The League of Women Voters is best known for our strictly educational activities—under our non-profit (501(c)(3)) education fund, where we never engage in advocacy. On this “side” of our organization, we work very hard to show all sides of an issue equally. This is where we sponsor candidate forums, do Pros & Cons presentations on the ballot measures and other what we call “Voter Service” or “Voter Education” activities.

At the same time, on the other “side” of our organization, the League is politically active and works to influence policy through advocacy. We are always nonpartisan: we neither support nor oppose candidates for office at any level of government. We are the original grassroots citizen organization, directed by the consensus of our members nationwide. On this “side” of our organization, we study issues, and come to consensus as a membership, and advocate for policy changes based on those consensus positions.

It is based on these consensus positions that we recommend the following on this November’s ballot measures:

Oakland City Measures:

California State Measures:

  • Yes on Proposition 1B
    Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, Port Security Bond Act of 2006.
    Part of the bond package developed to help rebuild California’s infrastructure. This bond act would raise $19 billion for transportation improvements.
  • Yes on Proposition 1C
    Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2006.
    A bond measure to finance housing-related programs, brownfield cleanup, and parks related to infill development. The League has long been concerned about providing adequate housing.
  • Yes on Proposition 1D
    Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2006.
    This bond measure would fund new school construction, modernization, relief of overcrowding, and other school infrastructure needs. The League supports improving California’s educational infrastructure.
  • Yes on Proposition 1E
    Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act of 2006.
    This bond measure will provide funds for flood protection, levee protection in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and storm water management. The League supports protecting our existing water supply infrastructure.
  • Yes on Proposition 84
    Water Quality, Safety and Supply. Flood Control. Natural Resource Protection. Park Improvements.
    This initiative continues the League’s past support of efforts to insure that California has adequate water supplies. This initiative would fund projects for safe drinking water, flood control, protection of rivers, lakes, streams, forest and wildlife conservation, and coastal protection and state parks.
  • No on Proposition 85
    Waiting Period and Parental Notification before Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy.
    Parents rightfully want to be involved in their teenagers’ lives, and all parents want what is best for their children. But good family communication can’t be imposed by government. Mandatory notification laws may sound good, but in the real world, they just put teenagers in danger.
  • Yes on Proposition 86
    Tax on Cigarettes.
    This constitutional amendment imposes an additional 13-cent tax on each cigarette distributed and increases taxes on other tobacco products. The estimated $2.1 billion in annual revenue will fund children’s health coverage, emergency services and nursing education for qualified hospitals, and tobacco-use prevention programs, research, and treatment of various tobacco-related illnesses. The League believes that the overwhelming social benefits of this measure greatly outweigh the potential downside of this earmarked tax.
  • No on Proposition 88
    Education Funding. Real Property Parcel Tax.
    This measure would impose a $50 tax on each real property parcel to create the Classroom Learning and Accountability Fund in the state treasury. While the League supports equitable access to quality education, this measure violates the League’s State and Local Finances positions and is not real reform. It proposes to earmark funds via a constitutional amendment without providing sufficient funding to even bring education spending up to the national average. It also involves the state for the first time in taxing property.
  • Yes on Proposition 89
    Political Campaigns. Public Financing. Corporate Tax Increase. Contribution and Expenditure Limits.
    This measure, the California Clean Money and Fair Elections Act of 2006, would allow candidates running for office to receive public campaign funding by meeting certain eligibility requirements. Funding would be provided for by an increase of 0.2 percent in the corporate income tax rate. This measure also imposes new limits on campaign contributions, and places new restrictions on contributions by corporations and lobbyists. The League vigorously supports practices which will enable candidates to compete more equitably for public office, and which place realistic limits on campaign contributions and expenditures.
  • No on Proposition 90
    Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property.
    This measure redefines the eminent domain process in ways that will make it difficult for government to protect the environment. It will likely increase costs to taxpayers for implementation of environmental protection laws or new consumer protection laws. The measure is, in part, vaguely worded and will likely result in extensive litigation.

The League has no position on Proposition 83 (Sex Offenders. Sexually Violent Predators. Punishment, Residence Restrictions and Monitoring) and will be neutral on Proposition 1A (Transportation Funding Protection) and Proposition 87 (Alternative Energy. Research, Production, Incentives. Tax on California Oil Producers).

Join us! As an LWV Oakland member, be part of an organization where smart, active leaders work to strengthen democracy. Join LWVO and be directly involved in shaping important issues to keep our community strong, safe and vibrant. Visit or call (510) 834-7640.