A light turnout is expected Tuesday when voters weigh in on six state ballot measures designed to help close the state budget gap.

About 44 percent of registered voters in Marin County are expected to vote, which is in line with the forecast for the statewide turnout, said Elaine Ginnold, Marin's registrar of voters.

The low turnout is due to "the type of election - all measures," Ginnold said. "Either people don't know how to vote or aren't interested."

She said 88,552 ballots were sent to absentee voters and by Friday 27,509 had been returned.

Polls will be open from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Tuesday. For information on polling places, voters can call the elections office at 499-6456.

Voters also can vote at the elections office, Room 121 of the Marin Civic Center. The office is open from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday and from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Tuesday.

Here are summaries of state ballot measures:

- Proposition 1A: One of the stated aims of this so-called "Budget Stabilization Act" is to sock away more state revenue during fat years so that deficits will be lower during lean years. The initiative would increase the size of the state's "rainy day" fund from 5 percent to 12.5 percent of the general fund. The governor would gain new authority to make mid-year budget cuts without the Legislature's approval.

Failure of this proposition would shoot a giant hole through the state's budget. If the measure passes, an increase in the state's vehicle license fee and personal


Advertisement

income tax, included in the February 2009 budget package, would be extended from two years to four years.

- Proposition 1B: This proposition would provide some temporary breathing room in the budget by postponing allocations for education mandated by Proposition 98, passed by voters in 1988. It also would guarantee that local school districts and community colleges get the money that is due them. Enactment of this proposition depends on passage of Proposition 1A, because the payments would come from funds that would otherwise be deposited into the rainy day fund.

- Proposition 1C: This measure would allow $5 billion of borrowing from anticipated lottery profits in the future to help balance the 2009-10 state budget - as well as additional borrowing in the future using lottery profits as collateral. The proposition would repeal the requirement that lottery revenue be used solely for education. Instead, the Legislature could use lottery revenue for any purpose. As compensation, education would be given an amount of general fund revenue equivalent to the lottery revenue that went to schools in fiscal 2008-09, adjusted for inflation and changes in student counts.

- Proposition 1D: Proposition 10, passed in November 1998, allocated revenue generated by a cigarette tax to be spent by the California Children and Families Program (now commonly known as the First 5 program) to expand early development programs for children up to age 5. Proposition 1D would ease budget pressures by allowing this revenue to fund other state health and human services programs for young children over the next five years. There would be a state general fund savings of up to $608 million in 2009-10 and $268 million annually from 2010-11 through 2013-14.

- Proposition 1E: Proposition 63, passed in November 2004, imposed a personal income tax surcharge of 1 percent on the portion of a taxpayer's taxable income in excess of $1 million to provide state funding for new or expanded mental health programs. Proposition 1E would allow a portion of this revenue - $226.7 million in 2009-10 and between $226.7 million and $234 million in 2010-11 - to be redirected. The money would be used to fund a state program, mandated by the federal government, that provides a broad range of screening, diagnosis, and medically necessary treatment services - including mental health services - to Medi-Cal beneficiaries under age 21.

- Proposition 1F: This measure would prohibit the state commission that sets salary levels for the governor, members of the Legislature and other top state officials from increasing those salaries in years that the state's director of finance forecasts the state to run a deficit.