County Supervisors

Supervisors - 2nd District

Mark Ridley Thomas: 250,198 (61.4%)

Bernard C. Parks: 157,294 (38.6%)

Proposition 8

"California Marriage Protection Act"
Outlaws same-sex marriage by adding the following words to the state Constitution: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

APPROVED (91% of precincts reporting):

Yes 4,957,124 (51.9%);

No 4,600,692 (48.1%)

• Los Angeles Times editorial: NO on Proposition 8
  "It's the same sentence as in 2000: 'Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.' Yet the issue that will be put before voters Nov. 4 is radically different. This time, the wording would be used to rescind an existing constitutional right to marry. We fervently hope that voters, whatever their personal or religious convictions, will shudder at such a step and vote no on Proposition 8."

• Summary: Official summary from the state Legislative Analyst’s Office
  "This measure amends the California Constitution to specify that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. As a result, notwithstanding the California Supreme Court ruling of May 2008, marriage would be limited to individuals of the opposite sex, and individuals of the same sex would not have the right to marry in California."

• Analysis: Full analysis from the state Legislative Analyst’s Office
  "...notwithstanding the California Supreme Court ruling of May 2008, marriage would be limited to individuals of the opposite sex, and individuals of the same sex would not have the right to marry in California...."

• Full text from the state Attorney General’s Office

• Ballot Arguments: Pro and Con, with rebuttals, from the California Official Voter Information Guide

Proposition 7

"The Solar and Clean Energy Act of 2008"
Establishes mandatory renewable energy threshold for public and investor-owned utilities by 2010.

DEFEATED (91% of precincts reporting):

Yes 3,164,458 (34.9%);

No 5,887,470 (65.1%)

• Los Angeles Times editorial: NO on Proposition 7
  "Proposition 7 is the brainchild of Arizona billionaires John and Peter Sperling. The father-and-son team joins a long list of wealthy political dilettantes, such as Rob Reiner and Stephen Bing, who in recent years have been foisting well-meaning but wrongheaded ballot measures on the people of California. Memo to the millionaires: Please stop."

• Summary: Official summary from the state Legislative Analyst’s Office
  "This measure makes a number of changes regarding Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) and the permitting of electricity generating facilities and transmission lines. Primarily, the measure establishes additional, higher RPS targets for electricity providers, makes RPS requirements enforceable on publicly owned utilities...."

• Analysis: Full analysis from the state Legislative Analyst’s Office
  "The measure will increase the annual administrative costs of the Energy Commission by approximately $2.4 million due to new responsibilities and expansion of existing duties....In addition, the measure’s other requirements will increase annual administrative costs of the PUC by up to $1 million. These additional costs will result from greater workload related to the increased RPS targets. Under current law, these additional costs would be funded by fees paid by electricity customers...."

• Full text from the state Attorney General’s Office

• Ballot Arguments: Pro and Con, with rebuttals, from the California Official Voter Information Guide

Proposition 12

"California Veterans Bond"
Would extend the current Cal-Vet program, which helps veterans buy homes with lower interest rates. Veterans' payments historically have covered the cost of servicing the state bonds, but if they don't, lenders are repaid from the state's general fund. The Cal-Vet program began in 1921, and one of its most popular offerings is available today only to veterans who served before 1977. The measure would allow those who have served since them to take advantage of that particular loan subsidy.

APPROVED (91% of precincts reporting):

Yes 5,578,710 (63.5%);

No 3,219,487 (36.5%)

• Los Angeles Times editorial: YES on Proposition 12
  "For the 27th time since 1922, California voters are being asked to approve a bond issue to help veterans buy homes. This year's request, Proposition 12, is the largest ever -- $900 million. Yet voters should not hesitate to do what they've done 26 times before: Vote yes."

• Summary: Official summary from the state Legislative Analyst’s Office
  "This measure authorizes the state to sell $900 million in general obligation bonds for the Cal-Vet program. These bonds would provide sufficient funds for at least 3,600 additional veterans to receive loans."

• Analysis: Full analysis from the state Legislative Analyst’s Office
  "...Throughout its history, the Cal-Vet program has been totally supported by the participating veterans, at no direct cost to the taxpayer. However, because general obligation bonds are backed by the state, if the payments made by those veterans participating in the program do not fully cover the amount owed on the bonds, the state’s taxpayers would pay the difference...."

• Ballot Arguments: Pro and Con, with rebuttals, from the California Official Voter Information Guide

Proposition 10

"The California Renewable Energy and Clean Alternative Fuel Act"
Authorizes $5 billion in bonds ($9.8 billion with interest), much of which would provide rebates to buyers of hybrids and other alternative-fuel cars and fund research.

DEFEATED (91% of precincts reporting):

Yes 3,593,547 (40.0%);

No 5,389,682 (60.0%)

• Los Angeles Times editorial: NO on Proposition 10
  "Billionaire Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens, listed by Forbes as the 131st richest American, really, really wants your money. So much so that his natural-gas fueling company has shelled out $3.2 million to further the reprehensible scam known as Proposition 10."

• Summary: Official summary from the state Legislative Analyst’s Office
  "This measure allows the state to sell $5 billion in GO bonds for various renewable energy, alternative fuel, energy efficiency, and air emissions reduction purposes. It also designates various state agencies to administer different components of the measure. Finally, the measure specifies that not more than 1 percent of the funds in each account established by the measure may be used to pay for program administration."

• Analysis: Full analysis from the state Legislative Analyst’s Office
  "...The cost of these bonds would depend on interest rates in effect at the time they are sold and the time period over which they are repaid. The state would likely make principal and interest payments from the state’s General Fund over a period of 30 years. If the bonds were sold at an average interest rate of about 5 percent, the cost would be about $10 billion to pay off both the principal ($5 billion) and interest ($5 billion). The average payment would be about $335 million per year...."

• Full text from the state Attorney General’s Office

• Ballot Arguments: Pro and Con, with rebuttals, from the California Official Voter Information Guide

Prop. 8

Proposition 8

"California Marriage Protection Act"
Outlaws same-sex marriage by adding the following words to the state Constitution: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

APPROVED (91% of precincts reporting):

Yes 4,957,124 (51.9%);

No 4,600,692 (48.1%)

• Los Angeles Times editorial: NO on Proposition 8
  "It's the same sentence as in 2000: 'Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.' Yet the issue that will be put before voters Nov. 4 is radically different. This time, the wording would be used to rescind an existing constitutional right to marry. We fervently hope that voters, whatever their personal or religious convictions, will shudder at such a step and vote no on Proposition 8."

• Summary: Official summary from the state Legislative Analyst’s Office
  "This measure amends the California Constitution to specify that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. As a result, notwithstanding the California Supreme Court ruling of May 2008, marriage would be limited to individuals of the opposite sex, and individuals of the same sex would not have the right to marry in California."

• Analysis: Full analysis from the state Legislative Analyst’s Office
  "...notwithstanding the California Supreme Court ruling of May 2008, marriage would be limited to individuals of the opposite sex, and individuals of the same sex would not have the right to marry in California...."

• Full text from the state Attorney General’s Office

• Ballot Arguments: Pro and Con, with rebuttals, from the California Official Voter Information Guide

Proposition 7

"The Solar and Clean Energy Act of 2008"
Establishes mandatory renewable energy threshold for public and investor-owned utilities by 2010.

DEFEATED (91% of precincts reporting):

Yes 3,164,458 (34.9%);

No 5,887,470 (65.1%)

• Los Angeles Times editorial: NO on Proposition 7
  "Proposition 7 is the brainchild of Arizona billionaires John and Peter Sperling. The father-and-son team joins a long list of wealthy political dilettantes, such as Rob Reiner and Stephen Bing, who in recent years have been foisting well-meaning but wrongheaded ballot measures on the people of California. Memo to the millionaires: Please stop."

• Summary: Official summary from the state Legislative Analyst’s Office
  "This measure makes a number of changes regarding Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) and the permitting of electricity generating facilities and transmission lines. Primarily, the measure establishes additional, higher RPS targets for electricity providers, makes RPS requirements enforceable on publicly owned utilities...."

• Analysis: Full analysis from the state Legislative Analyst’s Office
  "The measure will increase the annual administrative costs of the Energy Commission by approximately $2.4 million due to new responsibilities and expansion of existing duties....In addition, the measure’s other requirements will increase annual administrative costs of the PUC by up to $1 million. These additional costs will result from greater workload related to the increased RPS targets. Under current law, these additional costs would be funded by fees paid by electricity customers...."

• Full text from the state Attorney General’s Office

• Ballot Arguments: Pro and Con, with rebuttals, from the California Official Voter Information Guide

Proposition 12

"California Veterans Bond"
Would extend the current Cal-Vet program, which helps veterans buy homes with lower interest rates. Veterans' payments historically have covered the cost of servicing the state bonds, but if they don't, lenders are repaid from the state's general fund. The Cal-Vet program began in 1921, and one of its most popular offerings is available today only to veterans who served before 1977. The measure would allow those who have served since them to take advantage of that particular loan subsidy.

APPROVED (91% of precincts reporting):

Yes 5,578,710 (63.5%);

No 3,219,487 (36.5%)

• Los Angeles Times editorial: YES on Proposition 12
  "For the 27th time since 1922, California voters are being asked to approve a bond issue to help veterans buy homes. This year's request, Proposition 12, is the largest ever -- $900 million. Yet voters should not hesitate to do what they've done 26 times before: Vote yes."

• Summary: Official summary from the state Legislative Analyst’s Office
  "This measure authorizes the state to sell $900 million in general obligation bonds for the Cal-Vet program. These bonds would provide sufficient funds for at least 3,600 additional veterans to receive loans."

• Analysis: Full analysis from the state Legislative Analyst’s Office
  "...Throughout its history, the Cal-Vet program has been totally supported by the participating veterans, at no direct cost to the taxpayer. However, because general obligation bonds are backed by the state, if the payments made by those veterans participating in the program do not fully cover the amount owed on the bonds, the state’s taxpayers would pay the difference...."

• Ballot Arguments: Pro and Con, with rebuttals, from the California Official Voter Information Guide

Proposition 10

"The California Renewable Energy and Clean Alternative Fuel Act"
Authorizes $5 billion in bonds ($9.8 billion with interest), much of which would provide rebates to buyers of hybrids and other alternative-fuel cars and fund research.

DEFEATED (91% of precincts reporting):

Yes 3,593,547 (40.0%);

No 5,389,682 (60.0%)

• Los Angeles Times editorial: NO on Proposition 10
  "Billionaire Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens, listed by Forbes as the 131st richest American, really, really wants your money. So much so that his natural-gas fueling company has shelled out $3.2 million to further the reprehensible scam known as Proposition 10."

• Summary: Official summary from the state Legislative Analyst’s Office
  "This measure allows the state to sell $5 billion in GO bonds for various renewable energy, alternative fuel, energy efficiency, and air emissions reduction purposes. It also designates various state agencies to administer different components of the measure. Finally, the measure specifies that not more than 1 percent of the funds in each account established by the measure may be used to pay for program administration."

• Analysis: Full analysis from the state Legislative Analyst’s Office
  "...The cost of these bonds would depend on interest rates in effect at the time they are sold and the time period over which they are repaid. The state would likely make principal and interest payments from the state’s General Fund over a period of 30 years. If the bonds were sold at an average interest rate of about 5 percent, the cost would be about $10 billion to pay off both the principal ($5 billion) and interest ($5 billion). The average payment would be about $335 million per year...."

• Full text from the state Attorney General’s Office

• Ballot Arguments: Pro and Con, with rebuttals, from the California Official Voter Information Guide

Prop. 7

Proposition 7

"The Solar and Clean Energy Act of 2008"
Establishes mandatory renewable energy threshold for public and investor-owned utilities by 2010.

DEFEATED (91% of precincts reporting):

Yes 3,164,458 (34.9%);

No 5,887,470 (65.1%)

• Los Angeles Times editorial: NO on Proposition 7
  "Proposition 7 is the brainchild of Arizona billionaires John and Peter Sperling. The father-and-son team joins a long list of wealthy political dilettantes, such as Rob Reiner and Stephen Bing, who in recent years have been foisting well-meaning but wrongheaded ballot measures on the people of California. Memo to the millionaires: Please stop."

• Summary: Official summary from the state Legislative Analyst’s Office
  "This measure makes a number of changes regarding Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) and the permitting of electricity generating facilities and transmission lines. Primarily, the measure establishes additional, higher RPS targets for electricity providers, makes RPS requirements enforceable on publicly owned utilities...."

• Analysis: Full analysis from the state Legislative Analyst’s Office
  "The measure will increase the annual administrative costs of the Energy Commission by approximately $2.4 million due to new responsibilities and expansion of existing duties....In addition, the measure’s other requirements will increase annual administrative costs of the PUC by up to $1 million. These additional costs will result from greater workload related to the increased RPS targets. Under current law, these additional costs would be funded by fees paid by electricity customers...."

• Full text from the state Attorney General’s Office

• Ballot Arguments: Pro and Con, with rebuttals, from the California Official Voter Information Guide

Proposition 12

"California Veterans Bond"
Would extend the current Cal-Vet program, which helps veterans buy homes with lower interest rates. Veterans' payments historically have covered the cost of servicing the state bonds, but if they don't, lenders are repaid from the state's general fund. The Cal-Vet program began in 1921, and one of its most popular offerings is available today only to veterans who served before 1977. The measure would allow those who have served since them to take advantage of that particular loan subsidy.

APPROVED (91% of precincts reporting):

Yes 5,578,710 (63.5%);

No 3,219,487 (36.5%)

• Los Angeles Times editorial: YES on Proposition 12
  "For the 27th time since 1922, California voters are being asked to approve a bond issue to help veterans buy homes. This year's request, Proposition 12, is the largest ever -- $900 million. Yet voters should not hesitate to do what they've done 26 times before: Vote yes."

• Summary: Official summary from the state Legislative Analyst’s Office
  "This measure authorizes the state to sell $900 million in general obligation bonds for the Cal-Vet program. These bonds would provide sufficient funds for at least 3,600 additional veterans to receive loans."

• Analysis: Full analysis from the state Legislative Analyst’s Office
  "...Throughout its history, the Cal-Vet program has been totally supported by the participating veterans, at no direct cost to the taxpayer. However, because general obligation bonds are backed by the state, if the payments made by those veterans participating in the program do not fully cover the amount owed on the bonds, the state’s taxpayers would pay the difference...."

• Ballot Arguments: Pro and Con, with rebuttals, from the California Official Voter Information Guide

Proposition 10

"The California Renewable Energy and Clean Alternative Fuel Act"
Authorizes $5 billion in bonds ($9.8 billion with interest), much of which would provide rebates to buyers of hybrids and other alternative-fuel cars and fund research.

DEFEATED (91% of precincts reporting):

Yes 3,593,547 (40.0%);

No 5,389,682 (60.0%)

• Los Angeles Times editorial: NO on Proposition 10
  "Billionaire Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens, listed by Forbes as the 131st richest American, really, really wants your money. So much so that his natural-gas fueling company has shelled out $3.2 million to further the reprehensible scam known as Proposition 10."

• Summary: Official summary from the state Legislative Analyst’s Office
  "This measure allows the state to sell $5 billion in GO bonds for various renewable energy, alternative fuel, energy efficiency, and air emissions reduction purposes. It also designates various state agencies to administer different components of the measure. Finally, the measure specifies that not more than 1 percent of the funds in each account established by the measure may be used to pay for program administration."

• Analysis: Full analysis from the state Legislative Analyst’s Office
  "...The cost of these bonds would depend on interest rates in effect at the time they are sold and the time period over which they are repaid. The state would likely make principal and interest payments from the state’s General Fund over a period of 30 years. If the bonds were sold at an average interest rate of about 5 percent, the cost would be about $10 billion to pay off both the principal ($5 billion) and interest ($5 billion). The average payment would be about $335 million per year...."

• Full text from the state Attorney General’s Office

• Ballot Arguments: Pro and Con, with rebuttals, from the California Official Voter Information Guide

Prop. 12

Proposition 12

"California Veterans Bond"
Would extend the current Cal-Vet program, which helps veterans buy homes with lower interest rates. Veterans' payments historically have covered the cost of servicing the state bonds, but if they don't, lenders are repaid from the state's general fund. The Cal-Vet program began in 1921, and one of its most popular offerings is available today only to veterans who served before 1977. The measure would allow those who have served since them to take advantage of that particular loan subsidy.

APPROVED (91% of precincts reporting):

Yes 5,578,710 (63.5%);

No 3,219,487 (36.5%)

• Los Angeles Times editorial: YES on Proposition 12
  "For the 27th time since 1922, California voters are being asked to approve a bond issue to help veterans buy homes. This year's request, Proposition 12, is the largest ever -- $900 million. Yet voters should not hesitate to do what they've done 26 times before: Vote yes."

• Summary: Official summary from the state Legislative Analyst’s Office
  "This measure authorizes the state to sell $900 million in general obligation bonds for the Cal-Vet program. These bonds would provide sufficient funds for at least 3,600 additional veterans to receive loans."

• Analysis: Full analysis from the state Legislative Analyst’s Office
  "...Throughout its history, the Cal-Vet program has been totally supported by the participating veterans, at no direct cost to the taxpayer. However, because general obligation bonds are backed by the state, if the payments made by those veterans participating in the program do not fully cover the amount owed on the bonds, the state’s taxpayers would pay the difference...."

• Ballot Arguments: Pro and Con, with rebuttals, from the California Official Voter Information Guide

Proposition 10

"The California Renewable Energy and Clean Alternative Fuel Act"
Authorizes $5 billion in bonds ($9.8 billion with interest), much of which would provide rebates to buyers of hybrids and other alternative-fuel cars and fund research.

DEFEATED (91% of precincts reporting):

Yes 3,593,547 (40.0%);

No 5,389,682 (60.0%)

• Los Angeles Times editorial: NO on Proposition 10
  "Billionaire Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens, listed by Forbes as the 131st richest American, really, really wants your money. So much so that his natural-gas fueling company has shelled out $3.2 million to further the reprehensible scam known as Proposition 10."

• Summary: Official summary from the state Legislative Analyst’s Office
  "This measure allows the state to sell $5 billion in GO bonds for various renewable energy, alternative fuel, energy efficiency, and air emissions reduction purposes. It also designates various state agencies to administer different components of the measure. Finally, the measure specifies that not more than 1 percent of the funds in each account established by the measure may be used to pay for program administration."

• Analysis: Full analysis from the state Legislative Analyst’s Office
  "...The cost of these bonds would depend on interest rates in effect at the time they are sold and the time period over which they are repaid. The state would likely make principal and interest payments from the state’s General Fund over a period of 30 years. If the bonds were sold at an average interest rate of about 5 percent, the cost would be about $10 billion to pay off both the principal ($5 billion) and interest ($5 billion). The average payment would be about $335 million per year...."

• Full text from the state Attorney General’s Office

• Ballot Arguments: Pro and Con, with rebuttals, from the California Official Voter Information Guide

Prop. 10

Proposition 10

"The California Renewable Energy and Clean Alternative Fuel Act"
Authorizes $5 billion in bonds ($9.8 billion with interest), much of which would provide rebates to buyers of hybrids and other alternative-fuel cars and fund research.

DEFEATED (91% of precincts reporting):

Yes 3,593,547 (40.0%);

No 5,389,682 (60.0%)

• Los Angeles Times editorial: NO on Proposition 10
  "Billionaire Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens, listed by Forbes as the 131st richest American, really, really wants your money. So much so that his natural-gas fueling company has shelled out $3.2 million to further the reprehensible scam known as Proposition 10."

• Summary: Official summary from the state Legislative Analyst’s Office
  "This measure allows the state to sell $5 billion in GO bonds for various renewable energy, alternative fuel, energy efficiency, and air emissions reduction purposes. It also designates various state agencies to administer different components of the measure. Finally, the measure specifies that not more than 1 percent of the funds in each account established by the measure may be used to pay for program administration."

• Analysis: Full analysis from the state Legislative Analyst’s Office
  "...The cost of these bonds would depend on interest rates in effect at the time they are sold and the time period over which they are repaid. The state would likely make principal and interest payments from the state’s General Fund over a period of 30 years. If the bonds were sold at an average interest rate of about 5 percent, the cost would be about $10 billion to pay off both the principal ($5 billion) and interest ($5 billion). The average payment would be about $335 million per year...."

• Full text from the state Attorney General’s Office

• Ballot Arguments: Pro and Con, with rebuttals, from the California Official Voter Information Guide