California’s voters will have the final say Nov. 8 about eight propositions - several of them emotionally charged issues - in the special election called by Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The most controversial proposition may be the first one on the ballot, Prop. 73, requiring notification of parents when a teenage girl seeks to obtain an abortion. Because abortion is a sensitive issue generally, the topic of teenagers obtaining abortions is a hot-button issue with voters up to and including elected officials.

A spokeswoman for Rep. Lois Capps, D-Santa Barbara, said that Capps is opposed to passage of Prop. 73. “It threatens the safety of teenage children,” is Capps’s official position, according to spokeswoman Shannon Lohrmann in Capps’s Washington D.C. office.

A staff member in the office of State Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks, said the legislator favors passage of Prop. 73.

Schwarzenegger called the special election because, he said, he could not prevail on the California Legislature to enact into law the proposals he favored. Costs of holding the election are estimated at between $45 million and $80 million.

The Secretary of State’s official voter guide advises that Prop. 73, if passed, would result in “defining and prohibiting abortion for unemancipated minor until 48 hours after physician notifies minor’s parent/guardian, except in medical emergency or with parental waiver.” Proponents of the measure include retired California Supreme Court Justice William P. Clark, Mary L. Davenport, M.D., and Maria Guadalupe Garcia of Parents Right to Know and Child Protection/Yes on 73. Opponents include Deborah Burger, R.N., president of the California Nurses Assn., Kathy Kneer, CEO of Planned Parenthood of California, and A. Eric Ramos, M.D., president of California Academy of Family Physicians.

Prop. 74, if it passes, would extend the probationary period for public school teachers, before they are accorded permanent status, and would modify the process by which school boards dismiss teachers they have deemed unsatisfactory - making it easier to get rid of a teacher they don’t want. Prop. 74 is supported by Gov. Schwarzenegger and opposed by President Barbara Kerr of the California Teachers Association and State Superintendent of Public Education, Jack O’Connell.

Prop. 75 seeks to restrict the political use of public employee union dues. If it passes, the measure would prohibit political contributions from dues without the individual members’ prior consent. The proposition is supported by economist Milton Friedman and opposed by President Lou Paulson of the California Professional Firefighters.

Prop. 76 would limit state spending to the prior year’s level plus the three previous years’ average revenue growth, and would lower the minimum school funding requirements. The measure would also permit, under specified circumstances, the governor to reduce appropriations at his discretion. The measure has the governor’s support and is opposed by, among others, President Deborah Burger of the California Nurses Association.

Prop. 77 would amend the state Constitution in the area of redistricting California’s Senate, Assembly, Congressional, and Board of Equalization districts, putting the process in the hands of a panel of three retired judges appointed by the legislature, instead of having the districts redrawn by the legislature itself. The measure opens the possibility of more frequent redistricting, at the choice of the electorate, rather than as a response to census information. This proposition, too, has the support of Gov. Schwarzenegger, as well as the opposition of Daniel H. Lowenstein of the Fair Political Practices Commission.

Prop. 78, passing, would establish a discount prescription drug program for “certain low- and moderate-income Californians,” and would authorize the state Department of Health Services to contract with “participating pharmacies for discounts and with participating drug manufacturers for rebates.” Supporters of the proposition claim that uninsured Californians will be able to save up to 40 percent on their prescriptions, while opponents say the measure is a “smokescreen” and that it is “sponsored by the prescription drug companies to stop Proposition 79.”

Prop. 79 also addresses the high cost of prescription drugs and seeks to make discounts available to those with “qualifying incomes.” This measure would be funded by state-negotiated drug manufacturer rebates, and would prohibit Medi-Cal contracts with manufacturers not providing Medicaid best price.