Main arguments against: It would duplicate existing provisions of law. It also would overburden the parole hearing process with victim testimony; improperly make victims party to criminal cases and could violate offenders' federal constitutional rights. It also could cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars a year by restricting inmates' early release.
--
Proposition 10: Alternative fuels, renewable energy
What it would do: Borrow $5 billion, most of it to be distributed as rebates to buyers of vehicles fueled by natural gas, hydrogen, electricity and other alternative fuels.
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 proponents: Clean Energy Fuels Corp. of Seal Beach, former Assemblyman Fred Keeley, past Air Resources Board chairman John Dunlap
Major donors to "Yes" side: Clean Energy Fuels Corp., Chesapeake Energy executive Audrey McClendon, Westport Fuel Systems Inc. of Long Beach
Chief opponents: Consumer Federation of California, League of Women Voters, Consumer Watchdog, California Tax Reform Assn.
Major donors to "No" side: California Federation of Teachers, California School Employees Assn.
Main arguments in favor: It would reduce California's dependence on foreign oil, help clean the air and create thousands of green technology jobs.
Main arguments against: Rebates would be skewed toward natural-gas vehicle fleets serviced by the initiative's chief backer. California cannot afford to pay back $10 billion in principal and interest over 30 years for a short-term investment in vehicles.
--
Proposition 11: Redistricting
What it would do: Take away from the Legislature the once-a-decade job of drawing legislative and Board of Equalization districts and give it to a 14-member commission with five Democrats, five Republicans and four others.
Chief proponents: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, AARP, League of Women Voters, California Common Cause, California Chamber of Commerce
Major donors to "Yes" side: A political fund controlled by Schwarzenegger; physicist Charles T. Munger Jr.; New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg; Netflix Inc. executive Reed Hastings
Chief opponents: California Democratic Party, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, California Labor Federation, Asian Pacific American Legal Center
Major donors to "No" side: California Correctional Peace Officers Assn., Democratic State Central Committee of California, State Building & Construction Trades Council of California political committee
Main arguments in favor: Legislators draw their own safe seats under the current back-room system, which leads to a lack of accountability to voters. An independent commission would draw fair districts in an open process.
Main arguments against: The measure sets up a complicated system that does not guarantee representation for all of California's diverse communities. It is a Republican power grab.
--
Proposition 12: Veterans
What it would do: Issue $900 million in bonds to provide low-cost loans to California veterans for the purchase of farms and homes. It would appropriate money from the state's general fund to pay off bonds if loan payments from participating veterans are insufficient for that purpose.
Chief proponents: State Sen. Mark Wyland (R-Escondido), California Veterans of Foreign Wars, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
Major donors to "Yes" side: None reported.
Chief opponents: Mountain View attorney Gary B. Wesley
Major donors to "No" side: None reported.
Main arguments in favor: It would recognize the debt that Californians owe those who have served in the military. There would be no cost to taxpayers because mortgage payments would cover the bond costs. It also would help the state economy.
Main arguments against: The program is too broad; it would allow loans for veterans who served far from combat zones, including those who stayed in the United States. Loans should be offered first to veterans who served in combat zones.
