California 2012 Ballot Propositions

Politics & Elections
1

California has twelve Props to vote on this year. Some of which are pretty major, and some which might even have national repercussions. I was thinking about a thread on one in particular, but figured I’d go for the whole lot. Too much for one thread? My opinions saved for a separate reply.

General Summary Here

They have a pretty strange numbering system, so I’m just referring to them unofficially here as 1-12.

  1. Water Bond of 11.1 billion for upgrading infrastructure

  2. Union Contribution Reforms Prohibits payroll-deducted funds being used for politics. Allows the union to make dues voluntary. “Prohibits unions and corporations from contributing directly or indirectly to candidates and candidate-controlled committees.” (could have national effects?)

  3. Car Insurance discounts for persistent coverage

  4. State Senate Redistricting

  5. End the Death Penalty

  6. Human Trafficking Prohibition, Redefinition, and Sentencing

  7. Reform Three Strikes Law

  8. Mandatory GMO Food Labeling (could have national effects?)

  9. Tax Increase for out-of-state businesses with sales in CA. (could have national effects?)

  10. Tax Increase on income for most people across the board, earmarked for education

  11. Tax Increase, sales tax raised from 7.25% to 7.5%, plus multiple income tax increases for higher earners (250k +). The Governor is pushing this tax plan in opposition to #10 above.

  12. Two Year Budget Cycle, plus lots of changes to the budget process. Performance goals and reviews, publish bills three days in advance, no spending $25mil without also covering it, and “Permit the Governor of California to cut the budget unilaterally during declared fiscal emergencies if the state legislature fails to act.”

2

First, I’ll admit to a lot of ignorance about the nitty-gritty details of most laws and proposals. I figure that makes me an average voter. Well, since I’ve bothered to even read these summaries, maybe above-average, but that still isn’t saying too much. I have opinions on them, but am ready for those opinions to be dashed.

At first glance, I’m pretty much ready to vote Yes down the line, with some reservations.

  1. Borrowing 11B at this point seems kind of insane, but how/when else is the infrastructure ever going to get maintained? Downside: apparently 2B of the 11 is pork. Ugh. But again, how else is this shit going to get done without the hogs getting some too? Ugly fact of life.

  2. The inclusion of “Prohibits unions and corporations from contributing directly or indirectly to candidates and candidate-controlled committees.” is a nice touch. I’m willing to admit not grasping the larger national implications of this measure.

3, 4, 5, 6, 7: All easy Yes’s for me. The Car Insurance thing, by far the most benign item on the ballot, seems like it could be unfair to some people, but not being one of them personally, fuck it: Yes.

  1. is the one I almost started a dedicated thread for. Leaning strongly to Yes. I suspect this will affect virtually every food manufacturer in the country, not just CA. And it may even raise some prices at the grocery store. People generally agree on this idea overwhelmingly and from both parties (how many things can that be said for?), but the food industry is going to dump 100s of millions on killing this one. I don’t expect it to pass, in spite of people liking the idea. It will get Lied to death, “Doubt is our product”-style.

9, 10, 11. I am willing to personally pay more taxes, considering how far behind the state is. I am even more willing to make the rich pay more taxes! And certainly businesses which make money in CA, but dodge paying CA. Also willing (eager!) for education to be funded, even though I have no kids and never will.

  1. I admit the budget details are way over my head. There are parts of that that sound good, but the word “unilaterally” is kind of scary. I feel like this one should have been decided by our representatives, but they hate doing their jobs. That can probably be said for most of them, on second thought…
3

Ugh. It’s time for that crazy process again. As per usual, if I can’t understand what the proposal is supposed to do in 10 seconds, then I vote against. We’re out of control with these ballot initiatives here.

As of now, I know I’ll voting to end the death penalty. That’s a no brainer for me.

I guess I have some reading to do. Thanks for putting it all together!

4

My two cents:

  1. No
  2. No
  3. Yes
  4. Yes
  5. No
  6. Yes
  7. Yes
  8. No
  9. No
  10. No
  11. No
  12. Yes
5

I agree. In some elections, there are propositions that directly oppose one another, but it’s not always clear from the language that this is the case unless you read very closely.

I find that the Legislative Analyst’s summaries of the propositions are generally very well done, and i read them quite closely in arriving at my position. Of course, not being a US citizen yet, my position isn’t actually relevant to the outcome.

The whole initiative process seems, at first glance, like an admirable exercise of democracy, with the people taking control of the political process. When it was passed in 1911, during Progressive-era concern about political corruption, it did indeed fulfill some of that promise. But it’s become a bloated and distorted system that is no less subject to “special interest” pressures than the legislature itself, and the dramatic increase in the state’s population (with concomitant increase in the required number of signatures) means that the only people who can get an initiative on the ballot are those with millions of dollars to pay for signature-gathering.

I understand why people want to wrest control of political issues away from politicians, but the initiative system has, in many ways, made the system less able to respond to changing circumstances, and has hamstrung the legislature in ways that actually make it less effective. Politicians aren’t perfect, but we elect them to govern, and the initiative process, as currently implemented, makes that far more difficult. Californians complain about Sacramento being inept and useless, but if that’s the case, the current system is at least partly to blame.

6

I am surprised there is no “women under the age of 18 require parental notification before getting an abortion” proposition this time.

Also, the GM Food Labeling bill does not mention labeling “irradiated” food, which surprises me a little.

7

That struck me too. No idiot/fear-baiting issues. Nobody to discriminate against, no abortion, no immigrant-hate. So boring. Did they forget there was an election this year?

8

“I swear by the cross on my neck that there’s never been a case of wrongful execution”

9

I’ve been hearing about a vote to require condoms in porno movies. Where’s that?

10

I think that’s specific to L.A.

11

1-y
2-n
3-y
4-y
5-n
6-y
7-y
8-y
9-y
10-y
11-y
12-y

12

The ballot initiative, like the filibuster, is a great idea. Great, that is, when used sparingly and with careful deliberation beforehand. Instead, it’s more a case of “there outta be a law!”.

13

It’s just a little bit too early for this thread. Things are still in flux. For example, the water bond proposition has been withdrawn. We’ll have to update things once the ballot is finalized.

It’s always interesting to see which way the parties, prominent politicians and papers go for endorsements. It’s not always obvious.

Here is the official proposition page.

But given the current information, here are my current preferences.

  1. Water Bond: Strong YES. Infrastructure improvement is the one good use of bonds. The future will gain greater benefit from it, so let them pay for it. Of course, the legislature should have passed this themselves.

  2. Union Contribution Reforms: Weak YES. I don’t see any downside to for-profit interests being restricted from donating others’ money to politicians. Of course, the legislature should have passed this themselves.

  3. Car Insurance: Weak NO. Don’t bother me with implementations of regulations. Let the state insurance commissioner do it.

  4. State Senate Redistricting: Absolute NO. Let the redistricting commission do its job.

  5. End the Death Penalty: Absolute YES. I’m opposed to the death penalty on religious grounds.

  6. Human Trafficking: Weak NO. It weakens the sex offender list by adding a non-sex crime to it. And I’m hesitant about increasing the government’s monitoring of the internet.

  7. Reform Three Strikes Law: Strong YES. Three strikes need fixing, although this probably isn’t enough. Of course, the legislature should have passed this themselves.

  8. Mandatory GMO Food Labeling: Strong NO. We don’t need additional fear-mongering about our food supply. People who are concerned about this can look for food with GMO-free labels. Of course, this is something the legislature should have dealt with.

  9. Tax Increase (sales): Weak NO. I’m against corporation taxes in general because they impede commerce. If in-state businesses need to balance an advantage out-of-state businesses have, then the overall corporate taxes need to go down. Of course, this is something the legislature should have dealt with.

  10. Tax Increase (education, income): Strong YES. Education is a public good that needs to be paid for.

  11. Tax Increase (education, sales and income): Weak YES. I’ll have to decide between this and the previous once more information is available.

  12. Two Year Budget Cycle: Weak YES. I’ll have to read more, but it looks like it increases local control of government spending, which is a good thing. (Better yet would be to exempt corporation-owned property from the protection of Prop 13.)

14

5: Yes. I don’t approve of the death penalty.
7: Yes. I really don’t approve of the three strikes law as it is.
8: Yes. I’d prefer it if they also included “cold pasteurized” food. i.e. irradiated.
11: Yes. The state needs money and I don’t mind paying a tiny bit more.

15

Regarding item 1: Bonds of this type must be passed by the legislature AND approved by the voters. The legislature already did pass them but that isn’t enough by state law.

16

I hadn’t realized it was still not final, but I guess that makes sense. In any case, the list can only get shorter at this point.

Similar to what **suranyi **pointed out, this one is actually to confirm the lines drawn by the commission we voted for in 2008. That was part of their original rules. So if you like the commission, vote Yes instead.

Interesting perspective. The internet part especially. I notice the summary says “Chris Kelly … helped draft the initiative.[2] Kelly, the former chief of privacy at Facebook…” Chief of privacy at Facebook?? Is that the person tasked with finding new and creative ways to invade people’s lives? Facebook is the complete antithesis of privacy in my mind (not a user). That person/role doesn’t sound very trustworthy…

17

The legislature can’t fix laws that are passed by the initiative process (Three strikes was Prop 184 in 1994). We broke it; we have to fix it.

18

  1. First instinct is that Citizens United was made applicable to the states in American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock so this would be unconstitutional. Can’t prohibit companies or labor unions from making political donations. The rest of it might pass constitutional muster.

  2. The FDA has jurisdiction. Not sure that California can regulate that which the federal government has jurisdiction over. Apply the logic in Arizona v. United States (state cannot regulate immigration which is sole provenance of federal government) to say California cannot regulate this.

19

Not sure when it came out, but they now have the final list of state-wide ballot measures. Titles:

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

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

Proposition 32. Prohibits Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction. Prohibitions on Contributions to Candidates. Initiative Statute.

Proposition 33. Changes Law to Allow Auto Insurance Companies to Set Prices Based on a Driver’s History of Insurance Coverage. Initiative Statute.

Proposition 34. Death Penalty Repeal. Initiative Statute.

Proposition 35. Human Trafficking. Penalties. Sex Offender Registration. Initiative Statute.

Proposition 36. Three Strikes Law. Sentencing for Repeat Felony Offenders. Initiative Statute.

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

Proposition 38. Tax for Education and Early Childhood Programs. Initiative Statute.

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

Proposition 40. Redistricting. State Senate Districts. Referendum.

There is a draft voter info guide as well.

20

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

Proposition 31. State Budget. State and Local Government. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute. No. We just finished tinkering with the Assembly’s power/responsibility to craft and enact a budget. It’s too soon to do it again, in any event.

Proposition 32. Prohibits Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction. Prohibitions on Contributions to Candidates. Initiative Statute.
No. I’m concerned that the Citizens United decision would render this unconstitutional. I don’t wish to take the chance that on further review this could be held to handcuff unions but not corporations.

Proposition 33. Changes Law to Allow Auto Insurance Companies to Set Prices Based on a Driver’s History of Insurance Coverage. Initiative Statute. How odd. I had no idea that auto insurance companies don’t already have the right to do that. I do know that last month after I switched carriers based on an online quote, I was told that I had to provide information on my prior coverage status or have my quoted rate rescinded and replaced with a higher premium. Going to say “NO” and agree with the poster above who suggested we let the Insurance Commissioner handle the details.

Proposition 34. Death Penalty Repeal. Initiative Statute. Yes. The death penalty is after all, wrong, always and everywhere.

Proposition 35. Human Trafficking. Penalties. Sex Offender Registration. Initiative Statute. No. Not because I’m a bleeding-heart sex-offender lover, but because I generally oppose ballot box-based legislation.

Proposition 36. Three Strikes Law. Sentencing for Repeat Felony Offenders. Initiative Statute. Yes. My reasoning above notwithstanding, Three Strikes was one of the bits of ballot box-based legislation I was talking about, and what it really needs is to be repealed. I’m not willing to let the perfect be the enemy of the good in this case, however.

Proposition 37. Genetically Engineered Foods. Mandatory Labeling. Initiative Statute. No. Ballot box-based legislation, remember? I’m okay with prohibiting false labeling of “NO GMOs!!”, but even that I prefer to happen in the statehouse.

Proposition 38. Tax for Education and Early Childhood Programs. Initiative Statute. Yes.

Proposition 39. Tax Treatment for Multistate Businesses. Clean Energy and Energy Efficiency Funding. Initiative Statute. No. Adds too much complexity to the tax code, something I would prefer to leave up to the legislature.

Proposition 40. Redistricting. State Senate Districts. Referendum. No. I believe that drawing districts is a proper function of the state legislative body.