95.8 F
Davis

Davis, California

Wednesday, September 22, 2021

Measures and propositions on the Nov. 6 ballot

The election this November has a number of decisive measures and propositions on the ballot. The Aggie summarized the four measures and 11 propositions on the Nov. 6 ballot to inform voters of what to expect.

“As far as I’m concerned, the most important thing to keep in mind is that your vote counts. You should go to the polling place and cast a ballot,” said Freddie Oakley, Yolo County Clerk/Recorder from the Yolo County elections office.

The details on the measures were compiled from Ballotpedia.org, and information on the propositions was collected from the California General Election Voter Guide. More facts on each can be found at voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions.

Proposition 30
Prop. 30 is Gov. Jerry Brown’s tax initiative to fund education. It aims to increase taxes on earnings over $250,000 for seven years and the sales tax by a quarter cent for four years. The money would be used for schools and public safety realignment funding.
The impact would increase tax revenues through 2018-19, with an average of about $6 billion annually. Planned cuts to education in 2012-13 would not occur. If the proposition is denied, major cuts to public education will take place and there would be no increase in taxes.

Proposition 31
Prop. 31 would establish a two-year state budget. It would change certain fiscal responsibilities of the legislature and governor, particularly local budgeting and oversight procedures. Additionally, local governments would be able to change the application of laws governing state-funded programs in order to develop their own procedures for developing state programs.

A No vote on the proposition means that the responsibilities of the governor and legislature will not change. Local governments would not be given funding for new plans to coordinate services or the authority to develop their own procedures for administering state programs.

Proposition 32
Voting Yes on Prop. 32 would prohibit unions and corporations from using money deducted from a worker’s paycheck for political purposes. They would be subject to additional campaign finance restrictions. It would prohibit union and corporate contributions to candidates and their committees, and contractor contributions to elected officers and their committees.

The measure would cost the state and local governments about $1 million annually to enforce the requirements. A No vote would mean the existing laws would not be altered.

Proposition 33
This proposition would change the law to allow auto insurance companies to set prices based on drivers’ previous auto insurance with any company. Drivers with history of prior coverage are allowed a proportional discount, while those with no history of previous coverage would have increased costs.

Proposition 34
Prop. 34 repeals the death penalty and replaces it with life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. It applies to existing death sentences. Additionally, it would give about $100 million to law enforcement agencies over the next four years for investigations of homicide and rape cases.
The fiscal impact would be savings of about $130 million annually, within a few years, but this could vary.

Proposition 35
This proposition increases penalties for human trafficking crimes. Offenders would have increased prison sentences and fines. It would also require human traffickers to register as sex offenders, and release all of their internet activities and identities.

It would cost local and state governments a few million dollars annually to address human trafficking crimes and an annual fine revenue of a similar amount, which would be dedicated to human trafficking victims.

Proposition 36
Prop. 36 revises the Three Strikes law to impose a life sentence only if the new felony is violent or serious. Those with two previous violent or serious felonies who commit non-serious, non-violent crimes would be given shorter prison terms. It would revise existing sentences for those who are serving life sentences for non-serious or non-violent crimes, and they would have shorter prison terms.
It is expected to save the state about $70 million annually, with even greater savings over the next decade.

Proposition 37
Prop. 37 would require companies to label food made from plants or animals with genetically modified materials. It would not allow those foods or other processed food to be labeled as natural.

There would be some increased costs to the state to regulate the labeling of genetically modified food and governmental costs to deal with violations of the measure.

Proposition 38
Prop. 38 would increase taxes on earnings using a sliding scale, for 12 years. The revenue would go to K-12 schools and early childhood programs, such as childcare and preschools. For the first four years, it would also go toward repaying debt.

Estimates say it would raise about $10 billion annually in the initial years.

Proposition 39
Prop. 39 will require multistate businesses to pay income taxes based on their percentage of sales in California. Multistate businesses would no longer be able to determine their own method of calculating their state taxable income that favors their own interests. About half the revenue would be dedicated to clean and efficient energy projects. The other half would go to schools. Revenues of about $1 billion annually are predicted.

Proposition 40
This proposition allows voters to approve or deny the new State Senate districts drawn by the California Citizens Redistricting Commission. A Yes vote would approve the new boundaries, while a No vote would reject them. If the proposition is rejected, the California Supreme Court would appoint officials to adjust the districts.

Measure E
Measure E is the Davis Joint Unified School District parcel tax and, if passed, will allow a parcel tax of $204 to continue for four more years. Additionally, if Prop. 30 is defeated, the measure will allow the district to levy another parcel tax of $242 per year.

According to Ballotpedia, this measure needs a two-thirds majority to pass. The outcome of this measure will be particularly important for how the candidates elected for the Davis School Board deal with continuing budget cuts.

Measure G
The City of West Sacramento will be affected by the outcome of Measure G. If passed, the money the city received from the dissolution of its redevelopment agency will be used to fund  community projects like streets, bridges, transportation, parks and public infrastructure.

Measure H
Measure H deals with efforts to create a more stable financial department for Yolo County. It will consolidate the offices of auditor, controller, tax collector, and treasurer and other countywide fiscal functions under a single Department of Finance by appointing a Director of Finance.

Measure Q
Measure Q, a Solano Community College bond proposition, will allow the community college district to borrow $348 million if approved. Fairfield, Vacaville and Vallejo are the three main campuses in the district. A 55 percent majority is needed for it to pass.

“This measure will help ensure that the college can continue to provide high-quality, affordable college options for students, active military and local veterans,” said Jowel Laguerre, the superintendent and president of the college.

PAAYAL ZAVERI can be reached at city@theaggie.org.

4 COMMENTS

  1. Prop. 34 proponents are perpetuating a huge FRAUD against California voters, knowing that with the millions of out-of-state dollars they can repeat their lies enough times that voters will begin to accept them. A Study by Judicial Watch concludes that Prop. 34 is “both disingenuous and deceptive.” Three former CA governors and every major law enforcement group in CA OPPOSE Pro. 34.

    Pro. 34 is dangerous, will cost taxpayers more, and was poorly thought through.

    Prop. 34 will NOT save money, but instead COST TAXPAYERS BILLIONS of dollars more in additional trials, prison changes, and escalating health care costs.

    Claims that Prop. 34 will save money are based upon a paper written by a former judge who has been advocating for abolishing the death penalty for decades (biased and inaccurate). A review of these numbers by the Legislative Analyst’s Office concludes that the assumptions supporting these claimed savings “may well be wrong.” Michael Genest, former State Of California Finance Director, found that these “savings claims are grossly exaggerated.” Also, the loss of the threat of the death penalty will substantially increase the total number of murder trials by taking away a major incentive for murderers to plead guilty.

    Prop. 34 ignores the escalating costs of medical care for life-time inmates. Prop. 34 will cost CA taxpayers billions more over the next several years. (It is these huge medical costs that are fueling the attack on life sentences under 3-strikes under Prop. 36.)

    Prop. 34 is DANGEROUS. Experts conclude that Pro. 34 will increase the number of murders in California. Criminals will be more brazen in their crimes without the death penalty. Also, there will be no deterrent for the 34,000 inmates already serving life from killing a guard or an inmate. They are already serving the maximum penalty.

    One of the key methods for “saving” money under Prop. 34 is to move death row inmates into the general population and house them from single-person cells with other inmates. One strong proponent of Prop. 34 admits this is unworkable– the risk of danger posed by mixing the prison population is too great, and would increase costs associated with such an arrangement.

    Life without parole is means they WILL GET OUT. Efforts are already being pursued by the same people supporting anti-punishment ballots and legislation to get rid of life sentences. (Human Rights Watch, Old Behind Bars, 2012.) On 9/30/12, Brown passed the first step, signing a bill to allow 309 inmates with life sentences for murder to be paroled after serving 25 years. Someone who has committed a brutal murder at age 20 could get out by age 45! Governors are also notorious for releasing inmates who should never be released. Convicted killers get out and kill again, such as Darryl Thomas Kemp, Kenneth Allen McDuff, and Bennie Demps.

    ARGUMENTS OF INNOCENCE BOGUS. Proponents can’t identify one innocent person executed in CA. They can’t identify one person on CA’s death row who has exhausted his appeals and has a plausible claim of innocence. Quite simply, CA’s appellate process, designed by the very same people promoting Prop. 34, is 100% effective in weeding out the innocent. Every person Prop. 34 proponents refer to are either non-death-penalty cases or out-of-state cases where defendants do not get the benefit of CA’s appellate process.

    Don’t get fooled by the bombardment of lies. See cadeathpenalty.webs. com and voteno34. org for more facts explaining why you should NOT SUPPORT Prop. 34.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here