CALIFORNIA November 2012 Propositions: PROS & CONS

PROP 30

• TEMPORARY TAXES TO FUND EDUCATION.

• GUARANTEED LOCAL PUBLIC SAFETY FUNDING.

• INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

Summary: Increases taxes on earnings over $250,000 for seven years and sales taxes by ¼ cent for four years, to fund schools. Guarantees public safety realignment funding. Fiscal Impact: Increased state tax revenues through 2018–19, averaging about $6 billion annually over the next few years. Revenues available for funding state budget. In 2012–13, planned spending reductions, primarily to education programs, would not occur.

PROS:

• Stop another $6 billion in cuts to our schools this year.
• Prevent steep tuition hikes for college students and their families.
• Invest in our schools and colleges so we can prepare the next generation for the jobs of the future.
• Allocates temporary tax revenues 89% to K–12 schools and 11% to community colleges.
• Bars use of funds for administrative costs, but provides local school governing boards discretion to decide, in open meetings and subject to annual audit, how funds are to be spent.
• Guarantees funding for public safety services realigned from state to local governments.
• Vast majority of students will continue to be educated.
• More Nurses - California community colleges educate 70 percent of our state’s nurses.
• More first responders - Community colleges train 80 percent of firefighters, law enforcement personnel, and emergency medical technicians.
• The most cost-effective way for students to be educated.

CONS:

• The Governor and the Legislature are not serious about reining in spending.
• Unwilling to address the crushing burden of public pensions.
• Want to spend more money on nonsensical projects.
• more interested in protecting a tax increase than in protecting the state's water system.
• Gov cannot be trusted with more tax dollars.
• California is already overtaxed.
• California is headed for meltdown while other states with lower taxes are prospering.
• California has the highest sales tax, the 2nd highest gas tax, the 2nd highest income tax, the 14th highest property tax and the highest Corporate income tax in the west. Higher tax rates are not the answer.
• California's economy is a disaster. Higher taxes will only create added burdens preventing any meaningful revenue improvement and create more incentive for business to take their business elsewhere."

PROP 31

• STATE BUDGET.

• STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

• INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.

Summary: Establishes two-year state budget. Sets rules for offsetting new expenditures, and Governor budget cuts in fiscal emergencies. Local governments can alter application of laws governing state-funded programs. Fiscal Impact: Decreased state sales tax revenues of $200 million annually, with corresponding increases of funding to local governments. Other, potentially more significant changes in state and local budgets, depending on future decisions by public officials.

PROS:

• Stops politicians from keeping Californians in the dark about how their government is functioning.
• Prevents the state from passing budgets behind closed doors.
• Stops politicians from creating programs with money the state doesn’t have
• Requires governments to report results before spending more money.
• Establishes two-year state budget cycle.
• Prohibits Legislature from creating expenditures of more than $25 million unless offsetting revenues or spending cuts are identified.
• Requires performance reviews of all state programs.
• Requires performance goals in state and local budgets.
• Requires publication of bills at least three days prior to legislative vote.
• Allows local governments to alter how laws governing state-funded programs apply to them, unless Legislature or state agency vetoes change within 60 days.

CONS:

• We all want reform. But Prop 31 makes government more cumbersome, more expensive, slower and less effective.

• Prop 31 creates new bureaucracies and new problems. It adds layers of new restrictions and leaves key decisions up to unelected bureaucrats – such as whether tax cuts are allowed or programs can be changed.
• Prop 31 shifts $200 million from our schools and other vital state services to fund experimental programs. The state can barely pay its bills now, and this is not the time to steal money from education.
• Prop 31 prevents the state from increasing funding for education unless it raises taxes or cuts other programs – even if the money is available. This provision could tie up additional school funding for years.
• Prop 31 prevents tax cuts – even if we have billions of dollars in surpluses. The contradictory nature of Prop 31’s tax provisions prohibits the state from cutting one tax unless it raises another.
• Prop 31 will increase costs, increase bureaucratic control, and undermine public protections. It allows local politicians to override or alter laws they don’t like, undermining air quality, health and safety laws without a vote of the people.
• Prop 31 will create budget chaos – and give the Governor sweeping new authority. It contains provisions that just don’t work and could cause the Legislature to meet in costly special sessions year after year.
• Prop 31 has so many flaws that several members of the sponsoring organization resigned in protest over the decision to put it on the ballot. Bob Balgenorth, a former board member of the California Forward Action Fund (the organization behind Prop 31) said it “contains serious flaws…and will further harm California.”
• The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office says it will raise the costs of government by tens of millions of dollars per year with no guarantee any improvement will result.
• Prop 31 is opposed by the League of Women Voters, California Federation of Teachers, California League of Conservation Voters, California Labor Federation, Police Officers Research Association of California, the California Coastal Commission, and dozens of other groups.

PROP 32

• POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS BY PAYROLL DEDUCTION.

• CONTRIBUTIONS TO CANDIDATES.

• INITIATIVE STATUTE.

Summary: Prohibits unions from using payroll-deducted funds for political purposes. Applies same use prohibition to payroll deductions, if any, by corporations or government contractors. Prohibits union and corporate contributions to candidates and their committees. Prohibits government contractor contributions to elected officers or their committees. Fiscal Impact: Increased costs to state and local government, potentially exceeding $1 million annually, to implement and enforce the measure’s requirements.

PROS:

• Prop. 32 CUTS THE MONEY TIE BETWEEN SPECIAL INTERESTS AND POLITICIANS to the full extent constitutionally allowed.
• Unions and corporations could not use money deducted from an employee's paycheck for political purposes.
• Bans contributions from corporations AND unions to politicians.
• Prohibits contributions from government contractors.
• Stops payroll withholding for politics, making ALL contributions voluntary.
• NO LOOPHOLES.
• NO EXEMPTIONS.
• Prop 32 prohibits money for political purposes from being deducted from employee’s paychecks without their permission.
• Prop 32 prohibits both corporate and union special interest contributions to politicians.
• Prohibiting contractors from contributing to politicians who approve their contracts

CONS:

• Restricts everyday Californians from coming together to have a voice in elections while creating massive special exemptions for the same groups funding the campaign.
• Exempts thousands of big businesses.
• Creates special exemptions for secretive Super PACs.
• 99% of California corporations don’t use payroll deductions for political giving, and they would still be allowed to use their profits to influence elections.
• Prop 32 isn’t reform—it exempts business Super PACs and thousands of big businesses from its provisions
• Applies restrictions on working people and their unions.
• It’s unfair, unbalanced, and won’t take money out of politics.
• In reality, employee contributions to political campaigns are already voluntary under existing law.
• Business Super PACs and independent expenditure committees are exempt from Prop 32's controls.
• Diffusing the power of unions and corporations.

PROP 33

• AUTO INSURANCE COMPANIES.

• PRICES BASED ON DRIVER’S HISTORY OF INSURANCE COVERAGE.  

• INITIATIVE STATUTE.

Summary: Changes current law to allow insurance companies to set prices based on whether the driver previously carried auto insurance with any insurance company. Allows proportional discount for drivers with some prior coverage. Allows increased cost for drivers without history of continuous coverage. Fiscal Impact: Probably no significant fiscal effect on state insurance premium tax revenues.

PROS:

• 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.
• Californians with car insurance earn a discount for following the law.
• Proposition 33 allows you the freedom to change insurance companies and keep your discount.
• Proposition 33 makes insurance companies compete, helps lower rates, and will insure more drivers.
• If you are in the military, you are eligible for the discount.
• If you are unemployed for up to 18 months because of layoff or furlough; you are eligible for the discount.
• A young person on the cusp of leaving home gets the same rate as parents.
• Drivers are given a discount proportional to the amount of full years they have had insurance in the previous five years.
• This is a consumer friendly initiative that creates competition among insurance companies and lowers prices.
• This proposal is also an incentive for more consumers to purchase car insurance.

CONS:

• If you switch companies you lose the discount.
• 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.
• Proposition 33 is another deceptive insurance company trick.
• Insurance companies spent millions to pass a similar law in 2010—voters defeated it.
• Proposition 33 allows auto insurers to raise premiums on responsible drivers up to $1,000, unfairly punishing people who stopped driving for legitimate reasons.
• State regulators describe Mercury Insurance as an abusive, anti-consumer company.
• Mercury illegally surcharged hundreds of thousands of drivers until it was ordered to stop in 2005.
• An internal training manual produced in a civil trial shows Mercury Insurance trained employees to mistreat, neglect and even threaten customers who file claims.
• Mercury had to be forced by a California court to stop its insurance agents from charging illegal broker fees to unsuspecting customers.
• In 2008, Mercury paid the California Department of Insurance a quarter-million dollar settlement for alleged claims handling violations.

PROP 34

• DEATH PENALTY.

• INITIATIVE STATUTE.

Summary: Repeals death penalty and replaces it with life imprisonment without possibility of parole. Applies retroactively to existing death sentences. Directs $100 million to law enforcement agencies for investigations of homicide and rape cases. Fiscal Impact: Ongoing state and county criminal justice savings of about $130 million annually within a few years, which could vary by tens of millions of dollars. One-time state costs of $100 million for local law enforcement grants.

PROS:

• 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.

• 34 guarantees we never execute an innocent person by replacing California’s broken death penalty with life in prison without possibility of parole.
• It makes killers work and pay court-ordered restitution to victims.
• 34 saves wasted tax dollars
• 34 directs $100 million to law enforcement to solve rapes and murders.
• 46% of homicide cases are never closed.
• 56% of reported rapes go unsolved.
• Since reinstatement of the death penalty in the U.S., 140 innocent men and women have been freed from death row.

CONS:

• Certain offenders convicted for 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.
• California is broke.
• Prop. 34 costs taxpayers $100 million over four years and many millions more, long term.
• Taxpayers would pay at least $50,000 annually, giving lifetime healthcare/housing to killers who tortured, raped, and murdered children, cops, mothers, and fathers.
• DA’s, Sheriffs and Police Chiefs say Vote No.
• The solution is to fix it; not abolish it.
• The death penalty is given to less than 2% of all murderers in California.
• These murders are so shocking that juries of law-abiding citizens unanimously delivered the sentence.

PROP 35

• HUMAN TRAFFICKING. PENALTIES.

• INITIATIVE STATUTE.

Summary: Increases prison sentences and fines for human trafficking convictions. Requires convicted human traffickers to register as sex offenders. Requires registered sex offenders to disclose Internet activities and identities. Fiscal Impact: Costs of a few million dollars annually to state and local governments for addressing human trafficking offenses. Potential increased annual fine revenue of a similar amount, dedicated primarily for human trafficking victims.

PROS:

• Increase prison terms for human traffickers.
• Require convicted sex traffickers to register as sex offenders.
• Require all registered sex offenders to disclose their internet accounts.
• Require criminal fines from convicted human traffickers to pay for services to help victims.
• Mandate law enforcement training on human trafficking.
• Increases criminal penalties for human trafficking, including prison sentences up to 15-years-to-life and fines up to $1,500,000.
• Helps Law Enforcement prosecute sex traffickers and protect victims of sexual exploitation.
• Prop. 35 requires convicted sex offenders to provide information to authorities about their Internet presence, which will help protect our children and prevent human trafficking.
• The FBI recognizes three cities in California—Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego—as high intensity child sex trafficking areas. That’s why we need Prop. 35 to protect children from exploitation.
• By passing 35, Californians will make a statement that we will not tolerate the sexual abuse of our children and that we stand with the victims of these horrible crimes.”

CONS:

• Existing criminal penalties for human trafficking would stay in effect.
• Proposition 35 actually threatens many innocent people.
• This measure is not a comprehensive solution to the problems of sex and labor trafficking.
• Could push human trafficking further underground.
• This initiative statute poses a threat to civil liberties.
• This initiative statute has an overly-broad net that could impact any sex worker–trafficked or not.
• This initiative statute duplicates current laws while doing little for victims.
• This initiative statute would expand the ability of state and local authorities to harass and arrest consensual sex workers
• The proposition is overbroad and misdirected
• There is nothing in the measure, she said, to encourage nonprofits, police, city services and victims to work together.

PROP 36

• THREE STRIKES LAW.

• REPEAT FELONY OFFENDERS. PENALTIES.
• INITIATIVE STATUTE.

Summary: Revises law to impose life sentence only when new felony conviction is serious or violent. May authorize re-sentencing if third strike conviction was not serious or violent. Fiscal Impact: Ongoing state correctional savings of around $70 million annually, with even greater savings (up to $90 million) over the next couple of decades. These savings could vary significantly depending on future state actions.

PROS:

• Prop. 36 would mean huge financial savings for all Californians.
• Every dollar spent in substance abuse treatment saves taxpayers over $7 in societal costs.
• Over 3,500 inmates are currently serving life sentences under the Three Strikes law for non-serious, non-violent crimes.
• Non-violent offenders will get the treatment services they need, which are much more effective than jail or prison and which reduce the human toll exacted by imprisonment.
• Prop 36 would make the punishment fit the crime.
• Avoids the diversion of financial and law-enforcement resources in imposing life sentences on non-violent offenders.
• Inmates currently serving life sentences for non-serious, non-violent crimes can apply for a new sentence, but the sentence can only be reduced if a judge determines that they are no longer an unreasonable threat to public safety.
• No rapists, murders, or child molesters will benefit from Prop. 36. The initiative includes a safety clause that prohibits anyone who has past convictions for very violent crimes from receiving any benefit of the change in law, no matter how minor the defendant’s third strike offense.
• Prop. 36 does not change the definition of burglary or alter the list of serious or violent crimes. Nor does Prop. 36 have any impact on so-called “second strike” sentences.
• The non-partisan Legislative Analyst’s Office projects that the Reform Act may save the state over $70-100 million annually.

CONS

• Proposition 36 replaces judicial discretion with a mandatory and inflexible system that is dangerous because it virtually decriminalizes all drug use.
• It threatens the parole system.
• Law enforcement would have to wait for addicted parolee to actually commit a violent or serious crime before returning that person to jail or prison.
• 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.
• Would allow almost one-half of California’s 3 Strike prison inmates to be re-sentenced and released.
• 100% of these convicted criminals have 2 or more serious or violent prior felonies.
• Changing the third strike requirement to also be serious or violent it not only provides the opportunity for a repeat offender to impact yet more victims, it also stops far fewer serious and violent criminals far later in their career.
• The citizens of California are already seeing firsthand the results of a small army of trigger happy parolees being released by the state prison system under AB109. These are said to be “low level” offenders. What this initiative is talking about releasing are the “bad boys” with 2 or more serious or violent prior convictions.
• This reform initiative is simply a bad idea at the worst possible time.

PROP 37

• GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS.

• LABELING. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

Summary: Requires labeling of food sold to consumers made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways. Prohibits marketing such food, or other processed food, as “natural.” Provides exemptions. Fiscal Impact: Increased annual state costs from a few hundred thousand dollars to over $1 million to regulate the labeling of genetically engineered foods. Additional, but likely not significant, governmental costs to address violations under the measure.

PROS:

• YOU WILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT’S IN YOUR FOOD.
• Know if your food is produced using genetic engineering.
• FOOD WILL BE LABELED ACCURATELY.
• Food labels will have to disclose if the product was produced through genetic engineering.
• PROTECTING YOUR FAMILY’S HEALTH WILL BE EASIER.
• You’ll have the information you need about foods that some physicians and scientists say are linked to allergies and other significant health risks.
• It doesn’t cost anything to include information on a label.
• The law is phased in, giving manufacturers time to print new labels telling you what’s in the food.
• Manufacturers have time to change their products if they do not want to sell food produced using genetic engineering.
• Proposition 37 also prevents the misleading use of the word “natural” on products that are genetically engineered.

CONS:

• Prop. 37 isn’t a simple measure.
• It’s a deceptive, deeply flawed food labeling scheme.
• Would add more government bureaucracy and taxpayer costs.
• Would create new frivolous lawsuits, and increase food costs by billions
• Would not provide any health or safety benefits.
• Is full of special-interest exemptions.
• Biotechnology, also called genetic engineering (GE), has been used for nearly two decades to grow varieties of corn, soybeans and other crops that resist diseases and insects and require fewer pesticides. Thousands of common foods are made with ingredients from biotech crops.
• Prop. 37 bans these perfectly safe foods in California unless they’re specially relabeled or remade with higher cost ingredients.
• Such a labeling policy would be inherently misleading.
• 37 is full of absurd, politically motivated exemptions. It requires special labels on soy milk, but exempts cow’s milk and dairy products. Fruit juice requires a label, but alcohol is exempt. Pet foods containing meat require labels, but meats for human consumption are exempt.

PROP 38

• TAX TO FUND EDUCATION AND EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAMS.

• INITIATIVE STATUTE.

Summary: Increases taxes on earnings using sliding scale, for twelve years. Revenues go to K–12 schools and early childhood programs, and for four years to repaying state debt. Fiscal Impact: Increased state tax revenues for 12 years—roughly $10 billion annually in initial years, tending to grow over time. Funds used for schools, childcare, and preschool, as well as providing savings on state debt payments.

PROS:

• The Legislature can’t touch the money. 38 PROHIBITS the Legislature from diverting or borrowing the money, and it cannot use the new money to replace money schools currently receive.

• School funding MUST go per pupil to every school and must be spent at the school.The funds will be audited and any attempted misallocation is a felony punishable by jail time and a ban on holding public office.
• The money CANNOT be spent to increase salaries or pensions of school personnel, and 38 prohibits spending more than 1% on administration.
• Spending decisions will be made locally, after public input. Districts MUST hold open meetings at each school site to get input from parents, educators and the community before spending the money.
• School districts will be accountable for improvement at each school. They MUST set annual educational improvement goals for each school, and publicly report how the money was spent and whether improvement goals were achieved.
• Proposition 38 makes schools a priority again. It provides guaranteed funding to restore a well-rounded education and improve educational outcomes.
• It guarantees billions of dollars to local schools based on enrollment, averaging $10 billion annually over twelve years.
• School sites can use the money to reduce class sizes or restore classes in art, music, math, science, vocational and technical education and college preparation—based on different needs at different schools.
• Proposition 38 helps prevent more budget cuts by setting aside $3 billion annually through 2016–17 to reduce the state deficit by repaying state education bond debt.
• 38 provides over $1.1 billion annually to restore budget cuts to early childhood education, improve quality, and expand access to preschool

CONS:

• $120 Billion Income Tax Hike on Most Californians
• If you earn $17,346 or more per year in taxable income, Prop. 38 raises your California personal income tax rate by as much as 21%, on top of what you pay the Federal government.
• The Prop. 38 tax increase continues until 2024. If you have a child entering first grade, you’ll be paying higher income taxes until that child graduates from high school.
• Even as the economy improves and more people get back to work, the tax increases continue.
• Even without necessary reforms to our education system, like the ability to fire bad teachers, the tax increases still continue.
• Prop. 38 locks us into higher income tax rates for the next twelve years—no matter what!
• The politicians and bureaucrats get billions of dollars in new taxes, with virtually no accountability on how the money is spent and how much actually gets into the classroom.
• Approximately 3.8 million California small businesses pay individual taxes on their earnings, rather than corporate taxes. Consequently, small businesses will be devastated by these higher taxes—even businesses making as little as $30,000 or $40,000 a year.
• Instead of creating jobs and improving the economy, Prop. 38 will force family businesses to cut jobs, move out of state, or even close. If they can stay in business, they’ll raise prices to pay the higher taxes, which will ultimately be passed on to consumers.
• No Requirements to Improve School Performance

PROP 39

• TAX TREATMENT FOR MULTISTATE BUSINESSES.

• CLEAN ENERGY AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY FUNDING.
• INITIATIVE STATUTE.

Summary: Requires multi state businesses to pay income taxes based on percentage of their sales in California. Dedicates revenues for five years to clean/efficient energy projects. Fiscal Impact: Increased state revenues of $1 billion annually, with half of the revenues over the next five years spent on energy efficiency projects. Of the remaining revenues, a significant portion likely would be spent on schools.

PROS:

• The cost of this loophole: $1 billion per year in lost revenues for California.
• YES on 39 ELIMINATES THE OUT-OF-STATE TAX LOOPHOLE
• Prop. 39 simply closes this loophole. It ends this manipulation of our tax system—and requires that all corporations doing business in California pay taxes determined by their sales here, no matter where they are based.
• Prop. 39 LEVELS THE PLAYING FIELD, ensuring that multistate companies play by the same rules as California employers.
• YES on 39—ELIMINATING THE LOOPHOLE IS GOOD FOR CALIFORNIA’S JOB MARKET
• The current tax loophole lets corporations pay less tax to California if they have FEWER employees here—giving companies a reason to send jobs out of state.
• In fact, the state’s nonpartisan, independent Legislative Analyst has cited studies showing that the tax policy in Prop. 39 will bring California as many as 40,000 jobs. That’s why the independent Legislative Analyst has called for eliminating the present loophole.
• YES on 39 BENEFITS CALIFORNIA TAXPAYERS
• Multistate corporations that provide few jobs here are using the loophole to avoid paying their fair share to California, costing the state $1 billion per year in lost revenues. Prop. 39 will close that loophole and keep these funds in California to provide vitally-needed revenues for public services. Because almost half of all new revenue is legally required to go to education, hundreds of millions of dollars per year will be dedicated to schools.
• Additionally, Prop. 39 will create savings for taxpayers. 39 will use a portion of the revenues from closing the loophole to fund energy efficiency projects at schools and other public buildings. Using proven energy efficiency measures like improving insulation, replacing leaky windows and roofs and adding small-scale solar panel installations will reduce state energy costs—freeing up dollars for essential services like education, police, and fire.

CONS:

• PROPOSITION 39 IS A MASSIVE $1 BILLION TAX INCREASE ON CALIFORNIA JOB CREATORS THAT WILL RESULT IN THE LOSS OF THOUSANDS OF MIDDLE CLASS JOBS. California’s unemployment rate is already third worst in the country at nearly 11%. Prop. 39 makes our problems worse.
• PROPOSITION 39 IS A RECIPE FOR WASTE AND CORRUPTION. It spends up to $22 million on a new bureaucracy and special interest commission. It gives Sacramento politicians a blank check to spend billions without real accountability or taxpayer protections against conflicts of interest.
• Here are the facts: a billionaire who CNN called “California’s Hedge Fund King” is bankrolling 39, spending $20 million to influence your vote and buy the election. His political consultants use terms like “closing a loophole” but don’t believe them.
• PROP. 39 IS POLITICS AT ITS WORST. CALIFORNIA NEEDS REFORM, NOT MORE TAXES AND WASTEFUL SPENDING. WE MUST VOTE NO.
• $2.5 billion that could go to schools, health and welfare, environmental protection or public safety is instead diverted to a new government commission with fat salaries and little accountability. Our state budget deficit today is nearly $16 billion and Prop. 39 makes things worse by wasting money on a new unnecessary bureaucracy.
• California needs teachers and police officers, not more bureaucrats!
• PROPOSITION 39 ATTACKS BUSINESSES THAT PROVIDE MIDDLE CLASS CALIFORNIA JOBS. Manufacturing jobs that provide for families are vanishing. Almost two million hard-working Californians are struggling to find any kind of work. The $1 billion Prop. 39 tax increase changes tax laws that have been in effect for more than 40 years and will cost more union and non-union workers their jobs.
• PROPOSITION 39 GROWS GOVERNMENT AND BUREAUCRACY. You’ve heard it before. Sacramento has a plan to create jobs. We give them money to create a commission of political appointees with an appealing name like Citizens Oversight Board. They get a blank check to spend (or waste) tax dollars.
• Under Prop. 39, money is spent to give contracts to so-called “Green Energy” programs. Who is likely to get those contracts? Big campaign contributors, that’s who. 39 IS SO POORLY WRITTEN THAT IT DOESN’T EVEN PROHIBIT CONTRACTORS FROM GIVING CAMPAIGN MONEY TO SACRAMENTO POLITICIANS THAT AWARD THE CONTRACTS!
• California needs reform, not tax increases that eliminate middle class jobs. Prop. 39 raises taxes by $1 billion on California job creators to help fund more government bureaucracy and more bloated pensions. It doesn’t protect against ongoing state budget deficits, high unemployment and continued economic recession.

PROP 40

• REDISTRICTING. STATE SENATE DISTRICTS.

• REFERENDUM.

Summary: A “Yes” vote approves, and a “No” vote rejects, new State Senate districts drawn by the Citizens Redistricting Commission. If rejected, districts will be adjusted by officials supervised by the California Supreme Court. Fiscal Impact: Approving the referendum would have no fiscal impact on the state and local governments. Rejecting the referendum would result in a one-time cost of about $1 million to the state and counties.

PROS:

• YES ON 40 PROTECTS THE VOTER-APPROVED INDEPENDENT CITIZENS REDISTRICTING COMMISSION
• A YES vote on Prop. 40 means that the State Senate maps drawn by the voter-approved independent Citizens Redistricting Commission will remain in place.
• A NO vote on Prop. 40 gives the politicians an opportunity to overturn the fair districts drawn by the independent Commission—costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars in the process.
• PROP. 40 IS A SIMPLE CHOICE BETWEEN THE VOTER-APPROVED CITIZENS COMMISSION AND SELF-INTERESTED POLITICIANS
• In 2008, California voters approved Proposition 11, which created the independent Citizens Redistricting Commission to draw the district maps for the State Senate and State Assembly. Before Prop. 11, the politicians in the state Legislature drew their own uncompetitive districts, virtually guaranteeing themselves re-election.
• Now, a small group of Sacramento politicians is unhappy with the results of the State Senate maps drawn by the independent Commission. These politicians are using this referendum to try to get their uncompetitive districts back.
• THE POLITICIANS HAVE ALREADY FAILED IN COURT
• When the same politicians tried a lawsuit against the State Senate maps, the California Supreme Court ruled unanimously against them:
• YES ON PROPOSITION 40 UPHOLDS THE WILL OF CALIFORNIA VOTERS

CONS:

• There is no official argument opposing Prop. 40. In January 2012, the California Supreme Court ruled that the State Senate redistricting maps generated by the California Citizens Redistricting Commission pursuant to 2008's Proposition 11 must be used throughout the elections of 2012. After that decision, opponents of Prop. 40 announced they would no longer be campaigning against the referendum.