2005 Special Election Proposition Analysis PROPOSITION 73 - PARENTAL NOTIFICATION AND ABORTION OVERVIEW: Proposition 73, if enacted, would make changes to California’s constitution that would require physicians performing abortions on minors to notify at least one of the minor’s parents no less than 48 hours prior to performing the abortion, with certain exceptions. Legal action could be taken against physicians who fail to provide the required notification. ARGUMENTS FOR:

• Allows parents to be informed about their child’s decisions.
• Allows parents to counsel or seek counseling for their child, if necessary.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST:

• Vulnerable, scared teenagers, some from abusive homes, who can’t communicate with their parent/guardian, cannot easily go to court for a waiver of notification.
• Illegal abortions among minors could increase.
• Allows for more potentially costly lawsuits against physicians.

IMPLICATIONS: Proposition 73 allows parents more of an ability to be involved in the decision making process of minors who are considering having an abortion. The potential for a decrease in abortions among minors exists because of this parental involvement. However, the possibility also exists that minors in this situation would resort to illegal abortions to avoid involvement of their parent(s). This proposition also places an added burden on physicians to comply with notification requirements and creates an increase in potential litigation for the medical community. Minors who choose to go to court to have the notification requirement waved would cause an additional burden on the juvenile court system, both physically and financially (since minors choosing this option would bear no financial responsibility for court fees, etc.). PROPOSITION 74 PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS – WAITING PERIOD FOR PERMENANT STATUS AND DISMISSAL PROCESS OVERVIEW: Proposition 74, if enacted, would mean the probationary period for new teachers would be extended from two to five years, and school districts could dismiss permanent teachers who received two consecutive unsatisfactory performance evaluations using a modified dismissal process. ARGUMENTS FOR:

• Makes it easier to remove tenured teacher after two consecutive unsatisfactory evaluations.
• Requires teachers to perform well for five years instead of just two before they become eligible for permanent “guaranteed” employment.
• With a five-year waiting period, teachers have more opportunity to demonstrate expertise and that they deserve tenure. Principals have more time to evaluate teachers.
• Improves the quality of our teachers by rewarding the best teachers and weeding out problem teachers.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST:

• Could reduce the supply of teachers because the longer probationary period and modified dismissal process might be perceived as reducing job security.
• Won’t improve student achievement, punishes hardworking teachers and ignores our schools’ real problems.
• Will force school districts to divert tens of millions of dollars out of the classroom for administrative expenses.
• Does absolutely nothing to “reward high quality teachers”.

IMPLICATIONS: Proposition 74 would increase the length of time required before a teacher may become a permanent employee from two complete consecutive school years to five complete consecutive school years. This measure would apply to teachers whose probationary period commenced during or after the 2003-2004 fiscal year. Proposition 74 would also modify the process by which school boards can dismiss a permanent teaching employee who receives two consecutive unsatisfactory performance evaluations. PROPOSITION 75: GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE UNION DUES OVERVIEW: Proposition 75, if enacted, would require the consent of public employee union members (and non-members) anytime fees or dues paid to the union are used for political purposes. Currently, public employee unions may use dues paid by members for political purposes without prior consent; dues paid by non-members cannot be used for political purposes. ARGUMENTS FOR:

• Public employee union members would no longer be required to allow their union dues to be used for political purposes.
• Public employee union members would be given more control over how their dues are used.
• Only a small group of public union leaders make decisions about how union dues are spent; prop 75 would change this.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST:

• Requiring consent from public employee union members would tie up funds in a lengthy bureaucratic process, hindering the union’s ability to take political action when necessary to protect their members (be they union members or not).
• Public employee unions would be placed at a disadvantage compared to private corporations who can use shareholder dollars for political purposes without consent.
• Public employees’ privacy concerning their political views could be violated because of a required disclosure form, mandated by prop. 75.

IMPLICATIONS: Proposition 75 could give private corporations an unfair advantage in influencing political decisions because shareholder funds can be used immediately to support or oppose initiatives. Conversely, public employee unions would have to secure prior written consent from all of their members (and non-members, whose dues already cannot be used for political purposes without consent) to take similar political action. This could adversely affect public employees because their unions will not be able to advocate on their behalf without going through a lengthy and time-consuming process. Public employees serve the public so anything that affects them will eventually affect all Californians. If policies are enacted that are unfavorable to healthcare workers, for example, people with disabilities could be negatively affected along with the workers themselves. Unions which represent the rights of home-care workers could also be hampered in their efforts to improve programs and services that benefit both the workers and the consumers. While proposition 75 would allow members of public employee unions to give their consent when union dues are to be used for political purposes, it would severely limit the unions’ ability to take effective political action. This means that private corporations could be given an opportunity to influence policy, while similar public union efforts will be restricted. PROPOSITION 76 - STATE BUDGET AND SCHOOL FUNDING. THE “LIVE WITHIN OUR MEANS ACT” OVERVIEW: Proposition 76, if enacted, would give the Governor new authority to single-handedly reduce state spending during certain fiscal situations. Budgets for future years would be based on the prior year’s spending and an average of revenues from the 3 previous years. Proposition 76 would also make changes to education spending by altering minimum funding guarantees established by Proposition 98. ARGUMENTS FOR:

• Revenues gained in excess of spending limits can be set aside in a “rainy day” account to be used in case of future revenue shortfalls.
• Prohibits the State from overspending.
• Requires that taxes dedicated for highways and roads are spent on those projects and prohibits “borrowing” from these funds to balance the budget.
• When budget is delayed, State spending would continue at prior year’s rates; currently, spending is reduced or eliminated until budget is passed.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST:

• Revenues gained in excess of spending limits cannot be used to restore funding to programs from which they were originally cut.
• Gives Governor unchecked power over budget and reduces system of checks and balances.
• Spending for vital programs could be gradually reduced over time, even if revenues increase.
• Gradually lowers minimum funding guarantee for k-14 school spending.

IMPLICATIONS: Proposition 76 allows the Governor, and all future Governors, to reduce spending by making cuts to any state-funded program or service, without the consent or agreement of the legislature. This could be dangerous because it eliminates the Governor’s ability to consider diverse perspectives when making budgetary decisions; the Governor will be relying solely on his or her own judgment. People with disabilities, as well as any population that relies on state-funded programs, could be adversely affected if severe cuts are made to the programs that serve them. Because Proposition 76 uses the previous year’s spending rates to determine current budget spending, budgets will be made using the reduced spending rate for programs that experienced cuts the previous year. This means that funding for vital programs could be slowly, but continuously decreased over time. This will be especially apparent within all social service programs, including those that affect the disability community. Proposition 76 will also restrict spending, even when revenues increase. New, reduced spending limits will be written into the budget based on spending cuts made the previous year. Because of this, an increase in revenues will not put money back into the programs that experienced cuts. Instead, this money will be divided up in the following way: 25% will go into a reserve fund – the so-called “rainy day” account. 50% will go toward repayment of bonds, loans, and other state debt. 25% will go toward road, highway, and school construction projects. While these are all valuable and important causes, the revenue funding them is not truly “extra” revenue. It is money that was originally taken from vital, essential programs and services that will not be restored. Federally funded entitlement programs, such as those that support nursing homes, cannot be altered under this law. However services such as IHSS (In Home Supportive Services), MSSP (Multipurpose Senior Services Program), and almost all other state-funded, community service based programs will be eligible for spending cuts. If funding is reduced to these programs, they will become inoperable over time because funding will never be able to be restored, even when State revenues increase. There is a very real possibility that nursing homes will become the only option for the elderly and those with disabilities, even though this would actually be more costly for the State.

PROPOSITION 77 - REDISTRICTING OVERVIEW: Proposition 77, if enacted, would change California’s constitution by removing the ability of the legislature to redraw congressional and legislative district boundaries and instead, give this authority to a 3-member panel of retired judges. The new redistricting plan would then be used in the next statewide election and be placed on the general election ballot for voter approval. ARGUMENTS FOR:

• The legislature would no longer be able to redraw its own districts.
• Voters would be able to approve redistricting plan via the General Election ballot.
• Spending to create future redistricting plans would be limited to ½ the amount used in 2001 (adjusted for inflation).

ARGUMENTS AGAINST:

• The panel is selected, at random, from a list of candidates with few qualifications other than a desire to serve, chosen by members of the legislature from political parties ‘other than their own.’ Bipartisanship is guaranteed but may not fairly represent California voters and the parties they choose.
• Redistricting plan would govern the next statewide elections, before voters have a chance to approve the plan.
• If a redistricting plan is rejected by voters, additional taxpayer funds will be required in formulating a new plan.

IMPLICATIONS: It is unlikely that Proposition 77 will make the redrawing of districts more fair or representative due to the limited scope and number of those who will be constructing the redistricting plan. There will be a total of three people deciding how to redraw district boundaries. With so few people deciding how to redistrict the state, there is a risk that California’s diverse socio-economic, racial, and ethnic diversity might not be fairly considered or represented during this process. This 3-member panel is further unlikely to have experience related to people with disabilities or have a disability perspective. This means that districts could still be drawn that are not representative of the entire population. The creation of the 3-member panel of judges that would be designing the new redistricting plan is also flawed. Retired judges volunteer to serve on the panel and there is no quality assurance requirements of these volunteers. Members of the legislature then nominate a number of these volunteers from a party other than their own to be placed in a pool. Three names are randomly drawn from this pool to form the panel. This could be dangerous because there is no guarantee that the resulting 3-member panel will fairly represent the political parties and its breakdown in California. With only three members serving on the panel, the process of random drawing further reduces the ability of the panel to completely consider all of California’s diverse population. Voters will be able to approve any redistricting plan developed by the 3-member panel, but they will only be able to do so after the plan is used in the first statewide elections. If the plan is rejected, those elected while the plan was in use will continue to serve full terms. This could negatively affect minority populations, including the disability community if those that are elected do not fairly represent the views of these groups. PROPOSITION 78 - DISCOUNT ON PRESCRIPTIONS DRUGS OVERVIEW: Proposition 78 (Cal Rx) is an initiative sponsored by The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA). The measure, if enacted, would offer prescription drug companies the option to voluntarily reduce prescription drug prices to the “lowest commercial price” for qualifying consumers. Consumers participating in the program must meet income restrictions and pay an annual fee of $15.00. ARGUMENTS FOR:

• Cal Rx can begin immediately because participation by drug companies is voluntary.
• Guarantees lowest “commercial” price for prescription drugs for consumers.
• Some pharmacies and drug manufacturers have already agreed to participate in the Cal Rx program.
• The ability of drug companies to place their name on outreach materials serves as an incentive for voluntary participation.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST:

• Commercial price does not include prices given to federal Medicaid programs, wholesale or retail pharmacies, or HMOs.
• There are no penalties to drug manufacturers and pharmacies for refusal to participate in the Cal Rx program.
• Income restrictions are too narrow and exclusionary.
• There are no options for small businesses to participate.
• The program can be easily terminated.

IMPLICATIONS: Proposition 78 could reduce out-of-pocket prescription drug costs for Californians who qualify to participate in the program. However, if drug companies do not volunteer to participate, the program can and will be terminated. The “lowest commercial price” does not guarantee that consumers will receive the lowest possible price for prescription drugs. Commercial pricing excludes prices given to wholesalers and to the Federal Medicare/Medicaid programs. Because of this, it is not clear how much money will actually be saved by consumers who participate in this program. Eligibility for consumers to participate in this program is exclusionary to a large number of Californians. Income restrictions are the only guideline used to determine eligibility, but factors such as money spent on medical expenses as a whole are not considered. This could be troublesome for people with disabilities who often spend thousands of dollars on things like medical equipment and supplies, even before budgeting for prescription drugs. If people in this situation earn more money than is allowed by the program, they are ineligible to participate, even if they must spend a great portion of that income on medical expenses. There is also no guarantee that drug companies will voluntarily participate. This means that it is possible that proposition 78 will cause no change whatsoever in the cost of prescription drugs for consumers. In fact, the program could be discontinued completely. PROPOSITION 79 - PRESCRIPTION DRUG DISCOUNTS AND STATE-NEGOTIATED REBATES OVERVIEW: Proposition 79 (Cal Rx Plus) is an initiative sponsored by Health Access that was placed on the ballot in response to proposition 78 (Cal Rx). This measure, if enacted, would offer prescription drug companies the option to voluntarily reduce prescription drug prices to rates comparable to Medicaid drug pricing for qualifying consumers. Drug companies who fail to volunteer could be dropped from Medi-Cal purchasing program, a costly penalty for refusal to participate. Consumers participating in the program must meet income restrictions and pay an annual fee of $10.00. ARGUMENTS FOR:

• There are penalties for drug manufacturers who refuse to participate.
• Drug prices could be reduced beyond the lowest “commercial” price because pricing will be based on current Medi-Cal rates.
• Eligibility for consumer participation in Cal Rx Plus in highly inclusive.
• There are provisions for businesses to receive assistance through Cal Rx Plus.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST:

• Access to some prescription medications could require prior authorization for current Medi-Cal recipients.'
• Consumers who do not qualify for Cal Rx Plus could see prescription drug costs rise.
• California’s share of Medicaid rebates could be adversely affected if drug manufacturers (who supply the rebates) are dropped from the Medi-Cal drug purchasing program.

IMPLICATIONS: Cal Rx Plus could reduce out-of-pocket costs of prescription drugs for a greater number of Californians. Income restrictions are wide-ranging and include people who spend more than 5% of their income on unreimbursed medical expenses. This is particularly important for people with disabilities who have a need for costly DME (Durable Medical Equipment). This program requests the voluntary participation of drug companies, but it also includes penalties for companies who refuse to participate. This makes it more likely that the program will actually reduce prescription drug prices for Californians. Drug companies must also agree to reduce prescription drug costs to rates at or below current Medicaid pricing. This means that consumers who participate in the program will truly receive the lowest price possible on their prescription drugs. There is some concern about the penalties imposed on drug companies who refuse to participate in the program. Because these companies would lose their current Medicaid contracts with the state, potential problems exist for current MediCal recipients. Prescription drugs that are only manufactured by companies who are dropped from the state’s contract may become more difficult for MediCal recipients to obtain. Prior authorization for these medications will then be required. People with disabilities and those with lower incomes who utilize MediCal services for their prescription medications could be inconvenienced if this occurs, but no prescription medications currently available through the MediCal program will be restricted.

PROPOSITION 80 - REGULATION OF ELECTRIC SERVICE PROVIDERS OVERVIEW: Proposition 80, if enacted, would place California’s Electric Service Providers (ESP) under regulation of the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC). Currently, ESP’s are in a process of deregulation that has been halted due to the energy crises of 2000/2001. This measure also puts into law several practices currently employed by the PUC, but not required by law and would require ESP’s to abide by these new laws. ARGUMENTS FOR:

• Likelihood of another “energy crisis” and potential for blackouts significantly decreased.
• Required percentage of renewable energy resources secured 7 years earlier than currently required by law.
• Best practices currently used by PUC become actual law.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST:

• Reduces consumer choice in electric service providers.
• Required percentage of renewable energy resources would become more difficult to increase.
• Potentially substantial administrative costs for the PUC.

IMPLICATIONS: Proposition 80 would require a more aggressive pursuit of renewable energy resources. Electric service providers, regulated by the PUC, would be required to make sure they have enough resources to provide adequate energy supply to consumers, thus eliminating potential blackout problems. This is especially important for people with disabilities who rely on electricity to operate necessary equipment and/or assistive technology. A resource planning process would be implemented to facilitate these requirements.