What’s the common denominator between the state legislature and the entrance to your local grocery store? Petition drives, that’s what.

As the countdown to the high-stakes Nov. 6 election proceeds, proponents of ballot initiatives galore are standing sentinel at stores across East County, soliciting shoppers’ signatures on measures they’d like to see on the ballot. Issues range from the hot-button topics of immigration, abortion and marijuana to the more technical matters involving taxes, education and health insurance.

It’s unlikely you’ll learn enough from the people thrusting petitions at you to make an informed decision about whether to sign them. So The Press has provided the following boiled-down version of what many of the petitions in circulation are all about.

Provided by the attorney general’s office, the write-ups below – presented in alphabetical order by topic – give you a chance to digest what the measures propose in the comfort of your own home. Then, the next time you’re approached by a man with a clipboard and a ballpoint pen, you can quickly sign or decline and get back to thinking about what to get for dinner.

ABORTION

The Attorney General’s official title and summary for the measure is as follows: PROHIBITS ABORTIONS FOR FEMALES UNDER 18 WITHOUT PARENTAL NOTIFICATION AND WAITING PERIOD. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

The measure would change the California Constitution to prohibit abortion for an unemancipated minor until 48 hours after her physician notifies her parent/legal guardian in writing. It would provide exceptions for medical emergency, parental waiver or parental abuse documented by a notarized statement from law enforcement, protective services or certain adult relatives. It would permit a judge to waive the notice if the minor appears personally in court and proves her maturity, or if the waiver is in her best interest. It would require physicians to report specific abortion information to the Department of Public Health. And it would allow physicians to be sued for violating these provisions up to 12 years after an abortion.

According to the legislative analyst and director of finance, the fiscal impact on state and local government would be potential unknown net state costs of several million dollars annually for health and social services programs, court administration and state health agency administration.

The proponent of this measure, John Smith, can be reached at john.smith.jsjs@gmail.com. No phone number was provided.

AUTO INSURANCE

The attorney general’s official title and summary of the qualified initiative is as follows: CHANGES LAW TO ALLOW AUTO INSURANCE COMPANIES TO SET PRICES BASED ON A DRIVER’S HISTORY OF INSURANCE COVERAGE. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

The measure would change current law to permit insurance companies to set prices based on whether the driver previously carried auto insurance with any insurance company. It would allow insurance companies to give proportional discounts to drivers with some prior insurance coverage and increase the cost of insurance to drivers who have not maintained continuous coverage. And it would treat drivers with a lapse as continuously covered if the lapse is due to military service or loss of employment, or if the lapse is less than 90 days in length.

The proponent of this initiative, Mike D’Arelli, can be reached at 916-283-9473.

COMMERCIAL PROPERTY TAX

The attorney general’s official title and summary for the measure is as follows: REQUIRES ASSESSMENT OF MOST COMMERCIAL PROPERTY EVERY THREE YEARS. PROVIDES TAX REDUCTION FOR HOMEOWNERS, RENTERS, AND BUSINESSES. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.

The measure would change existing law to require that commercial property be assessed at fair market value at least once every three years. It would exclude residential and agricultural property. (Increased revenue is subject to Proposition 98, governing education funding.) It would double homeowners’ tax exemption and renters’ credit. It would exclude from taxation the first $1 million in tangible personal property.

According to the legislative analyst and director of finance, the fiscal impact on state and local government would be an annual state revenue increase of about $4 billion from higher property tax assessments on commercial and industrial property. New revenues would be used in part to increase state funding for schools and community colleges ($2 billion) and provide tax relief to homeowners and businesses ($1 billion). The annual local government revenue increase from higher property tax assessments on commercial and industrial property would be about $450 million.

The proponent for this measure, Margaret R. Prinzing, can be reached at 510-346-6200.

EDUCATION AND BELIEFS

The attorney general’s official title and summary for the first measure is as follows: EDUCATION. PERMITS PARENTS TO EXCUSE CHILDREN FROM INSTRUCTION IN SOCIAL SCIENCES AND FAMILY LIFE. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

The measure would allow parents or guardians to request that a public school excuse their child from instruction in family life or social sciences when such instruction conflicts with the religious training and beliefs or personal moral convictions of the parent or guardian.

The attorney general’s official title and summary for the second measure is as follows: EDUCATION. REPEALS NON-DISCRIMINATION REQUIREMENTS FOR SCHOOL INSTRUCTION. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

The measure would repeal the requirement that schools prohibit instructional materials that reflect adversely on persons based on their sexual orientation. And it would repeal the requirement that school instructional materials recognize societal contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered individuals to the economic, political and social development of California and the United States.

The proponent for these measures, Richard Rios, can be reached at 714-333-0340.

EDUCATION ONLINE

The attorney general’s official title and summary for the measure is as follows: ONLINE K-12 EDUCATION. COLLEGE PREPARATORY COURSES. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

The new law would:

• Authorize school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools to claim average daily attendance funding for student participation in approved online courses.

• Authorize school districts to contract with public and private providers to deliver online courses taught by credentialed teachers.

• Authorize students to take online courses offered by any school district, regardless of the student’s residence.

• Provide students access to courses required for admission to state universities, and establish the California Diploma, which demonstrates completion of courses required for University of California and California State University admission.

According to the legislative analyst and director of finance, the fiscal impact on state and local government, in the long term, would be that local school districts would save potentially hundreds of millions of dollars annually if schools experience efficiencies and widespread participation in the use of online courses. The savings would be offset in small part by administrative costs to implement the measure, including local costs for developing online curriculum, contracting with online providers and ensuring students access to online courses, plus state costs for changing the existing school payment system and issuing California Diplomas to qualifying students.

The proponent for this measure, Philip D. Kohn, can be reached at 714-641-3415.

EDUCATION TAX

The attorney general’s official title and summary for the measure is as follows: TAX FOR EDUCATION AND EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAMS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

The measure would increase personal income tax rates for annual earnings over $7,316 using sliding scale from .4 percent for lowest individual earners to 2.2 percent for individuals earning over $2.5 million, ending after 12 years. During first four years, 60 percent of revenues go to K-12 schools, 30 percent to repaying state debt and 10 percent to early childhood programs. Thereafter, the measure would allocate 85 percent of revenues to K-12 schools and 15 percent to early childhood programs.

The measure would also provide K-12 funds on a school-specific, per-pupil basis subject to local control, audits and public input. It would prohibit the state from directing or using new funds.

According to the legislative analyst and director of finance, the fiscal impact on state and local government would be increased state personal income tax revenues beginning in 2013 and ending in 2024. Estimates of the revenue increases vary from $10 billion to $11 billion per fiscal year beginning in 2013-14, tending to increase over time. The 2012-13 revenue increase would be about half this amount. Until the end of 2016-17, 60 percent of revenues would be dedicated to K-12 education and 10 percent to early care and education programs. These allocations would supplement existing funding for these programs. In 2017-18 and subsequent years, 85 percent would be provided to K-12 education and 15 percent to early care and education. General Fund savings on debt-service costs would be about $1.5 billion in 2012-13 and $3 billion in 2013-14. Savings would tend to grow thereafter until the end of 2016-17. In 2015-16 and subsequent years, assuming stronger growth in state personal income tax revenues, some of the revenues raised by this measure – several hundred million dollars per year– would be used for debt-service costs, resulting in state savings.

The proponents for this measure, Molly Munger, Roberta B. Johansen and James C. Harrison, can be reached at 510-346-6200.

ENERGY

The Attorney General’s official title and summary for the measure is as follows: TAX ON CALIFORNIA OIL AND NATURAL GAS. REVENUES TO HIGHER EDUCATION AND GENERAL FUND. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

The measure would impose 12.5-percent tax on the value of oil and natural gas extracted in California. It would allocate one-third of revenues to higher education (half to California State University schools; half split between University of California schools and community colleges) and two-thirds to the state’s General Fund. The new education funds would augment, not count toward, existing education funding requirements.

The measure would also dedicate 10 percent of new education funds to student grants. It would require California State University to use a portion of funding for nursing programs. And it would prohibit passing the tax on to consumers through higher fuel prices.

According to the legislative analyst and director of finance, the fiscal impact on state and local government would be increased state revenues of about $3 billion per year initially, two-thirds (about $2 billion) of which would go to the state’s General Fund and one-third (about $1 billion) to specific higher-education purposes. Of the General Fund revenue increase, roughly half would likely go to higher funding for schools and community college districts; the remainder to any state purpose.

The proponent for this measure, John L. Burton, can be reached at 916-476-4989.

ENVIRONMENT

The attorney general’s official title and summary for the measure is as follows: VOTING REQUIREMENT. POLLUTER FEES. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

The measure would permit the legislature to pass by majority vote, rather than two-thirds, laws imposing fees, penalties and charges on businesses whose activities pollute the air or water, damage public natural resources or harm public health. It would require the state to spend the funds raised under the law only on the mitigation of actual or anticipated impacts, including enforcement costs and costs to reduce or prevent future impacts from the pollution or activity. And it would require that the amount of any fee, penalty or charge be reasonably related to the costs of mitigation.

According to the legislative analyst and director of finance, the fiscal impact on state and local government would be the potential increase in state revenues, likely ranging in the tens of millions of dollars to the low hundreds of millions of dollars annually, depending on future actions of the legislature. The revenues would be used to increase state spending on mitigation activities.

The proponent for this measure is Joseph Caves. No public contact information has been provided by the proponent.

GENETICALLY-ENGINEERED FOOD

The Attorney General’s official title and summary for the measure is as follows: GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS. MANDATORY LABELING. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

The measure would require labeling on raw or processed food offered for sale to consumers if made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways, and prohibit labeling or advertising such food as “natural.” And it would exempt foods that are certified organic; unintentionally produced with genetically engineered material; made from animals fed or injected with genetically engineered material but not genetically engineered themselves; processed with or containing only small amounts of genetically engineered ingredients; administered for treatment of medical conditions; and sold for immediate consumption such as in a restaurant; or alcoholic beverages.

According to the legislative analyst and director of finance, the fiscal impact on state and local government would be potential increase in state administrative costs of up to $1 million annually to monitor compliance, and unknown but potentially significant costs for the courts, attorney general district attorneys due to litigation resulting from possible violations.

The proponent for this measure, James Wheaton, can be reached at 510-444-4710, ext. 309.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

The attorney general’s official title and summary for the measure is as follows: GOVERNMENT SPENDING LIMITS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

The measure would reset the state spending limit to the fiscal year 2010-11 level. It would require that state and local governments spend tax revenue exceeding the limit to repay debt when the debt is 5 percent or more of their spending limit. When the state debt is less than 5 percent of the state spending limit, the state splits the excess revenue between schools and budget reserves or taxpayer refunds, depending on the amount. When local government debt is less than 5 percent of the applicable spending limit, the excess revenue is returned to taxpayers. It would require a constitutional amendment to change the terms. And it would foreclose the legislature’s imposition, authorization or submission to voters of a tax increase absent a two-thirds vote.

According to the legislative analyst and director of finance, the fiscal impacts on state and local government are the following: For state government, the impact is a much greater likelihood that spending will be constrained by the constitutional spending limit. Consequently, state spending for ongoing programs such as schools, community colleges, universities, health and social services and corrections might need to be reduced in certain years, potentially by billions of dollars. The measure could also result in more state funding for the reduction of bond debt, particularly in the near term, and in the future, more one-time funding for schools and community colleges, budget reserves and taxpayer refunds.

The proponents of this measure, Steven S. Lucas and Thomas W. Hiltachk, can be reached at 415-389-6800.

HEALTH CARE INSURANCE

The attorney general’s official title and summary for the measure is as follows: APPROVAL OF HEALTH CARE INSURANCE RATE CHANGES. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

The measure would require health insurance rate changes to be approved by the insurance commissioner before taking effect. It would require a sworn statement by the health insurer regarding the accuracy of information submitted to the insurance commissioner to justify rate changes. It would provide for public notice, disclosure and hearings on health insurance rate changes, and subsequent judicial review. It would exempt employers’ large group health plans, unless requested or the rate increase exceeds 10 percent. And it would prohibit health, auto and homeowners insurers from determining policy eligibility or rates based on a lack of prior coverage or credit history.

According to the legislative analyst and director of finance, the fiscal impact on state and local government would be increased state administrative costs in the low tens of millions of dollars annually to regulate health insurance rates, funded with revenues collected from filing fees paid by health insurance companies.

The proponent for this measure is Jamie Court. No public contact information was provided by the proponent.

HIGH SPEED RAIL

The attorney general’s official title and summary for the measure is as follows: ELIMINATION OF CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

The measure would eliminate the High Speed Rail Authority and bar the state of California from paying for high-speed rail unless voters pass a new constitutional amendment specifically altering the prohibition.

According to the legislative analyst and director of finance, the fiscal impact on state and local government would be savings in the state’s debt service of up to $650 million annually from not using state bond funds to support high-speed rail. A one-time loss of $3.3 billion in federal funds would reduce somewhat the level of economic activity in the state over the next several years, resulting in some reduction in state and local revenues.

The proponent for this measure, Peter Seidel, can be reached at P.O. Box 5738, Beverly Hills, CA 90209. No phone number was provided.

IMMIGRATION

The attorney general’s official title and summary for the measure is as follows: UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS. REQUIRES STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS TO ENFORCE FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAW. DENIES DRIVER’S LICENSES TO UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

The measure would require state and local law enforcement to comply with direction from federal immigration authorities for holding and transferring undocumented immigrants arrested by law enforcement officials, mandating a commitment by law enforcement agencies to perform federal immigration functions. And it would deny driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants and prohibit law enforcement from justifying arrests solely because an individual over 15 was driving without a license.

According to the legislative analyst and director of finance, the fiscal impact on state and local government would be increased state and local law enforcement costs, potentially reaching several millions of dollars annually, for detaining persons suspected of being unlawfully present in the U.S., and for complying with an agreement required by the measure between the state and the federal government. Potential unknown savings to state and local governments would arise to the extent that the deportation of unlawfully present criminals would prevent them from re-entering the criminal justice system.

The proponents for this measure, Ted Hilton, Tirso Del Junco and Bill Siler, can be reached at P.O. Box 9985, San Diego CA 92189. No phone number was provided.

INCOME TAX

The attorney general’s official title and summary for the measure is as follows: TAX TO BENEFIT PUBLIC SCHOOLS, SOCIAL SERVICES, PUBLIC SAFETY, AND ROAD MAINTENANCE. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

The measure would add 3 percent to the personal income tax rate on annual earnings over $1 million; 5 percent for earnings over $2 million. The new revenues would be allocated as follows: 36 percent for K-12 schools; 24 percent for public colleges and universities; 25 percent for services to children and senior citizens; 10 percent for public safety; and 5 percent for road and bridge maintenance. And it would provide local governments discretion to decide, subject to financial audits, how to spend new funds, except that funds could not go toward capital outlay or certain administrative costs.

According to the legislative analyst and director of finance, the fiscal impact on state and local government would be increased state personal income tax revenues dedicated to public universities, school districts, community college districts and other local public services. Estimates of the revenue increases vary: for 2012-13, $6-$9.5 billion; for 2013-14, $4-$6 billion. The revenues would tend to increase in later years.

The proponent for this measure, Joshua Pechthalt, can be reached at 916-446-2788.

LEGISLATURE

The attorney general’s official title and summary for the measure is as follows: PART-TIME LEGISLATURE. TWO-YEAR STATE BUDGET. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

The measure would provide that the legislature shall convene regular sessions for a period of no more than 30 days starting each January and no more than 60 days starting each May, with up to five more days to reconsider bills vetoed by the governor. It would establish a two-year state budget cycle, devoting regular sessions in odd-numbered years to state budget matters, and regular sessions in even-numbered years to non-state budget matters. It would limit special sessions to 15 days. And it would set legislators’ salary at $1,500 per month and limit employment during and after their terms in office.

According to the legislative analyst and director of finance, the fiscal impact on state and local government would be a reduction in state legislative expenses for member salaries, travel and living expenses, plus staff costs – potentially in the tens of millions of dollars per year. The actual reduction would depend on future actions of the legislature and governor. The measure would result in reduced state spending or increased state revenues in some years. Over time, the net fiscal effect of the provision is unknown and would depend on future actions of the legislature, governor, state treasurer, and state controller.

The proponents for this measure, Shannon Grove and Ted Costa, can be reached at 661-327-4141.

MARIJUANA

The Attorney General’s official title and summary for the first measure is as follows: MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

The measure would decriminalize marijuana and hemp use, possession, cultivation, transportation or distribution. It would provide persons arrested or serving time for non-violent marijuana offenses immediate released from prison, jail, parole or probation, and erasure of their arrest records and convictions for non-violent marijuana offenses. It would authorize the legislature to adopt laws to license and tax commercial marijuana sales. It would allow doctors to approve or recommend marijuana to patients, regardless of age. It would limit testing for marijuana for employment or insurance purposes. And it would bar the state from aiding enforcement of federal marijuana laws.

According to the legislative analyst and director of finance, the fiscal impact on state and local government would be savings potentially in the low hundreds of millions of dollars annually to state and local governments on the costs of enforcing certain marijuana-related offenses, handling the related criminal cases in the court system and incarcerating and supervising certain marijuana offenders, plus potential net additional tax revenues in the low hundreds of millions of dollars annually related to the production and sale of marijuana.

The proponents for this measure, Michael Jolson and Berton Duzy, can be reached at hemp2012@me.com. No phone number was provided.

The Attorney General’s official title and summary for the second measure is as follows: MARIJUANA. REGULATION AND TAXATION OF MEDICAL USE INDUSTRY. REDUCED CRIMINAL PENALTIES. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

The measure would establish a new government agency to regulate medical marijuana cultivation, manufacture, distribution, testing and sale. It would impose agency fees and a 2.5-percent tax on medical marijuana retail sales. It would allocate new revenues to agency administration, any remainder primarily to medical marijuana research and grants. It would pre-empt local regulation of medical marijuana, except for zoning of medical marijuana dispensaries. It would require one dispensary per 50,000 residents unless limited or banned by a local initiative. And it would bar state and local assistance to federal enforcement against medical marijuana. It would reduce criminal penalties for marijuana possession, cultivation, transport or sale.

According to the legislative analyst and director of finance, the fiscal impact on state and local government would be savings potentially up to several tens of millions of dollars annually to state and local governments from reductions in various criminal-justice costs related to enforcing marijuana crimes. It would increase state tax revenues in the low tens of millions of dollars annually from a new supplemental tax on medical marijuana sales, used for various regulatory, research, education and health care purposes generally related to medical marijuana. And it would save costs to regulate medical marijuana potentially in the tens of millions of dollars annually, offset by fees and/or taxes authorized by the measure.

The proponents for this measure, Don Duncan and Ron Lind, can be reached at 916-456-0100.

PENSION BENEFITS

The attorney general’s official title and summary for the first measure is as follows: REDUCES PENSION BENEFITS FOR PUBLIC EMPLOYEES. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

The measure would reduce pension benefits for current and future public employees, including teachers, nurses and peace officers, but excluding judges. It would eliminates constitutional protections for current and future public employees’ vested pension benefits. It would limit employer contributions toward pensions for new employees. It would prohibit defined-benefit pensions for new employees. It would limit cost-of-living adjustments for retired and current employees. It would prohibit public retirement systems from providing death or disability benefits to future employees. And it would require that current employees add up to 3 percent of their salary to their pension contribution per year, when the pension plan is underfunded.

According to the legislative analyst and director of finance, the fiscal impact on state and local government, over the next two or three decades, would be potentially significant increased annual costs or some savings in state and local government personnel costs, depending on how the measure is interpreted and administered. In the long run (several decades from now), the impact would be annual savings in state and local government personnel costs of billions of dollars per year (in current dollars), offset to some extent by increases in other employee compensation costs.

The attorney general’s official title and summary for the second measure is as follows: REDUCES PENSION BENEFITS FOR PUBLIC EMPLOYEES. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

The measure would reduce pension benefits for current and future public employees, including teachers, nurses and peace officers, but excluding judges. It would eliminate constitutional protections for current and future public employees’ vested pension benefits. It would create a hybrid pension plan for new employees, capping collective benefits at 75 percent of salary. It would limit cost-of-living adjustments for retired and current employees. It would prohibit public retirement systems from providing death or disability benefits to future employees. It would require that current employees add up to 3 percent of their salary to their pension contribution annually, when the pension plan is underfunded.

According to the legislative analyst and director of finance, the fiscal impact on state and local government, over the next two or three decades, would be either increased annual costs or annual savings in state and local government personnel costs, depending on how the measure is interpreted and administered. In the long run (several decades from now), depending on how the legislature designs the required hybrid retirement plan, the impact would be potential annual savings in state and local government personnel costs of billions of dollars per year (in current dollars), offset to some extent by increases in other employee compensation costs.

The proponent for these measures, Daniel Pellissier, can be reached at danielpellissier@californiapensionreform.com. No phone number was provided.

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

The attorney general’s official title and summary for the measure is as follows: POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES BY CORPORATIONS. SHAREHOLDER APPROVAL. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

The measure would prohibit corporations and other business entities from making contributions or expenditures for political activities without shareholders’ prior informed approval. It would reduce the total amount of any contribution or expenditure approved by the percentage of shares not voted for approval. It would define political activities to include those related to candidates, ballot measures, issue advocacy, political parties, committees, voter registration or any other political or legislative causes. It would impose criminal penalties for violations against persons spending, consenting to or receiving prohibited contributions or expenditures. And it would require detailed reporting to shareholders.

According to the legislative analyst and director of finance, the fiscal impacts on state and local government would be increased annual state enforcement costs of potentially several hundred thousand dollars, partially offset by increased fine revenues.

The proponent of this measure, Thomas A. Willis, can be reached at 510-346-6200.

UNIVERSITY TUTITION

The attorney general’s official title and summary for the measure is as follows: TAX TO PAY TUITION AND FEES AT CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.

The measure would add .7 percent to the personal income tax rate applied to taxable income over $250,000 (over $342,465 if filing as head of household), and add 1.7 percent to the personal income tax rate applied to taxable income over $500,000 (over $684,930 if filing as head of household). And it would allocate the new revenue to pay up to four years’ tuition and fees for full-time undergraduate California residents attending University of California or California State University schools so long as they maintain a minimum 2.7 grade point average or perform 70 hours of annual community service.

According to the legislative analyst and director of finance, the fiscal impact on state and local government would be an annual loss of state tuition revenue of about $2.8 billion per year beginning in 2013-14, backfilled by additional state personal income tax revenue likely to total $2 billion or more per year. Potential shortfalls in university resources in some fiscal years would need to be addressed through some combination of cost reductions and alternative funding sources, which could create pressure on the state General Fund.

The proponents for this measure, Suneal Kolluri, Richard Boettner and Kara Duros, can be reached at suneal@gmail.com, richlizalex@sbcglobal.net and karaac@gmail.com.