There are eleven statewide ballot measures in California for the November, 2012 election. Many of them can be tricky to fully understand, and the arguments for and against tend to be selective and (in some cases) misleading. Even worse, our airwaves and mailboxes are saturated with ads, many of which which are similarly misleading.
I have put a great deal of research into the ballot props: I have listened to debates on all of the measures (thanks to KQED's excellent morning discussion show, Forum); i've looked up history, read news & blogs, and (perhaps most importantly) followed the money (which often reveals who is actually behind the curtain). I thought i'd share what i've come up with, in hopes of helping other California voters. I won't try to summarize all of the arguments or all of the details of the measures (for that, please refer to the resources at the end of this post), but instead focus on the "ah-ha!" aspects which i found to be most compelling.
Disclaimer: These are my personal stances on these issues. While i would urge you to join me in voting the respective measures up or down, you should do your own research if you disagree with me and make the best decision that you can. Please, just dig deeper than what the ads are saying. If you really think i'm off base on some of these, i'll listen to civil discussion (emphasis on *civil*).
Here's my cheat sheet; i'll go into details for my positions below.
| YES | Prop 30 | Jerry Brown's Tax Increase for Education | |
| NO | Prop 31 | Two-Year Budget Cycle | |
| NO | Prop 32 | Ban on corporate and union contributions to state and local candidates | |
| NO | Prop 33 | Car insurance rates can be based on a person's history of insurance coverage | |
| YES | Prop 34 | "End the Death Penalty" | |
| YES | Prop 35 | Increased Penalties for Human Trafficking and Sex Slavery | |
| YES | Prop 36 | Modification of the "Three Strikes" Law | |
| YES | Prop 37 | Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food | |
| NO | Prop 38 | Molly Munger's State Income Tax Increase for Education | |
| YES | Prop 39 | Income Tax Increase for Multistate Businesses | |
| YES | Prop 40 | Referendum on the State Senate Redistricting Plan |
...
YES on Prop 30 - Jerry Brown's Tax Increase for Education
First, an intro to the two education funding measures. #30 and #38 are competing measures - only one can win. If both are approved by voters, only the one with the highest number of votes will go into effect. Both are well-intentioned and will provide money for schools, but given that we can have only one, #30 is the way to go.
#30 is Gov Jerry Brown's measure; it will balance the state budget and protect funding for schools, and will pay for it with a small sales tax increase for everyone (0.25%) and income tax increases for individuals making more than $250k/year. Furthermore, the current CA state budget is contingent on #30 being approved. If #30 is rejected, trigger cuts of 6 billion dollars will be slashed from K-12 and community colleges, as well as the UC and CSU systems.
#38 is from billionaire Molly Munger. #38 will NOT balance the state budget. If #38 wins, the 6 billion dollar trigger cuts WILL go into effect. And the funding for #38 would come from income tax increases for EVERYONE (not just top income earners as with #30). So i'm voting YES on #30 and NO on #38.
...
NO on Prop 31 - Two-Year Budget Cycle
There's a lot going on with this one, but i think the cons outweigh the pros. The biggest turnoffs for me are (A) The legislature can't even pass a 1-year budget on time; how are they going to work out a budget for 2 years at once? (B) i don't like the idea of giving unilateral power to the governor (even if it's only under certain conditions), and (C) i don't like the idea of allowing local authorities to ignore state laws (e.g. environmental regulations for clean air and water). Our budget process is already a mess, and this seems to just complicate things further.
...
NO on Prop 32 - Ban on corporate and union contributions to state and local candidates
This is basically a bunch of billionaires and super-PACs attacking unions. This measure would ban unions from supporting political candidates, but allow super-PACs and the other sponsors of this measure to continue doing just that. The Citizens United Supreme Court decision was bad enough; this would only make things worse.
...
NO on Prop 33 - Car insurance rates can be based on a person's history of insurance coverage
This measure is straight up bullshit. This one is paid for almost entirely by George Joseph, billionaire founder of Mercury Insurance. So we have a ballot measure about car insurance laws pushed & funded by an insurance kingpin - who do you think this would benefit?
It gets even richer. Back in 1988, CA voters passed Prop 103 which placed restrictions on insurance companies and lowered rates for everyone. Not only did George Joseph try to stop #103, as soon as it passed he started trying to get it repealed, blocked from implementation, and undermined. He was even busted for violating that law. Back in 2010 he tried to pass a measure almost exactly the same as this one, and we appropriately voted it down. We didn't let him get away with it then, and there is absolutely no reason to let him get away with it now.
...
YES on Prop 34 - "End the Death Penalty"
Bottom line: This would abolish the death penalty in California and save a ton of money.
Our prison system is messed up; overcrowded and strapped for cash. It costs a LOT of money to house inmates on death row - after convicted, they sit on death row for 20+ years while working their way through the legal system with of appeal after appeal after appeal. Moral issues regarding capital punishment aside, how is this any better than life in prison? This measure would also redirect money to law enforcement. I mean, we already busted these bad guys - lets stop wasting time & money on 20 years of court proceedings; let them rot in prison and instead focus on going after the murders and rapists who are still out on the streets.
...
YES on Prop 35 - Increased Penalties for Human Trafficking and Sex Slavery
Stricter penalties for human trafficing (both sex trafficking and labor trafficking - yes, slave labor still exists in the United States today). Also adds protections for victims of human trafficking. From the legislative analyst:
"The measure prohibits the use of evidence that a person was involved in criminal sexual conduct (such as prostitution) to prosecute that person for that crime if the conduct was a result of being a victim of human trafficking. The measure also makes evidence of sexual conduct by a victim of human trafficking inadmissible for the purposes of attacking the victim's credibility or character in court. In addition, this measure disallows certain defenses in human trafficking cases involving minors. For example, a defendant could not claim as a defense being unaware of the minor's age."
In other words, we're trying to go after the pimps (the real criminals) and not the prostitutes whom the pimps were coercing and taking advantage of.
...
YES on Prop 36 - Modification of the "Three Strikes" Law
This is a tricky one. The "Three Strikes" Law means each time you're busted for a criminal offense, you might get a "strike" on your record; after your third strike you go to jail for 25-to-life.
On one hand, sure, come down hard on repeat offenders. Provide an incentive to clean up your act (if you already have two strikes, maybe you'll be scared straight). If someone keeps commiting crimes, stop giving them more chances.
But here's the problem - this law has been abused a great deal with strikes handed out for petty offenses like shoplifting, sometimes two strikes handed out at once. Maybe instead of getting scared straight, you'll think you have nothing to lose and just go crazy (commit a *really* serious crime, attack police officers if they find you, etc).
We're dealing with overcrowded prison systems, budget issues, and the highest recidivism rate in the country. Our current system is NOT working. It's been suggested that we might do better by getting rid of things like Three Strikes and instead follow other states' example of investing more in things like substance abuse programs, therapy, job training, etc, to help released inmates get onto a better track.
...
YES on Prop 37 - Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food
I want to know what's in my food. I'll spare you my rant on how companies like Monsanto are polluting the environment, poisoning all of us, and using their power to write U.S. laws to compromise food safety in favor of their own profits. Instead i'll keep it simple:
Many countries around the world - including China, Japan, India, and most of Europe - already require labeling of GMO foods. American suppliers already have to label the food they export to these countries. I just want them to provide the same labeling on food they sell to us here in the US.
...
NO on Prop 38 - Molly Munger's State Income Tax Increase for Education
Please see my notes above regarding #30 and #38 as competing measures....
YES on Prop 39 - Income Tax Increase for Multistate Businesses
This one will close a tax loophole which was put in at the last minute of the farce that is California budget negotiations; it'll level the playing field by making multistate businesses pay corporate income taxes the same way that CA-only businesses do. Opponents are spinning the same "job creators" rhetoric which i don't think holds much water. All companies should pay income taxes the same way; i feel that we shouldn't have an unequal system to coddle certain companies. Continuing that policy out of fear that they'll move to other states is like preemptively giving the bully your lunch money every day.
...
YES on Prop 40 - Referendum on the State Senate Redistricting Plan
Sigh. The opponents of this one have dropped their case, but there is no way to remove a ballot measure once it's on there, so we still have to vote YES.
CA voting districts are redrawn every 10 years based on census results. In 2008, voters approved an independent commission to take over the redrawing of the lines (instead of the former partisan spaghetti mess). Republicans wanted to block the newly-drawn voting districts from being used for the 2012 elections. The California Supreme Court ruled that the new districts WILL be used for these elections, so the Republicans dropped their position on this measure.
The work is done and the results already being used. Nobody opposes this measure anymore. YES on #40 so we can move on with our lives.
...
Resources
Ballotpedia is a great source for ballot info, history, and (very important) lists of donors and how much money they contributed.
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_2012_ballot_propositions
And KQED Forum dedicates episodes to each of the ballot measures for every election. They bring in supporters and opponents for each measure to debate on the air, and allow listeners to join with questions and comments. Listening to these programs has helped me immensely in understanding the measures. Look for the "Forum analysis" link at the bottom of each ballot prop's section in KQED's election guide - this'll get you to the podcast for that debate.
KQED election guide
http://www.kqed.org/news/politics/election2012/statepropositions-guide.jsp
