Governor

Lieutenant governor

Secretary of State

State Controller

State Treasurer

Attorney general

Insurance Commissioner

Overview

District 1

District 2

District 3

District 4

Supreme Court

California Courts of Appeal

See California Courts of Appeal elections, 2006.

Proposition 1A

1A would amend the California constitution to limit the conditions under which the transfer of gasoline sales tax revenues from transportation costs to other uses may be allowed. Suspensions would be treated as loans to the General Fund which must be repaid in full, including interest, and suspensions would not be allowed more than twice every ten years. Additionally, all prior suspensions would need to be paid off before another suspension could be put into effect. Proposition 1A passed with 76.6% approval.

Proposition 1B

1B authorizes the state to sell $20 billion in bonds to fund transportation projects related to congestion, the movement of goods, air quality and transportation security. Proposition 1B passed with 61.3% approval.

Proposition 1C

1C authorizes the state to sell $2.85 billion in bonds to fund new and existing housing and development programs. Proposition 1C passed with 57.5% approval.

Proposition 1D

1D allows the state to sell $10.4 billion in bonds to fund construction and building modernization for K-12 schools and institutions of higher education. Proposition 1D passed with 56.6% approval.

Proposition 1E

1E authorizes the state to sell $4.1 billion in bonds for flood management programs. Proposition 1E passed with 64.0% approval.

Proposition 83

Increases the severity of punishments for sex crimes in several ways. It broadens the definition of certain sex offenses, lengthens penalties, prohibits probation for some crimes, eliminates early release credits for some offenses, extends parole for some specific sex offenses, and increases court-imposed fees on sex offenders. 83 is a lengthy and complex proposition, a complete summary of which can be found here.^[16] Proposition 83 passed with 70.5% approval.

It effectively blocks offenders from living in the vast majority of the areas of large California cities.

Within 24 hours of its passage, its enforcement was blocked by U.S. District Judge Susan Illston, who ruled in a lawsuit filed by an existing offender based on its retroactive nature.^[17]

Proposition 84

Allows the state to sell $5.4 billion in bonds to fund programs for safe water supply and quality, flood control, park improvements and natural resource protection. Proposition 84 passed with 53.8% approval.

Proposition 85

Amends the state constitution to require, except in certain circumstances, doctors to inform the parent or legal guardians of an unemancipated minor at least 48 hours before an abortion is performed on that minor; a process by which the minor can obtain a legal waiver of the notification requirement is also included in the text. Proposition 85 failed to pass with 45.9% approval.

Proposition 86

Amends the state constitution to increase the excise tax on tobacco cigarettes by $2.60 per pack, in order to fund healthcare expansion. Proposition 86 failed to pass, with 48.0% approval.^[18]

Proposition 87

Imposes a tax of 1.5% to 6% on oil extracted from California (excluding offshore drilling on federally managed land) with the goal of decreasing petroleum consumption in California by 25%. The $4 billion raised by this tax would go towards research into alternative energy sources, as well as incentives for businesses and vehicle owners utilizing alternative energy and energy efficient technology. Proposition 87 failed to pass with 45.3% approval.

Proposition 88

Amends the state constitution to allow for a $50 "parcel tax" on the ownership of plots of land (with exclusions for certain elderly or disabled landowners) to provide additional public school funding. Proposition 88 failed to pass with 23.1% approval.

Proposition 89

Raises income tax on corporations and financial institutions by .2% in order to fund expanded public campaign funding for eligible state office candidates, and imposes new limits on contributions to campaigns. Proposition 89 failed to pass with 25.5% approval.

Proposition 90

Limits the ability of state or local governments to seize private land for public use, and significantly increases the compensation the government must provide to landowners if new laws result in a change in value to their property. This proposition is part of a national response to the Supreme Court case Kelo v. City of New London, in which the Court asserted the right of governments to seize land for private development if it benefits the public at large. Proposition 90 failed to pass with 47.5% approval.