1996 Environmental Scorecard

LE ND RE A CA H H IT W

23rd Annual Guide to Environmental Legislation & Votes

California League of Conservation Voters CLCV: POLITICAL ACTION CONTENTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION he California League of Conservation Voters is the non-partisan political action arm of 1996: Year in Review ...... 1 T C a l i f o rnia's environmental movement. The League's mission is to protect the environmental quality of the state by working to elect environmentally responsible candidates to state and Best & Wo r s t...... 1 federal office, then holding them accountable to the environmental agenda. Voting Summary ...... 2 The League conducts rigorous re s e a rch on candidates and concentrates on the races where our The Agenda: Bill Descriptions 3 - 5 re s o u rces can make a diff e rence. We back our endorsements with expertise, assisting candidates Notes on the Score c a r d ...... 5 with the media, fundraising and grassroots organizing strategies they need to win. Each election y e a r, we place experienced organizers, known as the Grizzly Corps, in the most crucial Assembly Floor Vo t e s...... 6 - 9 e n v i ronmental contests in the state, then work to get out the vote on Election Day. In 1996, CLCV Senate Floor Vo t e s ...... 10 - 11 fielded 15 Grizzlies in 14 campaigns and contributed over $325,000 on behalf of candidates. F i v e - Year Av e r a g e s ...... 1 2 The League is also a legislative watchdog. Each year, we track scores of environmental bills and votes in Sacramento and work to make sure legislators hear from environmental voters. At 1997 Legislative session's end, we publish the C a l i fo rnia Env i ronmental Score c a rd to help voters distinguish R o s t e r ...... Inside Back Cover between the rhetoric and reality of a lawmaker's record. This edition of the Scorecard records the most important environmental votes of the 1996 session. Now in its 23rd year, the Scorecard — distributed to 25,000 League members, other © 1996 California League of e n v i ronmental organizations and the news media — is the authoritative source on the state’s Conservation Vo t e r s e n v i ronmental politics.

965 Mission St., Suite 625 ADVISORY COUNCIL , CA 94103 Ruben Aronin, E a rth Communications Ofc. Micci Martinez, Clean Water A c t i o n (415) 896-5550 Mike Belliveau, C o m munities for a Better Ed Maschke, C a l P I R G E nv i ro n m e n t Laurie McCann, Friends of the Rive r 10951 W. Pico Blvd. David Chatfield, Clean Water A c t i o n Carlos Melendrez, E D G E , CA 90064 Martha Davis, Mono Lake Committee Angela Meszaros, E nv i ronmental Justice (310) 441-4162 Luis De La Rosa, LA Center for Law & Ju s t i c e C o a l i t i o n John Gamboa, The Greenlining Institute Marilyn Morton, The Pa rsons Corpora t i o n I n t e rnet: [email protected] or Mark Gold, Heal the Bay Barry Nelson, S ave San Francisco Bay h t t p : / / w w w . e c o v o t e . o rg / e c o v o t e Antonio Gonzalez, S o u t h west Voter A s s o c i a t i o n R e gi s t ration Pro j e c t Mel Nutter, LA League of Conservation Vo t e rs Andy Goodman, E nv i ronmental Media John Perez, UFCW Region 8 P e rmission granted to quote from A s s o c i a t i o n Gary Phillips, M u l t i c u l t u ral Collab o ra t i ve or re p roduce portions of this Juana Gutierrez, M a d res del Este de David Roe, E nv i ronmental Defense Fund publication if properly cre d i t e d . Los A n ge l e s Marty Rosen, Trust for Public Land Randall Hayes, Ra i n fo r est Action Netwo rk Bruce Saito, LA Conservation Corps Hans Hemann, S i e rra Club Califo rn i a Jim Sayer, G reenbelt A l l i a n c e Printed on recycled paper using Bonnie Holmes, S i e rra Club Califo rn i a M A L D E F soy-based inks Marta Samano, Brian Huse, National Pa rks & Conservation Bill Wa l k e r, Env i r onmental Wo rking Gro u p Designed by Mark Deitch & A s s o c i a t i o n Associates, Inc., Los Angeles Bong Hwan Kim, Ko rean Youth & C o m munity Center ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The League thanks the following organizations and individuals for their contributions to the 1996 C a l i fo rnia Env i ronmental Score c a rd: Audubon Society, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Leo Briones, Californians Against Waste, California Electric Transportation Coalition, CalPIRG, Joe Caves, Clean Water Action, Mark Deitch & Associates, Inc., Environmental Wo r k i n g G roup, Mountain Lion Foundation, Pesticide Action Network, Planning & Conservation League, Price Consulting, Sierra Club California, Trust for Public Land and V. John White & Associates.

1996 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL SCORECARD 1996: SPECIAL FAVORS FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS Best & Wo r s t BEST LEGISLATORS: Sens. Tom Hayden and ov. set the tone for this year in the final days of 1995, when he became the Jack O'Connell, in whose committees many Gfirst governor ever to call a special session solely to pass special-interest legislation of the worst Assembly bills were killed. defeated in the previous session: a two-year extension on the use of the toxic pesticide WORST : Assemblyman Keith Olberg, chair methyl bromide, which was to be banned after March 1996. of the Natural Resources Committee, who The methyl bromide extension, which environmentalists were originally given no chance told the LA Tim e s his strategy was to send of even slowing down, turned into a pitched three-month fight, as enviros rallied grassro o t s up more anti-environmental bills than the and editorial opposiion statewide. But when it was over, the bill was law — a stain on the Senate could knock down. Only one (AB legacy of its author, retiring Sen. Henry Mello — and a pattern was set for the year: Special 3048) made it to the governor's desk, after favors for special intere s t s . extensive amendment. That, of course, could be said of most years. The diff e rence in 1996 was that Republicans AS S E M B L Y'S LOSS, SENATE'S GAIN: Byron Sh e r , whose move to the Senate boosted finally gained control of the Assembly, and new Speaker set the foxes loose in efforts to thwart the Assembly's agenda . the environmental henhouse. Two of the most consistently anti-environmental votes in the Assembly — Keith Olberg and Bernie Richter — were the new chairs of the Natural COMEBACK KIDS: Sens. Steve Peace and R e s o u rces and Toxics committees, and the agenda of the GOP caucus could only be Mike Thompson, whose scores dropped in described as extremist. (The most notable change in this year’s scores vs. 1995 was a dro p '95, rebounded to the Most Improved list. of 11 points in the Assembly GOP average.) Peace took a principled stand against methyl bromide; Thompson's SB 2086, O l b e rg seemed to be trying to set a record for most anti-environmental bills introduced in promoting alternatives to rice-burning, a single session. Richter made no pretense that his committee’s hearings were fair and was one of the few good ideas to reach the impartial. Two Orange County freshmen, Gary Miller and Bob Margett, inroduced bills that governor's desk. sought to exempt California from the global treaty banning ozone-depleting chemicals. In GREENEST GOP'ER: Assemblyman Jim the Senate, two other Orange County Republicans, John Lewis and Rob Hurtt, introduced a Cunneen, at 71 the highest- scoring stack of bills attempting (unsuccessfully) to dismantle the South Coast Air Quality Republican since Tom Campbell (76 in Management District. 19 8 9 ) . ortunately, many of the worst Assembly bills died or were watered down in Senate BEST BILL THAT DIDN'T GO ANYWHERE: Fcommittees. (The sheer volume of bad Assembly bills, and the fact that so few re a c h e d SB 2080 (O'CONNELL), the Childhood Lead the Senate floor, produced an unusual 1996 Scorecard that counts 24 Assembly floor votes Poisoning Prevention Act, setting state vs. only 12 Senate votes.) But the upper chamber produced its share of horrors, and not all standards for lead hazard control. came from Republicans. What all had in common was that they placed the agenda of pow- WORST BILLS THAT DID: SBX3 1, extending e rful, monied special interests above the health, safety and quality of life of Californians. The the use of methyl bromide for the sake of worst examples: SB 649 ( CO S TA) and SB 1750 ( MA D D Y). cheap strawberries; and SB 649, gutting an Costa’s bill took the teeth out of California's oldest environmental law, an 1876 statute 1876 law in order to let polluters off the setting strict liability for the discharge of oil or chemicals into the state's waters. Because the hook for oil & chemical spills. bill makes it much harder to prosecute water polluters, it was opposed not only by BAD SCIENCE: GOP freshmen Gary Miller e n v i ronmentalists, but the state's district attorneys, Cal-EPA and the Department of Fish & and Bob Margett of Orange County Game. Wilson ignored his cabinet's advice and signed the bill, en route to his legislative introduced AB 1983 and AB 1996, to s c o re of 10, lowest of his 6 years in off i c e . exempt California from the U.S. ban on ozone-destroying CFCs. Fellow OC SB 1750 — like its companion, AB 2264 ( PO O C H I G I A N) — as a sweeping assault on the Republican Jim Morrissey told the Tim e s state's entire pesticide regulation program. It would have eliminated the groundwater ozone depletion was "just a theory." p rotection program, removed the authority of local air districts to regulate airborne pesticides, and given more authority to the Department of Pesticide Regulation, which WORST SPECIAL FAVOR FOR A SPECIAL showed clearly this year why it is considered a puppet of the pesticide industry. Defeat of IN T E R E S T : After taking almost $100,000 SB 1750 was environmentalists’ biggest win of the year, but its proponents are expected to from the pesticide lobby, Gov. Wilson made make another run at pesticide regulation in 1997. hi s t o r y by calling a special session to pass a measure — overturning the methyl ow that the Democrats have re c a p t u red control of the Assembly, environmentalists are bromide ban — that failed the year before. Ncautiously optimistic about 1997. The committees will be in greener hands, but new UNCLEAR ON THE CONCEPT: Two of Speaker Speaker 's environmental record is mediocre at best. The agenda will swing Curt Pringle's appointees to the California back from anti-environmental extremism, but it may be not enough to reverse the bottom Coastal Commission had been charged with line of California environmental politics in the 90's: Defense against bad bills, with little violating laws the Commission is charged p rospect for passing bills that advance environmental pro t e c t i o n . with enforcing.

1996 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL SCORECARD 1 1996 VOTING INDEX ASSEMBLY Average of all Assembly members: 44 In 1995: 53 Average Republican Assembly score: 10 In 1995: 21 Average Democratic Assembly score: 86 In 1995: 85 P e rcentage of Assembly Republicans scoring 20 or lower: 93 In 1995: 61 P e rcentage of Assembly Democrats scoring 80 or higher: 82 In 1995: 72 Republican Assembly members with scores of 50 or higher: Cunneen (71), McPherson (50) Democratic Assembly members with scores of 50 or lower: Machado (30), Bustamante (40), Cannella (42) P e rfect 100s: Archie-Hudson, Bates, Bowen, Burton, Figueroa, Friedman, Isenberg, Knox, Kuehl, Lee, Mazzoni, Migden, Napolitano, Sweeney, Vasconcellos, Villaraigosa Z e ros: Alby, Baugh, Knowles, Morro w SENATE Average of all Senators: 55 In 1995: 50 Average Republican Senate floor score: 25 In 1995: 14 Average Democratic Senate floor score: 78 In 1995: 76 P e rcentage of Senate Republicans scoring 20 or lower: 39 In 1995: 76 P e rcentage of Senate Democrats scoring 80 or higher: 45 In 1995: 48 Republican Senators with scores of 50 or higher: none (highest: Kelley, 42) Democratic Senators with scores of 50 or lower: Alquist (40), Calderon (44), Costa (45) P e rfect 100s: Dills, Hayden, Killea, Marks, O'Connell, Rosenthal, Sher, Solis, Wa t s o n Z e ros: Haynes, Russell THE GOVERNOR P ro - e n v i ronmental bills signed: 1 P ro - e n v i ronmental bills vetoed: 1 A n t i - e n v i ronmental bills signed: 7 A n t i - e n v i ronmental bills vetoed: 0 Special sessions called to push anti-environmental bills: 1 1996 legislative score (1 pro-, 9 anti-): 10

MOST IMPROVED1 WORST DECLINES Beverly +30 Alquist -35 Kelley +27 Mello -26 Killea +23 G reene -21 Kopp +23 B rewer -20 Peace +22 Hawkins -20 Hauser +19 Kuykendall -20 Gallegos +17 Rogan -20 Davis +15 M o r row -19 M. Thompson +15 Cortese -18 Baca +13 House -18

1 To be eligible for the Most Improved list, legislators must achieve a minimum score of 40. 2 1996 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL SCORECARD THE AGENDA: THE BILLS THAT MAKE UP THE SCORES

5. ALTERNATIVES TO RICE-BURNING ✔ ✔ P R O - E N V I R O N M E N TAL BILL B u rning of rice straw after the grain is harvested is a serious health ✗ A N T I - E N V I R O N M E N TAL BILL p roblem, emitting the same cancer-causing chemicals found in c i g a rette smoke. SB 2086 ( TH O M P S O N) authorizes a study of tax P R O - E N V I R O N M E N TAL ACTION BY GOVERNOR incentives for reuse of rice straw in paper or building pro d u c t s .

Merged in Assembly with SB 38 (LOCKYER), a tax bill otherwise A N T I - E N V I R O N M E N TAL ACTION BY GOVERNOR unrelated to environmental issues; signed into law.

AIR QUALITY WATER QUALITY & SUPPLY 1. RESTRICT AUTHORITY OF LOCAL AIR DISTRICTS ✗ 6. PROHIBIT STRONGER STATE SAFE-WATER STANDARDS ✗ AB 924 ( RA I N E Y) re q u i res local air districts to conduct a cumbersome One of many "federal conformity" bills this session, AB 2620 “cost-benefit” analysis before approving new pollution control ( MO R R I S S E Y) would have prohibited California water agencies fro m regulations for areas outside the worst air-quality regions of the state. setting safe drinking water standards more strict than federal standards Signed into law. — even when needed to protect public health. Defeated in Senate Toxics Committee. 2. INCENTIVES FOR LOW-EMISSION VEHICLES (L.E.V.S) ✔ ✗ By allowing EPA-certified low-emission vehicles (powered by electric- 7. SHIELD WATER POLLUTERS FROM PROSECUTION ity or compressed natural gas) to use freeway lanes now reserved for SB 649 ( CO S TA) weakens the state's oldest environmental law, enacted high-occupancy vehicles, AB 2282 ( KN O X) would have boosted the to protect California's waters from oil and chemical spills. The bill market for cleaner cars, helping clean the air. makes it more difficult to prosecute water polluters, opening thousands of loopholes for accidental (but still damaging) spills by oil, Vetoed. chemical and timber companies. 3. WEAKEN CALIFORNIA CLEAN AIR ACT ✗ Signed into law. AB 2525 ( MI L L E R) rolls back the California Clean Air Act, re p l a c i n g ✔ the re q u i rement for a 5 percent annual reduction in air pollution with 8. BAY-DELTA PROTECTION BOND ACT a vague directive that fails to protect those most vulnerable to the SB 900 ( CO S TA) places on the November 1996 ballot a $1 health impacts of dirty air — children, the elderly and people with billion bond issue, Proposition 204, to improve water quality and respiratory ailments. supply in San Francisco Bay and the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta. Signed into law. Signed into law. ✗ 4. ELIMINATE L.E.V. REQUIREMENTS FOR VEHICLE FLEETS PESTICIDES In its original form, AB 3048 ( OL B E R G) would have eliminated the ✗ re q u i rement that auto fleet operators in the worst air-quality regions 9, 10. OVERTURN METHYL BROMIDE BAN of the state use a significant number of low-emission vehicles in In January, Gov. Wilson called a special legislative session solely to their fleets. ( E n v i ronmentalists' opposition withdrawn after o v e r t u rn the state ban on methyl bromide, an acutely toxic pesticide a m e n d m e n t s . ) that is also a powerful destroyer of the Earth's protective ozone layer. Delaying the ban until 2001 benefits a relative handful of strawberry Signed into law. g rowers while exposing farmworkers, children and residents to unacceptable health risks. ABX3 1 ( FR U S E T TA) and SBX3 1 ( ME L L O) w e re identical bills to delay the ban. ABX3 1 died in Senate Toxics Committee. SBX3 1 signed into law.

1996 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL SCORECARD 3 PESTICIDES, CONTINUED 16. GARBAGE BURNING VS. RECYCLING ✗ ✗ By giving garbage burning equal priority with recycling and sourc e 11. INADEQUATE METHYL BROMIDE BUFFER ZONES reduction as a method of meeting landfill reduction goals, AB 2706 During floor debate on SBX3 1, Sen. Nick Petris, author of the original ( CA N N E L L A) will undermine recycling, substituting a process that is law banning methyl bromide, unsuccessfully off e red 3 amendments to m o re expensive, uses more energy and poses health risks. i n c rease safeguards against exposure to the pesticide. One would have e n l a rged the buffer zones between methyl bromide applications and Died in Senate Appropriations. subdivisions, schools and nursing homes. Vote is on the motion to kill ✗ Petris' amendment. 17. GUT PLASTICS RECYCLING The 1991 state plastics recycling law is modest, requiring that rigid Amendment defeated on Senate floor. plastic containers meet one of four recycling-friendly standards. Still, 12. PESTICIDE DEREGULATION ✗ the plastics lobby pushed through SB 1155 ( MA D D Y), exempting all food and cosmetics containers — more than half of the containers After getting its way on methyl bromide, the pesticide lobby attempt- c o v e red under the old law. ed a radical rollback of California's pesticide control program. AB 2264 ( PO O C H I G I A N) [and its companion, SB 1750 ( MA D D Y)] would have elim- Signed into law. inated groundwater protections, prohibited local agencies from re g u- lating airborne pesticides, and further concentrated authority in the FORESTS hands of the Department of Pesticide Regulation, widely seen as a puppet of agribusiness. 18. LONG-TERM LOGGING ✗ AB 2264 died in Senate Appropriations Committee; SB 1750 Under current law, timber companies must file a three-year logging died in the Senate Toxics Committee. plan, subject to public review and approval by the Department of F o restry. AB 169 ( RI C H T E R) would have allowed loggers to file long- t e rm timber harvest plans of up to 10 years, making it harder to mon- TOXICS itor logging practices. ✗ 13. EXEMPTIONS FOR ON-SITE TOXIC WASTE TREATMENT Defeated in the Senate Natural Resources Committee. In its original form, AB 2776 ( MI L L E R) would have allowed the Department of Toxic Substances Control to grant, without public or 19. UNREGULATED 'SALVAGE' LOGGING ✗ legislative review, broad exemptions from regulations for the on-site AB 1357 (KN O W L E S) originally was a state version of the notorious t reatment of toxic wastes at certain facilities. (Amendments re m o v e d federal "salvage" timber law, allowing virtually unrestricted logging some of the objectionable provisions, but some enviro n m e n t a l- under the guise of reducing fire danger. The vague "fire danger" ists feel the final bill still grants the Department overly bro a d standard could have been used to justify almost any logging plan. a u t h o r i t y . ) ( E n v i ronmentalists' opposition dropped after AB 1357 was Signed into law. stripped of timber provisions and turned into an unre l a t e d l o c a l - i n t e rest bill, which was signed into law.) 14. RESTRICT CITIZEN ENFORCEMENT SUITS ✗ Original bill died in the Senate Appropriations Committee. P roposition 65, the state's main toxics control law, allows private citizens and watchdog groups to sue alleged violators to comply with CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT the law. AB 3160 ( OL B E R G) would have reversed the burden of pro o f for Prop. 65 suits, forcing citizens to prove the merits of their case to 20. 'INCIDENTAL' SPECIES DESTRUCTION ✗ the Attorney General first — effectively giving the state the right to Of all the bills introduced by Assembly Natural Resources chair Keith "veto" citizen enforcement actions. O l b e rg attacking the state Endangered Species Act, AB 3151 was the Defeated on Assembly floor. most dangerous. It would not only have allowed the Department of Fish & Game authority to permit killing of endangered species if the WASTE & RECYCLING destruction was "incidental to otherwise lawful activity," but it would ✗ have removed legal protection for species while they are listed as 15. LANDFILL COVER AS 'RECYCLING' candidates for endangered status — the time they need it most. AB 1647 ( BU S TA M A N T E) will undermine the state law requiring local Died in conference committee. g o v e rnments to reduce, through recycling, the amount of solid waste they dump in landfills. The bill redefines "recycling" to include the use of waste materials as daily cover for landfills. Signed into law.

4 1996 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL SCORECARD CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT CONSERVATION 21. EXEMPTIONS FOR OIL PIPELINES ✗ 27, 28. PARK BONDS ✔ CEQA is an environmental Bill of Rights that guarantees citizens a say AB 1533 ( CO RT E S E) and SB 1948 ( TH O M P S O N) w e re attempts to place in decisions about projects and developments with potential on the November 1996 statewide ballot a proposition to issue state e n v i ronmental impact. AB 1487 ( PR I N G L E) will open huge loopholes in bonds to acquire and maintain re c reational parks and wildlife habitat CEQA for the repair and replacement of oil pipelines, exempting conservancies. AB 1533 called for the issuance of $495 million in pipeline projects up to 6 miles long from public re v i e w . bonds; SB 1948 was a spot bill, with the amount unspecified. Signed into law. AB 1533 was defeated on the Assembly floor, where SB 1948 died without a vote. 22. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS ✗ For all proposed projects, CEQA re q u i res an Environmental Impact Report — the main tool for citizens and policy-makers to assess the impact of development. AB 2099 ( MI L L E R) would have let developers Notes on the Score c a rd — instead of planning agencies — write their own EIRs and re s t r i c t e d This edition of the California Environmental the authority of courts to throw out an inadequate EIR. S c o r e c a r d evaluates floor votes by the 1996 Defeated on Assembly floor. session of the Legislature on 28 key environmental bills. Because very few of the bills reached the 23. RESTRICT CITIZEN PARTICIPATION ✗ Senate floor, scores are based on 24 Assembly L B E R G AB 3049 ( O ) was an assault on the underlying principle of votes and 12 Senate votes, making each Senate CEQA. It sought to reverse the burden of proof from the developer, vote worth exactly twice as much as an Assembly who currently must prove that a project will not be environmentally vote. (Unlike previous years, this edition of the h a rmful, to the public, who would have to prove that enviro n m e n t a l impacts will occur. Scorecard does not grade legislators for votes cast in committee.) Died in Senate Governmental Organization Committee. Bills listed are not all the environmental bills of ENFORCEMENT & REGULATION the session, but those judged most important by a consensus of the environmental community. (See 24, 25. POLLUTERS' SECRETS ✗ inside back cover for a list of participating organi- Two of the many "environmental audit" bills introduced in '96, AB 856 zations.) Votes counted for scoring may not be the ( CA L D E R A) and AB 1729 ( MO R R O W) would have shielded polluters final roll-call: the Scorecard panel decided which f rom legal penalties for violations of environmental regulations or votes were most indicative for each bill. workplace health and safety laws, as long as the companies re p o r t e d the violations themselves. In addition, AB 856 would have kept such Pro-environment votes are designated by ✔; self-disclosed information from public re c o r d s . anti-environmental votes by ✗. Members who did Died in Senate Judiciary Committee. not vote (due to absence or abstention) are marked N V, and those not eligible for a vote as NE. Final 26. PROHIBIT TOUGHER STATE ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS ✗ scores are the percentage of pro-environment The most sweeping of the "federal conformity" bills, AB 2896 votes cast, not counting absences. ( GO L D S M I T H) would have re q u i red Cal-EPA and the state Resourc e s Agency to conform all major state regulations to corresponding federal standards, prohibiting the setting of tougher state standards in most cases. Died in Senate Appropriations Committee.

1996 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL SCORECARD 5 AS S E M B L Y FLOOR VOTES

AIR WATER PESTICIDES TOXICS WASTE FORESTS SCORECARD BILL NO. 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 PR O - E N V I R O N M E N T AL VOTES 47 31 24 31 29 74 28 25 30 29 31 14 29 23 33 32 AN T I - E N V I R O N M E N T AL VOTES 27 43 45 41 44 4 45 46 41 41 38 51 43 45 42 44 AC K E R M A N R- 7 2 ✗✗✗✗✗✔✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗ AG U I A R R- 6 1 ✔ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✔ ✗ ✗ NV ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ AL B Y R- 0 5 ✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗ AL P E R T D- 7 8 ✔✔✔✔✔✔✗✗✔✔✔✗✔✔✔✔ AR C H I E - H U D S O N D- 4 8 ✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔ NV ✔ NV ✔ ✔ BA C A D- 6 2 ✔✗✗✔✗✔✔✔✔✗✔✗✗✗✔✔ BA L D W I N R- 7 7 ✗✗✗✗✗✔✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗ BAT E S D- 1 4 ✔ ✔ NV NV ✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔ BAT T I N R- 8 0 ✔✗✗✗✗✔✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗ BA U G H R- 6 7 ✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗ BO L A N D R- 3 8 ✗✗✗✗✗✔✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗ BO R D O N A R O R- 3 3 ✗✗✗✗✗✔✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗ BO W E N D- 5 3 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ NV ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ BO W L E R R- 1 0 ✔✗✗✗✗✔✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗ BR E W E R R- 7 0 ✗✗✗✗✗✔✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗ BR O W N D- 0 7 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ NV ✔ NV ✔ ✔ NV ✔ ✔ ✔ ✗ BR U LT E R- 6 3 ✔✗✗✗✗✔✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗ BU RT O N D- 1 2 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ NV ✔ NV ✔ NV ✔ ✔ BU S TA M A N T E D- 3 1 ✔ ✗ NV NV ✗ ✔ ✗ ✗ ✗ NV ✔ ✗ NV ✗ NV ✗ CA L D E R A D- 4 6 NV NV NV NV ✗ ✔ ✔ ✔ NV NV ✔ NV ✔ NV ✔ ✔ CA M P B E L L D- 1 1 ✗✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔ CA N N E L L A D- 2 6 ✔✔✗✔✗✔✗✗✔✔✗✗✗✗✗✗ CO N R O Y R- 7 1 ✔✗✗✗✗✔✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗ CO RT E S E RE F - 2 3 ✔ ✗ ✗ NV ✔ ✔ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✔ ✗ ✗ NV ✗ ✗ CU N N E E N R- 2 4 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✗ ✔ ✔ NV ✗ NV ✔ ✔ ✗ ✔ NV ✔ ✔ DAV I S D- 7 6 ✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔ NV ✔ ✔ ✔ ✗ DU C H E N Y D- 7 9 ✔ NV NV ✔ NV ✔ NV ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✗ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ES C U T I A D- 5 0 ✗ ✔ NV ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ NV ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ FI G U E R O A D- 2 0 ✔ ✔ ✔ NV ✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔ FI R E S T O N E R- 3 5 ✔ ✔ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✔ ✗ ✗ ✗ NV ✔ ✗ ✔ NV NV ✔ FR I E D M A N D- 4 0 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ NV ✔ ✔ ✔ NV ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ FR U S E T T A R- 2 8 ✔✗✗✗✗✔✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗ GA L L E G O S D- 5 7 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ NV ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ NV ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ GO L D S M I T H R- 7 5 ✔✗✗✗✗✔✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗ GR A N L U N D R- 6 5 ✗✗✗✗✗✔✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗ HA N N I G A N D- 0 8 ✔✔✔✔✔✔✗✗✔✔✔ NV NV ✔ ✔ ✔ HA RV E Y R- 3 2 ✗✗✗✗✗✔✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗ HA U S E R D- 0 1 ✔ ✔ NV ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ NV ✔ ✗ ✔ ✔ NV ✗ HAW K I N S R- 5 6 NV ✗✗✗✗✔✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗ HO G E R- 4 4 ✗✗✗✗✗✔✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗

✔– PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE ✗ – ANTI-ENVIRONMENT VOTE NV – ABSENT OR NOT VOTING

6 1996 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL SCORECARD AS S E M B L Y FLOOR VOTES

CESA CEQA ENFORCEMENT CONSERVATION 19 9 6 19 9 5 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 FL O O R FL O O R CO N T I N U E D ☞ 29 26 37 29 22 33 28 49 43 44 36 42 51 42 41 22 SC O R E SC O R E ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ 4 33 AC K E R M A N R- 7 2 ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ NV 9 7 AG U I A R R- 6 1 ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ 0 12 AL B Y R- 0 5 ✗ ✔ ✔ NV ✗ ✔ ✔ ✔ 78 88 AL P E R T D- 7 8 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 10 0 94 AR C H I E - H U D S O N D- 4 8 ✗ ✗ ✔ ✗ ✗ ✔ ✔ ✔ 54 41 BA C A D- 6 2 ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✔ 8 19 BA L D W I N R- 7 7 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ NV ✔ 10 0 10 0 BAT E S D- 1 4 ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✔ 13 27 BAT T I N R- 8 0 ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ 0 NE BA U G H R- 6 7 ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ 4 11 BO L A N D R- 3 8 ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✔ 8 12 BO R D O N A R O R- 3 3 ✔ NV ✔ ✔ NV ✔ ✔ ✔ 10 0 94 BO W E N D- 5 3 ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ 8 17 BO W L E R R- 1 0 ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ 4 24 BR E W E R R- 7 0 ✔ NV ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 95 10 0 BR O W N D- 0 7 ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ 8 7 BR U LT E R- 6 3 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 10 0 10 0 BU RT O N D- 1 2 NV NV ✔ NV ✗ ✔ NV ✔ 40 46 BU S TA M A N T E D- 3 1 NV NV ✔ NV ✗ NV NV NV 80 94 CA L D E R A D- 4 6 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 96 10 0 CA M P B E L L D- 1 1 ✗ ✗ ✔ ✗ ✗ ✔ ✔ ✔ 42 33 CA N N E L L A D- 2 6 ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✔ 13 24 CO N R O Y R- 7 1 NV ✗ NV NV ✗ ✗ NV ✔ 28 46 CO RT E S E RE F - 2 3 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✔ 71 67 CU N N E E N R- 2 4 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✗ ✔ NV ✔ 91 76 DAV I S D- 7 6 ✔ ✗ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 90 79 DU C H E N Y D- 7 9 NV ✔ ✔ ✔ ✗ ✔ ✔ ✔ 90 10 0 ES C U T I A D- 5 0 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ NV ✔ ✔ ✔ 10 0 92 FI G U E R O A D- 2 0 NV NV ✔ NV ✗ ✗ ✗ ✔ 44 56 FI R E S T O N E R- 3 5 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 10 0 10 0 FR I E D M A N D- 4 0 ✗ ✗ NV ✗ NV ✗ ✗ ✔ 14 29 FR U S E T T A R- 2 8 ✗ ✔ NV ✔ ✔ ✔ NV ✔ 95 78 GA L L E G O S D- 5 7 ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✔ 13 28 GO L D S M I T H R- 7 5 ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ 4 12 GR A N L U N D R- 6 5 ✔ NV ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ NV 90 82 HA N N I G A N D- 0 8 ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✔ 8 22 HA RV E Y R- 3 2 ✔ ✔ NV ✔ NV ✔ NV ✔ 89 69 HA U S E R D- 0 1 ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ 4 24 HAW K I N S R- 5 6 ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ 4 12 HO G E R- 4 4

NE – NOT ELIGIBLE ~ – NOT CALCULATED (TOO FEW VOTES) OR NOT APPLICABLE

1996 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL SCORECARD 7 AS S E M B L Y FLOOR VOTES

AIR WATER PESTICIDES TOXICS WASTE FORESTS SCORECARD BILL NO. 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 PR O - E N V I R O N M E N T AL VOTES 47 31 24 31 29 74 28 25 30 29 31 14 29 23 33 32 AN T I - E N V I R O N M E N T AL VOTES 27 43 45 41 44 4 45 46 41 41 38 51 43 45 42 44 HO U S E R- 2 5 ✗✗✗✗✗✔✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗ IS E N B E R G D- 0 9 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ NV NV NV NV ✔ ✔ ✔ KA L O O G I A N R- 7 4 ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✔ NV ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ KAT Z D- 3 9 ✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔ KN I G H T R- 3 6 ✗✗✗✗✗✔✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗ KN O W L E S R- 0 4 ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ NV ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ KN O X D- 4 2 ✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔ NV ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ KU E H L D- 4 1 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ NV ✔ ✔ NV ✔ ✔ NV ✔ ✔ KU Y K E N D A L L R- 5 4 ✔✗✗✗✔✔✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗ LE E D- 1 6 ✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔ NV ✔ ✔ MA C H A D O D- 1 7 ✔✗✗✔✗✔✗✗✗✔✔✗✗✗✗✗ MA R G E T T R- 5 9 ✔✗✗✗✗✔✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗ MA RT I N E Z D- 4 9 ✗ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ NV ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ NV ✔ ✔ MA Z Z O N I D- 0 6 ✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔ MC D O N A L D D- 5 5 NE NE NE NE NE NE NV NV NE NE NE NE NE NE ✔ ✔ MC P H E R S O N R- 2 7 ✔✗✔✗✔✔✗✗✗✗✔✗ NV ✗ NV ✔ MI G D E N D- 1 3 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ NE NE ✔ ✔ ✔ NV ✔ ✔ NE NE MI L L E R R- 6 0 NV ✗✗✗✗✔✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗ MO R R I S S E Y R- 6 9 NV ✗✗✗✗✔✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗ MO R R O W R- 7 3 ✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗ MU R R A Y, K D- 4 7 ✔ ✔ ✗ ✔ NV ✔ ✔ NV ✔ ✔ ✔ ✗ ✔ ✗ ✔ ✔ MU R R A Y, W D- 5 2 ✗ ✔ ✗ ✔ ✗ ✔ NV NV NV ✔ ✔ ✗ ✗ ✔ ✗ ✔ NA P O L I TA N O D- 5 8 ✔ NV NV NV ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ NV ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ OL B E R G R- 3 4 ✗✗✗✗✗✔✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗ PO O C H I G I A N R- 2 9 ✗✗✗✗✗✔✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗ PR I N G L E R- 6 8 ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✔ ✗ ✗ NV ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ NV RA I N E Y R- 1 5 ✔✗✗✗✗✔✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗ RI C H T E R R- 0 3 ✗✗✗✗✗✔✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗ RO G A N R- 4 3 ✗✗✗✗✗✔✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗ SE T E N C I C H R- 3 0 ✔✗✗✗✗✔✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗ SH E R D- 1 1 NE NE NE NE NE NE ✔ NV NE NE NE NE NE NE ✔ ✔ SP E I E R D- 1 9 ✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✗✔✔ SW E E N E Y D- 1 8 ✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔ TAK A S U G I R- 3 7 ✔ ✗ ✗ ✗ NV ✔✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗ THOMPSON, B R- 6 6 ✗✗✗✗✗✔✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗ TU C K E R D- 5 1 ✗ ✔ NV ✔ ✗ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ NV NV NV ✗ NV ✔ NV VAS C O N C E L L O S D- 2 2 ✔ NV NV ✔ NV ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ NV ✔ ✔ NV VI L L A R A I G O S A D- 4 5 ✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔ WE G G E L A N D R- 6 4 ✔✗✗✗✗✔✗✗✗✗✗✗ NV ✗ ✗ ✗ WO O D S R- 0 2 ✗✗✗✗✗✔✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗✗

✔– PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE ✗ – ANTI-ENVIRONMENT VOTE NV – ABSENT OR NOT VOTING

8 1996 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL SCORECARD AS S E M B L Y FLOOR VOTES

CESA CEQA ENFORCEMENT CONSERVATION 19 9 6 19 9 5 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 FL O O R FL O O R 29 26 37 29 22 33 28 49 43 44 36 42 51 42 41 22 SC O R E SC O R E ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ 4 22 HO U S E R- 2 5 ✔ ✔ NV ✔ ✔ ✔ NV ✔ 10 0 10 0 IS E N B E R G D- 0 9 ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ 4 18 KA L O O G I A N R- 7 4 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✗ ✔ ✔ ✔ 96 10 0 KAT Z D- 3 9 ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ NV 4 13 KN I G H T R- 3 6 ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ 0 12 KN O W L E S R- 0 4 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ NV ✔ ✔ ✔ 10 0 10 0 KN O X D- 4 2 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 10 0 94 KU E H L D- 4 1 ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ NV 13 33 KU Y K E N D A L L R- 5 4 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 10 0 10 0 LE E D- 1 6 ✗ ✗ ✔ ✗ ✗ NV ✗ ✔ 30 31 MA C H A D O D- 1 7 ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ 8 10 MA R G E T T R- 5 9 ✔ NV ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 95 83 MA RT I N E Z D- 4 9 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 10 0 10 0 MA Z Z O N I D- 0 6 NE NE NE NE ✔ ✔ NE NE ~1 88 MC D O N A L D D- 5 5 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✔ 50 54 MC P H E R S O N R- 2 7 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ NE NE ✔ ✔ 10 0 2 NE MI G D E N D- 1 3 ✗ NV ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ NV 5 13 MI L L E R R- 6 0 ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✔ 9 18 MO R R I S S E Y R- 6 9 ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ NV ✗ ✗ ✗ 0 19 MO R R O W R- 7 3 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 86 94 MU R R A Y, K D- 4 7 NV ✗ ✔ NV ✗ ✔ ✔ ✔ 58 56 MU R R A Y, W D- 5 2 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 10 0 94 NA P O L I TA N O D- 5 8 ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ 4 12 OL B E R G R- 3 4 ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ 4 13 PO O C H I G I A N R- 2 9 ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ 5 7 PR I N G L E R- 6 8 ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✔ 13 24 RA I N E Y R- 1 5 ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ 4 13 RI C H T E R R- 0 3 ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ 4 24 RO G A N R- 4 3 ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✔ ✔ 7 19 SE T E N C I C H R- 3 0 NE NE NE NE ✔ ✔ NE NE ~3 10 0 SH E R D- 1 1 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 96 10 0 SP E I E R D- 1 9 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 10 0 10 0 SW E E N E Y D- 1 8 ✗ ✗ ✔ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ NV 14 19 TAK A S U G I R- 3 7 ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ 4 6 THOMPSON, B R- 6 6 ✔ ✗ ✔ ✗ ✗ NV ✔ ✔ 67 59 TU C K E R D- 5 1 ✔ ✔ ✔ NV ✔ NV NV ✔ 10 0 10 0 VAS C O N C E L L O S D- 2 2 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 10 0 10 0 VI L L A R A I G O S A D- 4 5 ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✔ 13 13 WE G G E L A N D R- 6 4 ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ 4 19 WO O D S R- 0 2

NE – NOT ELIGIBLE ~ – NOT CALCULATED (TOO FEW VOTES) OR NOT APPLICABLE

1 McDonald resigned in April after election to Congress. 2 Migden elected in March special election. 1996 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL SCORECARD 3 Sher elected to State Senate in March special election. 9 SE N A TE FLOOR VOTES

AIR WATER PESTICIDES SCORECARD BILL NO. 1 2 5 7 8 10 11 PR O - E N V I R O N M E N T AL VOTES 15 26 34 17 33 11 10 AN T I - E N V I R O N M E N T AL VOTES 21 10 0 21 4 22 22 AL Q U I S T D- 1 3 ✗ ✗ ✔ ✗ ✔ NV NV AYAL A D- 3 2 NV ✔ ✔ ✗ ✔ NV NV BE V E R L Y R- 2 7 ✗ ✔ ✔ ✗ NV ✗ ✗ BO AT W R I G H T D- 0 7 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✗ ✗ CA L D E R O N D- 3 0 ✗ NV ✔ ✗ ✔ NV NV CO S T A D- 1 6 ✗ ✔ ✔ ✗ ✔ ✗ ✗ CR AV E N R- 3 8 ✗ NV ✔ NV NV NV NV DI L L S D- 2 8 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ GR E E N E D- 0 6 NV ✔ NV NV ✔ ✗ ✗ HAY D E N D- 2 3 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ HAY N E S R- 3 6 ✗ ✗ NV ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ HU G H E S D- 2 5 ✔ NV ✔ ✗ ✔ NV NV HU RT T R- 3 4 ✗ ✗ NV ✗ ✔ ✗ ✗ JO H A N N E S S E N R- 0 4 ✗ NV ✔ ✗ ✔ ✗ ✗ JO H N S O N R- 3 5 ✗ ✗ ✔ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ JO H N S T O N D- 0 5 ✗ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✗ ✗ KE L L E Y R- 3 7 ✗ ✔ ✔ ✗ ✔ ✗ ✗ KI L L E A I- 3 9 ✔ ✔ NV ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ KO P P I- 0 8 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✗ LE O N A R D R- 3 1 ✗ ✔ ✔ ✗ ✔ ✗ ✗ LE S L I E R- 0 1 ✗ ✗ ✔ ✗ ✔ ✗ ✗ LE W I S R- 3 3 ✗ ✔ NV ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ LO C K Y E R D- 1 0 ✔ ✗ ✔ ✔ ✔ NV ✔ MA D D Y R- 1 4 ✗ ✔ ✔ ✗ ✔ ✗ ✗ MA R K S D- 0 3 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ME L L O D- 1 5 ✗ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✗ ✗ MO N T E I T H R- 1 2 ✗ ✗ ✔ ✗ ✔ ✗ ✗ MO U N T J O Y R- 2 9 ✗ ✔ ✔ ✗ NV ✗ ✗ O’ C O N N E L L D- 1 8 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ NV ✔ PE A C E D- 4 0 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ NV ✔ PE T R I S D- 0 9 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ PO L A N C O D- 2 2 NV ✔ ✔ ✗ ✔ ✔ ✔ RO G E R S R- 1 7 ✗ ✗ ✔ ✗ ✔ ✗ ✗ RO S E N T H A L D- 2 0 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ NV RU S S E L L R- 2 1 ✗ ✗ NV ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ SH E R D- 1 1 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ NE NE SO L I S D- 2 4 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ THOMPSON, M D- 0 2 NV ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✗ ✗ WATS O N D- 2 6 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ WR I G H T R- 1 9 ✗ ✗ ✔ ✗ ✔ ✗ ✗

✔– PRO-ENVIRONMENT VOTE ✗ – ANTI-ENVIRONMENT VOTE NV – ABSENT OR NOT VOTING

10 1996 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL SCORECARD SE N A TE FLOOR VOTES

WASTE CEQA CONSERVATION 19 9 6 19 9 5 15 17 21 27 28 FL O O R FL O O R 8 10 10 27 27 23 23 24 11 5 SC O R E SC O R E ✗ ✗ ✗ ✔ ✔ 40 75 AL Q U I S T D- 1 3 ✗ ✗ NV ✔ ✔ 63 55 AYAL A D- 3 2 ✗ NV ✗ ✔ ✔ 40 10 BE V E R L Y R- 2 7 ✗ ✗ NV ✔ ✔ 64 56 BO AT W R I G H T D- 0 7 ✗ ✗ ✗ ✔ ✔ 44 43 CA L D E R O N D- 3 0 NV ✗ ✗ ✔ ✔ 45 44 CO S T A D- 1 6 NV NV NV NV NV ~1 36 CR AV E N R- 3 8 NV NV ✔ ✔ NV 10 0 10 0 DI L L S D- 2 8 ✗ NV ✗ ✔ ✔ 50 71 GR E E N E D- 0 6 NV ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 10 0 95 HAY D E N D- 2 3 ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ 0 6 HAY N E S R- 3 6 NV ✗ ✔ ✔ ✔ 75 89 HU G H E S D- 2 5 NV NV ✗ ✗ ✗ 11 6 HU RT T R- 3 4 ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ NV 20 20 JO H A N N E S S E N R- 0 4 ✗ ✗ ✗ NV NV 10 20 JO H N S O N R- 3 5 ✗ ✗ ✗ ✔ ✔ 50 58 JO H N S T O N D- 0 5 ✗ ✗ ✗ ✔ ✔ 42 15 KE L L E Y R- 3 7 ✔ ✔ NV ✔ ✔ 10 0 77 KI L L E A I- 3 9 ✔ ✔ ✗ ✔ ✔ 83 60 KO P P I- 0 8 ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✔ 33 10 LE O N A R D R- 3 1 ✗ ✗ ✗ ✔ NV 27 11 LE S L I E R- 0 1 ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ NV 10 5 LE W I S R- 3 3 ✗ ✔ ✗ ✔ ✔ 73 76 LO C K Y E R D- 1 0 ✗ ✗ NV ✗ ✔ 36 15 MA D D Y R- 1 4 ✔ NV ✔ ✔ ✔ 10 0 89 MA R K S D- 0 3 ✗ ✗ NV ✔ ✔ 55 81 ME L L O D- 1 5 ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✔ 25 11 MO N T E I T H R- 1 2 ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ 18 5 MO U N T J O Y R- 2 9 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 10 0 95 O’ C O N N E L L D- 1 8 ✗ NV ✗ ✔ NV 78 56 PE A C E D- 4 0 NV ✗ ✔ ✔ ✔ 91 94 PE T R I S D- 0 9 ✗ ✗ ✗ ✔ ✔ 64 79 PO L A N C O D- 2 2 ✔ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ 25 0 RO G E R S R- 1 7 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 10 0 10 0 RO S E N T H A L D- 2 0 ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ NV 0 10 RU S S E L L R- 2 1 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 10 0 10 0 2 SH E R D- 1 1 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 10 0 10 0 SO L I S D- 2 4 NV ✔ ✗ ✔ ✔ 70 55 THOMPSON, M D- 0 2 NV ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 10 0 94 WATS O N D- 2 6 ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ 17 15 WR I G H T R- 1 9

NE – NOT ELIGIBLE ~ – NOT CALCULATED (TOO FEW VOTES) OR NOT APPLICABLE

1 Craven missed much of the session due to illness. 1996 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL SCORECARD 2 1995 score from Assembly. 11 FIVE-YEAR AVE R A G E S

AS S E M B L Y 100

93 80

85 72 77 86 60

40

20 12 21 5 9 0 10 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Republicans Democrats

SE N AT E 100

80 81 76 78 60 71 58

40 27

20 12 25 11 14 0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Republicans Democrats

GO V . PETE WILSON 40

35 36 30 33 33 25

20

15 21 10

5

0 10 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

12 1996 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL SCORECARD 1997 LEGISLATIVE ROSTER H e re is the lineup for the 1997-98 session of the California Legislature, elected in November 1996. Of the 80 members of the Assembly, 32 a re newly elected; in the Senate, 9 of 40 members are newcomers, although all but one (Schiff) either moved up from the Assembly or had p reviously served in the Legislature. To write your legislators, use this address: The Honorable (legislator's name), California Assembly (or Senate), State Capitol, Sacramento, CA 95814. To reach legislators by phone, call the Capitol switchboard at (916) 445-3614 and give the operator your legislator's name or district number. ASSEMBLY District, Member, Party District, Member, Party District, Member, Party 1 Vi rginia Strom-Martin (D) 27 Fred Keeley (D) 54 Steve Kuykendall (R) 2 Tom Woods (R) 28 Peter Frusetta (R) 55 Richard Floyd (D) 3 Bernie Richter (R) 29 Charles Poochigian (R) 56 Sally Havice (D) 4 Thomas Oller (R) 30 Robert Prenter (R) 57 Martin Gallegos (D) 5 Barbara Alby (R) 31 Cruz Bustamante (D) 58 Grace Napolitano (D) 6 Kerry Mazzoni (D) 32 Roy Ashburn (R) 59 Bob Margett (R) 7 Valerie Brown (D) 33 Tom Bordonaro (r) 60 Gary Miller (R) 8 Helen Thompson D) 34 Keith Olberg (R) 61 Fred Aguiar (R) 9 Deborah Ortiz (D) 35 Brooks Firestone (R) 62 Joe Baca (D) 10 Larry Bowler (R) 36 George Runner (R) 63 Bill Leonard (R) 11 Tom Torlakson (D) 37 Nao Takasugi (R) 64 Rod Pacheco (R) 12 Kevin Shelley (D) 38 Tom McClintock (R) 65 Brett Granlund (R) 13 Carole Migden (D) 39 Tony Cardenas (D) 66 Bruce Thompson (R) 14 Dion Aroner (D) 40 Bob Hertzberg (D) 67 Scott Baugh (R) 15 Lynne Leach (R) 41 Sheila Kuehl (D) 68 Curt Pringle (R) 16 (D) 42 Wally Knox (D) 69 Jim Morrissey (R) 17 Mike Machado (D) 43 Scott Wildman (D) 70 Marilyn Brewer (R) 18 Micheal Sweeney (D) 44 Jack Scott (D) 71 Bill Campbell (R) 19 Lou Papan (D) 45 (D) 72 Dick Ackerman (R) 20 Liz Figueroa (D) 46 Louis Caldera (D) 73 Bill Morrow (R) 21 Ted Lempert (D) 47 Kevin Murray 9D) 74 Howard Kaloogian (R) 22 Elaine White-Alquist (D) 48 Rod Wright (R) 75 (R) 23 Michael Honda (D) 49 Diane Martinez (D) 76 Susan Davis (D) 24 Jim Cunneen (R) 50 Martha Esccutia (D) 77 Steve Baldwin (R) 25 George House (R) 51 Edward Vincent (D) 78 Howard Wayne (D) 26 Dennis Cardoza (D) 52 Carl Washington (D) 79 Denise Ducheny (D) 53 Debra Bowen (D) 80 Jim Battin (R)

SENATE District, Member, Party District, Member, Party District, Member, Party 1 Tim Leslie (R) 14 Ken Maddy (R) 27 Betty Karnette (D) 2 Mike Thompson (D) 15 Bruce McPherson (R) 28 Ralph Dills (D) 3 John Burton (D) 16 Jim Costa (D) 29 Richard Mountjoy (R) 4 Marice Johannessen (R) 17 William "Pete" Knight (R) 30 Charles Calderon (D) 5 Patrick Johnston (D) 18 Jack O'Connell (D) 31 (R) 6 Leroy Greene (D) 19 Cathie Wright (R) 32 Rob Hurtt (R) 7 Jeff Smith (D) 20 Herschel Rosenthal (D) 33 John Lewis (R) 8 Quentin Kopp (I) 21 Adam Schiff (D) 34 Ruben Ayala (D) 9 Barbara Lee (D) 22 Richard Polanco (D) 35 Ross Johnson (R) 10 (D) 23 Tom Hayden (D) 36 Ray Haynes (R) 11 Byron Sher (D) 24 Hilda Solis (D) 37 David Kelley (R) 12 Dick Monteith (R) 25 Te resa Hughes (D) 38 William Craven (R) 13 John Vasconcellos (D) 26 Diane Watson (D) 39 Dede Alpert (R) 40 Steve Peace (D) 1996 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL SCORECARD E c o Vote Online: The Electronic Score c a rd

The California Environmental Scorecard is also available on the Internet. Ec o V ote Online, the California League of Conservation Voters’ Web se r vice, is at http://www.ecovote.org/ecovote. During the legislative session, the site is updated regularly to track the most significant environmental bills.

1996 Californ i a BULK RATE E n v i ronmental Score c a rd U.S. POSTAGE Ca l i fo r nia League of Conservation Vot e r s PAID 965 Mission St., Suite 625 PERMIT #987 San Fran c i s c o , CA 94103 VAN NUYS, CA Address Correction Requested