Election Day is coming up soon. Know what you are voting for!
Proposition 30. Temporary Taxes to Fund Education. Guaranteed Local Public Safety Funding. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Position: YES
Proposition 30 is the result of a historic compromise between the Restore California Coalition and Governor Jerry Brown, the first time a governor had to negotiate directly with a coalition of community groups. This is a first step in our fight to amend Proposition 13 which was passed in 1978 and created tax loopholes that allow corporations to get away with not paying their fair share. It temporarily increases taxes on people who earn over $250,000 and raises sales tax by a .25-cent. It is expected to raise $6.8-$9 billion in the first year, and $5.4 billion to $7.6 billion the following years. Income tax expires in 7 years, sales tax in four. Creates
a protected education account, allocating 89% to K-12 and 11% to community colleges. 90% of the revenue comes from the top 1% and it brings desperately needed income to our schools, clinics, and outher vital services.
Supporters:
AFSCME, CFT,CTA, CFA,CSEA, AFT, SEIU State Council, UDW, CA Labor Federation, University of California Regents,
Reclaim CA’s Future, CA League of Women Voters, CA Democratic Party.
Opponents:
Californians for Reforms and Jobs, Not Taxes Committee, The National Federation of Independent Business/California, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, and the Small Business Action Committee.
Proposition 31. State Budget. State and Local Government. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute
Position: No
Proposition 31 creates two-year budgeting cycles and prohibits the legislature from creating expenditures of more than $25 million unless revenues or spending cuts are identified, and gives the Governor power to make unilateral budget cuts during fiscal emergencies. Prop 31 also requires performance reviews of all state programs. It will decrease state revenues and increase local revenues, by about $200 million annually, beginning in 2013-14.
Supporters:
Nicolas Berggruen Institute Trust, Californians for Government Accountability Committee, California Forward Action Fund, Think Long Committee for California.
Opponents:
AFSCME, CA Democratic Party, CA Labor Federation.
Proposition 32. Prohibits Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction. Prohibitions on Contributions to Candidates. Initiative Statute.
Position: NO
Proposition 32 is an attack on unions and prohibits unions from using dues collected from payroll deductions for political purposes. It takes away the power of workers to impact state and local political fights and destroys a major part of the movement’s fundraising infrastructure. Prop 32 restricts unions and some corporations from making contributions to candidates; but several types of corporations like Sole Proprietorships, Real Estate Investment Trusts, LLCs, LLPs, are exempted from these restrictions and will still be able to contribute unlimited amounts to campaigns. There aren’t any restrictions on contributions from secret donors or PACs. Corporations shouldn’t be able to put money into politics if Unions can’t. Enforcing this will cost several hundred thousand dollars annually in enforcement costs, with some of the cost being offset by payments of fines.
Supporters:
Howard Jarvis Tax payer Association, National Federation of Independent Business/California, Gloria Romero, Charles Munger, Thomas Siebel.
Opponents:
CA Common Cause, League of Women Voters, Public Citizen, CA Democratic Party, CA Labor Federation, CTA, CSEA, SEIU State Council, SEIU Local 1000, Firefighters.
Proposition 33. Changes Law to Allow Auto Insurance Companies to Set Prices Based on a Driver’s History of Insurance Coverage. Initiative Statute.
Position: NO
Proposition 33 allows the auto-insurance industry to raise rates based on insurance history. Insurance companies can raise rates on drivers if they did not have continuous insurance for the past five years, even if their gap in coverage was because they didn’t have a car. This will negatively impact people who have been bus riders, people who stopped driving while healing from a serious illness, graduating students who are now entering the workforce, and the long term unemployed. Soldiers and unemployed people are exempted if their lapse in coverage is for less than 90 days.
Supporters:
Mercury Insurance (contributed $8,227,126), American Agents Alliance, Abernathy Insurance Agency, CA Republican Party.
Opponents:
Consumer Watchdog, Campaign for Consumer Rights, CA Democratic Party, CA Labor Federation.
Proposition 34. Death Penalty Repeal. Initiative Statute. Position: YES
Prop 34 would finally put an end to the death penalty in California. People who had already been sentenced to death, will have their sentences replaced with life sentences without the possibility of parole. Prop 34 requires people found guilty of murder to work while in prison, and their wages would go towards victims as reparations. It creates a $100 million fund to help solve murder and rape cases. The State and counties could save tens of millions of dollars annually.
Supporters:
ACLU of CA, Amnesty International, CA Democratic Party, Catholic Bishops of California, California NAACP, California
League of Women Voters, CA Labor Federation, SAFE CA.
Opponents: Peace Officers Assc., Sacramento County Deputy Sheriff’s Assc., Sacramento Police Officers Assc.
Proposition 35. Human Trafficking Penalties, Sex Offender Registration Initiative Statute
Position: No
Proposition 35 claims to help victims of human trafficking and the sexually exploited but it really does neither and will result in the further criminalization of immigrants and communities of color. This law doesn’t address the economic crisis and cuts to welfare, housing and other resources which is forcing increasing numbers of young people, particularly young mothers, into the sex industry to survive.There is no indication that this Act will help provide the concrete resources like welfare and housing that young people need to get out of prostitution or escape from exploitation and violence.
Trafficking is not about prostitution but about poverty, immigration and asylum. Many women from poorer countries come to work in the US in the hope of improving their and their children’s lives. Others are asylum seekers fleeing war or persecution who have been left without support, yet prevented from working legally.
Prop 35 will expand the legal definition of human trafficking to include any sex with a minor “because minors are legally incapable of consenting to sexual activity.” Young people having consenting sex, even with others of a similar age, could be labeled as victims of trafficking or traffickers on this basis.
Trafficking is forced or labour, abduction, kidnapping, false imprisonment, rape, grievous bodily harm, extortion. Existing laws cover all these crimes and could be used to prosecute the assailants of women and children, whatever work they are being forced into. Anti-trafficking legislation in this racist and xenophobic political climate is primarily being used to target immigrant sex workers for raids and deportations.
Supporters:
Chris Kelly (contributed $1,860,000), Peace Officers Association, Women’s Foundation, Planned Parenthood, NOW, Crime Victims United of California, Californians Against Slavery. CA Democratic Party, CA Labor Federation.
Opponents:
Global Women’s Strike, The International Prostitutes Collective
Proposition 36. Three Strikes Law. Sentencing for Repeat Felony Offenders. Initiative Statute.
Position: YES
Proposition 36 changes California’s racist three strikes law by removing life sentencing if the third strike wasn’t serious or violent. People who are already serving life sentences because of a third strike could be released or given a lighter sentence with a judge’s approval. Life sentences would still apply if previous convictions were for rape, murder, or child molestation. This could save the state up to $100 million a year in prison and parole expenses.
Supporters:
Stanford University Professor David Mills, George Soros, NAACP, CA Democratic Party, CA Labor Federation
Opponents:
Mike Reynolds (wrote the language for California’s “Three Strikes” Law).
Proposition 37. Genetically Engineered Foods. Mandatory Labeling. Initiative Statute.
Position: YES
Prop 37 requires food sold in California to be specially labeled if it was made from plants or animals that had been genetically modified and prohibits such food from being labeled as natural
Supporters:
Mercola Health Resources, Organic Consumers Fund, Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soap, Nature Path’s Food, CA Democratic Party, United Farm Workers, Public Citizen, California Labor Federation.
Opponents:
Council for Biotechnology Information, Grocery Manufacturers Association, Biotechnology Industry Organization, CONAGRA FOODS, Coca-Cola, Kellogg Company, Hormel Food, General Mills, Bimbo Bakeries.
Proposition 38. Tax for Education and Early Childhood Programs. Initiative Statute.
Position: No
Proposition 38 regressively raises the income tax rate for all Californians who earn more than $7,316 per year. The tax rate increase will slide based on income, starting at 4/10ths of 1% and maxing out at 2.2% for those earning more than $2.5 million. The $10 billion raised will be split between K-12 schools (60%), repaying state debt (30%), and early childhood programs (10%) for four years. For the following 8 years, it will only fund schools (85%) and early childhood programs (15%). If it passes by a majority, it will override Prop 30 which is a better proposition. Poor and working families are already hurt more by the economic crisis than the wealthy and shouldn’t have to carry extra burdens.
Supporters:
Molly Munger (contributed $13,788,399), PTA, Total raised:$13.8 million.
Opponents:
Ventura County Taxpayer Association, California Chamber of Commerce.
Proposition 39. Tax Treatment for Multi-state Businesses. Clean Energy and Energy Efficiency Funding. Initiative Statute.
Position: YES
Proposition 39 requires multi-state businesses to calculate their taxes based on their sales in California. It also removes corporate loopholes that allow lower rates on business property and payroll outside California. Its projected to raise $1billion; $550 million of that would be spent on providing clean energy jobs and job training for the 1st 5 years with the balance going to the General Fund. After 5 years, the entire $1 billion would go to the General Fund. Its expected to create 20,000-30,000 construction-related jobs
Supporters:
Thomas Steyer (contributed $21,900,000), CA for Clean Energy & Jobs, CA Labor Federation.
Opponents:
No known opponents