MyLO



[pic]

Before presenting ballot measure information to an audience, it is important to research the measures beforehand and plan your presentation. Sources of information may include:

• Secretary of State Official Ballot and Voter’s Guide

• The Legislative Analyst Office’s analysis

• LWVCEF Pros and Cons

• LWVCEF In Depth

• Voter’s Edge contribution data

Many speakers develop their own scripts by determining the most important information from these sources and how much information can be covered in the amount of time available for the presentation.

Following is a sample script developed for the ballot measures in the November 2012 election. It is just a sample for your consideration; each speaker has his/her own way of approaching a presentation.

SAMPLE SCRIPT

PROPOSITION 30 – Temporary Taxes to Fund Education. Guaranteed Local Public Safety

Funding. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

Background:

Taxes and Education

• The General Fund is the state’s main operating account. Its three largest revenue sources are:

o the personal income tax

o the sales tax

o the corporate income tax

• The General Fund supports a variety of programs – including:

o public schools

o public universities

o health programs

o social services

o prisons

• School spending is the largest part of the state budget. Proposition 98, passed in 1998, requires the state to provide a minimum annual amount for schools and community colleges.

Local Public Safety Funding

• In 2011, the state transferred the responsibility for administering and funding several programs to local governments – including;

o incarcerating certain adult offenders

o supervising parolees

o providing substance abuse treatment services

• To pay for these new obligations, the Legislature passed a law transferring about $6 billion of state tax revenues to local governments annually.

The Proposal:

• Proposition 30 would temporarily increase the state sales tax rate for all taxpayers by one-quarter cent for every dollar for four years, starting January 1, 2013

• It would also temporarily increase personal income tax rates on upper-income taxpayers (individuals earning $250,000 or more) for seven years, starting with the 2012 tax season

• This would raise approximately $6 billion in annual state revenues for the first four years, with smaller amounts in the following three years

• The additional revenue generated would be included in the calculations of the Proposition 98 minimum school funding requirements, with the remainder helping to balance the state budget

• The state’s 2012-13 budget plan assumes passage of this measure. However, there is a backup plan that requires spending reductions, primarily to education programs, if voters reject this measure

• The measure also requires the state to continue providing the tax revenues redirected in 2011 (or equivalent funds) to local governments to pay for the transferred program responsibilities

• Local governments would not be required to implement any future state laws that increase local costs to administer the program responsibilities transferred in 2011, unless the state provided additional money to pay for them

Conflict with Proposition 38:

• The State Constitution specifies that if provisions of two measures approved on the same statewide ballot conflict, the provisions of the measure receiving more “yes” votes prevail

• In addition, both Propositions 30 and 38 contain language indicating that its provisions would prevail, and the tax rate provisions of the other proposition would not go into effect

Yes or No:

• A YES vote on Prop 30 measures means: The state would increase personal income taxes on high-income taxpayers for 7 years and sales taxes for 4 years. The new tax revenues would be available to fund programs in the state budget.

• A NO vote means: The state would not increase personal income taxes or sales taxes. State spending reductions, primarily to education programs, would take effect.

Supporters Say:

• Prop 30 is the only initiative which protects school land safety funding and addresses the state’s chronic budget mess

• Prop 30’s taxes are temporary, balanced and necessary for vital services

Opponents Say:

• Prop 30 is a shell game; there are no assurances that tax increases will actually benefit classrooms

• Politicians and special interests want to continue their out-of-control spending, but not make meaningful reforms

Financial Support (as of 10/15/12):

• Yes: $51.7million

o Service Employees International Union

o California Teachers Association

o California Federation of Teachers

o Coca Cola Company

o California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems

• No: $30.9 million

o Charles T. Munger, Jr.

o Small Business Action Committee PAC

o William Oberndorf

o Jerry Perenchio

o John Scully

PROPOSITION 31 – State Budget. State and Local Government. Initiative Constitutional

Amendment and Statute.

Background:

• Today, local governments are responsible for delivering services such as education, social services, public safety and public health. Much of the funding comes from the local governments’ share of the sales tax.

• Each year, the Legislature and the Governor approve the state budget and other bills. The State Constitution requires that the state’s overall budget be balanced.

• Currently, the Governor may declare a state of fiscal emergency and call the Legislature into special session to address the emergency. The Legislature has 45 days to consider a response.

• The Governor’s powers to cut state spending are, currently, very limited, even if the Legislature does not act during that 45-day period

The Proposal:

• Proposition 31 would encourage local governments to create plans for coordinating how they provide services to the public by transferring some of the state’s portion of tax revenues to those cities and counties who choose to do so.

• This measure would allow participating local governments to transfer property taxes among themselves in any way they choose and to develop their own procedures for administering state-funded programs

• Prop 31 would restrict the Legislature’s ability to pass certain bills that increase state costs or decrease revenues unless new funding sources and/or spending reductions are identified.

• It requires almost all bills and amendments to be available to the public at least three days before legislative approval

• It allows the Governor to reduce spending during state fiscal emergencies in certain situations

• It changes the annual state budget process from a one-year to a two-year process

• It requires the Legislature to set aside part of each two-year session for oversight of public programs

• It requires state and local governments to evaluate the effectiveness of programs and describe how their budgets meet various objectives

Yes or No:

• A YES vote on this measure means: Certain fiscal responsibilities of the Legislature and Governor, including state and local budgeting and oversight procedures, would change. Local governments that create plans to coordinate services would receive funding from the state and could develop their own procedures for administering state programs.

• A NO vote on this measure means: The fiscal responsibilities of the Legislature and Governor, including state and local budgeting and oversight procedures, would not change. Local governments would not be given funding to implement new plans that coordinate services or authority to develop their own procedures for administering state programs.

Supporters Say:

• Prop 31 forces politicians to finally live within their means and holds them accountable for their actions

• It requires a real balanced budget and stops billions of dollars from being spent without public review or citizen oversight

Opponents Say:

• Prop 31 is poorly written and contradictory and will lead to lawsuits and confusion instead of reform

• It will shift $200 million from education and other vital functions to fund experimental county programs

Financial Support (as of 10/15/12):

• Yes: $4.3 million

o Nicholas Berggruen Institute Trust

o California Forward

o Californians for Government Accountability

o Michael Marston

• No: $202,000

o American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees

o Working Families Issues Committee of the California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO

o California Schools Employees Association

o Local One Issues Committee

o Santa Barbara County Democratic Central Committee

PROPOSITION 32 – Prohibits Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction. Prohibitions on

Contributions to Candidates. Initiative Statute.

Background:

• California’s Political Reform Act of 1974 established the state’s campaign finance and disclosure laws. The act applies to state and local candidates, ballot measures, and officials, but does not apply to federal candidates or officials.

• Some local governments have campaign finance and disclosure requirements for local candidates, ballot measures, and officials

• There are three types of political spending:

o Political Contributions – giving money, goods or services directly to a candidate or to a committee that uses the money to support or oppose a candidate or ballot measure

o Independent Expenditures – money spent to support or oppose a candidate or ballot measure that are not coordinated with a candidate or a committee established to support or oppose a candidate or ballot measure

o Other Political Spending – includes spending by an organization to communicate political endorsements to its members, employees or shareholders

• Many unions use some of the funds they receive from payroll deductions for political contributions and independent expenditures, as well as for communicating political views to union members

The Proposal:

• Proposition 32 would change state campaign finance laws to restrict state and local campaign spending by labor unions, corporations and government contractors

• These restrictions do not affect campaign spending for federal offices such as the President and members of Congress

• It would:

o Ban the use of payroll deductions to finance spending for political purpose

o Prohibit political contributions by corporations and unions (but it does not affect a corporation or union’s ability to spend money on independent expenditures)

o Limits authority of government contractors to contribute to elected officials by prohibiting them from making contributions to elected officials who play a role in awarding their contracts

NOTE: Similar initiatives to limit or prohibit political contributions using payroll-deducted funds have been on the state ballot before, and were defeated.

• Prop 226 on the June 1998 ballot would have required all California employers and unions to get annual written permission from employees and members before using payroll-deducted funds for political contributions, and would have made it illegal for a person or campaign to ask for or receive foreign contributions.

• Prop 75 on the November 2005 ballot would have required public employee unions (not all unions) to get annual written permission from union members and non-members before using payroll-deducted funds for political contributions. It would not have applied to corporations or other business entities, and did not address the issue of foreign contributions.

Yes or No:

• A YES vote on this measure means: Unions and corporations could not use money deducted from an employee’s paycheck for political purposes. Unions, corporations, and government contractors would be subject to additional campaign finance restrictions.

• A NO vote on this measure means: There would be no change to existing laws regulating the ability of unions and corporations to use money deducted from an employee’s paycheck for political purposes. Unions, corporations, and government contractors would continue to be subject to existing campaign finance laws.

Supporters Say:

• Prop 32 prohibits money for political purposes from being deducted from employees’ paychecks without their permission

• It prohibits both corporate and union special interest contributions to politicians

Opponents Say:

• 99% of California corporations don’t use payroll deductions for political contributions, so Prop 32 would only affect unions

• Business Super PACs and independent expenditure committees are exempt from Prop 32’s controls

Financial Support (as of 10/15/12):

• Yes: $34.6 million

o Charles T. Munger, Jr.

o American Future Fund

o William Oberndorf

o Jerry Perenchio

o John Scully

• No: $57.5 million

o California Teachers Association

o Service Employees International Union

o American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees

o California Professional Firefighters

o Working Families Issues Committee of the California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO

PROPOSITION 33 – Changes Law to Allow Auto Insurance Companies to Set Prices Based on a

Driver’s History of Insurance Coverage. Initiative Statute.

Background:

• In 1988, California voters passed Proposition 103, which requires that rates and premiums for automobile insurance policies be set by applying the following factors:

o The insured’s driving safety record

o The number of miles they drive each year

o The number of years they have been driving

• The Insurance Commissioner may also adopt additional rating factors to determine auto insurance rates and premiums

o For example, insurance companies may provide discounts to individuals for maintaining coverage with them

o Insurance companies are prohibited, however, from offering this kind of discount to new customers who switch to them from other insurers

The Proposal:

• Prop 33 is similar to Prop 17 on the June 2010 ballot, which was defeated by voters

• This measure would allow an insurance company to offer a “continuous coverage” discount on auto insurance policies who switch their coverage from another insurer

• Continuous coverage would mean uninterrupted coverage with ANY insurer

• Consumers with a lapse in coverage would still be eligible for this discount if the lapse was:

o Not more that 90 days in the past 5 years

o For no more than 18 months in the last 5 years due to loss of employment resulting from layoff or furlough

o Due to active military service

• Also, children residing with a parent could qualify for the discount based on their parent’s eligibility

Yes or No:

• A YES vote on this measure means: Insurance companies could offer new customers a discount on automobile insurance premiums based on the number of years in the previous five years that the customer was insured

• A NO vote on this measure means: Insurers could continue to provide discounts to their long-term automobile insurance customers, but would continue to be prohibited from providing a discount to new customers switching from other insurers

Supporters Say:

• Prop 33 allows drivers to shop for a better insurance deal by continuing to receive “continuous coverage” discounts when they change insurance carriers

• It will result in more competition between insurance companies, resulting in better insurance rates for drivers

Opponents Say:

• Prop 33 will allow insurance companies to increase the cost of insurance to drivers who have not maintained continuous coverage

• Drivers with perfect driving records would pay an unfair penalty if they have not had continuous coverage in the past

Financial Support (as of 10/15/12):

• Yes: $16.5 million

o George Joseph, Chairman of Mercury Insurance Co.

o Del Sol Group, Inc.

o Abernathy Insurance Agency

o Lucy Flor

o Galgard Associates

• No: $223,000

o California Nurses Association

o Consumer Watchdog Campaign

o Consumer Federation of California

o Chic Wolk

o Campaign for Consumer Rights

PROPOSITION 34 – Death Penalty Repeal. Initiative Statute.

• Current state law makes first degree murder punishable by death or life imprisonment without the possibility of parole when “special circumstances” of the crime have been charged and proven in court

• Special circumstances include:

o When the murder was carried out for financial gain

o Was especially cruel

o Was committed while the defendant was engaged in other specific criminal activities

• Since the current death penalty law was enacted in California in 1978, around 900 individuals have received death sentences. Of these:

o 14 have been executed

o 83 have died prior to being executed

o About 75 have had their sentences reduced by the courts

• As of July 2012, California had 725 offenders in state prison who were sentenced to death

The Proposal:

• Proposition 34 would repeal the state’s current death penalty statute

• Offenders currently under a death sentence would be resentenced to a prison term of life without the possibility of parole

• This measure specifies that every person found guilty of murder must work while in state prison and have their pay deducted for any debts they owe to victims of crime

• It establishes a new special fund, called the SAFE California Fund, to support grants to local law enforcement entities to solve homicide and rape cases

• This measure would reduce state and county costs by several tens of millions of dollars by:

o Shortening the duration of trials by eliminating the separate phase to determine the death penalty and by reducing time for jury selection

o Reducing the number of attorneys required in death penalty cases

• County jail costs could be reduced because defendants would spend less time in county jail before being sent to state prison

• These savings could be partially offset by the extent that the elimination of the death penalty reduced the incentive for offenders to plead guilty in exchange for a lesser sentence, thereby increasing the number of cases that go to trial

• The measure would reduce state expenditures by about $50 million annually by eliminating the need for the California Supreme Court and state agencies to participate in the death penalty appeal process

• The measure would require that $100 million be transferred from the state General Fund to the SAFE California Fund from 2012 through 2016. As a result, less General Fund resources would be available to support various other state programs, but more funding would be available for local government agencies that receive these grants.

• The measure could also affect future prison construction costs by allowing the state to avoid future facility costs associated with housing an increasing number of death row inmates

Yes or No:

• A YES vote on this measure means: No offenders could be sentenced to death under state law. Offenders who are currently under a sentence of death would be resentenced to life without the possibility of parole. The state would provide a total of $100 million in grants to local law enforcement agencies over the next four years.

• A NO vote on this measure means: Certain offenders convicted of murder could continue to be sentenced to death. The status of offenders currently under a sentence of death would not change. The state would not be required to provide local law enforcement agencies with additional grant funding.

Supporters Say:

• Evidence shows that more than 100 innocent people have been sentenced to death in the US, and some have been executed

• California will save hundreds of millions of dollars if we replace the death penalty with life in prison without the possibility of parole

Opponents Say:

• Prop 34 takes $100 million from the General Fund over the next 4 years and will result in many millions more in future long-term costs for housing and health care for convicted killers

• It lets murderers who commit heinous crimes escape justice

Financial Support (as of 10/15/12):

• Yes: $6.6 million

o The Atlantic Advocacy Fund

o Nicholas Pritzker

o American Civil Liberties Union

o M. Quinn Delaney

o Reed Hastings

• No: $333,000

o Peace Officers Research Association of California

o San Manuel Band of Mission Indians

o Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs

o Diane Lake

o Kern County Prosecutors Association

PROPOSITION 35 – Human Trafficking. Penalties. Sex Offender Registration. Initiative

Statute.

Background:

• Current law defines two forms of human trafficking:

o The use of coercion or fraud to obtain forced labor

o The use of coercion or fraud to induce commercial sex acts

• Under state law, most offenders convicted of a sex crime are required to register as sex offenders. This requirement does not automatically include convicted sex traffickers.

• In recent years, there have been only a few people annually sent to prison for human trafficking crimes. As of March, 2012, there were 18 such offenders in state prison.

The Proposal:

• Proposition 35 would expand the definition of human trafficking by defining more crimes related to the creation and distribution of obscene materials depicting minors as human trafficking

• Prosecutors would not have to show that force or coercion occurred in sex trafficking cases

• This measure would increase the punishment for human trafficking offenses:

o Increase prison sentences for labor trafficking from 5 years to 12 years

o Increase prison sentences for forced sex trafficking of an adult from 5 years to 20 years

o Adds a new prison sentence of 12 years for sex trafficking of a minor without force

o Increase prison sentences for forced sex trafficking of a minor from 8 years to a life term

o Increase additional prison sentences for great bodily injury from 6 years to 10 years

o Adds an additional prison sentence for prior human trafficking offenses of 5 years for each prior conviction

o Increases fines for sex trafficking of a minor from up to $100,000 to up to $1.5 million for all human trafficking offenses

• The measure requires that funds collected from these fines support services for victims of human trafficking

o 70% of funds would go to public agencies and nonprofit organizations that provide direct services to victims

o 30% of funds would go to law enforcement and prosecution agencies and used for human trafficking prevention, witness protection, and rescue operations

• The measure prohibits evidence that a victim engaged in sexual conduct from being used against the victim in court proceedings

• It 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

• The measure requires human trafficking training for police officers

• It requires persons convicted of sex trafficking to register as a sex offender

• It requires sex offenders to provide information regarding Internet access and identities they use in online activities

Yes or No:

• A YES vote on this measure means: Longer prison sentences and larger fines for committing human trafficking crimes

• A NO vote on this measure means: Existing criminal penalties for human trafficking would stay in effect

Supporters Say:

• We need stronger laws to deter human traffickers and online predators from exploiting vulnerable individuals

• We need to identify victims, protect their rights, and help them access necessary services

Opponents Say:

• Prop 35 is badly drafted; it could have a detrimental effect on the state budget without reducing human trafficking

• It threatens civil rights and privacy rights

Financial Support (as of 10/15/12):

• Yes: $3.1 million

o Chris Kelly

o California Statewide Law Enforcement Association

o Peace Officers Research Association of California

o Yes on 35: Stop Human Trafficking in California

o Vote Yes on 35

• No: No money raised in opposition of this measure

PROPOSITION 36 – Three Strikes Law. Sentencing for Repeat Felony Offenders. Initiative

Statute.

Background:

• Proposition 184 (commonly referred to as the “three strikes” law) was adopted by voters in 1994. It imposed longer prison sentences for certain repeat offenders.

o If a person has ONE previous serious or violent felony conviction, the sentence for ANY new felony conviction is TWICE the term otherwise required under law for the new conviction

o If a person has TWO or more previous serious or violent felony convictions, the sentence for ANY new felony conviction is a life term in prison with the earliest possible parole after 25 years

• Under current law, most second strikers are automatically released from prison after completing their sentences

• Third strikers are only released upon approval by the state Board of Parole Hearings after they have served 25 years

The Proposal:

• Proposition 36 would reduce prison sentences for third strikers whose current offenses are non-serious, non-violent felonies from life in prison to twice the usual term for the new offense

• It also allows resentencing of certain third strikers who are currently serving life sentences for specified non-serious, non-violent felonies, unless their prior convictions were for rape, murder or child molestation. Resentenced offenders would receive twice the usual term for their most recent offense instead of a life sentence.

• This measure would reduce state prison costs by an estimated $70 to $90 million annually over the next couple of decades

• It would result in a one-time cost to the state and counties for resentencing of current three strikers

• There would be some additional costs for the state and counties because some offenders released due to this measure would be supervised by county probation departments instead of state parole

NOTE: In 2004, a similar proposition – Prop 66 – was placed on the ballot, which would have amended the three strikes law to provide that a mandatory life sentence would only be imposed if the third strike was for a serious or violent crime. The measure was narrowly defeated.

Yes or No:

• A YES vote on this measure means: Some repeat criminal offenders who commit certain non-serious, non-violent felonies would be sentenced to shorter terms in state prison. In addition, some repeat offenders currently serving life sentences could be resentenced to shorter prison terms.

• A NO vote on this measure means: Repeat offenders who commit any new felony could continue to receive life sentences, and repeat offenders who are currently serving life sentences for non-serious, non-violent felonies would continue to serve the remainder of their life sentences

Supporters Say:

• Prop 36 would make the punishment fit the crime and avoid the diversion of financial and law-enforcement resources in imposing life sentences on non-violent offenders

• There would be savings of potentially over $100 million annually in the costs of housing and paying the health-care expenses of non-violent third strike offenders

Opponents Say:

• Prop 36 would allow the release from prison of dangerous repeat criminals sentenced to life terms, without parole or any supervision

• The three strikes law has reduced the state’s crime rate and prevented criminals from being recycled through our courts over and over again

Financial Support (as of 10/15/12):

• Yes: $2.4 million

o George Soros

o David Mills

o N.A.A.C.P Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

o Peter Ackerman

o James S. Regan

• No: $115,000

o Peace Officers Research Association of California

o San Manuel Band of Mission Indians

o Fresno Police Officers Association

o Margaret Mims for Sheriff

o William Dunn

| | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

PROPOSITION 37 – Genetically Engineered Foods. Mandatory Labeling. Initiative Statute.

Background:

• Genetic engineering is the process of changing the genetic material of a living organism to produce some desired change in that organism’s characteristics

• This process is often used to develop new plant and animal varieties that are later used as foods. For example, genetic engineering is often used to:

o Improve a plant’s resistance to pests

o Allow a plant to withstand the use of pesticides

• According to some estimates, 40 to 70% of food products sold in grocery stores in California contain some genetically engineered ingredients

The Proposal:

• Proposition 37 would require that genetically engineered foods sold in grocery stores be clearly labeled as such

o On the label of the package

o On the shelf or bin where the item is displayed for sale

• The measure also requires that processed foods produced entirely or in part through genetic engineering be labeled with the words “Partially Produced with Genetic Engineering”

• It prohibits labeling or advertising genetically engineered food as “natural”. (Note: Given the way the measure is written, there is a possibility that these restrictions would be interpreted by the courts to apply to ALL processed foods, regardless of whether they are genetically engineered.)

• Retailers, such as grocery stores, would be primarily responsible for complying with the measure by ensuring that their food products are correctly labeled. (Note: This measure does not apply to restaurant food.)

• Other entities throughout the food supply chain (such as farmers and food manufacturers) may also be responsible for maintaining supply records and labeling

• Animal products – such as beef or chicken – that were not directly produced through genetic engineering would be exempted, regardless of whether the animal had been fed genetically engineered crops

• The labeling requirements for genetically engineered foods would be regulated by the state Department of Public Health

• Violations of the measure could be prosecuted by state, local, or private parties

• This measure would result in additional state costs of a few hundred thousand dollars to over $1 million annually for the Department of Public Health to regulate

• In addition, this measure could increase the number of cases filed in state courts, which would also result in additional costs

Yes or No:

• A YES vote on this measure means: Genetically engineered foods sold in California would have to be specifically labeled as being genetically engineered

• A NO vote on this measure means: Genetically engineered foods sold in California would continue not to have specific labeling requirements

Supporters Say:

• Genetic engineering of plans and animals causes unintended consequences and can lead to adverse health and/or environmental effects

• It would cost food producers very little to change their labels so that consumers could make informed decisions

Opponents Say:

• The regulation would require extra monitoring of foods and would open the door to frivolous lawsuits

• Food producers unwilling or unable to modify their packaging would be forced to switch to higher-price non-genetically modified ingredients, potentially making food more expensive

Financial Support (as of 10/15/12):

• Yes: $7.7 million

o Organic Consumers Fund

o Health Resources, Inc.

o Kent Whealy

o Nature’s Path Foods U.S.A Fine Natural Food Products

o Organic Consumer Organizations’ Committee for the Right to Know About GMOS

• No: $35.6 million

o Monsanto Company

o E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co.

o BASF Plant Science

o Syngenta Corporation

o Bayer Crop Science

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

PROPOSITION 38 – Tax for Education and Early Childhood Programs. Initiative Statute.

Background:

• State personal income tax rates currently range from 1% to 9.3%

• Revenue from this tax – totaling $49.4 billion for last year – is deposited into the state’s General Fund

The Proposal:

• Proposition 38 would increase state personal income tax rates on all but the lowest income bracket for a period of 12 years (2013 through 2024).

• It would increase personal income tax rates using a sliding scale – from .4% for individuals who earn over $7,316, and up to 2.2% for those earning over $2.5 million

• This measure would increase state tax revenues for 12 years – roughly $10 billion annually in initial years, and tending to grow over time

• Revenues raised by this measure would be deposited into a newly created California Education Trust Fund. These funds would be dedicated exclusively to 3 purposes:

o Schools

o Early childhood programs

o State debt payments

• During the first 4 years of this measure:

o 60% of revenues would go to K-12 schools

o 10% would go to early childhood programs

o 30% would go to repaying state bond debt

• During the remaining 8 years of this measure:

o 85% of revenues would go to K-12 schools

o 15% would go to early childhood programs

o None would go to repaying state bond debt

• The revenues earmarked for K-12 schools would support 3 grant programs:

o 70% of the funds would be used for educational program grants

o 18% of the funds would be used for low-income student grants

o 12% of the funds would be used for training, technology and teaching materials grants

• The grants are subject to local control, audits and public input

• The measure would prohibit the state from using this revenue to replace monies currently spent on K-12 and early childhood programs

Conflict with Proposition 30:

• The State Constitution specifies that if provisions of two measures approved on the same statewide ballot conflict, the provisions of the measure receiving more “yes” votes prevail

• In addition, both Propositions 30 and 38 contain language indicating that its provisions would prevail, and the tax rate provisions of the other proposition would not go into effect

Yes or No:

• A YES vote on this measure means: State personal income tax rates would increase for 12 years. The additional revenues would be used for schools, child care, preschool, and state debt payments.

• A NO vote on this measure means: State personal income tax rates would remain at their current levels. No additional funding would be available for schools, child care, preschool, and state debt payments.

Supporters Say:

• Prop 38 makes schools a priority again, guaranteeing funding to restore a well-rounded education

• School districts could use the funds in different ways at different schools – expenditures would be determined locally

Opponents Say:

• Taxpayers would be locked into higher taxes until 2024 with virtually no accountability as to how the money is spent

• Under Prop 38, there are no requirements to improve school performance or get rid of bad teachers

Financial Support (as of 10/15/12):

• Yes: $33.4 million

o Molly Munger

o George Joseph

o Atlas Family Trust

o Richard Spalding

o Del Sol Group, Inc.

• No: $32,000

o California Chamber of Commerce

o No on 38

o California Faculty Association

o California Medical Association, Physicians’ Issues Committee

PROPOSITION 39 – Tax Treatment for Multistate Businesses. Clean Energy and Energy

Efficiency Funding. Initiative Statute.

Background:

• The amount of money a business owes the state in corporate income taxes each year is based on the business’ taxable income

• For a business that operates both in California and in other states or countries (a multistate business), the state taxes only the part of its income that was associated with California

• Currently, state law allows most multistate businesses to choose one of two methods to determine their state taxable income:

o “Three-Factor Method” – uses the location of the company’s sales, property, and employees. When using this method, the more sales, property, or employees the business has in California, the more of its income is subject to state tax.

o “Single Sales Factor Method” – uses only the location of the company’s sales. When using this method, the more sales the business has in California, the more of its income is subject to state tax.

• Most other large states use only the Single Sales Factor Method

The Proposal:

• Proposition 39 would repeal multistate businesses’ ability to choose a tax liability formula

• All multistate business would be required to calculate their California tax liability based on the percentage of their sales in California (the “Single Sales Factor Method”)

• The measure establishes a new state fund – the Clean Energy Job Creation Fund – to support projects intended to improve energy efficiency and expand the use of alternative energy

• The fund may be used for:

o Energy efficiency retrofits and alternative energy projects in public schools, colleges, universities, and other public facilities

o Financial and technical assistance for energy retrofits

o Job training and workforce development programs related to energy efficiency and alternative energy

• It is estimated that this measure would generate approximately $1 billion in additional revenue annually

• For the first 5 years , half of the revenues raised – up to a maximum of $550 million – would be transferred to the Clean Energy Job Creation Fund

• After the first 5 years, the revenue would be considered in calculating the state’s annual Proposition 98 minimum guarantee for school funding

o $200 to $500 million 2012-13 through 2017-18

o $500 million to $1 billion 2018-19 and beyond

NOTE: Prop 24, which was on the November 2010 ballot, was the converse of this measure and sought to do away with the Single Sales Factor Method and require the Three-Factor Method alone. The proposition was defeated.

Yes or No:

• A Yes vote on this measure means: Multistate businesses would no longer be able to choose the method for determining their state taxable income that is most advantageous for them. Some multistate businesses would have to pay more corporate income taxes due to this change. About half of this increased tax revenue over the next 5 years would be used to support energy efficiency and alternative energy projects.

• A No vote on this measure means: Most multistate businesses would continue to be able to choose one of two methods to determine their California taxable income.

Supporters Say:

• Prop 39 ensures that large corporations pay their fair share at a time when there have been drastic California budget cuts

• It will benefit taxpayers by funding energy-efficient projects at schools and other public buildings

Opponents Say:

• Prop 39 is a $1 billion tax increase that will result in the loss of thousands of jobs in California

• Energy efficiency projects are already funded at a significant level – Prop 39 is a recipe for waste and corruption

Financial Support (as of 10/15/12):

• Yes: $23.2 million

o Tomas Steyer

o Californians for Clean Energy and Jobs

o Taxpayers to Preserve Community Jobs, Sponsored by Labor and Management Organizations

o Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

• No: $45,000

o General Motors

o Kimberly- Clark Corporation

o International Paper

PROPOSITION 40 – Redistricting. Senate Districts. Referendum.

NOTE: With most ballot measures (like the 10 initiatives on this ballot), a YES vote results in a change, and a NO vote results in maintaining the status quo. This proposition is a referendum, which gives the voter the power to reject all or part of a law. So the affect of your vote is the opposite of the other measures: A YES vote will result in the status quo, and a NO vote will result in a change.

Background:

• California voters approved Propositions 11 and 20, which transferred responsibility for determining district boundaries for the state Legislature (Assembly and Senate), the State Board of Equalization, and U.S. House of Representatives (Congress) from the Legislature to the new Citizens Redistricting Commission

• In August 2011, the Commission certified a set of maps establishing the boundaries for the state Senate, Assembly, Board of Equalization, and Congressional districts

• The California Constitution allows voters to challenge district maps certified by the Commission through the referendum process, which requires gathering signatures on petitions much the same as initiatives

• In November 2011, those who were unhappy with the new state Senate districts gathered signatures in support of a referendum and petitioned the California Supreme Court to appoint Special Masters to draw new and different state Senate district maps to use in the 2012 elections, claiming the maps drawn by the Commission did not comply with Constitutional requirements.

• The court found that the certified state Senate district maps “appear to comply with all the constitutionally mandated criteria set forth in the California Constitution,” and ruled that they were to be used in both elections, regardless of the referendum. Thus, the entire point of the litigants’ effort - to get different state Senate maps for the 2012 elections - was moot (in other words, it would have no affect).

• Once a measure has qualified for the ballot, it cannot be removed. So the sponsors of the referendum, who no longer found it necessary, were unable to take it off the ballot

• In August, both the California Democractic Party and the California Republican Party announced that they were officially endorsing a YES vote on Prop 40

The Proposal:

• Proposition 40 allows the voters to approve or reject the state Senate district boundaries certified by the Citizens Redistricting Commission. (The Assembly, Board of Equalization, and Congressional district boundaries certified by the Commission are NOT subject to this referendum.)

• With this measure, a YES vote results in no change, and a NO vote results in a change:

o If approved by a majority of voters, a map certified by the Citizens Redistricting Commission would go into effect if this referendum measure is approved by a majority of the state’s voters

o If this measure is rejected by the state’s voters, the certified district map does not go into effect, and the California Supreme Court will oversee development of a new map. The California Supreme Court would appoint “special masters” to establish new state Senate boundaries.

Yes or No:

• A YES vote on this measure means: The state Senate district boundaries certified by the Citizens Redistricting Commission would continue to be used.

• A NO vote on this measure means: The California Supreme Court would appoint special masters to determine new state Senate district boundaries.

Supporters Say:

• Even though the proponents of the referendum have abandoned their cause, a YES vote is necessary in order to retain the current districts and uphold the will of the people in creating the commission

Opponents Say:

• They are no longer asking for a NO vote. Their intention was to stop the current Senate districts from being implemented in 2012. Since the Court rules to keep those districts in place, Prop 40 is not needed

Financial Support (as of 10/15/12):

• Yes: $601,000

o Charles T. Munger, Jr.

o Yes on 40 – Hold Politicians Accountable

o League of Women Voters of California

o Santa Barbara County Democratic Central Committee

o Santa Clara County Democratic Club

• No: $2.2 million

o California Republican Party

o Senator Bob Dutton for Supervisor 2014

o Friends of Mimi Walters for Senate 2012

o Frank Greinke

o Denham for Lt. Governor 2014

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

| | | |

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download