California Conservative

Click on image to enlarge.
Then to share the guide with others by email,
right-click the image and then select “Send image…”
Or simply click here

UPDATE: Official Election Results (LIVE)

Polling Place Locator

Official Election Information

DIRECTORY of CONTESTS (via SmartVoter.org)
Find information about contests and candidates on the November 7 ballot in California State Government:

* State Executive
* US Senate
* US Representative
* State Senate
* State Assembly
* Board of Equalization
* Judicial

Directory of State Propositions:

Proposition 1A — Transportation Funding Protection
Should the California Constitution be amended to further protect the state sales tax revenues for transportation purposes from general-purpose use and require any funds borrowed to be repaid to the transportation fund?

CC: In other words, politicians should be limited from “raiding the cookie jar” i.e. taking funds dedicated for one purpose (and for which we’ve been taxed) and appropriating the money to another. It’s about accountability. This makes sense. VOTE YES

Proposition 1B — Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security
Should the state sell $19.9 billion in general obligation bonds to fund state and local transportation improvement projects to relieve congestion, improve movement of goods, improve air quality, and enhance safety and security of the transportation system?

CC: Better roads, better air quality. VOTE YES (and why do we need more money? see above)

Proposition 1C — Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2006
Should the state sell $2.9 billion in general obligation bonds to fund housing for lower-income residents and development in urban areas near public transportation?

CC: Translation: Create more slums and concentrated pockets of poverty at tax payers’ expense. VOTE NO

Proposition 1D — Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities
Should the state sell $10.4 billion in general obligation bonds to fund repair and upgrade of public schools, including kindergarten through grade 12, community colleges, and state universities?

CC: Every election cycle, California taxpayers get hit up for more money “for the kids.” What is happening to all the funding? Send a message to politicians that they need to look at spending more wisely, and that our taxpayers wallets aren’t bottomless. VOTE NO

Proposition 1E — Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention
Should the state sell $4.1 billion in general obligation bonds to finance disaster preparedness and flood prevention projects at the state and local levels?

CC: See New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Say no more. VOTE YES

Proposition 83 — Sex Offenders. Sexually Violent Predators. Punishment, Residence Restrictions and Monitoring
Should California amend existing laws relating to violent and habitual sex offenders and child molesters to increase penalties and monitoring?

CC: We have zero tolerance for child molesters. The laws and penalties aren’t harsh enough. VOTE YES

Proposition 84 — Water Quality, Safety and Supply. Flood Control. Natural Resource Protection. Park Improvements
Should the state issue $5.4 billion in bonds for a wide variety of projects related to water safety, rivers, beaches, levees, watersheds, and parks and forests?

CC: As Bill Leanord from the California State Board of Equalization writes, “This measure should have been titled the ‘Special-Interest-Hidden-Agenda-Bond’”. Only a very small percentage of the money raised will be allocated for improvements. This bond represents a significant tax increase. VOTE NO

Proposition 85 — Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy
Should the California Constitution be amended to require notification of the parent or legal guardian of an unemancipated pregnant minor at least 48 hours before performing an abortion?

CC: The rights of parenthood should not be overruled by government. This bill is talking about legal minors and therefore parents are the lawful guardians. They should have the right to know before a major medical procedure is practiced on their child. VOTE YES

Proposition 86 — Tax on Cigarettes
Should the state impose an additional tax of $2.60 per cigarette pack to fund new and expanded health services, health insurance for children, and expand tobacco use prevention programs?

CC: You may hate smokers. But don’t let government make scapegoats of them in order to finance more bureacracy and squander. VOTE NO

Proposition 87 — Alternative Energy. Research, Production, Incentives. Tax on California Oil Producers
Should California establish a $4 billion Clean Alternative Energy Program to reduce California’s oil and gasoline consumption by 25 percent through incentives for alternative energy, education, and training?

CC: Higher prices at the pump. More bureacracy. No accountability. No thanks. VOTE NO

Proposition 88 — Education Funding. Real Property Parcel Tax
Should the California Constitution be amended to levy an annual $50 real property tax on most parcels with the funds allocated to five K-12 education programs?

CC: Translation: Should homeowners be taxed more? (See 1D) VOTE NO

Proposition 89 — Political Campaigns. Public Financing. Corporate Tax Increase.
Should eligible candidates for state elective offices receive public campaign funding that is supported by new taxes on corporations and financial institutions, and should contribution limits be imposed on those candidates that do not receive public campaign funding?

CC: New taxes against corporations? Because California doesn’t have enough? This proposition fails on many levels, and don’t trust government to reform itself. VOTE NO

Proposition 90 — Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property
Should the California Constitution be amended to require government to pay property owners for substantial economic losses resulting from some new laws and rules, and limit government authority to take ownership of private property?

CC: You’ve heard about this issue before: This proposition is about “eminent domain,” which is when the government comes in, seizes your home or land and your property value. Should the government be required to treat real estate owners fairly? VOTE YES

UPDATE:
Michelle Malkin: “Nancy Pelosi Surfaces…”

RELATED:
No on Proposition 89
Prop. 87: Deceptively Marketed
Yes on Prop 85 — Protect California’s Children
Prop. 87 — Economic Disaster for California

Technorati Tags: Election 2006, California, Schwarzenegger, McClintock, McPherson, Poizner, Strickland, Pelosi, Boxer, Prop. 84, Prop. 85,Prop. 86, Prop. 87, Prop. 88, Prop. 89, Prop. 90

This entry was posted on Tuesday, November 7th, 2006 at 6:10 pm and is filed under California, Elections, Activism, Sacramento. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.