Mar 022019
Note from Aaron F Park, I am proud to have William Del Pilar as a contributor. I do not control what he writes and he has editor access to Right on Daily. Please enjoy his point of view and leave your thoughts in the comment section.

A conservative Latino’s view on politics…

If your happy with the California Republican Party (CAGOP) and wanted the continued success of the worst beatdown in CAGOP history, your candidate was center-left Republican Jessica Patterson. Handpicked by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, she’s to be his marionette to his puppet master and continue the same leadership we’ve had since 2010. Conservatives felt after the 2018 massacre, leadership could change. Well, “The Empire Strikes Back” as Patterson won on the first ballot, easily defeating two conservatives.

Albert Einstein said to define insanity is to do the same thing over and over, expecting different results. I don’t believe the CAGOP did this expecting different results. Rather, current leadership believes we must go center-left to compete against Democrats even if that means higher taxes and bigger government. Perhaps they believe the state’s lost and look only to support McCarthy and his focus on congressional races.


  • Jessica Patterson, 651 votes – 54.6 percent
  • Travis Allen, 366 votes – 30.7 percent
  • Steve Frank, 175 votes – 14.7 percent


Both the establishment and conservative grass roots look up to Harmeet Dhillon, a former vice chair and current National Committee representative. She’s taken the fight straight to Democrats by taking the institutions of education and technology to court for attacking or firing conservatives. Many believe, as I do, she would’ve probably taken 95 percent of the vote had she chosen to run for chair. That said, I found it comical but expected when she introduced Patterson and stated in so many words that she chose to run a “positive” campaign, implying the other candidates did not. Comical because I knew someone from the Patterson camp would say that.

The Establishment consistently tells us to honor Ronald Reagan’s “Eleventh Commandment” that states, “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.” The proverb of, “do as I say, not as I do,” comes to mind. Case in point: immediately following Dhillon’s introduction stating Patterson ran a clean campaign, a well-known Patterson supporter, speaking on her nomination attacked Allen. Adding to that, the night before, Patterson’s camp slipped into the delegate’s hotel rooms, a hit piece against him. Oh, the hypocrisy my friends, the hypocrisy!


Patterson’s history had her supporting “Cap and Trade” Republicans. Supporting Proposition 14 (Top-Two Primaries Amendment). Working for the center-left donor that’s been directly responsible for the CAGOP malaise that led to the 2018 midterm destruction. Leadership doesn’t deny it. They make excuses for it. These are just a few examples of her center-left track record that included sanitizing social media accounts showing center-left leanings before announcing her run.

Despite that, Patterson’s campaign was flawless in disguising her as a conservative. The real coup was in gaining the endorsements of conservatives. Some research eventually revealed there was pressure to support her by the ruling class and specifically Kevin McCarthy. To the public and anyone who doesn’t follow the inner workings of CAGOP politics, one would think she’s the greatest thing since Mitt Romney said he was “severely conservative.”

What is it with center-left Republican candidates who claim conservatism come election time? Former gubernatorial candidate Neel Kashkari, former governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, former Assemblyman Rocky Chavez, current San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer, and former Republican turned newly-minted Democrat, Assemblyman Brian Maienschein. Patterson belongs in that group. Truth is, we know. These individuals epitomize those who’ll say anything for a vote. John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton, better known as Lord Acton said it best, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Regardless, Patterson’s deception was impeccable in her portrayal as a conservative.


Now that Democrats have determined “infanticide” is part of a woman’s pro-choice right, the prolife battle has begun anew in mainstream America. Shocking to many leftists, prolife is gaining prochoice supporters for the simple fact, they also believe once a baby is out of the womb it’s no longer an abortion, it’s murder. Patterson had a heartbreaking story to tell about her own family and why she’s prolife. It’s tragic and showed why many would think she’s a strong proponent of the prolife movement. Some stood to applaud her and her poignant words.

Here’s the problem. She worked to remove prolife from the California Republican platform. This is a great example of judging someone’s character by their actions, not words. This part of her speech encompasses everything wrong with anyone running for office. To use a true, tragic personal story to promulgate a lie. It made it even more ironic or maybe hypocritical is the better word, when I read in the San Francisco Chronicle that she said, “My parents told me that talk is cheap.” “Your actions speak louder.” Shades of leftism; saying anything for a vote!


You’ll see some mainstream media (MSM) papers talking about how the CAGOP elected the first woman Latina and millennial to boot. I saw many women vote for her because of this. Some even told me they were voting for another candidate but their jubilance and talk after her election revealed who they voted for. That’s OK, I understand it. Culture’s take pride when one of their own break barriers. On the surface it’s a great moment for the CAGOP.

As a conservative Latino I promote more Latinos in positions of power in business and politics but only if they’re qualified and have similar values. Two mentors – one black (liberal) and one a woman (conservative) taught me about life, treating others, leading and managing and how to carry yourself in business and politics. They also taught me qualifications and values are a necessity.

However, Patterson is chair to further the center-left movement and goals of leadership and to focus on congressional races for McCarthy. As I told a brethren Latino, I don’t care that she’s Latina as much as she’s qualified and upholds the values of the Republican Party. If you believe the CAGOP should remain center-left, then she’s your girl but realize she’s also McCarthy’s girl to do as he dictates.

I believe in Martin Luther King’s belief of not judging someone by their color (or culture or religion) but their character. A center-left Republican has nothing to do with the party Lincoln built and Reagan revitalized.


Almost every Republican – conservative and establishment – endorsed Patterson. That includes my representatives:

  • Assemblywoman Marie Waldron
  • State Senator Brian Jones
  • District 50 U.S. Representative Duncan Hunter

They’re solid conservatives, so why endorse a center-left candidate? As I said earlier, various sources told me it was pressure from the party, including McCarthy whose only goal is to focus on congressional races to win back the house. That’s important, but I care about all of California. The biggest disappointment is Waldron who’s revered by most conservatives and Republicans. This is how the highest-ranking Republican in California grows conservatism? Grows the party?

That’s my issue with Waldron. As a former liberal, I know most Democrat politicians get out into the community to grow the base, inspire youth, women, people of color or anyone else. My conservative friends who admire her, pushback with the classic, “that’s not their job,” comment. To those I say, that’s a big reason we keep losing. We don’t hold them accountable in helping grow the party. Her endorsement of a center-left candidate just adds another issue I have with her to the list.

I walked and supported Hunter but did relay to his campaign, not to call come 2020. I voted for Jones and have always voted for Waldron, but I’ll now look at all Republican candidates who’ll challenge these individuals, but I don’t expect any. In Congress, Republicans voted over and over to overturn “Obamacare” knowing he would veto it. When they could’ve overturned it, they puckered up and failed their constituents to tow the establishment and donor line. When it came time to support a conservative versus center-left candidate for CAGOP chair, Waldron, Jones and Hunter chose to tow the establishment line. The real kicker? Many will chastise me and that’s problematic. Too much reverence without questioning actions, makes us no better than sheep.


In a sign meant to unify Republicans, Patterson asked the defeated candidates, Allen and Frank to head the CAGOP voter registration task force. One of the biggest and most legitimate issues conservatives have with leadership is the fact the party no longer continues registration. Ironic because that’s one of their fundamental tasks. It’s easy for her to ask these two and create a perception of unity and extend an olive branch. The question they and all conservatives must ask, “What’s the budget and where will it take place?”

How much the CAGOP’s willing to finance in registering new Republicans will decide its success. We’re talking a multimillion-dollar campaign to be effective. Earlier, Patterson pushed back and said the party was already doing voter registration, but Frank exposed her lie. We know the current results. The CAGOP is now No. 3 behind the Democrat Party and NPP (No Party Preference). Before either Allen or Frank accept that challenge, they should make sure it’s properly funded with no constraints or walk away.

However, if the party does make it happen, maybe it’s finally understanding a base fundamental to winning – more Republicans! More important, it’s a huge step for current leadership in giving confidence to conservatives that Patterson’s willing to change. Regardless, how she votes and where they designate the registration events to happen is just as important. Her vote tells us where she stands as does where it takes place – will it only be districts where we lost congressional races in 2018 that McCarthy wants, or statewide?


Apart from the CAGOP chair election, one big issue that sadly, didn’t go anywhere was a bylaw proposal where Dhillon sought to change how proxies would work. Proxy votes are those delegates who don’t go to the convention but allow someone to take their ballot and vote for them. These votes decide elections, such as chair, bylaws, platform, amendment changes, etc. Proxy drills are a lucrative procedure worth tens-of-thousands with some telling me up to $30,000 but I didn’t corroborate those numbers. I did verify it’s mostly paid for by donors who’ve turned it into an art form with consultants specializing in it.

Stories have delegate trips to the convention paid for by donors. Republicans selected as delegates who won’t go to conventions but will give their vote by proxy to make sure leadership’s agenda can continue. It’s an incestuous, unethical system that desperately needs an overhaul. In fairness any candidate or individual can do a proxy drill. It’s just the establishment class, fed by donors has the resources to ramp up a machine to make it successful. Patterson’s infamous for running proxy drills for the center-left’s former top donor, the notorious Charles Munger Jr.

Dhillon compared it to Democrat ballot harvesting because it’s the practice of taking someone’s ballot and voting for them. I lost hope that someone would make this correlation. When I brought up the absurdity in this to others, they gave me dumbfounded looks. The irony! How Democrats destroyed the CAGOP using a tactic Republican leadership spent years perfecting against the conservative wing!

Dhillon was also unafraid to state two members benefiting directly from proxy drills didn’t recuse themselves during the committee vote. This is what conservatives talk about when they say the GOP consultant class doesn’t care about winning and doing right but getting paid. Ethics be damned! Sadly, by not getting out of committee it needed two-thirds vote to pass and went down in flames securing roughly, over 50 percent. Conservatives want change, but the establishment continues to thwart the people’s will. The “Force” is strong in the consultant class. Despite this, Dhillon was commanding in her tone and delivery in making her case from a position of moral strength, showing herself a force to reckon with.

This shows why conservatives adore Dhillon. She’s part of leadership yet challenged a corrupt tactic leadership uses to keep an iron grip on the party. She gives many conservatives still battling optimism. I’m sure she gained new fans and secured her conservative bona fides. It’s a shame she chose not to run for chair.


I didn’t know Randy Berholtz before the election but spoke to him. I grew up with three sisters, a mother and an aunt and I jokingly brag about my “woman’s intuition.” When you meet Randy there’s an air about him. Confident yet humble. My gut or “intuition” says he’s “real” but like I always do, I ask around and research. From what I understand, he’s a successful businessman and rock-solid conservative.

It’s what I got from everyone I spoke to even when I delved into picking their brains to try to see how much was just talk versus truth. To a T, those who know him said, he’s as conservative as they come and those who didn’t know him too well, said, “I know he’s conservative.” It was good, no great to see at least one success at the CAGOP convention with his win to be Secretary of the CRP.

Despite the loss, another silver lining was the fact the two chair candidates, combined, received 45.4 percent of the vote (541 out of the 1,192 votes). It gives “New Hope,” conservatives may still have a future. While I thought we hit bottom, the CAGOP will likely dig a deeper hole but conservatives will remain. I say to conservatives: it’s not time to jump ship, but to refocus our own efforts and only support candidates that share our values. We’ve stopped going along to get along and many establishment candidates will face our wrath when we leave their selection blank on Election Day. I’ve voted this way since 2012 and others do as well. We’ll turn out for our conservative candidates but are no longer voting for someone simply because they have an “R” by their name. Mitt Romney, John McCain and Neel Kashkari learned this the hard way.


I expect some phone calls. Some will chastise me and tell me to keep the faith. Some’ll say, I’m the problem and get on board or leave or ostracize me because I’ve chosen to write how I see the truth. Luckily, I’m not beholden to the CAGOP even though I support them. As a conservative Latino, they need me more than I need them. As someone formerly in the media, I believe in making sure others understand what’s happening – good and bad.

Despite another beatdown by center-left leadership, I’ll remain a Republican because as a young liberal, I quickly realized Democrats don’t care about minorities as much as using blacks and Latinos for voter turnout. Don’t believe me? Look at the data since the “Great War on Poverty.” However, the grassroots must focus toward working and shaping ourselves into activists to work directly with candidates who share our values and can show a track record of those values.

While the Republican Party remains closer to our values, we must see the CAGOP and Patterson’s promises bear fruit. Since 2006, the Republican Party’s been feckless, and Patterson’s political circle’s been with leadership that’s brought the CAGOP to its knees. Forgive me if I’m skeptical and refuse to jump on board and sing Kumbaya.

We should be wary and take a wait and see approach. What other realistic choice do we have? It’s the Republican Party or bust and yes, I know – we’re closer to bust in California.

An abbreviated version of this article ran in the Valley Roadrunner March 1, 2019.

William Del Pilar is politically active, currently sitting on the Valley Center Community Planning Group (VCCPG). As an entrepreneur, Del Pilar drove his fantasy sports company to set the standard for analysis and news distribution, helping to commercialize the industry from 1997-2008.

Jan 122019

There is a concept in parliamentary procedure called quorum. Quorum designates a fractional part of the body that is required at a minimum to be functional in order to do business. Imagine tripling the universe of people required to make quorum to start a meeting. This is part of what Steve Frank is proposing. 

The truth for over 30 years of CAGOP Conventions

It feels really good to make every Central Committee Member an automatic delegate, right? It is a way to dilute the influence of those party bosses over the party, right? Let’s unpack this idea…

Steve Frank, 71 has been involved in the operations of the California Republican Party since 1960. You would think a man with this kind of experience and heritage within the GOP would understand the consequences of poorly thought out rules changes.

Problem #1: All of us remember when Luis Buhler ran a statewide effort (funded by Charles T Munger Jr.) – spending an estimated $2.2 Million trying to pick the membership of EVERY Central Committee in California. Dozens of Central Committees became overrun with Political Consultants and Legislative Staff as a result. Should another group of people or a different rich dude attempt this in 2020, with Steve Frank’s By-Law Amendment in place this would literally leave the composition of the State GOP at the mercy of whomever had a ton of money to campaign with

Since grassroots activists rarely have a ton of money, most were hunted down in 2016 and many long-time party stalwarts were run off of their local party committees. (More on this in a future post)

Problem #2: The CAGOP’s By Laws are clear – it takes 50%+1 of the delegates / proxies in order to achieve quorum at a convention. That number is usually about 500 in order to do business. Imagine tripling that number? 

If the Convention fails to make quorum, then the Executive Committee takes care of the business – meaning 100 members of a small, exclusive club are empowered to control everything. 

Problem #3 – did you know that the LAGOP has something like 150 members at any given time? (In theory, they could have 161 elected members + 21 nominees in the Assembly Districts for a total of 182)

Most counties are elected by supervisor district and have 21 members. This means that the LAGOP would engulf 9 counties in influence!)

San Bernardino, Riverside, Orange and San Diego all have somewhere between 50 and 80 members each. 

It gets better – the Sacramento GOP with 2 times the number of Republicans that the Placer GOP has, has 32 elected slots on its’ Roster. The Placer GOP went to 7 per district 10 years ago and thus, has 35 Elected Members. Under Steve Frank’s rule, a county with 95,000 Registered Republicans would have more representation than a county with 200,000 registered Republicans!!!

We need more than solutions borne out of campaign posturing. 

Problem #4: If we were to abolish proxies and combine that with tripling the number of delegates in a slipshod manner, there would be a number of unintended consequences. The immediate consequence would be to create imbalances in representation due to variances in composition of county committees, empowering small sub-committees of people within the CAGOP to make major decisions and logistical nightmares.

I am actually quite disappointed that Steve Frank, with all of his experience did not think this through. This feel good idea would be a disaster and either he is not aware of the issues his proposal would create, or he is and is using it as a feel-good campaign prop. In either event, he is disqualifying himself from serious consideration with his own verbose plans and emails that fail scrutiny when tested against reality. 

To be continued…

P.S. Please note that I am in favor of abolishing Proxy Voting altogether, and will accept reducing proxies per delegate to 1 as a good first step. Secondly, I support opening up more opportunities to become CAGOP delegates, but that will be a discussion for a different time. 

OMG!!!! As the world turns……CRA & aaron park

 Steve Frank, Tom McClintock  Comments Off on OMG!!!! As the world turns……CRA & aaron park
Mar 102014

I sent the following email to several that were asking why the CRA did not endorse Tom McClintock. As I hoped, several in the Tea Party forwarded it far and wide.

The first copy I received back was from former CRA President Celeste Greig: (with the above title)

So, here I’m minding my own business, and lo and behold, I’m getting hundred of emails, comments and the below
posting about aaron park (the current CRA president in name only), and I did NOT solicited, read below, how he trashes a solid conservative member of congress, just like he did when he went after then candidate for congress, Congressman Doug LaMalfa, oh I almost forgot, Assemblywoman Beth Gaines (all with solid conservative voting records).

FYI, Steve Frank speaks highly of Congressman McClintock, of his great oratory, his voting record and unwavering stand of both social and fiscal values, as he has told me numerous times.

The last sentence is the most laughable. However – the text of the email that is making the rounds follows:

Thank you for emailing me.
Steve Frank ran for assembly in 1996, McClintock entered the race late and mopped up the floor with him. It is well-known that Frank hates McClintock. If I have helped relieve Steve of an 18-year grudge, then Praise God for that.
That being said, he is obsessed with trying to wedge the Tea Party and the CRA against each other. He was disgraced by CRA in 2013 because we held him accountable for his dishonest actions in manipulating endorsements and in 2013 all of his clients lost their races for CRP office.
These sorts of attacks are what desperate men do whose egos are defined by events outside themselves. Steve Frank has lost considerable clout and needs to reinvent himself by trying to get to the right of the CRA.
McClintock has done nothing for CRA and worse, his local actions have been hostile including his current hand-picked Chairman of the Placer GOP who is an unabashed social liberal. 7 of his 8 appointments to the CRP WILL vote to gut the platform.
In our county, we have a democrat supervisor in a 44% Republican district. He just filed unopposed. McClintock did nothing to help us find an opponent. McClintock has never helped fund voter registration. We’ve been on our own since McClintock got elected.
The Placer RA has elected 12 of its’ members to local office despite McClintock and his political advisor treating us like the enemy. McClintock has even publicly attacked us for defending ourselves from Karen England.
We need help. I am not sure if Art Moore is the right guy or if the focus on why Art Moore is getting traction against McClintock will cause McClintock to alter his course of action.
Steve Frank’s account of the events of the convention is so wrong on so many facts, it is astounding. There were 8 CRA Board members present when the non-endorsement of McClintock occurred, start there.
The motion the reconsider the endorsement is out of order for many more reasons than John Briscoe cited. We have to follow our by-laws and tea party harps on the constitution, yet we are supposed to violate ours because it involves McClintock?
Bottom line – the CRA has the right and the local units have the right to endorse or not endorse as they see fit. We spoke. We are a bottom-up organization, a fact not lost on Steve, yet conveniently ignored. The liberty people in the Tea Party should respect that unless their desire for a result overrides their desire for liberty and self-determination. BTW – I did not have a vote in that local convention. I was not a delegate.
Second – I had nothing to do with Art Moore filing. The one time I met him, I told him not to run. Taking on an icon like McClintock is a suicide mission. It is entirely possible that Moore gets funded, as there are a lot more people than Steve Frank that dislike/want to remove McClintock. Even if Moore gets funded, can he beat McClintock? Not sure.
Third – I am neutral. The attacks have only hardened my resolve to sit this one out. At a time of my choosing, when it is convenient for me, I may engage on behalf of either one of them, which one it is depends on Tom McClintock. Right now, this is a no-win thanks to the actions of one CRA officer (who I won’t name) who has inflamed this situation causing Steve Frank to get John Briscoe’s email. Our club spoke and the CRA Spoke and the discussion should be on why we did not endorse versus the attacks.
Fourth – Art Moore is not a moderate. He is a conservative, not as far-right as McClintock but easily a prototypical CRA Member type. The Sac Bee article was wishful thinking by the reporter as the Sac Bee is dedicated in their ideological hatred of McClintock. (Which is far different than the issues many here locally have with Tom) Since I was accused of recruiting Moore, I figured I might as well get to know the guy I “recruited”. I reached out to him and spoke to him at some length. That call was the first time I ever spoke to him beyond the three minute conversation I had with him when I first met him, telling him not to run.
You can use any of the above as you see fit.
Sep 232012

Jim Nielsen is beating a drum – if you hammer him for his record, you’re a liar. Click here to see our post from last year lambasting Jim Nielsen for his role in decimating the CAGOP Platform.

Unfortunately, for gentleman Jim, he has been in office too long to get away with anything. Actually, he has been on both sides of so many issues he is using that to double-speak any of his critics. Case and point – Periphrial Canal – He opposed Jerry Brown’s Canal, but supported George Deukmejian’s. He voted to put Prop 14 on the ballot, but then opposed Prop 14 once on the ballot. He called members of the legislature to go up on Prop 1A – the largest tax increase in state history, then voted against it on the floor of the Assembly.

Nielsen was also on both sides of the California Republican Party Platform debate. But, what he did as a member of the drafting committee was so egregious that he will not recover politically from the exposure.

In the drafting Committee – the minutes show that Jim Nielsen was out in front, leading the charge for the Platform for California’s Future. This platform had the pro-life, prop-8, 2nd amendment, and a whole bunch of other Republican issues stripped out of it.

It was so watered down that it even had the ethics section deleted! Click here for a full analysis between the previous CRP platform and the one that Jim Nielsen advocated for.

Click here to see the minutes from the Platform Drafting Committee MeetingNielsen was the first to speak towards its’ adoption and he made the motion to adopt said platform (Called the Platform for California’s Future). Conservative leaders Mike Spence and Craig DeLuz led the opposition.

Note as well that there were amendments proposed to bring parts of the “Pruner Platform” in to the Jim Nielsen Platform. They were all torpedoed.

The amendment to add paragraphs 3-8 of page 8 was adding Pro-Life language to the Nielsen platform. It was voted down. The amdnement to add paragraph 2 of page 5 was adding Prop-8 to the Nielsen platform. It was voted down.

I was called the day of the Drafting committee meeting by Steve Frank and I also spoke to Craig DeLuz. They both told me that Jim Nielsen was leading the debate for the watered-down platform the entire meeting. Mike Spence later confirmed the same story and he added that David Stafford Reade (who was expelled from CRA for 10 years for committing fraud) was there with Jim Nielsen.

You see, when legislative staff come forward to tell me that Jim Nielsen is making calls to try and recruit people to support the largest tax increase in state history – it gets my attention. When these same staffers tell me that Nielsen played let’s-make-a-deal on tossing three dams in Siskiyou County as part of Arnold’s water bond (which could go on the ballot at any time, still)… it gets my attention. Then when something like the Platform fight features Jim Nielsen it all makes sense.

There are times when Jim Nielsen’s own tendencies put him in a place where calling his critics liars just simply can not obfuscate the truth.

Jim Nielsen calls himself a Conservative because he is not. He attempted to destroy the CAGOP Platform – largely due to this blog criticizing him  – Jim Nielsen reversed himself and actually voted against the Platform he had moved to adopt and voted for the “Pruner Platform” in the entire Platform Committee.

Add this to the list of Jim Nielsen’s flip-flops – but this one is clearly an effort to save face after getting exposed.

P.S. – remember that $133k that Charles Munger invested in Nielsen? Charles Munger spent a reputed $250k on the effort to gut the CRP Platform. David Stafford Reade was paid to run the proxy drill in the north state for Munger. The $133k from Munger certainly looks like Jim Nielsen’s reward for services rendered. If Nielsen really supported a Conservative CAGOP Platform would Charles Munger have dropped $133k in to him?

Jul 032010

The usual Labor-Union Fed crap of lowering the budget threshold to a simple majority makes another appearance… Prop 18 is a disaster – it would actually shut down three dams, accomplishing exactly opposite of what it says it is for… and Prop 23 is the biggie, the rollback of the Cap and Trade Global Warming AB32.

(Prop 26 is also huge – it would stop “Fee” increases by simple majority as well)

From Steve Frank: Secretary of State Debra Bowen just rolled em out, and here they are …

Proposition 18: Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2010 ($11.1 billion bond measure)  NO

Proposition 19: legalizes recreational marijuana use. (Too bad this wasnt Prop. 20, as proponents wouldve been able to say theyre For 20.)  NO

Proposition 20: adds Congressional reapportionment to the authority of the citizens redistricting commission created by Prop. 11 of 2008  YES

Proposition 21: establishes $18 annual vehicle license surcharge to help fund state parks and wildlife programs, with free admission to state parks for all surcharged vehicles  NO

Proposition 22: bars state government from taking, borrowing, shifting or restricting use of tax revenues dedicated by law to fund local government, community redevelopment or transportation projects  YES

Proposition 23: rolls back AB 32, the states landmark greenhouse gas emissions law, until the states unemployment rate drops to 5.5 percent or less for four consecutive quarters  YES

Proposition 24: repeals recently enacted corporate tax breaks letting businesses carry back losses, share tax credits, and use a sales-based income calculation to lower taxable income.  NO

Proposition 25: reduces legislative vote requirement to pass a budget from two-thirds to a simple majority.  NO

Proposition 26: increases legislative vote requirement to impose state levies and charges from a simple majority to two-thirds.  YES

Proposition 27: eliminates citizens redistricting commission created by Prop. 11 of 2008, putting all reapportionment authority back in the Legislatures hands.  NO