Propositions await voters’ decision

Voters will be asked to pass judgement on 10 state propositions this November that range from funding eduction, to abolishing the death penalty to labeling food.
Proposition 30 will increase sales tax rates from 2013 through 2016 by one quarter cent per dollar of goods purchased. It increases personal income tax rates from 2012 through 2018 between one and three percent depending on income level. The income tax increase applies to the top one percent of earners and would not impact any individual making less than $250,000, a joint filing of less than $500,000 or a head of household income of less than $340,000.
Money raised by the tax increases would be used to fund education with 89 percent funding K-12 schools while 11 percent would fund community colleges.
California’s existing budget assumes Proposition 30 will pass and raise about $6 billion in the first year. As the budget has already allocated that money, if Proposition 30 fails, the state legislature will immediately cut $6 billion from education programs.
The proposition is in conflict with Proposition 38 as both would raise taxes to pay for education and both contain language stipulating that only one of the two can take effect. If both propositions receive passing votes, the one with the most “yes” votes will take effect. While Proposition 38 also raises taxes for schools it is not part of the state budget and if Prop 38 beats out Prop 30, the automatic budget cuts will still take effect.
Supporters say the measure is necessary to prevent catastrophic cuts to education. Opponents say the measure doesn’t address the root cause of the problem.
For more information, visit www.yesonprop30.com or www.stopprop30.com.
Proposition 31 contains a multitude of measures that backers claim will improve accountability and efficiency in the state budget. The measure establishes a two year budget cycle, requires the legislature to balance any new expense of more than $25 million with revenue or spending cuts, allows the governor to make unilateral budget cuts if the legislature has failed to act during a fiscal emergency, requires performance reviews of all state programs, requires performance goals in state and local budgets, requires publication of state bills at least three days prior to a vote and allows local governments set their own requirements for participation in state funded programs unless the legislature or state agency vetoes those individual plans within 60 days.
The impact of the Constitutional Amendment is uncertain as the provision allowing local agencies to set their own participating rules could create a patchwork of individual program costs. Opponents say allowing individual jurisdictions to set their own requirements would make it difficult to administer programs and that the bills will make cuts to education spending to pay for new bureaucracies. Supports say it will reign in new spending and increase flexibility at the local level.
For more information visit www.accoutableca.org or the Californians for Transparent and Accountable Government.
Proposition 32 limits the ability of unions and corporations to use payroll deductions for political purposes. While the bill will have relative little impact on the state’s budget, it could have far reaching implications for the future of California politics.
The measure explicitly outlaws payroll deductions while leaving other kinds of political activity and fundraising in place. While the restrictions apply to both unions and corporations, payroll deductions are rarely used by corporations and restricting their use would have a huge impact on union activity.
Opponents say the measure allows corporations, super PACs and other groups to influence elections. Supporters say it will reduce the amount of special interest money in politics and increase transparency.
For more information visit www.yesprop32.com or www.votenoon32.com
Proposition 33 allows insurance companies to base prices based on a drivers past history of carrying insurance. The measure will not have any significant fiscal impact on the state but it will result in increases to insurance rates for some drivers.
Under the measure, drivers who are considered to have “lapsed” in their coverage will be subject to increased prices. Drivers who dropped their insurance for no more than 90 days in the past five years, for no more than 18 months in the last five years based due to unemployment or military deployments will still be considered to have had continuous coverage. However, drivers who drop coverage for any other reason, including medical or lack of need, will see increased rates.
Supporters say it will allow insurance companies to offer discounts to customers who have kept up insurance with another companies and thereby create lower rates through increased competition. Opponents say it will raise rates for drivers who have had valid reasons for not driving and will incentivize uninsured driving by increasing the overall cost.
For more information visit, www.yesprop33.com or www.stopprop33.org.
Proposition 34 would repeal the death penalty in California. Prisoners already sentenced to death would have their sentence commuted to life without the possibility of parole and all pending appeals related to death penalty cases would be transferred from the California Supreme Court to the Courts of Appeal. In addition to repealing capital punishment, the measure would specify that anyone convicted of murder should be required to work while in prison and that their paycheck will be deducted for any debts they owe to victims. Inmates might be exempt from work requirements if they are deemed a security risk, as is current practice. Prop 34 transfers $100 million over four years from the general fund for use by law enforcement agencies. According to the Legislative Analyst estimate, the state would save $100 million annual in the first few years with savings growing to $130 million due to a reduction in expenses related to death penalty appeals.
Opponents say the cost savings have been vastly overstated and say the death penalty is necessary to ensure justice is done. Supporters say the measure means an innocent person will never be executed and that it guarantees justice through life imprisonment.
For more information visit www.yeson34.org or www.waitingforjustice.net.
Proposition 35 toughens existing fines and penalties related to human trafficking. The measure increases prison sentences for human trafficking crimes to 12 years for labor trafficking, 20 years for sex trafficking of an adult with force, 12 years for sex trafficking of a minor without force and life for sex trafficking of a minor with force. It can enhance sentences by 10 years for great bodily injury and 5 years per prior human trafficking offense. Fines will increase up to $1.5 million
The measure also requires additional training for law enforcement officers, mandates fines collected be used for victim services, requires a person convicted of human trafficking to register as a sex offender, requires sex offenders to provide more details information on their internet activities, and changes existing law to prohibit evidence that a victim engaged in sexual conduct from being uses against a victim.
Opponents say the reliance on fines as a deterrent won’t actually help victims and that nothing in the measure requires agencies to work with victims to meet their needs which has been shown to help secure the kind of information required to successfully prosecute traffickers. Supporters say it will dramatically increase the punishment for trafficking and increase the tools available to law enforcement agencies.
For more information visit www.voteyeson35.com or http://esplerp.org.
Proposition 36 reduces sentencing under California’s three strike’s law for criminals convicted of non-serious, non-violent felonies. Under current law, anyone with two or more serious or violent felonies who is convicted of a third felony, regardless of type, triggers life in jail. The measure would alter that requirement to allow shorter jail sentences for some repeat offenders if their third conviction is for a less serious type of crime. The measure would save the state between $70 and $90 million a year due to reduced jail populations.
Supporters say the measure would make room in prisons for more dangerous criminals, reduce costs and make punishments fit the crime. Opponents say three strikes has reduced crime and weakening the penalties will result in dangerous criminals returning to the streets.
For more information visit www.fixthreestrikes.org or www.savestreestrikes.com
Proposition 37 requires new labeling on some foods that contain genetically modified components. The measure requires that raw or processed food sold in stores carry a label if those foods have been genetically engineered, it prohibits the use of the word “natural” in marketing those foods, allows individuals so sue retailers and producers that might have violated the rule. The measure exempts some kinds of food from the labeling requirement including food sold in restaurants, animal products sold for human consumption or alcohol.
Supporters say consumers have the right to know what’s in their food and that the measure protects consumers. Opponents say the measure is riddled with loopholes for special classes of food, lacks enforcement for foreign foods, will raise the price of domestic food and will allow frivolous lawsuits against growers and retailers.
For more information, visit www.carighttoknow.org or www.noprop37.com.
Proposition 38 will raise personal income tax to fund education and reduce state debt. The measure has a sliding scale of tax increases based on income that will last for 12 years. During the first four years, 30 percent of the revenue will go toward repaying state debt with the rest earmarked for education. In the last 8 years, 100 percent will go towards education. The measure imposes a similar tax increase as Proposition 30 and if both measures pass, the one with the most “yes” votes will take effect. However, if Proposition 38 takes effect, the state budget will still require $6 billion in cuts to education despite the increased sales tax.
Supporters say the measure will guarantee funding for schools and increase transparency. Opponents say the measure’s tax proposal impacts middle class families as opposed to Prop. 30’s focus on the wealthy and that passage of Prop 38 will force billions in cuts to education due to the State budget’s reliance on Prop 30.
For more information, visit www.prop38forlocalschools.org or call (916) 806-2719.
Proposition 39 tightens regulations on the way multi-state businesses can file California income tax. Multi state businesses can currently choose how to calculate their income tax based on two different models. The measure would require businesses to base their tax liability on the percentage of their sales in California. The measure stipulates that part of the increased revenue will be dedicated to creating energy efficiency and clean energy jobs. According to the Legislative Analyst’s report, the measure would increase state income by $1 billion per year and result in additional funding for public schools.
Supporters say it closes an unfair loophole and forces companies to pay their far share of local taxes. Opponents say the measure increases government bureaucracy and say that requiring revenues to be spent on clean jobs is not the best use of the revenue.
For more information visit www.cleanenergyjobsact.com or www.stop39.com.
Proposition 40 asks voters to approve or reject the new state Senate Districts drawn by the Citizens Redistricting Commission. Opponents of the new district who wanted voters to prevent the new districts from take effect this year put the measure on the ballot. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the districts would stand for the 2012 election and the measures sponsors have withdrawn their opposition to the measure. Supporters say a “yes” vote is still necessary to prevent politicians from unfairly redrawing districts and costing the state millions in wasted effort.
For more information visit www.holdpoliticiansaccountable.org or www.fairdistricts2012.com.