Part of the Bay Area News Group

Latest poll numbers on November ballot measures

By Josh Richman
Thursday, August 30th, 2012 at 4:15 pm in ballot measures, polls.

Labor Day usually marks the start of the traditional campaign season, when voters start tuning in more earnestly about the issues and candidates on November’s ballot. With that in mind, here are the latest polling numbers from the California Business Roundtable’s weekly survey:

Prop. 30 (Gov. Jerry Brown’s tax increase) – 54.4 % yes, 40.5 % no

Prop. 31 (two-year budget cycle, etc.) – 40.9 % yes, 36.2 % no

Prop. 32 (bans political contributions by payroll deduction) – 57.3 % yes, 33 % no

Prop. 33 (auto insurance) – 56.5 % yes, 31.8 % no

Prop. 34 (death penalty repeal) – 40.1 % yes, 49.5 % no

Prop. 35 (human trafficking) – 82.2 % yes, 10.8 % no

Prop. 36 (three strikes sentencing reform) – 74.1 % yes, 17.8 % no

Prop. 37 (labeling of GMO foods) – 65.4 % yes, 23.4 % no

Prop. 38 (Molly Munger’s tax increase) – 39.6 % yes, 49.4 % no

Prop. 39 (corporate tax loophole) – 59.2 % yes, 28.9 % no

Prop. 40 (state Senate redistricting) – 47.8 % yes, 25 % no

A lot of money will be spent in the next two months to move these numbers, so don’t read too much into them now. That said, a few thoughts:

    Voter support for any measure often declines as Election Day nears, so anything already polling under 60 percent “yes” has a tough road ahead.
    Jerry Brown’s tax measure is looking a lot stronger than Molly Munger’s, but neither looks like a powerhouse.
    California voters appear ready to save some prison-budget money by putting fewer people away for life (by requiring that a “third strike” be a serious or violent felony), but not by abolishing the astonishingly costly capital punishment process.
    Watch for an extremely well-funded ad blitz from the food industry to knock down Prop. 37’s numbers as soon as possible.

    Nobody’s campaigning for Prop. 40, yet it still has more support than opposition; go figure. It won’t for long.
    In my GOP-convention-inspired-haze, I forgot that a “no” vote on Prop. 40 supports killing the newly drawn district lines, so a “yes” vote preserves the status quo. Never mind, then.

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

  • JohnW

    Prop. 40 is totally confusing.

    Am surprised by the early positive numbers on Brown’s tax proposal and the “he’s baaack” Mercury Insurance proposition. Now that the legislature has come up with such a lousy version of pension reform, that should cause support to decrease on the tax proposal and grow for Prop. 32 (wishful thinking on my part).

  • George Antrobus

    You have to love Tom Steyer. First he annihilates Prop. 23 to make sure his phony green companies get the proceeds from carbon auctions, hurting consumers and driving productive citizens out of California. Then he bankrolls Prop. 39 to attack productive corporations and drive them out of California, in order to enact a new tax whose proceeds will – you guessed it – go to his phony green companies. Good old Tom. It’s all about him.

  • JohnW

    Re: #2

    I don’t like the idea of earmarking half of the incremental taxes from Prop. 39 to alt energy for five years, or for any other purpose. It should go to the general fund.

    But the “Triple Factor” 2009 law it would replace (passed in the middle of the night for the benefit of a few large out-of-state companies) is profoundly stupid, in that it encourages multi-state companies with a strong sales base in CA to concentrate their workforce elsewhere. It also puts CA-based companies at a disadvantage. Genentech locating a $450 million dollar plant in Oregon while laying off people in CA is an example. Every other state, including Texas, uses the “Single-Sales Factor.” We should too.