STATE PROPOSITIONS

California voters face 15 statewide propositions on Tuesday’s ballot on issues ranging from affirmation action to campaign reform. here is a quick look at each of the 15 measures, along with a checklist to use as you evaluate each issue.

*

PROPOSITION 204

What it would do: Authorize the sale of $995 million in general obligation bonds to finance restoration of the San Francisco Bay and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta estuary, enhance clean water supplies, protect wildlife and ensure safe drinking water.

FOR

Argument for: Provides the basis for a statewide solution to water supply needs

Supporters: Gov. Pete Wilson, state legislature, conservationists, and major governmental and agricultural water users.

AGAINST

Argument against: Would increase state’s bonded indebtedness for questionable projects.

Opponents: Libertarian Party of California; Ted Brown, Pasadena insurance adjuster; and Dennis Schlumpf, director of the Tahoe City Public Utility District.

PROPOSITION 205

What it would do: Provide for the sale of $700 million in general obligation bonds for the construction, remodeling and replacement of local jails and juvenile halls.

FOR

Argument for: Local jails need to be expanded and improved to handle increasing criminal population.

Supporters: Sheriffs Sherman Block of Los Angeles County, and Harriet C. Salarno of Justice for Murder Victims.

AGAINST

Argument against: Would increase tax burden in building jails that are not needed.

Opponents: Ronald Payne, a National Guard military policeman; Libertarian party of California and Ted Brown, Pasadena insurance adjuster.

*

PROPOSITION 206

What it would do: Authorize $400 million in general obligation bonds to finance home loans to California veterans.

FOR

Argument for: It demonstrates support, at not cost to taxpayers, for the sacrifices made by California veterans.

Supporters: Lt. Gov. Gray Davis, Assemblyman Jim Morrissey (R-Santa Ana) and state Sen. Don Rogers (R-Tehachapi)

AGAINST

Argument against: The state shouldn’t be duplicating feral home loan programs for veterans.

Opponents: Willard Michlin, Glendale real estate broker; Joseph B. Miller, retired Sacramento airman; and Ted Brown, Pasadena insurance adjuster.

*

PROPOSITION 207

What it would do: Prohibit the Legislature from setting limits on attorneys’ fees and generally restate the current definition of a frivolous lawsuit.

FOR

Argument for: Penalizes bad lawyers while retaining contingency fee protections of clients.

Supporters: Consumer Attorneys of California

AGAINST

Argument against: Enables attorneys to bypass restrictions on fees.

Opponents: Assn. for California Tort Reform, California Chamber of Commerce and the California affiliate of the National Federation of Independent Business.

*

PROPOSITION 208

What it would do: Impose contribution limits on state and local candidates, authorize voluntary spending limits, prohibit lobbyists from making or arranging donations, and ban transfers of funds among candidates.

FOR

Argument for: Would establish limits on campaign contributions and help make politicians more accountable to voters.

Supporters: California Common Cause, League of Women Voters and American Assn. of Retired Persons.

AGAINST

Argument against: Sets contribution limits too high.

Opponents: California Public Interest Research Group, Assn. of Community Organizations for Reform Now and Richard Solomon, law professor.

*

PROPOSITION 209

What it would do: Prohibit discrimination and eliminate affirmative action programs in state and local government employment, contracting and admission to public universities.

FOR

Argument for: Advances the state’s goal of eliminating gender and racial discrimination.

Supporters: Gov. Pete Wilson, UC Regent Ward Connerly and California Republican Party.

AGAINST

Argument against: Goes too far in eliminating equal opportunity and affirmative action programs for qualified individuals.

Opponents: California Teachers Assn., National Organization for Women and various government employee unions.

*

PROPOSITION 210

What it would do: Increase the minimum wage in California from $4.25 an hour to $5 on March 1, and to $5.75 on March 1, 1998.

FOR

Argument for: Helps restore the purchasing power of the working poor.

Supporters: California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO, various clergy leaders, League of Women Voters and Consumer Federation of California.

AGAINST

Argument against: Would result in fewer jobs and more hardship for small business.

Opponents: Gov. Pete Wilson, California restaurant Assn., California Hotel & Motel Assn. and California Farm Bureau Federation.

*

PROPOSITION 211

What it would do: Make it easier for individuals to sue for securities fraud involving retirement investments and shift the burden of proof from the plaintiffs to defendants.

FOR

Argument for: Penalizes corporate executives who defraud investors in public companies.

Supporters: Attorney William Lerach of San Diego, Los Angeles City Atty. James K. Hahn and various retirees and plaintiff attorneys throughout the country.

AGAINST

Argument against: Invites meritless lawsuits that would hurt businesses in the state and set back recovery of California.

Opponents: Silicon Valley computer companies, California Chamber of Commerce, California Taxpayers Assn. and the California affiliate of the National Federation of Independent Business.

*

PROPOSITION 212

What it would do: Impose contribution limits of $100 for most local and legislative candidates and $200 for statewide office seekers; repeal current ban on speaking fees and restrictions on gifts to officeholders and forbid lobbyists to make or arrange contributions.

FOR

Argument for: Restricts contributions to state and local office seekers and repeals restriction on receipt of cash and other gifts by officials.

Supporters: Former Gov. Edmund G. “Jerry” Brown Jr., California Public Interest Research Group and Don Vial, former member of state Fair political Practices Commission.

AGAINST

Argument against: Enables unions and others to exceed contribution limits imposed on individual donors.

Opponents: California League of Women Voters, California Common Cause, California Chamber of Commerce and American Assn. of Retired persons of California.

*

PROPOSITION

What it would do: 213

FOR

Argument for: Prohibit drunk drivers and uninsured motorists involved in traffic accidents from filing lawsuits that seek compensation for noneconomic damages such as pain and suffering; also would prohibit fleeing criminals involved in accidents from recovering any damages.

Supporters: State Insurance Commissioner Chuck Quackenbush, Highway Patrol Commissioner D.O. Helmick, Mothers Against Drunk Driving and American insurance Assn.

AGAINST

Argument against: Unfairly targets low-income motorists who cannot afford insurance.

Opponents: State Democratic Party, consumer activist Harvey Rosenfield, Consumer Action, California Consumer Attorneys Assn. and United Policyholders.

*

PROPOSITION 214

What it would do: Establish new regulatory controls over the managed health care industry, including HMOs, and outlaw physician “gag orders.”

FOR

Argument for: Protects patients against cost cutting that could jeopardize their health.

Supporters: Service Employees International Union, California Public Employees Retirement System, California Teachers Assn., and American Assn. of Retired Persons.

AGAINST

Argument against: Would dramatically increase costs of health care insurance.

Opponents: California Chamber of Commerce, health maintenance organizations and insurance companies.

*

PROPOSITION 215

What it would do: Enable individuals to legally grow or possess marijuana for medical use when prescribed in writing or orally by a physician; could be used for the treatment of cancer, AIDS, chronic pain “or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief.”

FOR

Argument for: Provides a measure of relief for the terminally ill and other sick people.

Supporters: Dist. Atty. Terence Hallinan of San Francisco, Assemblyman John Vasconcellos (D-Santa Clara), Cannabis Buyers Club of San Francisco, California Nurses Assn., and various physicians

AGAINST

Argument against: Marijuana has not been approved by federal authorities for treatment of any illness.

Opponents: Gov. Pete Wilson, Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren, California Medical Assn., U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Sheriff Brad Gates of Orange County and various law enforcement organizations.

*

PROPOSITION 216

What it would do: Enact new regulatory mechanisms on the managed health care industry and HMOs, including a prohibition against offering physicians financial inducements to cut costs, and will assess new taxes on the industry.

FOR

Argument for: Puts patients and their doctors in control of health care.

Supporters: California Nurses Assn., Ralph Nader and Harvey Rosenfield, consumer activists.

AGAINST

Argument against: Would cost Californians more money without extending health care to the uninsured.

Opponents: California Chamber of Commerce, California taxpayer Assn., health maintenance organizations and insurance companies.

*

PROPOSITION 217

What it would do: Restore the two top tax brackets of 10% and 11% for the highest personal income tax payers; the resulting $700 million in revenue would be allocated to schools and local government entities

FOR

Argument for: Provides local government and schools with funds to partially offset those taken to balance state budget.

Supporters: California Tax Reform Assn., various public employee labor, teachers and county supervisors.

AGAINST

Argument against: Unfairly taxes the wealthy.

Opponents: California Chamber of Commerce, National Federation of Independent Business, California Manufacturers Assn. and local chambers of commerce.

PROPOSITION 218

What it would do: Restrict ability of local governments to increase or impose general taxes, fees and special property assessments. Requires majority approval of voters for general tax increases and two-thirds approval for special tax levies.

FOR

Argument for: Gives voters bigger voice over levying of local taxes.

Supporters: California Chamber of Commerce, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn., state Republican Party and California Farm Bureau.

AGAINST

Argument against: Gives greater voting strength to corporate developers and landowners at expense of homeowners and renters.

Opponents: Police and fire chief associations, teacher and public employee unions, Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and other local officials.