SUMMARY

Proposition 1:

YES

Proposition 2:

NO

Proposition 45:

YES

Proposition 46:

NO

Proposition 47:

YES

Proposition 48:

NO

Ballot Recommendations

for the November 4, 2014 California General Election

PROPOSITION 1: Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014
Recommendation: SUPPORT
This is the last-minute legislative referendum that created an alternative to the original water bond. Proposition 1 reduces the general obligation
bond from $11 billion to $7 billion and, while the bond holder ultimately may be repaid from the General Fund, this bond requires non-state
matching funds from projects and user revenues to markedly reduce taxpayerscosts and erosion of the annual budget revenues. While this would
be far better as a revenue bond paid entirely by users, it is a major improvement over the original version of the bond.
The proposition devotes more spending toward recycling and other drought alleviation measures such as rainwater harvesting, puts emphasis on
creating potable water supplies in those communities facing contamination, and it provides more help for treatment and control in impoverished
communities most likely to face pollution problems.
While theporkof the original bond is gone, it does still direct $2.7 billion to above-ground storage: dams and reservoirs, but it is funding not
locked in to those projects. The funds can be diverted to other needs. More importantly, it does not fund theDelta Tunnelproject near and dear
to many to cut 35-mile tunnels through the fragile Delta farmland and ecosystem to drain northern California for agricultural interests that, to
date, are not required to conserve.
The bond is still too vague, relying on capital intensive projects that may not be useful, does not specify which communities truly need water
remediation, and does not lay out enough controls on spending of the bond revenue. However, the reduction in dollar value and upgrade in
objectives that tackle the drought and quality issues makes this most likely the best version we will get. We support the goal if in doubt on
objectives and know it will require eternal vigilance from us all to assure appropriate use of these dollars.

PROPOSITION 2: State Budget. Budget Stabilization Account. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.

Recommendation: OPPOSE
In 2004 then Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger obtained the Balanced Budget Act in Proposition 58. This established, among other things, a
largerrainy day fundfor lean budget years. The net result has been a relentless chopping of social service spending for those already living in peril
especially after the crisis of 2008.
Proposition 2, passed as ACA 1- Assembly Constitutional Amendment - by the Legislature, expands this reserve by requiring a deposit of 1.5% of
general revenue, plus all capital gains revenue in excess of 8% of the general fund revenue. The Governor also required a Prop.98-based school
reserve by which those capital gains would be transferred to schools and only to schools. However, the amounts to schools would be capped,
according to the Legislative Analysts Office. Rather than fulfilling the Prop. 98 guarantees, the reserve would be limited to the capped amount.
Schools would be required to spend all their money each year should the state have a surplus without having full knowledge of where and how much
the next budget allocation would be. The school set aside is thus more promise than delivery, with huge strings attached that will not always live up
to Prop. 98 guarantees.
Most important, this measure would perpetuate and extend the loss in revenues to restore essential health and welfare programs that have been
drastically cut since 2004. This is the classic issue of the budget as a moral document, and it fails the test miserably.

Ballot Recommendations for the November 4, 2014 California General Election

PROPOSITION 45: Healthcare Insurance. Rate Changes. Initiative Statute.

Recommendation: SUPPORT
This rate regulation for health care insurance is being added to the existing laws governing auto and homeowner rates. The Commissioner of
Insurance is an elected official who has the ultimate authority to permit or deny rate increases based on strict evidence of need offered by insurers.
This proposition would place heath insurance within the existing insurance code providing overview by the Commissioner as is true for other types
of insurance and permitting citizens to challenge rate increases. It will make public the data insurance companies offer so consumers may contest
rate hikes as they do with existing insurance price increases. The Insurance Commissioner also must work with the Department of Managed Health
Care to assure that rate increases for health care insurers are justified and reasonable.
The proposition also ends the flawed rate standard requiringpre-existingcoverage. Auto insurance companies have tried to justify rate differences
for the previously uninsured. That phony issue would now be banned in all types of insurance saving ratepayers across the boards.

PROPOSITION 46: Drug and Alcohol Testing of Doctors. Medical Negligence Lawsuits. Initiative Status.
Recommendation: OPPOSE
This proposition is being offered as a consumer/victim benefit to raise the cap on MICRA, the 1975 Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act. Set
at $250,000 when passed, MICRA caps on pain and suffering a major tort reform today is equal to about $57,000. There is little question that
such an increase for people needing permanent or long-term care should be reviewed.
However, that is not the meat of this proposition at all. The full weight of the propositions language is about presumptive addiction in medical
personnel. The sponsors insist that preventable medical errors cause 440,000 deaths nationally per year while other sources rate it at about 98,000.
There is an equal assertion in the proposition that one-third of all physicians will, at some time in their lives, have an alcohol or drug impairment.
This sole source, Annals of Internal Medicine, 2006, is at odds with other research and has clearly been selected to strengthen the argument. More
to the point, there is no support for the assertion that substance use and medical error are linked.
Much preventable medical error comes from the fact medicine itself is imperfect. It is often linked to the use of pharmaceuticals or devices that are
later found to be inherently dangerous or inappropriate for any given person. Asserting that the insobriety of our medical personnel is the main
cause for avoidable deaths simply does not stand up to scrutiny.
By demanding routine drug and alcohol testing of doctors, we make a presumption of guilt. The Medical Board of California routinely suspends
or disciplines impaired physicians giving evidence that this is not thehiddenproblem asserted by the proposition. Therefore, testing is a violation
of Fourth Amendment rights and cannot in any way prevent the other factors from entering into the creation of avoidable medical errors.
Furthermore, Section 1714.85 asserts thereshall be a presumption of professional negligence in any action against a health care provider arising
from an act or omission by a physician or surgeon who tested positive for drugs or alcoholeven if the cause has nothing to do with that individuals
acts. There is no alternative suggested for diversion and treatment of those who do have problems; suspension and dismissal are the only remedies
even where no harm has occurred.
Finally, because one author of this proposition lost his children to a prescription-drug addicted driver, the proposition adds Section 11165.4
in the Health and Safety Code that creates a database of all pharmaceuticals any individual receives. This would be a centralized, state-managed
base. It would not be confined to your individual health provider but open to any medical practitioner. Doctors would be prohibited from issuing
new prescriptions for painkillers to anyone with an existing prescription. Under this directive a person with a new injury or condition could
conceivably be refused painkillers simply because they had one fairly recently. The data bank would violate HIPPA Health Insurance Portability
and Accountability Act that supposedly renders ones medical history private and imposes a non-medical standard on the treatment of patients
thereby removing all discretion from physicians.
In sum, this effort to prevent medical error and the presence of impaired drivers on our roads targets the wrong issues and creates a both a
presumption of guilt and punitive actions that will impede good health care and will simply inject more distrust and fewer solutions in our health
and judicial systems.

Ballot Recommendations for the November 4, 2014 California General Election

PROPOSITION 47: Criminal Sentences. Misdemeanor Penalties. Initiative Statute.

Recommendation: SUPPORT
This is perhaps the single biggest opportunity to end thecradle to prisonpipeline and the horrific increase in our prison population.
This proposition converts all non-violent offenses specified (shoplifting, low-level drug possession, petty theft, etc.) to misdemeanors rather than
felonies. It assures that anyone convicted of violent crimes such as murder, rape, child molestation, will not be included in this alteration of
sentencing. Sentences of those convicted of misdemeanors will serve time in county jails rather than prisons with money from the prison system
directed to those jails.
This is consistent with our support of changes in the three strikes law; it upholds the intent of Prop. 36 drug diversion courts, and is a sensible
alternative to the prison industry that has grown out of all proportion over the past 40 years. It would level the incarceration discrepancies between
races by keeping all such offenses for non-violent offenders as misdemeanors rather than subjecting people of color to the kinds of discretionary
sentences for minor crimes that lead to long felony records.
The proposition also creates the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Fund by diverting existing funds in the Department of Education and mental
health funds toward crime prevention and victim support programs all of which has been long needed. This may be the alteration in justice we have
long awaited. It has the support of many organizations including those in criminal justice systems and virtually no opposition.

PROPOSITION 48: Indian Gaming Compacts. Referendum.

Recommendation: OPPOSE
This is a referendum on two existing gaming compacts permitting certain First Nations people to run a casino not on tribal lands. The compact was
ratified by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians and the Wiyot Tribe. It was ratified by Governor Brown and
the state Legislature and includes a total exemption from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regulations.
The measure has to be passed by a majority of voters; however, since it was created by the federal BIA, its not clear at all what would occur if voters
were to turn it down. The opposition consists primarily of Table Mountain Rancheria and Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians.
There is a one-time major payment of between $16-35 million due to local governments in Madera County with annual payments of around $10
million per year for 20 years to both the local governments and the state. Income growth, however, will be offset by revenue losses in other parts of
the surrounding area, hence the battle of the indigenous nations.
CCCI opposes this in large part due to the obliteration of CEQA compliance. We support and uphold the rights of First Nations people to determine
their own lives but not to the elimination of factors that impact both them and their neighbors on common environmental issues.
Opposition is, however, probably meaningless since BIA already approved this project, and our vote may or may not have an effect on that decision.
However, we strongly oppose the states disingenuous role and wish to make opposition to that decision crystal clear.

PROPOSITION 49
Removed from the ballot by court order.

Spread the Word!

We encourage members and friends to distribute these ballot guides from
now until the election through IMPACT Sundays. More information on
IMPACT Sundays is available on our website. We thank you for your interest
in encouraging active deliberation on these and all issues that affect our
democratic process and our moral perspectives as people of faith. If you find
these recommendations helpful, please help defray the considerable cost with
a contribution to California Council of Churches IMPACT. You can help us
by making sure we have your email address! Because of the cost of postage,
we must cut costs by sending our mailings electronically. Please sign up by
clicking the Join Our Mailing List button on our website!

For more information and the latest updates, please visit www.churchimpact.org
Rev. Dr. Rick Schlosser
Executive Director
Elizabeth Sholes
Director of Public Policy
www.churchimpact.org

Ballot Proposition Recommendations

General Election November 4, 2014
4044 Pasadena Avenue
Sacramento CA 95821

Time Limited Please Expedite

Sacramento CA
Permit #1411

PAID
Non-Profit Org
U.S. Postage