With just a few days left before Election Day 2012, voters are being bombarded with political ads and statements.
Aside from presidential and local representative elections, voters will be asked their positions on several state propositions.
Confused on which proposition is which? Looking for nonpartisan information on each ballot measure? Want to know what people are saying about each proposition?
Patch has put together a Proposition Voter Guide, with links, briefs and local opinion about each proposition to help you make an informed decision at the polls on Nov. 6
Nonpartisan Websites
California Choices- Includes an endorsements table featuring where non-profits, newspapers, unions and political parties stand on each proposition.
Maplight.org - Includes in-depth campaign spending information.
Propositions
Proposition 30: Temporary Taxes to Fund State Programs
Voters will face two, some say conflicting, tax measures on this year’s ballot. The first is supported by Governor Jerry Brown and is also known as the Schools and Local Public Safety Protection Act. The measure is intended to help close the state’s budget gap and fund schools.
The act would raise the personal income tax rate for people who make more than $250,000 a year. Individuals who make less than $250,000 a year and couples who make less than $500,000 a year will not see an increase. The ballot measure would also raise the state sales tax by a quarter cent for the next four years.
The money raised from the tax hike is expected to generate $6.6 billion for education. If voters reject it, a series of trigger cuts that will result in a nearly $5.4 billion hit to education will be enforced.
Click here for more information on Proposition 30.
Patch Articles on Proposition 30:
Deciphering Prop. 30 vs. 38
Democratic Party Picks State Ballot Measures to Support
California Republicans Oppose Proposed Tax Measures
Proposition 31: State Budget
This proposition would allow local governments and school districts create plans to coordinate how public services are provided. These plans include areas of public health and safety, education, social services, and economic development. Governing boards for the county, school district and city must approve the plans. The proposition would allow local governments flexibility on how state-funded programs are administered and how property taxes are transferred.
The proposition would also place restrictions on Legislature’s ability to increase or decrease state revenue and when they can pass bills.
Click here for more information on Proposition 31.
Patch Articles and Local Voices on Proposition 31
Democratic Party Picks State Ballot Measures to Support
California Republicans Oppose Proposed Tax Measure
Proposition 32: Political Contributions
This measure seeks to reform campaign finance rules in three key ways. The first would ban employee paycheck reductions for “political purposes.” The second would prevent corporations and unions from making direct contributions to state and local candidates or the committees that fund them.
The third would forbid government contractors to contribute to elected officials who were involved in the process that awarded them the contract. This would keep the contractors from contributing while that contract is under consideration or is in effect.
Click here for more information on Proposition 32.
Patch Articles on Proposition 32
Poll: Should Labor Unions Lose Paycheck Deductions for Political Spending?
County Board of Supervisors Vote to Oppose Prop. 32
Proposition 33: Auto Insurance Rates
Prop. 33 would change state law to allow insurance companies to set prices based on whether the driver previously carried auto insurance with any insurance company. Drivers who have not had prior, continuous coverage could be charge higher rates, while those who have had coverage could receive discounts.
Click here for more information on Proposition 33.
Patch Articles on Proposition 33
Insurance Industry-Backed Proposition on California Ballot
Proposition 34: Death Penalty Repeal
Prop. 34 would repeal the death penalty and replace it with life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. This would also affect individuals currently sentenced to death. According to the proposition, the measure would create a $100 million fund for law enforcement efforts.
Click here for more information on Proposition 34.
Patch Articles on Proposition 34
Voter Guide: Propositions 34 and 36
Proposition 35: Human Trafficking/Sex Offender
Proposition 35 would increase prison sentences and fines for human trafficking. A conviction for human trafficking would be require the offender to register as a sex offender.
Click here for more information on Proposition 35.
Patch Articles on Proposition 35
Democratic Party Picks State Ballot Measures to Support
California Republicans Oppose Proposed Tax Measures
Proposition 36: Three Strikes Law
This measure would change California's current "Three Strikes" law by imposing a life sentence only when the crime committed is a serious, violent crime. This could allow some offenders with two prior serious or violent felony convictions, and currently serving life sentences for nonserious, non-violent felony convictions, serve shorter prison terms. This would not affect felons with prior convictions of murder, rape, or the sexual abuse of children.
Click here for more information on Proposition 36.
Patch Articles on Proposition 36
Voter Guide: Propositions 34 and 36
Proposition 37: Genetically Modified Foods
Prop. 37 would require labeling alerting consumers of any raw or processed food made from genetically-modified plants and animals. Genetically engineered food cannot be marketed as "natural” under the measure, although certain foods are exempted from this measure.
Click here for more information on Proposition 37.
Patch Articles on Proposition 37
Prop. 37: Should Genetically Modified Foods Be Denoted in Labels?
Proposition 38: Molly Munger’s Tax Proposal
This second tax rate measure would increase the state income tax rates for most Californians on a sliding scale, resulting in projected increased revenues of about $10 billion a year, according to California Choices. Revenues would go to K-12 schools and early childhood programs, as well as some of the state’s debt. If voters pass both Propositions 30 and 38, the proposition with the most votes will pass.
Click here for more information on Proposition 38.
Patch Articles and Local Voices on Proposition 38
Deciphering Prop. 30 vs. 38
Blog: Another Pop Quiz on Proposition 38
Democratic Party Picks State Ballot Measures to Support
California Republicans Oppose Proposed Tax Measures
Proposition 39: Multistate Business Tax
According to California Choices, Prop. 39 would throw out an existing law allowing multistate businesses to choose a “tax liability formula that provides favorable tax treatment for businesses with property and payroll outside California.” Multistate businesses’ California income tax liability will be determined based on the percentage of their sales in California. Increased revenue is intended to fund energy efficiency projects and clean energy jobs.
Click here for more information on Proposition 39.
Patch Articles on Proposition 39
Prop. 39 Seeks to Close $1B Tax Loophole for Multi-State Corporations
Proposition 40: Redistricting
Prop. 40 is a referendum on the California State Senate redistricting plan approved by the California Citizens Redistricting Commission. If the proposition does not pass, the districts will be determined by officials under the California Supreme Court.
Click here for more information on Proposition 40.
Patch Local Voices on Proposition 40
Craig and Lou at the ballot box: Proposition 40 – Director's cut ending
Taxes have been raised to death. They need to make due with what we give them. Where is the lottery money promised to the schools? Also note these increases will go toward paying off state debt. Another solution to California's debt crisis is to quit paying for illegals to have free food, health care and education. Raising taxes is not the answer and it will only do more harm than good. Arnold raised everyone's car registration for 2 years and it did nothing for the state debt. Irresponsible spending is not my responsibility to pay for. I say charge illegal immigrants a special tax for living in our state for free.
I voted NO on 30 and 38 . You should too if you want to hold onto your money. Obama is going to steal enough already. One more thing... there is no guarantee funds from these props will go to schools. It says right in the description that revenue will be applied to state debt.
Me personally have never wanted to be homeschooled. My parents have threatened because I have Aspergers and unlike most people who have Aspergers I am not shy and talk a lot and I usually get in trouble. So my parents don't know what to do and want to home school. But, I hope you understand your kids may be home schooled but for the people who can't home school and have jobs they probably want a place to leave their children. But, I don't like starting drama on this website (enough has been started on another page on Patch) so I respect your decision to home school and vote no on 30 and 38.
You dad is a non producer just a taker. Like it or not it is a fact.
The reason we are hearing so much "No" on Proposition 37 is because the opposittion, mainly Monsanto (agent orange, DDT), is spending $40 million to protect thier monopoly on Corn seed. They own the patent to it. You cannot own the rights to a natural (created by nature, not science) seed. 90% of the corn now grown in the U.S. is geneticly modified to produce an insecticide in every cell of the plant. Yum! Here's the deal. I cannot afford to eat Organic to protect my health. It costs twice as much. The government subsidises GMO crops so the price is artificially low. TRADITIONAL crops are at fair market value. I have allergic reactions to GMO foods (agrobacterium used to create genetic link). I do not react to traditional foods.No foodstamps to help the costs. BUT YOU, yes YOU, are paying when I have to go for an ambulance ride. YOU pay when people suffer Kidney failure in record numbers. Anyone have breast/testicular cancer? Check this out: http://sustainablepulse.com/2012/09/19/criigen-study-links-gm-maize-roundup-premature-death-cancer/ Russia banned GMO corn after this study was released. Propoganda hurts you - not the corporations who pay for the commercials.
The reason we are hearing so much "No" on Proposition 37 is because the opposittion, mainly Monsanto (agent orange, DDT), is spending $40 million to protect thier monopoly on Corn seed. They own the patent to it. You cannot own the rights to a natural (created by nature, not science) seed. 90% of the corn now grown in the U.S. is geneticly modified to produce an insecticide in every cell of the plant. Yum! Here's the deal. I cannot afford to eat Organic to protect my health. It costs twice as much. The government subsidises GMO crops so the price is artificially low. TRADITIONAL crops are at fair market value. I have allergic reactions to GMO foods (agrobacterium used to create genetic link). I do not react to traditional foods.No foodstamps to help the costs. BUT YOU, yes YOU, are paying when I have to go for an ambulance ride. YOU pay when people suffer Kidney failure in record numbers. Anyone have breast/testicular cancer? Check this out: http://sustainablepulse.com/2012/09/19/criigen-study-links-gm-maize-roundup-premature-death-cancer/ Russia banned GMO corn after this study was released. Propoganda hurts you - not the corporations who pay for the commercials.
"Debbie LeBlanc said on September 19, 2012 I feel every U.S. citizen should be up in arms to fight back against the poisoning of our food system, our environment, and our bodies by chemical companies looking only to make huge profits from our suffering. .....explain the appointment of Michael R. Taylor as the Deputy Commissioner for Foods at the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). If you don’t know his history with Monsanto, do some research. I don’t entirely dismiss GMO’s. However, I am angry that scientists who spoke out on the dangers of GMO seeds were discredited and silenced. I am angry that products containing GMO’s are not labeled. I am angry that President Bush in 1992, proclaimed the vaguely formulated and entirely unscientific ‘doctrine’ that GMO plants and non-GMO or ordinary plants were ‘substantially equivalent’ and hence needed no special testing before being released to the public. If they are truly the same, how can they be patented? And, finally, I am angered by the lie that U.S. consumers are more accepting of genetically modified foods compared with consumers in Europe and Japan." end part one.
"It’s past time for U.S. citizens to demand the labeling of all products containing genetically engineered and genetically modified material. We need unbiased, honest, scientifically solid, long-term testing on the safely of all GE and GM foods, medicines, animals(!?!?). For myself, I don’t want anything to do with it until it’s been proven safe. Right now, every single boast that came with the introduction of GE crops has not materialized. They have not reduced costs, reduced agrochemical use, or increased yields. And, yet, there is a host of proven negative consequences that our government refuses to acknowledge as it continues to approve more and more GE crops." While I don't agree with her entire comment she does state facts that are indisputable. Fifteen years of eating what Mad Scientists have created but have not safety tested, is too long when I think of the people I love and the costs to health and happiness. I am not a lab rat, you are participating in the largest study every conducted on human beings, don't you want to know what your eating?
I will walk in my vote by mail ballot tommorow due to the research required to make an intelligent decision for the future of my family. Bless all of you too!
This is a story of triumph and tragedy. The triumph occurred in the middle part of the 20th century, when the larger part of mankind finally succeeded in overcoming the ravages of malaria, the deadly infectious disease that had afflicted the human race since the dawn of time (and which, by one estimate, had killed approximately half the people who had ever lived on earth). But within three decades, the triumph would give way to tragedy when leftist ideologues, professing concern for the integrity of the natural environment, collaborated to ban the use of the pesticide best known by the acronym DDT—the very substance that had made it possible to vanquish malaria from vast portions of the globe. By means of that ban, environmentalists effectively ensured that, over the course of the ensuing 30+ years, more than 50 million people would die needlessly of a disease that was entirely preventable.
“As a member of the Society, myself, I was highly suspicious of this compound, to put it mildly. But I was compelled by the facts to temper my emotions ... because the best scientific evidence available did not warrant such a precipitate action. However, we in the EPA have streamlined our administrative procedures so we can now suspend registration of DDT and the other persistent pesticides at any time during the period of review.” The Environmental Defense Fund and the Audubon Society jointly filed a lawsuit demanding that the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the EPA place a ban on DDT, Ruckelshaus ordered a hearing to consider precisely that course of action. After seven months of hearings in 1971, which produced 125 witnesses and 9,362 pages of testimony, EPA Judge Edmund Sweeney concluded that according to the evidence: “DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man ... is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man ... [and the] use of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife.” But Ruckelshaus, who had never attended even a day of the EPA hearings and had never (by his own admission) read any of the transcripts of those hearings, overruled Sweeney and formally banned DDT on January 1, 1972.
“The ultimate judgment [on DDT] remains political. Decisions by the government involving the use of toxic substances are political with a small ‘p.’ In the case of pesticides in our country, the power to make this judgment has been delegated to the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.” The American environmental movement’s campaign against DDT paved the way for other, similar efforts all over the world. In 1975, for instance, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) jointly called for a greater emphasis on alternatives to the use of DDT and other insecticides for the control of vector-borne diseases such as malaria.
One conclusion is inescapable: the environmental movement’s insistence on banning DDT from every part of the world in the latter decades of the 20th century led to a dramatic resurgence of malaria in many places where it previously had been eradicated. Moreover, the anti-DDT campaign prevented most of Africa, where the pesticide had never before been deployed on a scale grand enough to make a difference, from taking the measures necessary to save the multitudes of people who ultimately would die of malaria on that continent year after year.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1259 DO NOT LET THE GREENIES AKA THE COMMUNISTS KILL ANYMORE PEOPLE THEIR LIES ARE CAUSINF GENOCIDE ARE THE WORLD.
I imagine my next four years will be healthier than yours, thank you.
Food freedom, the abliity to save and grow seed, feed ones family without patent infringement, is a primary freedom that we should at least be able to CHOOSE. Unfortunately, the polls changed as the NO on 37 adds hit the airwaves. A society educated by the television is definitely dumbed down, looks like we should go back to community based schools - then we pay the teacher what they are worth and they are accountable for the education they deliver. God help all of us is this continues.