California Ballot Initiatives
This is a listing of the positions of the major parties on the California ballot initiatives, and also some of our own positions...

1A
GOP: Yes
This constitutional amendment, placed on the ballot by the Legislature, would provide local government with assurances that their funds would not be taken by the Legislature. It locks in place the current allocation of property taxes, sales taxes, and vehicle license fees.
Libertarian: No Position
Dem: Yes
Oven: YES. Good for cities (yours and mine), bad for the big spenders in Sacramento.

59: Access to government information
GOP: Yes
This is a constitutional amendment that provides that the people have the right to access information concerning the conduct of the people’s business.
Libertarian: Yes
This was a unanimous bipartisan measure to imbed statutory guarantees of open government (mostly for local governments and local agencies) into the state Constitution.
Dem: Yes
Oven: YES. Good government is transparent (mostly) and accountable.

60: Primary elections
GOP: Yes
This constitutional amendment guarantees political parties the ability to place nominees elected in primary elections on the general election ballot. Rather than changing current law, this measure merely provides constitutional protections for the current primary election process.
Libertarian: Yes
Would nullify the Open Primary Initiative (Prop 62) if it received more votes. [NOTE: A court order has split the original Proposition 60 into two separate measures, Propositions 60 and 60a.]
Dem: Yes
Oven: YES. Primaries are good for parties.

60A: Surplus state property
GOP: Yes
This amendment would earmark the proceeds from any disposal of surplus state property for repayment of the Economic Recovery Bond, Proposition 57 (approved in the March 2004
Libertarian: Yes
Would use the sale of surplus state property to pay off bonds.
Dem: Yes
Oven: YES. Reduce state deficit, rather than spend, extra income.

61: Children's Hospital Projects. Grant Program. Bond Act
GOP: No
This is a $750 million bond to be used to fund grants to children’s hospitals. It would be repaid from the state’s General Fund. (Note: There is no guarantee that this would increase funding to children’s hospitals, since the Legislature could use these bond funds in place of existing revenues that would otherwise have been dedicated to children’s hospitals.)
Libertarian: No
Not a proper function of government, and the taxpayers do not need more bond debt.
Dem: Yes
Oven: NO. All bond measures are for worthwhile heartstring-pulling projects. This one is no exception. I vote NO because (1) CA's debt is large enough already, (2) CA can pay for this without a bond measure by cutting spending elsewhere, and (3) if Californians REALLY want it, they'll override my NO vote.

62: Elections. Primaries
GOP: No
This is the disastrous initiative statute designed to eliminate party primary elections and replace them with “Louisiana-style” jungle primaries, where the general election ballot would contain the names of only the top two candidates (regardless of party). In many districts, perhaps most, there would be two Republicans or two Democrats on the general election ballot. Real voter choice would no longer exist.
Libertarian: No
Would destroy minor parties and limit voters choices in the general election. A much better solution is Instant Runoff Voting.
Dem: No
Oven: NO. Don't mess with my primary and I won't mess with yours.

63: Mental Health Services Expansion and Funding. Tax on Incomes over $1 Million
GOP: No
1% tax on incomes over one million dollars, to be used to fund mental health services. Note: This new tax would not necessarily increase funding for mental health services, since the Legislature could shift existing funds to other sources (as they have often done with transportation funds). If a small number of millionaires left the state to avoid this tax, this measure could actually reduce state revenues.
Libertarian: No
Not a proper function of government, and taxpayers don't need to be further burdened with more taxes.
Dem: Yes
Oven: NO. France has a "screw the rich" attitude, too. I don't want to be French.

64: Limitations on Enforcement of Unfair Business Competition Laws
GOP: Yes
Only allows lawsuits for unfair business practices in those situations where the plaintiff was actually injured personally. This initiative contains several other procedural reforms to reduce the many frivolous lawsuits.
Libertarian: Yes
This would limit shakedown lawsuits in which lawyers sue businesses for trivial matters that don't even have victims, and thereby force businesses to settle rather than endure the horrendous expense of a trial.
Dem: No
Doctor Bean: Yes
Oven: YES. Fewer frivolous lawsuits.

65: Local Government Funds and Revenues. State Mandates
GOP: No
T measure would require voter approval for any legislation that provides for any reduction of local governments’ vehicle license fee revenues, sales tax powers and revenues, and proportionate share of local property tax revenues.
Libertarian: Yes
Prevents state government from raiding revenues intended for local governments and agencies, which in turn leads to "back door" local tax hikes.
Dem: Neutral
Nomad: Yes. My folks live in a rural county that was nearly bankrupted by the Davis administration raiding their coffers. NO!! THIS MEASURE WAS ESSENTIALLY REPLACED BY 1A. THE LIBERTARIAN POSITION IS OUT-OF-DATE. THE ORIGINAL AUTHORS SAY TO VOTE YES ON 1A/NO ON 65.
Oven: NO. See 1A.

66: Limitations on "Three Strikes" Law. Sex Crimes. Punishment
GOP: No
This initiative would amend the successful “Three Strikes” law to require increased sentences only when the third conviction is for a violent or serious felony, instead of any felony. It also re-defines violent or serious felonies to make certain that more criminals would go free.
Libertarian: Yes
Sentence enhancements should be limited to violent crimes. The current law can put non-violent criminals who commit victimless crimes away for life.
Dem: Yes
Nomad: Yes. I don't want to be locking people away for life for non-violent crimes from either a financial or ethical perspective.
Doctor Bean: No. All three-strikers have to have commited violent crimes as their first two strikes. Three strikes imposes 25 years to life for their third felony even if their third isn't violent. I think that's money well spent. (I thought I only disagreed with Libertarians on foreign policy. Looks like I also disagree with them on law enforcement.)
Oven: NO. I hate real-life "Get out of jail free" cards.

67: Emergency and Medical Services. Funding. Telephone Surcharge
GOP: No
This initiative would add a 3% surcharge on telephone use within California, without eliminating any of the other taxes, fees, and surcharges already present on our telephone bills.
Libertarian: No
Not a proper function of government, and taxpayers don't need to be further burdened with more taxes.
Dem: No
Oven: NO. Same reasoning as for 61.

68: Tribal Gaming Compact Renegotiation. Non-Tribal Commercial Gambling Expansion. Revenues, Tax Exemptions
GOP: No
This is the casino initiative that allows just 16 specific, non-tribal racetracks and gambling establishments to operate 30,000 slot machines, paying 33% of revenues to fund public safety, regulatory, social programs. These facilities, which paid to get this measure on the ballot, would be exempt from many other local and state laws.
Libertarian: Neutral
Reduces some restrictions on gambling but also creates new monopolies for race tracks and card clubs.
Dem: No
Oven: NO. Schwarzenegger says NO and that's good enough for me on this one.

69: DNA Samples. Collection. Database. Funding
GOP: Yes
This initiative statute requires the collection of DNA samples from all felons, and from adults and juveniles arrested for any felony. The DNA database would be funded by a 10% increase in traffic citations and other criminal fines. The expanded DNA database would help solve unsolved crimes and it might help prove the innocence of persons who have been wrongfully convicted.
Libertarian: No
An invasion of privacy for those people who are arrested but not convicted of a crime.
Dem: No
Nomad: No. It doesn't differentiate between people arrested and people convicted. I'm uncomfortable taking DNA samples from people who have not been convicted of a crime.
Doctor Bean: Yes. Being arrested without being convicted lets the police detain you and search you. Why not take your DNA? It would help acquit lots of innocent people.
Oven: NO. This was my toughest decision, but I'm going to vote NO for Big-Brother reasons.

70: Tribal Gaming Compacts. Exclusive Gaming Rights. Contributions to State
GOP: No
This is the Indian-sponsored initiative to require the Governor to offer renewable 99-year gaming compacts to Indian tribes with no limits on the number of machines or types of games. Tribes would pay the state corporate tax rate in lieu of any other fees, taxes or levies. Tribes would not pay taxes if the state permits non-tribal casino-type gaming.
Libertarian: Neutral
Reduces some restrictions on gambling but also extends monopolies for Indian tribes.
Dem: No
Oven: NO. Like 68, I'm following Schwarzenegger's lead.

71: Stem Cell Research. Funding. Bonds
GOP: No
This is a $3 billion dollar bond to pay for a new unaccountable government bureaucracy to fund cloning and other research that. The new bureaucracy can exempt itself from open- meeting laws and current medical research guidelines. Funding priorities are based on current funding levels not scientific success.
Libertarian: No
Not a proper function of government, and the taxpayers do not need more bond debt.
Dem: Yes
Governator: Yes (Schwarzenegger has broken with the GOP on this one)
Doctor Bean: No. A good article against was sent to me by Ralphie.
Oven: NO. Public money to experiment with embryos? It will increase CA's debt and it's probably evil.

72: Referendum Petition to Overturn Amendments to Health Care Coverage Requirements
GOP: No
This is the referendum to overturn John Burton SB 2. This law would impose a “pay-or-play” system that requires most employers to provide health insurance for employees and some dependents - or pay a new tax to fund health insurance provided by the state. The costs are astronomical. Voting “No” will prevent this new mandate from taking effect.
Libertarian: No
A "NO" vote will reverse the new mandate that requires California businesses to provide health insurance for their employees.
Dem: Yes
Nomad: No. Because I just received a call from the Governator urging me to vote no. He sends his regards. Visit www.joinarnold.com for more from the Governator.
Oven: NO. Bad for business. Let people be responsible for their own health care.

Here are the sites for the:
California Republican Party
California Libertarian Party
California Democratic Party
Note that the Democratic Party only offers support/don't support on their website; no rationale is provided.
- served up by Nomad @ 1:58 PM