> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.smdp.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Giving all the Props their due - URL: https://www.smdp.com/giving-all-the-props-their-due/ - Published: 2004-10-30T15:00:00.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-23T05:21:41.000Z - Author: Guest Author - Tags: Government & Politics, Santa Monica, #archive-import *Hundreds of millions of dollars at stake in Props* *By Daily Press staff* Voters this November will face a relatively complicated ballot that includes a laundry list of propositions with ramifications in California and throughout the country. Here is a brief breakdown of each proposition: Proposition 59: This measure will provide the right of public access to meetings of government bodies and writings of government officials, and future statutes and rules that limit access must be justified. The measure would preserve constitutional rights of privacy, due process and equal protection. Those for the proposition say all three branches of government at the state and local levels should be as forthcoming as possible with the public that provides its funding, power and trust. It would ensure officials’ accountability. Those against it say the public must have access to information, but question whether Proposition 59 goes far enough in guaranteeing that access. Yes vote: Gives Californians a constitutional right of access to government information. A government entity would face a greater burden in justifying the classification of information. No vote: Means access to government information would continue to be governed by existing laws. Cost: There are potential minor annual and local government costs incurred in order to make additional information available to the public (such as hiring staff to retrieve documents; however, entities may charge for photocopying the documents). Proposition 60: This proposition ensures that each political party that participates in the primary election for partisan office also has the right to compete in the general election for that office. In other words, the candidates that win their party’s nomination in the primary election cannot be denied placement on the general election ballot, no matter what party they represent. This is exactly how the current primary system in California works. Context: Two elections are held in California to elect candidates to partisan public offices. The primary election (in March) is when each party votes on a candidate to represent their party in the general election (in November). Only party members can vote for their candidate. For example, a registered Democrat cannot help choose the Republican nominee during the primaries for the general election in the fall. In addition, the current California system allows all parties which participate in the primaries to advance their top vote-getting candidate to the general election. Those for Prop 60 said it was placed on the ballot as a direct opposition to Prop 62, which would change California’s current primary system to allow people to vote for the nominee of another party. Those against said that it does not go far enough to protect California from Prop 62\. Yes vote: Any political party which participates in the primary election would have the right to place its nominee on the general election ballot. No vote: The current law would remain in effect. Cost: Since Prop 60 would require no changes to existing law, there would be no fiscal effect. Proposition 60A: This proposition dictates that the all proceeds from the sale of surplus state property go to repay the Proposition 57 bond debt approved in March 2004\. Once the bond is repaid, then surplus property proceeds would go into the General Fund. Presently, when the state sells off surplus property, the profits go into the General Fund for use on any state program. Those for say it will at least reduce the cost of the bonds from Prop 57\. Those against Prop 60A want the proposition to require the sale of surplus property rather than just directing where the profits should go. Yes vote: Proceeds from surplus property sales would go to paying off the Prop 57 bond debt. No vote: Proceeds would continue to go into the general fund. Cost: Since interest payments would be reduced, savings could be in the low tens of millions of dollars. Proposition 61: Prop 61 would authorize the state to borrow $750 million through the sale of general obligation bonds, to be repaid from the General Fund, for grants to eligible children’s hospitals for renovation, remodeling and equipment. Eighty percent of the money would go to nonprofit hospitals, and the other 20 percent would go to the University of California children’s hospitals. The hospitals would have to apply in writing for the funds. The California Health Facilities Financing Authority (CHFFA) would develop and process applications and award grants within 60 days. Awards would be granted based on whether they would help expand health care access to children eligible for government health care programs or who are uninsured or under-served; whether they would improve child health care outcomes; and whether the prospective hospital would promote pediatric teaching and research programs. Those for Prop 61 insist the bonds would not raise taxes. Those against worry that California is already overstretched with the last bond measure from Prop 57, and that it does not address the problem of health care coverage, Yes vote: State could issue $750 million in bonds. No vote: State could not issue new bonds. Cost: Would depend on the repayment duration and interest rate of the bonds. Assuming a 5.25 percent over 30 years, the cost would be about $1.5 billion to repay the principle and the interest, or about $50 million per year. Administrative costs are projected to be minor. Proposition 62: This proposition would create an “opened” primary system by allowing voters of one party to help choose the nominee of another party for any state or federal office, except the presidency or party committee. Context: As explained above in Prop 60, California has a “closed” primary system which means that voters of one party cannot vote for candidates for another party during primary elections. For every primary election, a ballot is prepared for each political party. Voters receive a ballot for the party for which they are registered. Those with no party affiliation receive ballots with only nonpartisan offices and propositions. In 1996 California approved Prop 198 which allowed for “blanket” primaries where voters could vote for any candidate and all parties participating in the primaries could send their top vote-getter to the general election. That proposition was ruled unconstitutional in 2000. There are two main differences with Prop 62; only the top two vote-getters out of all candidates and parties, advance to the general election; and there is an exemption for the office of President and for political party committees. Yes vote: Beginning in the 2006 primary election, voters can vote for any candidate, regardless of party and only the top two vote-getters of all candidates will be eligible for the general election. *Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on October 30, 2004.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/103004.pdf?ref=smdp.com)