Support NeoGAF

[Cornballer]

We're less than two weeks away from from another election. As always, the California ballot has a dizzying array of propositions on the ballot. I thought it'd be good to have a place where California-GAF can find some information on what we're deciding this Fall, and hopefully this will foster some discussion about the issues at hand.

I've included some links to endorsements and general information. If anyone has suggestions for other resources that might be useful, please post something and I'll update the OP. I'm not a fan of direct democracy the way it exists here in California, but rather than just throwing our hands up and ignoring the whole thing, let's get informed and participate as best we can.


General Information:
- California Secretary of State
- KQED News / California Report Guide to the Propositions
- KCET's Proposition 2012 Cheat Sheet: California's Nov. 6 Election
- 2012 Who is Funding the Ballot Measures? - California Fair Political Practices Commission
- Ballotpedia - California 2012 ballot propositions
- Ballotpedia - Local Ballot Measures

Endorsements & Opinion Pieces:
- SF Chronicle Endorsements
- SF Chronicle Pro & Con Arguments
- LA Times Endorsements
- Sacramento Bee Voter Guide and Endorsements

Proposition guides from the parties with ballot-access in the state:
- California Democratic Party
- California Republican Party
- American Independent Party
- Green Party of California
- Libertarian Party of California
- Peace and Freedom Party

Misc:
- The Proposition Song


Proposition 30: Temporary Taxes to Fund Education. Guaranteed Local Public Safety Funding. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

At a Glance:

• Proposition 30 raises personal income tax rate on individuals making more than $250,000 a year and couples making more than $500,000 a year for the next seven years.
• It raises state sales tax by a quarter of a cent for four years.
• Those additional tax dollars would go to K-12 schools and community colleges.
• The measure also guarantees local governments will receive a basic level of funding each year to implement realignment.
• Revenue from Prop. 30 is built into this year's budget. If it fails, education and public safety programs would lose $5.9 billion between now and next July.
• Budget Impact: The Legislative Analyst's Office estimates the tax increases would bring in an estimated $6 billion annually for seven years.

Proposition 31: State Budget. State and Local Government. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

At a Glance:

• Proposition 31 establishes a two-year budget cycle instead of the current one-year budget cycle.
• It permits the Governor to make unilateral budget cuts during fiscal emergencies if the Legislature does not act within 45 days.
• It requires all bills in the California Senate or Assembly to be published three days prior to a vote.
• Lawmakers must identify a funding source for new programs or tax deductions that would cost more than $25 million.
• It requires performance reviews of all state and local programs, and sets performance goals for all state and local budgets.
• It allows local governments to alter how some state laws and regulations apply to them, unless the legislature or state agency vetoes the changes.
• Budget Impact: The Legislative Analyst's Office estimates the measure will cost millions to tens of millions of dollars annually. It would also transfer $200 million annually from the state to local governments.

Proposition 32: Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction. Contributions to Candidates. Initiative Statute.

At a Glance:

• Proposition 32 prohibits unions and certain types of corporations from donating directly to political candidates and ballot measure campaigns. Exempts individuals, LLCs, partnerships and real estate trusts.
• It exempts the largest and fastest-growing type of political spending, known as "independent expenditures." This is the political spending of super PACs, which can raise and spend unlimited amounts.
• It prohibits organizations from using payroll deductions for any kind of political purpose, even if the employee has given permission. This prohibition primarily affects unions, since corporations raise political money through other means.
• It prohibits government contractors from contributing to elected officials who play a role in awarding their contracts.
• Budget Impact: The Legislative Analyst's Office estimates the measure would cost $1 million annually for enforcement.

Proposition 33: Auto Insurance Companies. Prices Based on Driver's History of Insurance Coverage. Initiative Statute.

At a Glance:

• Proposition 33 would allow drivers to maintain a "continuous coverage" auto insurance discount even if they switch insurers.
• Drivers with lapses in coverage during a five-year period could face increased auto rates, with three exceptions.
• Currently, the California insurance commissioner reviews and approves auto insurance rates. Prop. 33 would allow insurers to raise rates for drivers who have not had continuous coverage, without getting approval from California's insurance commissioner.
• Budget Impact: The Legislative Analyst's Office estimates the net impact would be insignificant.

Proposition 34: Death Penalty. Initiative Statute.

At a Glance:

• Proposition 34 repeals the death penalty and replaces it with life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
• It applies retroactively.
• It requires people convicted of murder to work while in prison and specifies that part of their pay will go to crime victims.
• It creates a new fund to help law enforcement solve rapes and homicides more quickly. A total of $100 million would be transferred from the general fund to this project over four years.
• Budget Impact: The Legislative Analyst's Office estimates California would initially save $100 million a year, and would transfer part of this to the new fund for four years. Eventually, the state would save $130 million annually.

Proposition 35: Human Trafficking. Penalties. Initiative Statute.

At a Glance:

• Proposition 35 increases the prison terms and fines for human trafficking.
• It expands the definition of human trafficking to include distribution of child pornography.
• It directs the money collected from fines to victims' services and law enforcement.
• It requires sex offenders to give local law enforcement their online identities and Internet access information.
• It requires training for police officers in how to handle human trafficking cases.
• It prohibits using evidence of the victim's prior sexual conduct in court.
• Budget Impact: The Legislative Analyst's Office estimates local governments across the state could spend a few million dollars in one-time training costs, plus a few million dollars annually on increased prosecution and corrections costs. Fines would generate several million dollars annually for victims' services, prevention and rescue operations.

Proposition 36: Three Strikes Law. Repeat Felony Offenders. Penalties. Initiative Statute.

At a Glance:

• Proposition 36 revises criminal penalties so people convicted of a third-strike felony will receive a life sentence only when the crime was serious or violent.
• It maintains life sentences for felons with non-serious, non-violent third strike convictions if prior convictions were for rape, murder or child molestation.
• Current prisoners convicted of a non-serious, non-violent third-strike felony could apply for a reduced sentence.
• Budget Impact: The Legislative Analyst's Office estimates the resentencing trials would cost a few million dollars over several years. However, that would be more than offset by $70 to $90 million annual savings.

Proposition 37: Genetically Engineered Foods. Labeling. Initiative Statute.

At a Glance:

• Proposition 37 requires labels on all raw foods that have been genetically engineered, and all processed foods that contain ingredients that were genetically engineered.
• Genetically engineered foods could not be labeled "natural," a term that is not currently regulated.
• Certain products are exempt, including: alcoholic beverages, prepared foods, medicine and animal feed.
• Budget Impact: The Legislative Analyst's Office estimates Prop. 37 will cost up to $1 million for the state Department of Public Health inspections.

Proposition 38: Tax to Fund Education and Early Childhood Programs. Initiative Statute.

At a Glance:

• Proposition 38 increases income tax rates on almost all Californians until 2025.
• The money would go to K-12 public schools and early education programs, on top of school funding guaranteed by state law. For the first four years, revenues would also help pay down California's debt.
• Prop. 38 isn't tied to this year's state budget, so if this measure passes with more votes than Prop, 30, it will trigger $5.9 billion in cuts to education and public safety programs.
• Budget Impact: The Legislative Analyst's Office estimates Prop. 38 would bring in about $10 billion annually in increased taxes. During the initial four years, about $6 billion would be used for schools, $1 billion for early education programs and $3 billion for debt payments.

Proposition 39: Tax Treatment for Multistate Businesses. Clean Energy and Energy Efficiency Funding. Initiative Statute.

At a Glance:

• Proposition 39 would require "multistate businesses" to calculate their California income tax based on what percentage of their sales are in the state.
• Currently, multistate businesses can choose instead to pay taxes based on three factors, including the number of employees they have in the state. This can lower taxes for businesses who have fewer employees here.
• It dedicates up to $550 million annually for five years to fund alternative energy projects.
• Budget Impact: The Legislative Analyst's Office estimates California would gain about $1 billion in additional tax revenues. For the first five years, about half of that would go to alternative energy projects.

Proposition 40: Redistricting. State Senate Districts. Referendum.

At a Glance:

• Proposition 40 is one of those backwards measures, where a "yes" vote doesn't change anything, and a "no" vote changes a lot.
• A yes vote on Prop. 40 keeps in place the new state Senate district boundaries created by the independent Citizens Redistricting Commission.
• A no vote throws out the state Senate districts created by the Citizens Redistricting Commission. The California Supreme Court would then appoint officials to redraw state Senate district boundaries.
• The original backers of this measure no longer support it.
• Budget Impact: The Legislative Analyst's Office estimates that if Californians vote no, the state would spend about $500,000 and counties statewide would spend another $500,000 to develop materials, such as new precinct maps.

 

[ivysaur12]

Yes - 30, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40
No - 31, 32, 37
??? - 33

 

[CountAntonius]

Great thread. Thanks for the info.

Do 30 and 38 kind of work against each other?

 

[Vilix]

Bring back Foie Gras!

 

[Yaboosh]

Yes - 30, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40
No - 31, 32, 37
??? - 33

34 and 35 have kind of crazy parts though.

34 the part about requiring them to work sounds kind of suspicious to me. If they are just working at the prison for maintenance and services therein it seems fine. But if there are some sort of private entities present in the prison to provide jobs, I don't like that at all.

35 the part about requiring online identities and login information from sex offenders seems off to me.

 

[ivysaur12]

34 and 35 have kind of crazy parts though.

34 the part about requiring them to work sounds kind of suspicious to me. If they are just working at the prison for maintenance and services therein it seems fine. But if there are some sort of private entities present in the prison to provide jobs, I don't like that at all.

35 the part about requiring online identities and login information from sex offenders seems off to me.

But it's better than the death penalty.

 

[Killthee]

Ballotpedia should also be in the OP.

Yes - 30, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40
No - 31, 32, 37
??? - 33

I'm voting no on 33.

• Changes current law to allow insurance companies to set prices based on whether the driver previously carried auto insurance with any insurance company.
• Allows insurance companies to give proportional discounts to drivers with some history of prior insurance coverage.
• Will allow insurance companies to increase cost of insurance to drivers who have not maintained continuous coverage.
• Treats drivers with lapse as continuously covered if lapse is due to military service or loss of employment, or if lapse is less than 90 days.

Donors
George Joseph, who chairs insurance company Mercury General, is the dominant donor to the Proposition 33 campaign. Joseph, a billionaire, was the 385th richest man in American in 2011.These are the $10,000 and over donors to the "yes" campaign as of October 14, 2012:

George Joseph $16,422,126
Del Sol Group, Inc. $15,000
Abernathy Insurance Agency $14,000
Calgard Associates $10,000
Rancho Simi Insurance Agency $10,000

Opponents

Brian Stedge of Consumer Watchdog says, "Mercury Insurance is back with another costly ballot initiative which attempts to trick voters into giving insurance companies new power to increase premiums and punish consumers. Mercury Insurance has a terrible history of mistreating its customers, ignoring the law and trying to deceive voters, and Californians need to know that you can't trust Mercury Insurance. The last thing Californians' need is another self-serving ballot initiative by a corporation hell bent on increasing its profit margins on the backs of already struggling families."[7]

Richard Holober, Executive Director of the Consumer Federation of California, says, "When was the last time a billionaire insurance magnate spent a fortune to save you money? Never. This proposition is nothing more that an insurance tycoon's self-enrichment scheme."

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.p...mobile_Insurance_Persistency_Discounts_(2012)

 

[Guevara]

Great idea, but I already voted. For some reason my ED got mail in ballots.

 

[Eggo]

Reviewing these and researching them in the next 10 days is on my to-do list. Subscribed.

 

[Cornballer]

Ballotpedia should also be in the OP.

Thanks, I've added it to the OP.

Great idea, but I already voted. For some reason my ED got mail in ballots.

My absentee ballot came in 2-3 weeks ago. It seemed earlier than usual.

 

[Future]

Prop 30 sounds good but Fuck increased sales tax. Doesn't California already have some of the highest sales tax in the country? No excuse to raise it even further, and it's just being used to bail out bad use of money.

 

[Angry Grimace]

I'm extremely suspicious of the motives behind 35 - is human trafficking a huge problem here ? I'm particularly concerned about the "sex offenders give their online identities to police" part. I already think the definition of "sex offender" is too malleable and don't much care for the idea that you're out of prison but still paying forever, even for relatively minor "sex crimes" like having consensual sex with a girl who is only slightly underage. I'm also extremely suspicious of an outright ballot initiative to increase criminal sanctions. I don't think that's something the general electorate should have a vote on.

 

[Guevara]

I'm extremely suspicious of the motives behind 35 - is human trafficking a huge problem here ? I'm particularly concerned about the "sex offenders give their online identities to police" part. I already think the definition of "sex offender" is too malleable and don't much care for the idea that you're out of prison but still paying forever, even for relatively minor "sex crimes" like having consensual sex with a girl who is only slightly underage.

I just never support mandatory minimums in any context.

 

[Sirpopopop]

Cyan - Post your proposition guide for your fellow Californians!

 

[speculawyer]

Thanks for creating this thread. I haven't yet bothered to go through all the Props and have been dreading it. This thread should help.

 

[pcostabel]

Yes: 31,32,33,34,36,40
No on the rest.

 

[Angry Grimace]

I just never support mandatory minimums in any context.

I kind of got track from my main point too which is that I don't think it sounds right for the electorate to directly increase criminal sanctions for anything.

 

[Choke on the Magic]

Prop 30 sounds good but Fuck increased sales tax. Doesn't California already have some of the highest sales tax in the country? No excuse to raise it even further, and it's just being used to bail out bad use of money.

Pay your fair share bro.

 

[Cyan]

Thanks for making the thread, CB!

c/p from PoliGAF:

My personal take, briefly:
Prop 30, Yes. This is Jerry Brown's tax increase to avoid massive cuts to education and such.
Prop 31, No. This appears to be your standard GOP balanced budget stuff, mixed with some good transparency stuff, and some other weird stuff that doesn't sound like a good idea. The good doesn't outweigh the bad.
Prop 32, No. Union-busting bill.
Prop 33, No. Car insurance industry prop similar to their last one, which would help them raise rates on people.
Prop 34, Yes. Ends the death penalty, with little additional nonsense.
Prop 35, No. Increases jailtime for human trafficking. I don't think increasing jailtime should ever be on the ballot, however good the cause, so automatic No. Do it through the legislature or not at all. Speaking of which...
Prop 36, Yes. Cuts back a bit on Three Strikes, which really ought to be repealed entirely.
Prop 37, No. Genetically modified food labeling stuff. Pointless as well as poorly implemented. Though I'm certainly not going to mention how I'm voting on it publicly on Facebook.
Prop 38, No. A tax increase battling with Jerry Brown's. This one isn't tied to this year's budget, so if it beats Prop 30, education gets massive cuts, which likely triggers big UC tuition increases and some local schools cutting several weeks of instruction.
Prop 39, Yes. A hesitant yes, really. I am not at all a fan of ballot-box budgeting, and this puts a lot of cash towards green energy stuff where who knows if it's a good idea. But a tax loophole that incentivizes companies to move out-of-state? Yeah, shut that shit down. That's part of what made Prop 13 such a disaster.
Prop 40, Yes. Approves the redistricting that was already done. CA Republicans put this on the ballot in hopes that it would let them block redistricting until after the current election. It didn't, so they dropped their argument. There's no reason to vote No here.

Yes on Prop 36 and Yes on Prop 40 are no-brainers. Everyone should be voting for these regardless of party affiliation.

 

[speculawyer]

Edit: Never mind.

 

[Josh7289]

Wow, you Californians have a lot of power with this direct voting. That looks pretty fun actually.

 

[Cat Party]

Wow, you Californians have a lot of power with this direct voting. That looks pretty fun actually.

So many terrible, terrible laws have been enacted this way. There is a special interest behind almost every one of these.

 

[Kusagari]

Someone should do this for Florida's.

I glanced at the 10+ and every single one looked dumb as fuck, some probably unconstitutional, that I'm voting no on.

 

[SteveWinwood]

Jesus so many props!

I have 2 on my ballot, and they both suck.

 

[Gentleman Jack]

Wow, you Californians have a lot of power with this direct voting. That looks pretty fun actually.

It's not as fun as it looks since most of the money that goes into the campaigns is fronted by plutocrats.

Probably voting no on just about everything, including the tax measures since it'll force the state legislature to stop punting the ball on the budget for a change.

34 - Yes. It's not everything I want in a death penalty repeal but it's an okay first step
40 - Yes. What the hell why is this on the ballot.

Everything else is a pretty solid no.

 

[Cyan]

Wow, you Californians have a lot of power with this direct voting. That looks pretty fun actually.

It's awful. Pretty much the reason CA is in the straits it is now.

Everything else is a pretty solid no.

I think you might take a closer look at 36. Even if you like the Three Strikes law, 36 essentially restores it to its original purpose of putting repeat violent offenders behind bars.

 

[pigeon]

30: Yes. I love taxes and tax increases of all sorts, and if 30 doesn't pass it eviscerates California's education budget.
31: No. All together this just looks like another of the state government fiscal restrictions that put California in a ridiculous budget hole in the first place.
32: No. Anti-union bill.
33: No. Just an attempt to raise car insurance rates.
34: Yes. I oppose the death penalty and I'm also pro-money, so, win-win.
35: No. Cyan convinced me that props like this are inherently dangerous and problematic. If it were really a serious criminal issue, the legislature would act on it without a prop being necessary -- so the prop just indicates that they don't really have a good case for action.
36: Yes. Three strikes laws are essentially minority disenfranchisement tools that rely on fear to motivate voters. The less the better.
37: Yes. I'm not fully convinced of the safety of GMO foods, and wary of the intense opposition to 37 by food conglomerates. In either case, I think that stronger labeling requirements are basically always correct.
38: No. Because I'm yes on 30, and the two conflict.
39: Yes. Frankly, I favor any attempt to make it harder to cherrypick jurisdictions to avoid taxes and laws you don't want to deal with.
40: Yes. Straightforward.

 

[Gentleman Jack]

I think you might take a closer look at 36. Even if you like the Three Strikes law, 36 essentially restores it to its original purpose of putting repeat violent offenders behind bars.

It feels like it doesn't go far enough towards a repeal. My 'no' vote is more of a 'try again, do it better' than an 'I don't like this idea.'

 

[pigeon]

It feels like it doesn't go far enough towards a repeal. My 'no' vote is more of a 'try again, do it better' than an 'I don't like this idea.'

I don't think this will effectively communicate your views at all.

 

[Gentleman Jack]

I don't think this will effectively communicate your views at all.

Probably not. But I'd rather vote for an A+ law than a C+ law.

 

[Cyan]

It feels like it doesn't go far enough towards a repeal. My 'no' vote is more of a 'try again, do it better' than an 'I don't like this idea.'

I can understand that. My own feeling is that we're very unlikely to get a full repeal of Three Strikes, and this might be the best we can do. I'm not entirely sure if baby steps will help or hurt the goal of full repeal, but I'd rather take them than not.

I vaguely remember having similar arguments with gay rights supporters over whether civil unions were good or bad. The idea was that getting to civil unions might seem "good enough" and that people would stop pushing for full marriage rights. It doesn't seem like it turned out that way, though I'm not sure if we can draw broad conclusions from that.

 

[ChanHuk]

Wow, you Californians have a lot of power with this direct voting. That looks pretty fun actually.

The cap on property tax is one idiotic initiatives that put us in a major hole.

 

[entremet]

It's awful. Pretty much the reason CA is in the straits it is now.



I think you might take a closer look at 36. Even if you like the Three Strikes law, 36 essentially restores it to its original purpose of putting repeat violent offenders behind bars.

Yep. Want awesome stuff but don't want to pay for it. See education.

 

[mcfrank]

Wow, you Californians have a lot of power with this direct voting. That looks pretty fun actually.

You would think that but it is actually terrible for the state. So many conflicting things get passed that it leads to complete legislative gridlock. The first year I voted in CA I am pretty sure the prop to raise taxes for high speed rail, and the prop that there will be no tax increases both passed. How do you square that circle? It is a total CF.

 

[Clydefrog]

Thanks for creating this thread. I haven't yet bothered to go through all the Props and have been dreading it. This thread should help.

I was going to post exactly what you said, specu!

Thanks, Cornballer, for the info and links. I need to get readin'

 

[Cyan]

BTW, Ballotpedia also has handy summaries for the local ballot measures.

 

[alphaNoid]

I love voting on props in CA, its where the party lines blue and people tend to vote less blue or red and just read the prop and vote how they feel.

 

[Macam]

Great thread. Thanks for the info.

Do 30 and 38 kind of work against each other?

Yes, and that was intentional. From The Economist:

Prop 30, as it is universally known, would temporarily lift the state’s sales tax by 0.25 percentage points and, less temporarily but more vitally, raise income-tax rates on the wealthy. Much of the $6 billion raised annually would be directed to schools and colleges, going some way to repair the damage done by years of cuts. This week Jerry Brown, the Democratic governor, stepped up his campaign for the measure with a tour of Californian campuses.

Speaking at UCLA, Mr Brown identified complacency as the enemy. A potentially more dangerous foe was left unnamed. Mr Brown has found himself up against Molly Munger, a rich lawyer who is bankrolling an alternative ballot measure. Proposition 38 would raise taxes further than Prop 30 and send most of the revenues straight to schools, bypassing the state government. If voters approve both, the measure that secures most support will be enacted.

That looks unlikely: Ms Munger’s measure is struggling in the polls. Prop 30, on the other hand, was until recently winning the support of most voters. But then the gloves came off. Television spots for Prop 38 began claiming that if Prop 30 passed, politicians might find other uses for the revenues it raised. At around the same time one of Ms Munger’s brothers donated $10m to a committee devoted to, among other things, trashing Prop 30.

And I'm voting yes on 37. Even if Mother Jones' Kevin Drum thinks otherwise, I'm inclined to side with the argument put forth by the likes of Mark Bittman. I'll have to do some more digging ahead of election day, but I'm still largely in favor of it.

 

[Cyan]

Yes, and that was intentional. From The Economist:

Yep. Munger's initiative may well drag Prop 30 down with it. It's moronic and frustrating.

 

[AMUSIX]

Haven't gone over everything, just wanted to say that it's too bad 35 will pass. There really is no way it won't, but it really shouldn't. Problem with the prop is that it's written too broadly, and would cause a lot of people to be labeled sex offenders who really aren't.

 

[CountAntonius]

Haven't gone over everything, just wanted to say that it's too bad 35 will pass. There really is no way it won't, but it really shouldn't. Problem with the prop is that it's written too broadly, and would cause a lot of people to be labeled sex offenders who really aren't.

Not disagreeing but examples of who could be labled a sex offender who wouldn't be now?

 

[Zhengi]

Yes - 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 40

No - 30, 31, 36, 38, 39

 

[Vesmir]

No on 37 is being funded by Monsanto. Fuck them, so I'm voting yes.

 

[ReturnOfTheRAT]

Definite NO on 30.

 

[AMUSIX]

Also, be VERY aware of the connection between Prop 30 and Prop 38. You do NOT want to vote for both.

 

[AMUSIX]

Not disagreeing but examples of who could be labled a sex offender who wouldn't be now?

Escorts. Already illegal, but they don't get put on a sex offender's registry.

 

[Cyan]

Also, be VERY aware of the connection between Prop 30 and Prop 38. You do NOT want to vote for both.

An opinion piece posted earlier suggested that if you support 38, you might also vote for 30 as a backstop, since 38 is unlikely to pass.

 

[CrankyJay]

Bill Maher had the CEO of Stoneyfield Farms last Friday night that made a pretty compelling argument for prop 37.

Then again, it could cause a consumer scare and raise food prices.

 

[Gentleman Jack]

Bill Maher had the CEO of Stoneyfield Farms last Friday night that made a pretty compelling argument for prop 37.

Then again, it could cause a consumer scare and raise food prices.

The law essentially moves marketshare around. Billionaires fighting with billionaires over marketshare, taking a shit in California law along the way. I can't suffer that.

 

[Macam]

Those looking to vote note on Prop. 30 might want to check out The Economist link I posted earlier.

You guys can vote how you wish, of course, and I don't pretend to know how much anyone's looked into all the various issues here, but it's always curious to me when people bemoan how screwed up California is and then seem to take actions that only seem make the situation worse. I'm interested in hearing anyone's rationale against Prop. 30.