Progressive Voter Guide for November 2012 Ballot Propositions


Posted on 02 November 2012

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionSend by emailSend by email

 

Click here to download California Progress Report's voter guide to Ballot Propositions appearing in the November 6, 2012 election. The voter guide lists the recommendations of several leading statewide progressive organizations, along with a quick summary of each proposition.

The Longer List

Here is a more extensive listing of major statewide progressive endorsements:

Proposition 30: Temporary School Funding
Support: California Alliance of Retired Americans, California Democratic Party, California Federation of Teachers, California Labor Federation, California Nurses Association, Consumer Federation of California
Oppose: No major progressive organizations

Proposition 31: Cuts Education Funding
Support: No major progressive organizations
Oppose: California Alliance of Retired Americans, California Democratic Party, California Federation of Teachers, California Labor Federation, California League of Conservation Voters, California Nurses Association, National Organization for Women - California

Proposition 32: Corporate SuperPAC Exemption
Support: No major progressive organizations
Oppose: California Alliance of Retired Americans, California Democratic Party, California Federation of Teachers, California Labor Federation, California League of Conservation Voters, California Nurses Association, Consumer Federation of California, National Organization for Women - California

Proposition 33: Good Driver Rate Hike
Support: No major progressive organizations
Oppose: California Alliance of Retired Americans, California Democratic Party, California Federation of Teachers, California Labor Federation, California Nurses Association, Consumer Federation of California, National Organization for Women - California

Proposition 34: Ends Death Penalty
Support: California Alliance of Retired Americans, California Democratic Party, California Federation of Teachers, California Labor Federation, California Nurses Association, National Organization for Women - California
Oppose: No major progressive organizations

Proposition 35: Curbs Human Trafficking
Support: California Alliance of Retired Americans, California Democratic Party, California Federation of Teachers, California Labor Federation, California Nurses Association, National Organization for Women - California
Oppose: No major progressive organizations

Proposition 36: Changes Three-Strikes Law
Support: California Alliance of Retired Americans, California Democratic Party, California Federation of Teachers, California Labor Federation, California League of Conservation Voters, California Nurses Association, Consumer Federation of California, National Organization for Women - California
Oppose: No major progressive organizations

Proposition 37: Requires Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food
Support: California Alliance of Retired Americans, California Democratic Party, California Federation of Teachers, California Labor Federation, California Nurses Association, National Organization for Women - California
Oppose: No major progressive organizations

Proposition 38: Taxes the Poor and Middle Class
Support: No major progressive organizations
Oppose: California Alliance of Retired Americans, California Democratic Party, California Labor Federation, California Nurses Association

Proposition 39: Closes Corporate Tax Loophole for Out-of-State Corporations
Support: California Alliance of Retired Americans, California Federation of Teachers, California Labor Federation, California League of Conservation Voters, California Nurses Association

Proposition 40: Approves New Senate Districts
Support: California Alliance of Retired Americans, California Democratic Party, California Federation of Teachers, California Labor Federation, California Nurses Association, National Organization for Women - California
Oppose: No major progressive organizations

Correction: As pointed out by our readers, the California Nurses Association has endorsed a YES vote on Proposition 39. California Progress Report apologizes for the error.


No, no, no on Proposition 35. It panders to the same people who supported Prop. 83, the mean-spirited and ill-conceived measure, recently overturned by the California Appellate Court. The Court ruled that provisions prohibiting sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a park or school, which have thrown hundreds of Californians into permanent homelessness, are “oppressive” and “unreasonable”. The broad definition of "Commercial sex act" in Prop. 35 means that a 19 year old could be forced to register as a sex offender for taking an 18 year old to the movies! Prop 35 is an overly broad measure that would expand the application of Prop. 83. Mark Leno and Don were among the only elected officials to oppose Prop. 83, the application of which would be expanded by passage of Prop. 35. Go to http://esplerp.org/no-on-prop-35/ to see why Leno, Ammiano, the ACLU and others also oppose Prop. 35. Extremely disappointing that the Democratic Party decided to fall in line with the supporters and didn't have the backbone to join those who read the details. No true progressive should be supporting this unnecessary and draconian measure.

Simply put, the primary "target" of this proposition will be the women on the street, not the pimps/traffickers.

"unnecessary"? Why, are you in trafficking? Looks like it.

Funding is the act of providing resources, usually in form of money, or other values such as effort or time for a project, a person, a business or any other private or public institutions. The process of soliciting and gathering fund is known as fundraising. Chiropractor Portland

ACLU isn't a major progressive organization? They oppose 35, as does the Council of Churches, which does a lot of work with victims of human trafficking. Also take a look at http://noonprop35.wordpress.com for a set of essays outlining many reasons to vote NO. This is an area which has been addressed well by the Legislature,, and amendments should not be made through a poorly written initiative. With all due respect to my fellow progressives, I don't think you did your homework.

Thank you for pointing this very informative website out. I must admit I too did not do enough research on this issue and thought the endorsement of YES from many progressive voter guides (Planned Parenthood, green party) made it an obvious YES for me. I'm concerned that these very important organizations have not looked more deeply into this propositions unintended consequences. Thanks again for your comment. I posted the website on my facebook. I hope its not to late to get my fellow progressives to take a second look.

Vote "no" on all (state, local) tax measures.Until government entities can prove they need more money, vote "no." Prop 31 is a good beginnng for reasonable budget-making. Vote "yes" on #32 to stop unions from using unwillng members' dues to support candidates who then vote them benefits

Your grammar is the proof you seek. Public schools cannot sustain any more cuts. Yes on 30!!

Prop 32 is a thinly-disguised effort by large corporations to neutralize labor unions' political advocacy, leaving ALL the corporate big money in politics to stand unchallenged!

Nobody trust this one. It's a corporate paid troll. A professional LIAR! He is here to trick us!

Great job, CPR. With the exception of 35 I happened to follow this guide already. Curious as to why CNA opposes Prop 39? The thing about Prop 39 is Dems agreed to the loopholes it addresses in a 2009 deal in exchange for Republican votes on temporary tax hikes. If those tax hikes are going to expire, so should the loopholes.

And 35...it will create an entirely new class of "sex offenders" who aren't really sex offenders. That is not in the spirit of the Megan's Law database. And the screen name component? That seems nearly impossible to enforce, yet it would divert $$ and attention from other things.

I think we can all agree that everyone opposes sex trafficking. So 35 troubles me. It doesn't go after traffickers, it heaps extra penalties (some unenforceable) on the ones already convicted - not exactly a group anyone has been coddling. Propositions that don't help usually hurt, often through unintended consequences. This one costs money and diverts resources, but I'm unconvinced women and children gain meaningful protection.

The voter guide is wrong on CNA - which obviously supports 39. Please correct this error in your guide ASAP.

that has been fixed. thanks.

http://youtu.be/N0fOZgBaY1M

Watch this,I think our Governor is loosing it.

...I think you are "loosing" the argument here.

Also, that big, long button at the bottom of the keyboard? It's called a 'space' bar. You should try using it sometime...'bot.

Thanks for the guide and for the comments, especially on prop 35!

Due to years of dysfunctional governance, declining revenues, government overreach, deluded voters and demographics, I believe any chance for California to remain a liberal democratic republic is well lost. Nonetheless here are my analyses for three types of voters along with my recommendations, my vote and annotations subject to my knowledge and what I like to call "posting fatigue".

If you are a voter that holds out hope, or hopes there is hope, for effective governance in California,I'll call you "There's hope?" my recommendation for you is marked by "TH?".

If you are content to continue on the path of that last 20 years, or so, or about the time term limits became effective (a coincidence, I'm sure), I'll call you "We don't need no water", marked "LMB".

If you actively seek and welcome the coming crash and hope to see California rise from the ashes, like, with a nod to our eastern neighbour, a Phoenix, you are "I'll bring gasoline" "IBG".

Prop 30 Taxes everyone and gives the money to the legislature to do anything they want with it.

Its proponents are lying to you. {Proposed Article XIII §36(5)(e)(1)}, They scammed the ballot proposition order to make it the first thing the ninnies who show up only every four years will see. They've already spent the money, that was supposed to go for education, elsewhere and thereby held education hostage. And now they want to take more money from you, temporarily, of course.

TH?: No. A yes vote only ratifies their mendacity
LMB: No. Things will continue as they have been, you will be able to keep some more of your earnings in the short term.
IBG: Sure, Yes, Why not.

I voted yes as my gal is a teacher and I'd like to believe they'll backfill STRS.

Prop 31 A bunch of moderate sounding "good government" reforms. This had a lot of words I didn't understand.

TH?: Yes, why not?
LMB: What?
IBG: No, a 'No" vote probably marginally hastens the crash.

I voted yes. I am not sure why.

Prop 32 Purports to do a bunch of things barred under Citizens United leaving the only severable part of note the issue of whether you have to affirmatively give permission to your union to spend your money on things you may not otherwise wish it to be spending.

TH?: Yes, though an argument could be made about the proponents' mendacity insofar as they applaud Citizens United and dress this up with language that won't pass constitutional muster under it.
LMB: Vote your conscience, probably, No
IBG: Hell No! This won't help

This one raises interesting freedom of association and threats in the work place issues. I voted no as its defeat guarantees more jobs in my chosen vocation.

Prop 33 Removes barriers to private contracts

TH?: Yes
LMB: Yes, it'll probably help you, again, short term.
IBG: It doesn't really matter.

I voted yes. I prize economic liberty.

Prop 34 Ends the death penalty. Converts existing death sentences. Saves money?

TH?: Yes, it is a near political impossibility to execute someone in California anyway
LMB: No, you're happy with the status quo.
IBG: No way, Jose.

I voted yes.

35 The cop lobby "expanding" the definition of sex crimes.

TH?: No, if you hold out hope, you can not side with the cop lobby.
LMB: Yes, the cop lobby is part of the problem. Oh, and by the way, there aren't that many fires anymore. Do you know what firemen do? Do you know how many people they send to attend to someone gorking out at a dialysis clinic? I do.
IBG: Yes.

I voted no.

Prop 36 Third strike must be a violent felony with some suspect classifications of what "violent" means.

TH?: Yes. Makes sense.
LMB: Nope.
IBG: This is a tough one, on one hand, three strikes is in need of reform. Not reforming will continue to cause problems. I just don't know how or how much. On the other, a lotta dangerous dudes are going to be sprung and that can only hasten the demise. Lean yes, but you are on your own.

I sided with hope, yes.

I'm getting that posting fatigue

Prop 37 Requires labeling on genetically modified foods.

TH?: This is a feel-good, I know better than you, anti-science, full employment for lawyers, and do you know why California has higher gas and egg prices than the free world, measure. Vote no.
LMB: Yes, par for the California course.
IBG: Yes, this will help... a little

I voted no. I am tired of reading the prop 65 warnings EVERYWHERE.

Prop 38 More money from everyone, more than prop 30, but this money actually goes to schools.

TH?: No.
LMB: No, see prop 30
IBG: Yes, enthusiastically.

I voted no.

Prop 39 Taxes people who aren't here with a green energy slush fund thrown in

TH?: No. Why won't they see what they're doing? Were they even paying attention James Pierce's Econ 110 class at Cal?
LMB: Sure, it's going to happen anyway.
IBG: Big yes.

No for me, mostly from ballot fatigue and it's what Milt would have wanted.

Prop 40 Something the Republicans dreamed up and abandoned

TH?: Hunh?
LMB: Hunh?
IBG: Everybody wants a "Yes" and it is at the end of a tedious ballot, so I'll bet "No" wins. Go ahead, throw that monkey wrench. I did.

This is cross-posted

Thanks for taking the time to post all of your thoughts. However, regarding Proposition 33, you are mistaken. Removes barrier to private contracts? Surely you do not think the "contract" that exists between you and your auto insurance carrier is anything more than a contract of adhesion presented in a highly regulated marketplace and devoid of ANY negotiation on your part. Either way, Prop 33 is not about contracts. I almost wish to use my magic comment moderating powers to amend your brief description, because it is so wrong.

Prop 33 is about allowing a new rating factor into the formula insurance companies use to set rates, one that is not currently allowed because it is not linked to your likelihood of filing a claim: prior coverage or a lapse in coverage.

Recuperating from a major surgery and not driving for 90 or more days (like this woman's story) Rates go up.
Lost your job and suspended coverage until you were commuting again? Rates go up.
Disabled veteran getting back behind the wheel after a period of 18 months or more of not needing coverage? Rates go up.
Recent grad just now needing a car? Rates go up.
Used mass transit/Zip Car and now living in the 'burbs or working in a new place that requires a car commute? Rates go up.

And part three is citation by anecdote.

But, thanks for the comments. You make a good point. Is it fair to say a minor regulatory reform will indeed be removing a barrier to contract, when, in a regulated business that provides a service that the regulating body requires the customer to purchase, there can be any true contract that isn't an adhesion contract? Strictly, yes...practically, no.

As to paragraph II, I'll dissent. However, my dissent is based on an assumption that your assertion that lapses in coverage are not positively correlated to risk and thus continuous coverage is would not correlate with reduced risk, to be without merit. Intuitively, I believe my assumption, to be correct. Indeed, prop 33 would allow the carriers to seek business, to the benefit of a lower risk driver. You are smart enough to recognise confounding factors in each of your examples, factors that carriers are not presently equipped to measure, that would lead to increased risk. A simple example is Nan Brasmer. She is the woman in your first case. I'm less worried about her lapses than about her infirmities and pharmacological regimen.

I concede your point on my summary, but stick with my alternative endorsements.

Thanks for the civility.

Lapses in coverage are not correlated with higher risk of claim or accident. It is not an assumption on my part. It is an actuarial fact. If insurance companies were able to prove lapses in coverage are correlated with such a risk, under the current approval system, they would be allowed to use it as a rating factor. There are 3 main factors on which automobile insurance rates are based:

1. accident and ticket history
2. number of miles driven each year
3. number of years licensed

Other factors (marital status, gender, occupation) have been allowed because they have been proven to have a relationship with risk. Insurers view people who let their coverage lapse as increased risks, and love to charge more in states that allow it. But viewing and proving are two different things and they have not been able to prove it to California's insurance commissioner and get the rate increases they want. The solution? George Joseph has one for ya: Prop 17 and now Prop 33.

George Joseph, the billionaire chairman of Mercury, a company with a less than savory reputation. He has poured $16 million dollars into this campaign, admitting to the LA Times he believes the "proper rate" for the newly insured is "much higher" than what he can charge now.

And the "persistency discount" they claim you should own? It is very small and based on the fact that a company who already has you does not need to advertise to you, and it is most certainly not a rating factor.

Besides the fact that the yes on campaign is based on lies (creating a new rating factor vs "owning your discount"), I don't trust its main backer. Why would a billionaire dump $16 million of his own money into a campaign to save ME money? Because he knows he'll get a return on his investment if this passes. You don't get the kind of return he must be imagining by saving people money. And by the way, the entire auto insurance industry is not jumping up and down behind this initiative as one might think. Most of them are indifferent. Sure, Mercury hopes to poach a few of their customers despite its mediocre customer service, but the real draw is being able to charge more to the new/lapsed insureds market.

And there is my novel. To all readers -- vote NO on Prop 33! Be sure to read this

Please consider voting no on 37.

"Right to know" sounds nice, and Monsanto is a great villian for good reason. However, the question is really "right to know what?" Genetic modification is a technique which is being used to do a wide variety of things. The potential harm from GMO really is no more substansial than the harm from new varieties of crops created by more traditional techniques... quite arguably it is less since GM techniques are more precise and there is a lot more testing and scrutiny. A "contains GMO" label really doesn't provide any useful info.

Labeling foods as "contains GMO" just feeds the fears of people who don't really know better (sorry, to sound a bit elite, but it is the truth). There are serious probelms with the way we grow food and the buisness practicies of companies like Monsanto... but these probelms have nothing to do with GMO. The labeling would just be a distraction and a windfall for industrialized 'organic farms' (which want to make the big food processors buy more of their products).

Oh, and there is nothing stopping the labeling of foods as "GMO free". It would be very easy for a trade organization to trademark a "certified GMO free" logo and only allow it to be used on products which meet their criteria. It would still be meaningless from a health standpoint, but it wouldn't require any sort of new laws.

--
The no on 35 case has been well made. We already have issues with "sex-offender" being way too broad and with mandatory sentancing in general. It isn't like actual human traffikers are getting off easy under current law.

You seem to be uninformed on this issue and the science behind it. We are not talking about selective pollination... we are talking about laboratory splicing of genes of one organism with some from another. pure frankinfoods that are against nature. Your body will have issues with these foods.
There have been no studies showing the safety of genetically modified products.. There has been studies in France however, showing what GMO corn can do to rats. Tumors, sterility etc..
You need to stop believing the lies from big money Agchem companies. Get educated...
You will see this issue again... Trust me.
If you truly want to be informed... go to geneticroulettemovie.com

To have a better chance of one of them passing, progressives should vote YES on PROP 30 and on PROP 38. If prop 30 is defeated, 38 will be the only chance of saving the California public schools. Please vote YES on BOTH; if both passes the one with the most votes will become law. If both fail, the public schools will be permanently ruined: no art, music, electives and drastic position cuts.

Seems fantastic guide really to calculate the data, I think it would be now accurate measurements. atradestation indicators