# California 2012 Ballot Propositions **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [July 4, 2012, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-2012-ballot-propositions/627227 "2012-07-04T17:49:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Jelc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jelc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jelc)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2012, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-2012-ballot-propositions/627227/41 "2012-08-13T03:06:20Z")
I don’t live in California, but from an outsider’s point of view, I do find some of California’s ballot initiatives inefficient. Is there wide support for having so many decisions put up to the voters instead of the legislature? ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2012, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-2012-ballot-propositions/627227/42 "2012-08-13T03:21:39Z")
There doesn’t need to be wide support. The state constitution has been set up to allow lawmaking by this process. Powerful interests have hit upon a formula for obtaining from an easily-manipulated electorate\* the things they desire, which have proven too difficult and expensive to obtain from a professional legislature.\*\* Yes, the process needs to be scrapped, or reformed to make it _much_ more resistant to abuse, but the only way for that to happen would be by changing the state constitution. I don’t see a lot of hope that we’re likely to be able to do this in my lifetime. - I’ll concede that the electorate may only be easily-manipulated _relative to the legislature_. \*\* And thanks to term limits (which I’m proud to say I voted AGAINST), the very concept of a professional legislature is dying out in our state. ---
**Author:** ![Peanut\_Gallery](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/838e76/32.png) [@Peanut\_Gallery](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peanut_Gallery)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2012, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-2012-ballot-propositions/627227/43 "2012-08-13T05:24:22Z")
> [@kenetic](#): > > Then you might want to read [this](http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2012/07/i-despise-human-trafficking-but-i-oppose-the-badly-drafted-prop-35/): > > Looks like an unnecessary and potentially damaging law. Definite “No” vote. I’d like to learn more about that point of view, but that blog is terrible. Is there a summary of that argument in less than 4600 words? ---
**Author:** ![PigArcher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bcef8e/32.png) [@PigArcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PigArcher)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2012, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-2012-ballot-propositions/627227/44 "2012-08-13T06:28:07Z")
> [@Peanut\_Gallery](#): > > I’d like to learn more about that point of view, but that blog is terrible. Is there a summary of that argument in less than 4600 words? I haven’t had time to read all of these closely, but here’s some more: > **[The Undemocratic Democratic Party of the State of California : Indybay](https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/08/08/18719117.php)** > > How the California Democratic Party endorsed one of the worst bait and switch ballot measures in the history of California: Proposition 35, using another undemocratic process. [http://sexandthe405.com/why-you-should-vote-no-on-prop-35/](http://sexandthe405.com/why-you-should-vote-no-on-prop-35/) [http://business.avn.com/articles/legal/Another-California-Ballot-Initiative-To-Be-Wary-Of-484953.html](http://business.avn.com/articles/legal/Another-California-Ballot-Initiative-To-Be-Wary-Of-484953.html) > **[No On Proposition 35 – ESPLER](https://esplerp.org/no-on-california-proposition-35/)** There doesn’t appear to much organized opposition, but here’s Twitter and FB accounts for one group: [https://twitter.com/OpposeProp35](https://twitter.com/OpposeProp35) > **[Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/Votenoonprop35)** For the record, I have no involvement with this group. Given that the current anti-trafficking hysteria pretty much entirely driven by conservative anti-sex zealots who continuously lie and distort the issue, this is almost certainly a bad proposition. But it’s pretty much guaranteed to pass since very few people actually understand the issues and no one wants to be perceived as supporting traffickers. ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2012, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-2012-ballot-propositions/627227/45 "2012-08-13T06:32:11Z")
Prop 32 is a big, fat, Republican lie, akin to “right to work,” and I urge you to vote NO. This is just a way to curtail the primary way labor unions have to finance their fight against the destruction of labor protections and rights while **exempting** sole proprietorships, Real Estate Investment Trusts, LLCs, LLPs and a host of other types of businesses while pretending to be “fair and balanced” because they put the word “corporations” in there along with labor unions. > [@](#): > > [California Proposition 32, Ban on Political Contributions from Payroll Deductions Initiative (2012) - Ballotpedia](http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_32,_the_%22Paycheck_Protection%22_Initiative_%282012%29#Opposition) > > [ul] > [li]Art Pulaski, executive secretary-treasurer of the California Labor Federation, says, “It’s not enough for them to have taken our houses and it’s not enough for them to make millions off the TARP funding and federal government support for the banks, now they want even more. They want us to not even have a voice in politics whatsoever.”[1] [/li] > [li] Columnist Thomas Elias says, the “initiative’s ban on contributions to candidate-controlled committees is meaningless, merely a cover for another blatant attempt to reduce funds for liberal candidates while letting contributions to conservatives continue unfettered.”[16] [/li] > [li] Ron Lind, the president of United Food and Commercial Workers Local 5, says, “The measure is a wolf in sheep’s clothing designed to fool voters into approving a corporate power grab that will lead to even more corporate influence over our political system. What the backers won’t say publicly is that they’ve written a giant loophole to allow for unlimited corporate spending on campaigns while furthering their real agenda of silencing the voices of middle-class workers and their unions.”[17] [/li] > [li] State representative Linda Sanchez says, “This paycheck deception is the No. 1 target to silence the voices of hard-working families, and it’s a crime.”[18] [/li] > [li] State representative Judy Chu says, “This is the most dangerous proposition of all time. It will silence the union members and their voices.”[18] [/li] > [li] Trudy Schafer of the California League of Women Voters says, “It promises political reform but it’s really designed by its special interest backers to help themselves and harm their opponents.”[14] [/li] > [li] Derek Cressman of California Common Cause says Proposition 32 backers are “trying to use our anger and mistrust to change the rules for their own benefit.”[/li][/ul] Don’t be tricked! Vote NO on Prop 32. ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2012, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-2012-ballot-propositions/627227/46 "2012-08-13T18:52:07Z")
> [@Jelc](#): > > I don’t live in California, but from an outsider’s point of view, I do find some of California’s ballot initiatives inefficient. Is there wide support for having so many decisions put up to the voters instead of the legislature? There are a few issues: First, the laws of the state are such that it is not all that difficult for a concerned party to obtain the necessary signatures to put a proposition on the ballot. Second, there are a few cases of propositions wihich MUST be put to the voters, even after the legislature has approved them, such as bond issues and tax increases. Third, once a proposition has been passed into law, it can only be changed by another proposition voted in by the people, as in the case this time where the Three Strikes law is proposed to be modified. As for the question about whether there is wide support, that’s hard to say. I think most people are annoyed with the length of the ballot, and especially a lot of people don’t like “ballot-box budgeting”, but the basic idea of the proposition remains popular. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2012, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-2012-ballot-propositions/627227/47 "2012-08-13T19:33:46Z")
> [@suranyi](#): > > First, the laws of the state are such that it is not all that difficult for a concerned party to obtain the necessary signatures to put a proposition on the ballot. Actually, i’d amend that a bit. It’s not that difficult for a concerned party with at least a million dollars to pay signature collectors to put a proposition on the ballot. As California’s population has increased, so has the number of signatures required for a ballot initiative. For a regular initiative statute, you need signatures totaling at least 5% of the number of voters in the last gubernatorial election to get your initiative on the ballot. For constitutional amendment initiatives, it’s 8%. Those percentages currently work out to just over 500,000 signatures for a regular initiative, and just over 800,000 for an amendment. Peter Schrag notes in his book _California: America’s High-Stakes Experiment_, that money is the key force behind getting a proposition on the ballot. > [@](#): > > In signature campaigns, anyone who had between $1 million and $2 million could get almost anything on the ballot. But while the initiative and recall had been created as a “people’s” remedy for defalcations and misfeasance of corrupt or un-responsive legislators, in the modern era the only people who got to the table were those who, as Thomas Hiltachk, a Sacramento Republican campaign lawyer, famously put it, could affirmatively answer the million-dollar question: “Do you have a million dollars?” > > p. 163 Back in 2003, when California recalled Governor Grey Davis, it cost about $1.50 per signature to collect signatures (with that number rising to as much as $5 as time runs out and more signature collectors need to be sent out), and these collection campaigns always need to collect considerably more than the required amount, as Schrag notes, “to allow for duplicates and unqualified signers.” There’s a pretty decent chance that the Davis recall wouldn’t have even made it onto the ballot if Darrell Issa hadn’t funneled about $2 million of his own money into the effort. I’m not defending Davis here, or even arguing that the recall was wrong. It’s just one example, though, of how money is a key factor in the initiative process, to the extent that it has essentially pushed aside the Progressive-era, anti-corruption ideals that brought the ballot initiative to California in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![bienville](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@bienville](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bienville)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2012, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-2012-ballot-propositions/627227/48 "2012-10-26T18:18:12Z")
Just now ready to start researching ballot initiatives. Will check back for Dopers opinions as I’m educating myself. From fist read they all seem fairly straightforward and not particularly confusing, which has not always been my experience. Anyway, here’s the list for anyone who wants to discuss. I’ll add to the discussion as I educate myself more. **30** Temporary Taxes to Fund Education. Guaranteed Local Public Safety Funding. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. **31** State Budget. State and Local Government. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute. **32** Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction. Contributions to Candidates. Initiative Statute. **33** Auto Insurance Companies. Prices Based on Driver’s History of Insurance Coverage. Initiative Statute. **34** Death Penalty. Initiative Statute. **35** Human Trafficking. Penalties. Initiative Statute. **36** Three Strikes Law. Repeat Felony Offenders. Penalties. Initiative Statute. **37** Genetically Engineered Foods. Labeling. Initiative Statute. **38** Tax to Fund Education and Early Childhood Programs. Initiative Statute. **39** Tax Treatment for Multistate Businesses. Clean Energy and Energy Efficiency Funding. Initiative Statute. **40** Redistricting. State Senate Districts. Referendum. ---
**Author:** ![twickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ec9cab/32.png) [@twickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/twickster)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2012, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-2012-ballot-propositions/627227/49 "2012-11-04T16:27:54Z")
Merged duplicate threads. ---
**Author:** ![Yumblie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/76d3ee/32.png) [@Yumblie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yumblie)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2012, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-2012-ballot-propositions/627227/50 "2012-11-04T17:20:15Z")
If 30 doesn’t pass I’ll very likely be out of a job next semester, so I’m definitely voting Yes on that. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2012, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-2012-ballot-propositions/627227/51 "2012-11-04T18:08:58Z")
I was neutral about moving from California last year; my wife hated the place but after a lifetime there I had a tolerance for its… I almost said “faults.” You know what I mean. But after 18 months of watching the place disintegrate from across the country, I mumble a wholly secular equivalent of “Thank god,” every time the subject comes up. Seeing yet another long list of ballot props was one such occasion. ---
**Author:** ![Stately\_Greek\_Automaton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aca169/32.png) [@Stately\_Greek\_Automaton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stately_Greek_Automaton)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2012, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-2012-ballot-propositions/627227/52 "2012-11-04T19:45:10Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > I’d like to mention something in the case of #8. > > When I was very young, I was in the company of some real hippies. You know, the straight-up “frankenfoods” type. “GMO is evil!!!” You know the drill. If it weren’t for them, I’d support #8 wholesale. > > But you know what? I don’t. I can’t. The fact is that GMO foods have virtually no negative impact, and all that it is is speeding up natural selection by artificial means. The protesters of GMO foods are among the most ignorant, misled anti-science idiots I have ever met, and the _only_ effect this legislature could have is strengthening their cause against the same anti-progress morons that think that the MMR vaccine causes autism. Yo to this. GMO foods are no better or worse than corn having been artificially selected for larger ears over hundreds of years. By all means regulate it, but it is not, in itself, bad. ---
**Author:** ![outlierrn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/outlierrn/32/3005_2.png) [@outlierrn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/outlierrn)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2012, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-2012-ballot-propositions/627227/53 "2012-11-04T23:11:42Z")
Can someone tell me how they’re _defining_ human trafficing for the purpose of the initiative? Makes all the difference, to me at least. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2012, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-2012-ballot-propositions/627227/54 "2012-11-04T23:25:37Z")
Car pooling? ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2012, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-2012-ballot-propositions/627227/55 "2012-11-05T03:29:09Z")
**30** Temporary Taxes to Fund Education. Guaranteed Local Public Safety Funding. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. Yes. This is the tax of millionaires prop, along with a slight increase in sales tax. Its not permanent and most of us won’t feel the sales tax increase, but those making over $250000 are going to have to pay more. If you make more than that, then fuck yeah, you should pay more. The money from this is to help our schools, which everyone should be voting for **31** State Budget. State and Local Government. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute. No. This is a weird prop that will probably create an extra layer of bureaucracy smaller than counties and bigger than cities. Cities and towns would be able to pool their resources together to create their own regulations and ignore state ones. **32** Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction. Contributions to Candidates. Initiative Statute. No. This is an unabashed union-busting proposition. It wants to claim that it prevents unions and corporate donations to candidates directly, but really, only unions do that. Corporations, owing to SuperPACs, have no restrictions that matter. **33** Auto Insurance Companies. Prices Based on Driver’s History of Insurance Coverage. Initiative Statute. No. A similar bill was rejected 2 years ago. This one is pretty much the same thing. It tries to raise insurance rates on new and lapsed drivers to fool others into thinking they got a discount **34** Death Penalty. Initiative Statute. Yes. Its about time we got rid of the death penalty. **35** Human Trafficking. Penalties. Initiative Statute. No. We already have laws against human trafficking. Plus, this prop would expand the definition of a sex offender into something too broad. **36** Three Strikes Law. Repeat Felony Offenders. Penalties. Initiative Statute. Yes. People shouldn’t get 25 to life if the 3rd strike is a minor offense. **37** Genetically Engineered Foods. Labeling. Initiative Statute. No. I really don’t care about genetically modified foods. I want my giant ass watermelons. I have no problems with eating GMO foods. **38** Tax to Fund Education and Early Childhood Programs. Initiative Statute. Yes, sorta… This or Prop 30 will be law if both are passed. This is the worse version of prop 30. They are both designed to help schools, but this one does it a little bit worse. **39** Tax Treatment for Multistate Businesses. Clean Energy and Energy Efficiency Funding. Initiative Statute. Yes. This eliminates the tax break that encourages companies to move their jobs out of state. **40** Redistricting. State Senate Districts. Referendum. [/QUOTE] Yes. A yes vote would uphold the redrawn districts, which we just voted on a few years ago. I voted for that one, and I think that after 2 years of work, we shouldn’t just abandon it. There’s no reason to vote against it unless you hated the new districts. We’ve already redrawn it, getting rid of the law doesn’t eliminate the old law, it just forces us to redraw again. ---
**Author:** ![RandMcnally](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b782af/32.png) [@RandMcnally](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandMcnally)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2012, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-2012-ballot-propositions/627227/56 "2012-11-05T05:36:48Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > Yes. > > A yes vote would uphold the redrawn districts, which we just voted on a few years ago. I voted for that one, and I think that after 2 years of work, we shouldn’t just abandon it. There’s no reason to vote against it unless you hated the new districts. We’ve already redrawn it, getting rid of the law doesn’t eliminate the old law, it just forces us to redraw again. The opposition to this prop has quit campaigning against it. ---
**Author:** ![That\_Don\_Guy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/that_don_guy/32/538_2.png) [@That\_Don\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/That_Don_Guy)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2012, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-2012-ballot-propositions/627227/57 "2012-11-05T16:23:58Z")
> [@RandMcnally](#): > > The opposition to this prop has quit campaigning against it. (referring to Proposition 40) This is because the main reason for getting it on the ballot was to get California’s Supreme Court to bring the old district boundaries back for this election; when they didn’t, the people who put it on the ballot (so they could be rejected with a “no” vote) decided that the best option was to keep the new lines in place. (I think the alternative is for some appointed panel to redraw them.) > [@kaylasdad99](#): > > 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. I am convinced that “reconsidering (i.e. overturning) _Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission_” has been added to “upholding _Roe v. Wade_” as the litmus tests for Obama’s Supreme Court nominees - and assuming the Democrats control the Senate (which seems likely, at least until the end of 2014), there isn’t much the Republicans can do about it. > [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Proposition 40. Redistricting. State Senate Districts. Referendum. > No. I believe that drawing districts is a proper function of the state legislative body. The state legislature has nothing to do with drawing districts any more - now, all districts, including for the U.S. House of Representatives, is done by a bipartisan panel, the [California Citizens Redistricting Commission](http://wedrawthelines.ca.gov/). A “yes” vote on 40 “confirms” this panel’s district lines for the state Senate; a “no” vote would have them redrawn by a different panel (of retired judges, I think). ---
**Author:** ![ChockFullOfHeadyGoodness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chockfullofheadygoodness/32/511_2.png) [@ChockFullOfHeadyGoodness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ChockFullOfHeadyGoodness)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2012, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-2012-ballot-propositions/627227/58 "2012-11-06T01:08:34Z")
I notice several posters supporting both 30 & 38. Keep in mind these are competing propositions, and only one can take effect. If both pass, the one that gets more votes takes effect and the other one gets rejected. Also, 40 is a referendum, not a proposition. “Yes” means keep the boundaries that were decided upon; “no” means throw them out and start over again, wasting more money. ---
**Author:** ![Heart\_Portal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f05b48/32.png) [@Heart\_Portal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Heart_Portal)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2012, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-2012-ballot-propositions/627227/59 "2012-11-06T04:27:50Z")
> [@That\_Don\_Guy](#): > > the GM Food Labeling bill does not mention labeling “irradiated” food, which surprises me a little. Yeah, RIGHT? ---
**Author:** ![Heart\_Portal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f05b48/32.png) [@Heart\_Portal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Heart_Portal)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2012, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-2012-ballot-propositions/627227/60 "2012-11-06T05:14:30Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > 1. 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. What ARE YOU Thinking??? You DO realize the “government” is run by the capitalists corporations RIGHT? Voting is the last ditch effort to Stop them in their own game. Vote YES on 37! We do not give them license to ‘do what they want’ our FOOD. We demand food labeling! & No, they do Not do that already… What 'classifies as: “Natural”, “Fat Free”, “GMO free” & “Organic”, etc. has all been watered down to mean little or Nothing as to what we are asking for. LABEL FRANKENFOOD! let us Know what is in our food. THEN We can Choose! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-2012-ballot-propositions/627227.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-2012-ballot-propositions/627227.md?page=4)