Proposition 1A: High-speed rail
What it would do: Authorize the state to sell $9.95 billion in bonds to help fund a $45-billion bullet train between Orange County and the San Francisco Bay Area. Repayment would cost the state $647 million annually for 30 years.
Chief proponents: California High-Speed Rail Authority; chambers of commerce in Los Angeles, San Francisco and more than a dozen other cities; Consumer Federation of California; Sierra Club California; American Lung Assn.; California Democratic Party
Major donors to "Yes" side: California Alliance for Jobs; State Building & Construction Trades Council of California political fund; engineering firms HNTB Corp., Parsons Brinkerhoff and STV; California American Council of Engineering Companies Issues Fund
For The Record
Los Angeles Times Wednesday, October 22, 2008 Home Edition Main News Part A Page 2 National Desk 1 inches; 32 words Type of Material: Correction
Proposition 10: The Voter Guide in Sunday's California section misspelled the first name of a major donor to the "yes" on Proposition 10 campaign. The donor's name is Aubrey McClendon, not Audrey.
For The Record
Los Angeles Times Sunday, October 26, 2008 Home Edition Main News Part A Page 2 National Desk 1 inches; 35 words Type of Material: Correction
Proposition 10: The Voter Guide in the California section on Oct. 19 misspelled the first name of a major donor to the "yes" on Proposition 10 campaign. The donor's name is Aubrey McClendon, not Audrey.
Chief opponents: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn., California Rail Foundation, California Chamber of Commerce, Reason Foundation, state Sen. Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks), Assemblyman Chuck DeVore (R-Irvine)
Major donors to "No" side: No contributions reported to the California secretary of state's office.
Main arguments in favor: Electric-powered bullet trains between major population centers would ease traffic and airport congestion, help curb air pollution and reduce dependence on foreign oil. Nearly $1 billion would be spent to beef up commuter rail systems feeding the high-speed trains.
Main arguments against: It could cost $90 billion or more while failing to achieve projected speeds, trip times or ridership. It would deepen state's fiscal hole; money would better serve law enforcement, healthcare, education and an upgrade of existing rail and highway systems.
Proposition 2: Farm animals
What it would do: Beginning in 2015, farmers would be required to provide room for egg-laying hens, veal calves and pregnant sows to fully extend their limbs or wings, stand up, turn around and lie down. It would outlaw cages and crates that prevent those movements.
Chief proponents: Humane Society of the United States, Farm Sanctuary, California Veterinary Medical Assn., United Farm Workers, Consumer Federation of America, Center for Food Safety, California Democratic Party, California Democratic U.S. Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer
Major donors to "Yes" side: Humane Society of the United States; Farm Sanctuary; Fund for Animals; Les Alexander, owner of the Houston Rockets and a Humane Society board member
Chief opponents: United Egg Producers; Assn. of California Veterinarians; American College of Poultry Veterinarians; United Food & Commercial Workers Western States Council; Unite Here, a labor union; California Farm Bureau Federation
Major donors to "No" side: Moark LLC.; Demler Enterprises; Cal-Maine Foods, a Mississippi company; Foster Poultry Farms; Gemperle Enterprises; two Indiana firms, Midwest Poultry Services LP and Rose Acre Farms; United Egg Producers
Main arguments in favor: Farm animals raised for food deserve to be treated humanely; it is cruel to confine them in tiny cages, where they may be hurt and disease can spread. It would cost producers less than a penny per egg and consumers a few cents extra per dozen. It would not harm the safe production of eggs.
Main arguments against: It would increase the price of California-raised eggs and drive consumers to buy cheaper ones from out-of-state producers, potentially crippling the thriving state egg industry. Out-of-state producers do not have California's high food-safety standards. Many veterinarians and public health experts believe current animal housing is safe.
Proposition 3: Children's hospitals
What it would do: Authorize $980 million in bonds backed by the state to fund construction, refurnishing, expansion and new equipment at five children's hospitals at University of California campuses and eight private, nonprofit children's hospitals. The state would pay the principal and interest, which would cost about $2 billion over 30 years. Annual payments would be about $64 million.
Chief proponents: California Children's Hospital Assn., California Chamber of Commerce. California Business Roundtable; League of Women Voters of California, former California Gov. Pete Wilson, California Democratic U.S. Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer
Major donors to "Yes" side: Childrens Hospital Los Angeles; Children's Hospital of Orange County; Miller Children's Hospital at Long Beach; other nonprofit children's hospitals that could receive grants from the bond money
Chief opponents: Lewis K. Uhler, president of the National Tax Limitation Committee; Edward "Ted" Costa, president of the nonprofit People's Advocate; Jon Fleischman, publisher of the political website Flashreport.org
Major donors to "No" side: None reported.