Part of the Bay Area News Group

Prop numbers assigned to November’s measures

By Josh Richman
Monday, July 9th, 2012 at 5:23 pm in ballot measures.

California Secretary of State Debra Bowen today assigned proposition numbers to the 11 measures set to appear on the November 6 ballot:

    Proposition 30 – Temporary Taxes to Fund Education. Guaranteed Local Public Safety Funding. (Jerry Brown’s tax measure) Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
    Proposition 31 – State Budget. State and Local Government. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
    Proposition 32 – Prohibits Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction. Prohibitions on Contributions to Candidates. Initiative Statute.
    Proposition 33 – Changes Law to Allow Auto Insurance Companies to Set Prices Based on a Driver’s History of Insurance Coverage. Initiative Statute.
    Proposition 34 – Death Penalty Repeal. Initiative Statute.
    Proposition 35 – Human Trafficking. Penalties. Sex Offender Registration. Initiative Statute.
    Proposition 36 – Three Strikes Law. Sentencing for Repeat Felony Offenders. Initiative Statute.
    Proposition 37 – Genetically Engineered Foods. Mandatory Labeling. Initiative Statute.
    Proposition 38 – Tax for Education and Early Childhood Programs. (Molly Munger’s tax measure) Initiative Statute.
    Proposition 39 – Tax Treatment for Multistate Businesses. Clean Energy and Energy Efficiency Funding. Initiative Statute.
    Proposition 40 – Redistricting. State Senate Districts. Referendum.

[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]

  • Elwood

    If you have any doubt whatsoever vote NO!

  • JAFO

    According to press reports, Governor Moonbeam very much wanted his proposition to appear first on the ballot. In fact, he even fought hard in court to assure the prominent placement. Handy. That way I can easily remember to cast my first no vote on this ballot for Proposition 30. Several others deserve the same disposition, including tax-raising Proposition 38. Its sponsor was the one fighting the governor in court to try to secure the coveted first position.

  • JohnW

    And here I was thinking Jerry’s tax measure was listed first by random selection.

  • Elwood

    @ #3 John W.

    Yeah right. If anyone knows how to game the system it’s Jerry.

    When he was AG he would write ballot summaries of some pile of crap dimmiecrat backed initiatives in such a way that they smelled like roses.

  • Rick K.

    Prop 30 should be re-titled “Firefighter & Police Pension Bailout Tax.” Why should taxes be increased so that government workers can retire at age 50 and receive $100,000+ per year for the rest of their lives? These are the infamous “Hello Cabo San Lucas” pensions that allow retired firefighters and police officers to buy beach houses, expensive vacations, fishing boats and other luxuries. The Legislature needs to abolish all “3% at 50″ pension schemes at all levels of government throughout the state, immediately, for all new hires. The bankruptcies of the cities of Vallejo and Stockton are a sign that “local public safety” pension schemes are unsustainable and should be reformed, not bailed out by Prop 30. If there’s no meaningful pension reform enacted in the next few weeks, then NO on 30!

  • JohnW

    Rick K

    I wouldn’t pick on just police and fire when it comes to pensions (and let’s not forget lifetime health care for retirees and their dependents). 2.5% at age 55 or 60 is pretty common in the local and county non-safety jobs. Plus, unlike teachers and police/fire, those people also get Social Security. On the other hand, most of the spiking with overtime and other factors happens in the police and fire jobs. That can and does make a huge difference.

    Even the old 2% multiplier plans were way out of whack with the better private sector defined benefit plans, where they even existed. The typical multiplier for those plans was more like 1.5%, capped at about 45-50% of average of the highest 3-5 years. No cost of living adjustments, and full pension not available to start until age 65.

    Defined benefit needs to disappear completely. No matter what reforms they do, you can count on loopholes you can drive a bullet train through. They keep coming up with ideas for tweaking the current system. Nobody even bothers to ask the basic question of what constitutes a reasonable retirement benefit. Where did they ever come up with 2%, 2.5% or 3% or the idea of retiring at mid-career age? Based on what?

  • Publius

    Re:#6

    I could not agree with you more. Your your argument makes sense, but still Ca. will keep voting for politicians that are owned by the public sector unions. The democrats in Sac do not have the will or courage to stand up and do what is right for the people of Ca.

    You pegged the problem, but like most Californians you are a registered democrat and continue to destroy our state with your vote.

  • JohnW

    You were doing fine there, Publius, until the cheap shot about destroying our state — and, presumably, the country as well. I know, you’re going to “take our country back!”

    First, on the issue of pensions, you ignore the fact that GOP governors who have tackled pensions have generally left out law enforcement. That included Meg Whitman when she was running. You ignore that a Democratic mayor took on the issue in San Jose. A Republican mayor (but a former cop) did the same in San Diego. It was a self-described “progressive” Public Defender who took on pensions in SF. Democratic governors in Illinois, NY and CA have made serious proposals (not far enough for my taste), but admittedly are being blocked by Democratic legislators.

    I don’t know Dan Borenstein’s political affiliation, if any, but I think I’m safe in saying he’s not part of the Tea Party. Resolving the pension issue is going to take support across the political spectrum, including Democrats who understand that there is nothing “liberal” about trashing important government services and programs to pay lavish benefits to government employees. According to a Field Poll, two thirds of CA voters favor capping pensions. You don’t get to two-thirds without including a lot of us terrible, state-destroying “registered Democrats.” You also wrongly assume that registered Democrats never cross party lines at the polls.

    Second, as important as the pension issue is, there are many others. There are many Democrats who are not overly sympathetic to union over-reaching, just as there are Republicans (or used to be) who understand the path to fiscal responsibility does not include making all the Bush tax cuts permanent ($4 Trillion over 10 years) and then piling on the Ryan/Romney proposal to cut tax rates another 20% ($5 Trillion).

  • Publius

    RE:#8

    You cannot deny that the democrats run this state. The republicans have been reduced to weak a minority that at best can only delay the progressive agenda.

    If two thirds of citizens are against union over reach then why are they represented by two thirds in Sacramento that will do nothing to stop it? Your party has been high jacked. The simple undeniable truth is that the electorate is to blame for all that ails this state. Your excuses, stats and data are nice but here is how it works. “Liberals” vote for democrats. Democrats will not stop pension abuse. Liberals support bloated pensions.
    You can’t have it both ways. We are all accountable for our votes. Why blame the politico? Elections have consequences. According to the actions of our overwhelmingly Democratic state, local and County governments Democrats support $16 billion deficits, bloated pensions, higher taxes, stifling environmental regulations (unless you are Apple or a bullet train), High speed rail, union only government contracts, the welfare state, big labor over reach, 12% unemployment, illegal immigration, green subsidies etc…..etc….. You can make all of the excuses you want.When will the average Democratic voter step and take responsibilty for thier vote?