CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
October 6, 2012
Proposition 30, supported by Gov. Jerry Brown, would: • Raise sales tax by a quarter-cent for four years • Raise income taxes on individual earnings over $250,000 (over $500,000 for couples) for seven years • Generate an estimated $6 billion in annual revenue • Guarantee money for local governments to fund efforts to reduce prison crowding • Stave off nearly $6 billion in budget cuts, mostly to public schools Proposition 38, supported by attorney Molly Munger, would: • Raise income taxes, using an ascending scale, on most Californians for 12 years • Raise an estimated $10 billion in yearly revenue • Create a fund for the revenue separate from regular state budget • Boost spending on schools and early childhood education • Dedicate some revenue to repaying state debt Source: Legislative Analyst's Office; Times reporting by Chris Megerian
August 5, 2010
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. won a legal fight Tuesday against California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown over the exact wording of an initiative proposal that will appear on the November ballot. The Jarvis victory: One word in the description of Proposition 23 was replaced by a Sacramento judge with three different words, and an "s" was removed to make the word "laws" singular rather than plural. Nitpicky? Maybe. But words do matter, especially on ballot descriptions, because for many voters these short summaries represent all they know about an initiative.
September 12, 2012 |
Proposition 33, an initiative to let auto insurers offer discounts to competitors' customers, isn't quite the same as Proposition 17, a similar proposal that voters rejected in 2010. But the campaign in favor of the measure seems to be following the same truth-distorting playbook. The Yes on Proposition 33 campaign has bought airtime on 19 radio stations in five cities for what appears to be its first commercial, which is due to begin broadcasting Wednesday. The 30-second spot declares: "Proposition 33 protects our veterans and military families, and allows them to keep their discount on car insurance, saving them money.
October 24, 2012 |
Proposition 40 is a measure to retain new state Senate districts. The California Republican Party, several GOP Senate campaigns and a handful of others paid more than $2 million last year to put it on the Nov. 6 ballot. So they're in support, right? But wait -- when they succeeded, and their political re-mapping referendum actually got on the ballot, their objective was to get you to vote no. So they're in opposition. Right? Well, yes. And no. The Republicans were countered early on by one very wealthy supporter of their own party, Charles T. Munger Jr. , who gave almost $600,000 to a campaign to block the referendum.
September 20, 2012
Proposition 40, a referendum on the newly redrawn state Senate district lines, may be the oddest measure before Californians in this election cycle. The people who put it on the ballot were hoping for a "no" vote, which is odd enough in itself, but then they changed their minds and withdrew from the campaign entirely. The result: There is no organized No on 40 campaign, and substantial confusion remains about what exactly the measure would do. Voters should resist the temptation to vote no out of frustration and instead should approve it after taking a moment to understand what they're being asked to support and why. First, a word on how Proposition 40 came to be on the ballot.
October 29, 2012 |
Much has been made of the wording in Proposition 37 about processed foods and the word “natural.” Although the intent seems clear, that the provision was meant to keep only genetically engineered food from carrying the “natural” label, the construction of the initiative is a little sloppy, and the state Legislative Analyst has said that the courts could interpret it to cover any processed food, including olive oil, dried fruit or canned tomatoes....