Chief opponents: California Teachers Assn., Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, California Public Defenders Assn., California State Assn. of Counties, American Civil Liberties Union
Major donors to "No" side: Service Employees International Union California State Council, California Teachers Assn., California Democratic Party, California Federation of Teachers
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.
Main arguments in favor: Law enforcement programs receive too little state money. Criminal penalties must be enhanced to deter gang activity and sufficiently punish perpetrators. Funding for probation departments would help rehabilitate criminals and reduce crime.
Main arguments against: The measure is an expensive "Christmas tree" of funding for local law enforcement agencies without accountability and would take money from other priorities, such as schools. New penalties would increase prison overcrowding. Some provisions would give too much power to prosecutors and police.
--
Proposition 7: Renewable energy
What it would do: Require public and private utilities to obtain at least 20% of their electricity from renewable sources by 2010 and 50% by 2025.
Chief proponents: Former state Sen. John L. Burton, former Los Angeles Department of Water and Power chief S. David Freeman, Community Environmental Council in Santa Barbara
Major donors to "Yes" side: Phoenix resident Peter Sperling, son of University of Phoenix founder John G. Sperling; political consultant Jim Gonzalez
Chief opponents: California Municipal Utilities Assn., California Solar Energy Industries Assn., California Wind Energy Assn., Natural Resources Defense Council, California Public Utilities Commission
Major donors to "No" side: Edison International, Pacific Gas & Electric Corp., Sempra Energy
Main arguments in favor: California shouldn't wait for the Legislature and governor to boost renewable energy production.
Main arguments against: Loopholes would actually stall development of solar, wind and other renewable power.
--
Proposition 8: Same-sex marriage
What it would do: Amend the state Constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman.
Chief proponents: California Catholic Conference of Bishops, Protect Marriage Coalition, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Concerned Women for America
Major donors to "Yes" side: Knights of Columbus, Focus on the Family, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Chief opponents: Equality California, League of Women Voters of California, California Democratic Party, California Labor Federation, Valley Industry and Commerce Assn., United Farm Workers
Major donors to "No" side: Pacific Gas & Electric; Robert Haas, chief executive emeritus of Levi Strauss Co., director Stephen Spielberg, Service Employees International Union's California State Council, California Teachers Assn.
Main arguments in favor: Eight years ago, California voters passed Proposition 22, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman, by more than 60%. The will of the people was overturned by the California Supreme Court, which allowed same-sex marriage earlier this year. This undermines the value of marriage.
Main arguments against: People should not be treated differently under the law because of their sexual orientation. Gays and lesbians should keep the right to marry like everyone else.
--
Proposition 9: Victims' rights
What it would do: Amend the state Constitution to give new rights to crime victims and restrict early release of inmates. It would allow victims not to cooperate in criminal defendants' preparation for trial; would provide mandatory restitution by an offender if a victim suffers a loss; would increase the maximum period between parole hearings from five to 15 years; and allow an unlimited number of victims' family members to testify at parole hearings.
Chief proponents: Assemblyman Todd Spitzer (R-Orange), Crime Victims United of California, Justice for Homicide Victims, Justice for Murdered Children
Major donors to "Yes" side: Henry T. Nicholas III, co-founder of Broadcom Corp., the brother of a murder victim and now under indictment on fraud, conspiracy and drug charges; Crime Victims United, Peace Officers Research Assn. of California
Chief opponents: California Teachers Assn., Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, California Public Defenders Assn., California State Assn. of Counties, American Civil Liberties Union
Major donors to "No" side: Service Employees International Union's California State Council, California Federation of Teachers, California Teachers Assn., California Democratic Party
Main arguments in favor: It would strengthen the rights of victims in a system that gives rights to criminals. It would reduce pain for victims by lengthening the period between parole hearings, also saving taxpayer money.
