee; People's Advocate Inc.

PROPOSITION 2

Would place tighter restrictions on repayment of loans from state transportation funds to the state general fund. Generally, such loans would have to be repaid within the same fiscal year.

* Arguments for: Would ensure timely repayment of funds earmarked for highway and other transportation projects.

* Arguments against: There could be cuts to education, welfare, MediCal and prison funding if the general fund cannot borrow money from the transportation fund.

* Supporters: Asphalt Pavement Assn., California Chamber of Commerce, Caterpillar Inc., Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Sierra Club, United Transportation Union, various construction material suppliers and contractor organizations.

* Opponents: None

PROPOSITION 3

Would change California's blanket primary law to require closed, partisan primaries in presidential races. Would limit voting for delegates to presidential nominating conventions to voters registered by party affiliation.

* Arguments for: Enables party members to elect their own presidential delegates without interference from members of other parties or independent voters. Assures that elected California delegates would be seated at their 2000 national conventions.

* Arguments against: The blanket primary law should be allowed to work as voters intended when they approved Proposition 198 in 1996. Proposition 3 is an effort by "power brokers" to reverse the voters' action.

* Supporters: Democratic and Republican parties; Gov. Pete Wilson; legislative leaders of both parties; California Farm Bureau and Traditional Values Coalition.

* Opponents: No organized campaign. Assemblyman Jack Scott (D-Altadena) wrote the ballot argument against Proposition 3.

PROPOSITION 4

Would prohibit the use of body-gripping, leg-hold or snare traps for sport or commercial trapping. Would outlaw use of steel-jawed leg-hold traps, except as a last resort by a government agent to protect human health and safety. Would outlaw buying, selling or trading in furs taken with these types of traps. Would prohibit use of two types of poison on any animal.

* Arguments for: Leg-hold and other body-gripping traps are cruel, inhumane and indiscriminate, often resulting in painful injuries and death for animals, sometimes including pets. More humane traps are currently available for wildlife biologists to protect species from predators; other forms of predator control are available to ranchers and wildlife managers. The poisons, Compound 1080 and sodium cyanide, are harmful to non-targeted animals and to the environment.