Propositions

The way it is now:
In preparing the current 2012-13 General Fund budget, state lawmakers could not cover the cost of programs with estimated revenue. To create additional revenue, lawmakers passed this year’s budget with a plan of asking voters to approve temporary tax increases. That plan is Prop 30. If voters do not approve Prop 30, then the budget has required “trigger cuts” of $6 billion, mainly to K-12 education, community colleges, and public universities.

What Prop 30 would do if it passes:
Make temporary increases in sales tax and personal income tax, mainly to pay for education programs. The sales tax would go up by ¼ cent (0.25%) for four years. For seven years, there would be higher income taxes on people with over $250,000 of taxable income per year and couples filing jointly with over $500,000 of taxable income per year. K-12 schools and community colleges would receive most of the revenue from these increases, with the rest going to help balance the state budget. Prop 30 would also require the state to continue to fund local public safety programs that were transferred to local government last year.

The way it is now:
Every year, state lawmakers and the Governor approve a budget for the General Fund that has to balance planned spending with expected revenue. When they pass laws during the year, they do not have to say where the money to pay for any new costs will come from.

What Prop 31 would do if it passes:
The state would plan and approve a budget every two years instead of every year. Lawmakers would have to find a way to pay for any new law that would call for more than $25 million per year in either spending or tax cuts. In financial emergencies, the Governor would have greater power to cut spending to balance the budget. Local governments (counties, cities, school districts, community college districts, and special districts) would set up new ways of coordinating to provide services, and Prop 31 would transfer some money from the state for that purpose.

The way it is now:
Many unions use funds they obtain from payroll deductions for political purposes. This includes contributions to campaigns for candidates, campaigns for ballot measures, or “independent expenditures” not directly coordinated with a campaign for a candidate or a ballot measure. Other than unions, not many corporations or other organizations obtain funds from payroll deductions to use for political purposes.

What Prop 32 would do if it passes:
Prohibit any corporation, labor union, government contractor, or government employer from using payroll deductions for political purposes. Prop 32 would also prohibit any government contractor (including public sector labor unions) from making contributions to elected officials who play a role in awarding a contract to the contractor.

The way it is now:
In California, the price of car insurance is based on three main factors: 1) a driver’s safety record; 2) the number of miles driven each year; and 3) the number of years a person has been driving. Insurance companies are not allowed to use a driver’s history of insurance coverage as a factor in setting prices.

What Prop 33 would do if it passes:
Allow insurance companies to include a driver’s history of insurance coverage as a factor in setting prices. Insurance companies would be allowed to give discounts to new customers who had a history of continuous coverage with their former insurer. Insurance companies would also be allowed to increase prices for new customers who did not have continuous coverage.

The way it is now:
In California, some murder convictions can get sentences of either death, or life imprisonment with no chance of parole. Most death penalty cases last for decades. Prisoners on death row have much higher court and prison costs than people serving life sentences. Since 1978, when the death penalty was reinstated in California, 900 individuals have received death sentences. Only 14 of them have been executed.

What Prop 34 would do if it passes:
End the death penalty, and make life imprisonment with no chance of parole the maximum punishment for murder. This change would apply to prisoners currently on death row. Prop 34 would also set up a new “SAFE California Fund,” providing a total of $100 million over 4 years for more police, sheriffs, and district attorneys to make faster progress on open murder and rape cases.

The way it is now:
State law defines “human trafficking” as forcing or misleading people into doing 1) labor or 2) sex acts for sale. Under state law, trafficking is punishable with up to five years in prison, or up to eight years if the victim is under age 18. If the victim suffers great injury, up to six more years can be added to the prison sentence.

What Prop 35 would do if it passes:
Expand the definition of trafficking to include crimes related to distributing obscene materials depicting a child. Prop 35 would also increase trafficking prison sentences up to 15-years-to-life, and trafficking fines up to $1.5 million. Fines collected would go to services for victims and to law enforcement. Under Prop 35, all sex offenders would have to provide information about their Internet activity.

The way it is now:
In 1994, California voters adopted a “three strikes” law that defines strict sentencing for a person’s third felony conviction. If a person has two violent or serious felony convictions, their sentence for any third felony conviction — not just violent or serious felonies — is life imprisonment with a minimum of 25 years before the possibility of parole.

What Prop 36 would do if it passes:
Reduce the sentencing for some third non-violent, non-serious felony convictions. Instead of life imprisonment with a minimum of 25 years before the possibility of parole, the sentence would be twice the usual prison term for that felony. Prop 36 would also allow those previously sentenced for a third non-violent, non-serious felony to apply for resentencing.

The way it is now:
“Genetic engineering” (GE) is a process of changing plants or animals so they behave differently. For example, common GE foods are corn or soybeans that have been changed to resist pests or tolerate pesticides. It is estimated that between 40% and 70% of food sold in California may contain GE ingredients. No current law specifically regulates GE foods, or requires identification of GE foods.

What Prop 37 would do if it passes:
Require food sold in California stores to have labels that say if it is made from GE plants or animals. The law would not apply to food served in restaurants and certain other foods.

The way it is now:
Under California’s personal income tax system, people with higher incomes pay a bigger percentage of tax on their income. State income tax rates range from 1% up to 9.3% for the highest income tax bracket. Personal income taxes are the largest source of revenue for the state’s General Fund, which provides most of California’s public school funding.

What Prop 38 would do if it passes:
Increase personal income tax rates on all but the lowest income tax bracket. Tax rates would increase by 0.4% up to 2.2% depending on income tax bracket. The highest income tax bracket would be at 11.5%. This tax increase would end in 2024. Initially, 60% of the increased revenues would go to schools, 10% to early childhood programs, and 30% to state debt payments. In 2015-16 and 2016-17, a higher share could be used for state debt payments, and after that, roughly 85% of the funds would go to schools and roughly 15% would go to early childhood programs.

The way it is now:
A “multistate” business is one that operates both in California and in other states or countries. The majority of California’s corporate income taxes come from multistate businesses. Current law gives these businesses a choice about which way they calculate how much tax they owe to the state. They can pay taxes based on the percentage of their total sales that are in California. But some choose a formula that also looks at employees and property out of the state, because then their taxes come out lower.

What Prop 39 would do if it passes:
Require multistate businesses to pay state income taxes based on the percentage of their total sales in California. For the first five years, half of the increased money coming into the state would be dedicated to projects that create energy efficiency and clean energy jobs.

The way it is now:
Each state lawmaker represents people who live in a specific district. Every 10 years after the U.S. census, the Citizens Redistricting Commission adjusts the maps for these districts to make sure each district has about the same number of people (a process called “redistricting”). The law says that these district maps can be challenged by a “referendum,” requiring voters to approve them. Enough signatures were gathered to challenge the current district maps for state Senators.

What Prop 40 would do if it passes:
A YES vote would approve the current state Senate district maps created and certified in 2011. A NO vote would reject the current maps, and court-appointed officials would be required to set temporary boundaries for use in future elections. Either way, there is no effect on the district boundaries for state Assembly, Board of Equalization, or representatives in Congress.