Look Up Past Elections

Propositions

Please note: There may be court-ordered changes to these analyses before they appear in the Secretary of State's Official Voter Information Guide.


Overview of State Bond Debt (November 4, 2014)

This section describes the state’s bond debt. It also discusses how Proposition 1—the $7.5 billion water bond proposal—would affect state bond costs.

Proposition 1
November 04, 2014
Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014. AB 1471 (Chapter 188, Statutes of 2014), Rendon. Bond Measure.

A YES vote on this measure means: The state could sell $7.1 billion in additional general obligation bonds—as well as redirect $425 million in unsold general obligation bonds that were previously approved by voters for resource-related uses—to fund various water-related programs. A NO vote on this measure means: The state could not sell $7.1 billion in additional general obligation bonds to fund various water-related programs. In addition, $425 million in unsold general obligation bonds would continue to be available for resource-related uses as previously approved by voters.

Proposition 2
November 04, 2014
State Reserve Policy. ACAX2 1 (Resolution Chapter 1, Statutes of 2013-14 Second Extraordinary Session, J. Pérez).

A YES vote on this measure means: Existing state debts likely would be paid faster. There would be new rules for state budget reserves. Local school district budget reserves would be capped in some years. A NO vote on this measure means: Rules for payment of state debts, state budget reserves, and local school district reserves would not change.

Proposition 43
November 04, 2014
REMOVED: Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2012. SBx7 2, Cogdill (Chapter 3, Statutes of 2009). Bond Measure.

NOTE: Proposition 43 was removed and Proposition 1 was added to the ballot.

Proposition 44
November 04, 2014
REMOVED: ACAx2 1. (Resolution Chapter 1, 2014), Perez. State Reserve Policy.

NOTE: Proposition 44 has been removed from the ballot and replaced with Proposition 2.

Proposition 45
November 04, 2014
Approval of Healthcare Insurance Rate Changes. Initiative Statute.

A YES vote on this measure means: Rates for individual and small group health insurance would need to be approved by the Insurance Commissioner before taking effect. A NO vote on this measure means: State regulators would continue to have the authority to review, but not approve, rates for individual and small group health insurance.

Proposition 46
November 04, 2014
Drug and Alcohol Testing of Doctors. Medical Negligence Lawsuits. Initiative Statute.

A YES vote on this measure means: The cap on medical malpractice damages for such things as pain and suffering would be increased from $250,000 to $1.1 million and adjusted annually for future inflation. Health care providers would be required to check a statewide prescription drug database before prescribing or dispensing certain drugs to a patient for the first time. Hospitals would be required to test certain physicians for alcohol and drugs. A NO vote on this measure means: The cap on medical malpractice damages for such things as pain and suffering would remain at $250,000 and not be subject to annual inflation adjustments. Health care providers would not be required to check a statewide prescription database before prescribing or dispensing drugs. Hospitals would not be required to test physicians for alcohol and drugs.

Proposition 47
November 04, 2014
Criminal Sentences. Misdemeanor Penalties. Initiative Statute.

A YES vote on this measure means: Criminal offenders who commit certain nonserious and nonviolent drug and property crimes would be sentenced to reduced penalties (such as shorter terms in jail). State savings resulting from the measure would be used to support school truancy and dropout prevention, victim services, mental health and drug abuse treatment, and other programs designed to keep offenders out of prison and jail. A NO vote on this measure means: Penalties for offenders who commit certain nonserious and nonviolent drug and property crimes would not be reduced.

Proposition 48
November 04, 2014
Referendum on Indian Gaming Compacts

A YES vote on this measure means: The state’s compacts with the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians and the Wiyot Tribe would go into effect. As a result, North Fork would be able to construct and operate a new casino in Madera County and would be required to make various payments to state and local governments, Wiyot, and other tribes. A NO vote on this measure means: The state’s compacts with North Fork and Wiyot would not go into effect. As a result, neither tribe could begin gaming unless new compacts were approved by the state and federal governments.

Proposition 49
November 04, 2014
REMOVED: SB 1272, Lieu. Campaign Finance: Advisory Election.

NOTE: On August 11, 2014, Proposition 49 was removed from the ballot by order of the California Supreme Court.