By Donna Beth Weilenman
Staff Reporter

Editor’s note: This second of a series of stories on the Nov. 6 general election, examines Propositions 35 through 40. Subsequent stories will look at various political office races.

Among the decisions facing voters Nov. 6 are multiple propositions on such varied issues as human trafficking, California’s “three strikes” conviction penalties, how food should be labeled, several tax issues and the new State Senate boundaries.

Voters are seeing these propositions because enough Californians signed petitions to get them on the ballot.

Proposition 35

Proposition 35 would increase prison sentences for convictions of human trafficking, making them more comparable to federal terms.

Labor trafficking sentencing would increase from the current five to 12 years; for forced sex trafficking of an adult, from the current five to 20 years; and for the forced sex trafficing of a minor, from the current eight years to a life term, said California Secretary of State Debra Bowen in her prepared voters guide for the Nov. 6 election

Conviction of sex trafficking of a minor without force, which previously has not been defined as sex trafficking and has had widely varying sentences, would draw a penalty of 12 years.

It also would increase fines for human trafficking convictions, Bowen said.

In addition, it would require those convicted of human trafficking to register as sex offenders, and mandate that all sex offenders disclose their Internet activities and identities. it would require law enforcement training on human trafficking.

Bowen said if the measure passes, it would cost the state and local governments a few million dollars to handle dealing with those offenses, although there is a potential for additional revenue through fines that would be dedicated to human trafficking victims.

If it passes, she said, it would mean longer sentences and steeper fines for those convicted of the crime; if it fails, existing penalties would stay in effect.

Those favoring Prop. 35 contend the measure would prevent sexual exploitation of children, explaining that human traffickers force women and children into prostitution on both streets and online.They cite the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s statement that California has three of the 13 highest child sex trafficking areas in the United States: San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego. They also say it would improve Megan’s Law against online predators.

Opponents counter that it would threaten innocent people who might receive benefits from those willingly providing erotic services.

Calling it short-sighted, they contend its real purpose is to gain access to asset forfeiture to help law enforcement agencies and non-profit agencies, and to force sex workers out of business.

The Erotic Service Provider Legal, Educational and Research Project, a non-profit organization, has said it would give state and local authorities greater opportunity to harass consensual sex workers, and would imprison those convicted of victimless crimes.

The opponents predict it would lead to corrupt practices comparable to those seen in drug enforcement. They suggest the measure would face court challenges, and suggest the state instead address the issue of criminalization of prostitution.

Multiple members of the California Senate and Assembly, as well as U.S. Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, and U.S. Reps. Janice Hahn and Jackie Speier are endorsing Prop. 35.

Many members of California local governments also have stated they favor the measure, as have both the Democratic and Republican parties, and city chapters of other parties. Dozens of law enforcement agencies, non-profit organizations, education groups, churches and other faith-based groups have joined them. Acress Jada Pinkett Smith and child safety advocates John Walsh and Marc Klaas also favor the proposition.

Opponents of Prop. 35 include the California Council of Churches, the Asian Pacific Islander Legal Outreach and Community Solutions, San Francisco Rising, Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club, the Bernal Heights Democratic Club, the California Association for Criminal Justice and the Peace and Freedom Party.

Proposition 36

This proposition would revise California law that currently states that offenders with two prior serious or violent felony convictions who commit any new felony receive life sentences, popularly called the “three strikes” law.

If Proposition 36 is approved, Bowen said, those whose third felony conviction was not for a serious or violent crime could be re-senteneced to shorter prison times. The change would save the state about $70 million or more annually in correction expenditures.

Should the measure fail, those who have been convicted of three felonies would serve the remainder of their life sentences, and those with two prior serious or violent felony convictions would be sentenced to life in prison if they are convicted of any new felony.

Advocates say the proposition restores the original focus of the law, which was on violent criminals, who would still get life in prison if their third felony conviction is for a serious or violent crime, such as murder or rape.

However, nonviolent offenders would get twice the normal sentence, but not necessarily life in prison, they say.

Opponents worry that Prop. 36 would release dangerous criminals from prison even though they originally were sentenced to life terms. They say the proposition would remove some of the supervision of those released.

Many favoring Prop. 36 are current or former prosecutors, including District Attorney George Gascon of San Francisco. Among the dozens of advocates are law enforcement officials, including the current and former chiefs of police, of Los Angeles, Charlie Beck, and Bill Bratton.

Almost 20 elected officials, several civil rights organizations, labor organizations and other groups also have favored the proposition.

Among those opposing Prop. 36 are California’s Police Chiefs, State Sheriff’s and District Attorneys associations, more than a dozen individual law enforcement associations and the Peace Officers Research Association of California.

Among the victim rights advocates opposed to the proposition are Henry Nicholas III, who wrote the state’s Victims Bill of Rights, Crime Victimes United of California, Crime Victim Action Alliance, Citizens Against Homicide and the Klaas Kids Foundation.

Proposition 37

Proposition 37 would require new labeling of food made of plants or animals with genetic material that has been changed in certain ways, and would prevent labeling that food and other processed food as “natural.”

It also would list foods that would be exempt from such labeling requirements.

Bowen said if the change takes place, it could cost California from a few hundred thousand dollars to more than $1 million to regulate labeling of genetically engineered foods and address violations.

Should the measure pass, she said, foods sold in California would bear specific labels if they are genetically engineered. If it fails, genetically engineered foods would not have specific labeling requirements.

Under the proposition, raw foods, processed foods would be labeled, and retailers would be responsible for complying with the measure. They would need to show documentation why a food shouldn’t need the label. In some cases, farmers and manufacturers also would be responsible for keeping such records.

Exceptions are made for alcoholic beverages, organic foods, restaurant food and food prepared to be eaten immediately, as well as animal products not directly produced through genetic engineering, even if the slaughtered animal had been fed genetically engineered crops.

Proponents say consumers would be provided the right to know what is in the food they eat, as is done in more than 40 other nations, and would let them be more informed about what they purchase.

They point out federal law doesn’t require the regulation of genetically engineered food unless they’re shown to cause harm to other plants, although the U. S. Food and Drug Administration is responsible for making sure most foods and additives are safe and labeled properly.

Opponents say the exemptions would exclude two-thirds of the food Californians eat, including foods produced by corporations that are funding the pro-Prop. 37 campaign.

They say the proposition would create another level of government bureaucracy that would be detrimental to farmers, small businesses and would increase grocery bills.

Among the hundreds endorsing Prop. 37 are consumer organizations, agencies and foundations that advocate for those with allergies, autism and breast cancer; the National Heath Federation and the Independent Natural Food Retailers Association; 20 food safety organizations, including the Californians for Pesticide Reform, the Rodale Institute and several against genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

Other advocates are government officials, health officials and companies, dozens of food and wine producers, including Clif Bar and Company, Annie’s, Amy’s Kitchen, Humboldt Hot Sauce, Numi Organic Tea, Stonyfield Farm, St. Helena Olive Company, and dozens of retailers and restaurants, including Chipotle Mexican Grill, El Cerrito Natural Grocery Company, Whole Foods and many smaller markets and restaurants.

Also on board are many farmers markets and cooperatives, labor groups, ocean advocates, farming organizations, stables and dietary advocacy groups.

Those opposed to Prop. 37 are a lengthy list, too, including American, California and many local levels of the Farm Bureau Federation.

Also against the proposition are the Agricultural Council of California, Agricultural Retailers Association, California Women for Agriculture, and associations specializing in meat, seed trade, and specific crops.

Many chapters of the NAACP also oppose the measure, as do multiple other ethnic associations and Chambers of Commerce that represent various cities’ Latino and Hispanic, Caribbean, Chinese, African-American, Slavic and Vietnamese business operators.

Opponents also include the Neighborhood Market Association, California Independent Grocers Association, California Grocers Association, Food Marketing Institute, Payless Foods, Consumer Healthcare Products Association, American Healthcare Products Association, Biotechnology Industry Organization, BayBio, dozens of municipal Chambers of Commerce, and food and beverage companies and organizations, including the American Bakers Association, American Beverage Association and Pet Food Institute.

Proposition 38

This proposition would increase taxes for 12 years to raise money for kindergarten through 12th grade schools and early childhood programs, and for four years to repay state debt.

The sliding scale taxes are expected to raise about $10 billion annually in initial years, and would increase later, Bowen said.

If the proposition passes, the taxes would be increases in state personal income taxes. If it’s defeated, the state incometax would remain at current levels, and no additional money would be available for either those school grades or for state debt payments, she said.

Should both this and Proposition 30 pass, preference in resolving conflicts between the two would be given to the proposition that gets more “yes” votes, Bowen said.

Proponents say the measure would make schools a priority, and would guarantee new funding for each pupil in public schools as well as to restore budget cuts and improve students’ performance in schools.

They say it also would prevent the state government from touching school money, and that decisions on how the money is spent would remain at the local level, monitored through independent audits.

Those in opposition worry that taxes will be imposed on those earning as little as $17,346 in annual taxable income, and that there are no requirements for measuring student performance included in the proposition.

They say nothing in the measure would be changed even in cases of fraud, and they are concerned it would impact small businesses and jobs.

Those endorsing Prop. 38 include 30 school districts and county offices of education, including the Solano County Office of Education and Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District.

Also in favor are such organizations as Children NOW, Municipal Financial Adivsors and the Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry Action Network; a dozen education and community leaders, and the current and past state Superintendents of Public Instruction, Tom Torlakson and Delaine Eastin.

Opponents include those who favor Prop. 30 instead, as well as Allan Zaremberg, president of the California Chamber of Commerce, Ken Williams of the Orange County Board of Education, Thomas Hudson, economic director of the California Taxpayer Protection Committee, Keith Royal, president of the California State Sheriff’s Association, and both the California Republican and Democratic parties.

Proposition 39

The third tax measure on the ballot, Proposition 39 would require multistate businesses to pay income taxes based on a percentage of their sales in California, and would dedicate those revenues for five years to clean or efficient energy projects.

Bowen said the measure would increase state revenues by $1 billion each year, with half earmarked for energy efficiency projects at public schools, colleges, universities and other public sites.

It would provide financial and technical assistance for energy retrofits, and energy efficiency and alternative energy job training and workforce development programs.

She said passage of Prop. 39 would mean multistate businesses no longer would choose the way to determine their state taxable income, and would have their taxes based on in-state sales. Some would pay more corporate income taxes under this proposition.

If it fails, she said, most multistate corporations would be able to choose which method they will calculate their California taxable income.

One method is based on the location of the company’s sales, property and employees and the percentage of those in California. The other method uses only the location of the company’s sales and what percentage of them take place here.

Advocates, who call it the Clean Energy Jobs Act, say the proposition would close a tax loophole that lets out of state corporations avoid taxes by keeping jobs out of California, as well as providing another $1 billion to the state that would be split between job-creating energy efficient projects at schools and for deficit reduction.

Opponents say the measure would raise taxes on companies that create tens of thousands of California jobs, and they question whether the state government would be held accountable for the money the measure promises to raise.

Instead of reducing California’s debt, opponents say it would make matters worse, because it repeals a law that has brought money into California, and adds another layer of bureaucracy to state government.

Endorsers of Prop. 39 include Tom Steyer, cofounder of CaliforniaOne Bank and founder of Farallon Capital management, and with Warren Buffett and Bill Gates signed “The Giving Pledge,” and former Secretary of State George P. Shultz.

Others favoring the proposition include the California Tax Reform Association, the Green Chamber of Commerce, several other Chambers of Commerce and business councils, the American Lung Association of California, California Nurses Association and the California Pan-Ethnic Health Network, a half-dozen seniors groups, four education groups, dozens of labor organizations, environmental and conservation groups, and representatives of political, faith-based and public agencies.

No formal fundraising committees have been formed to oppose this proposition, but those who have spoken against Prop. 39 are Jack Stewart, president of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association; Mike Spence, president of California Taxpayer Protection Committee, a state mail publisher, and Lew Uhler, president of the National Tax Limitation Committee, also a state mail publisher.

Proposition 40

This proposition would approve the new State Senate districts drawn by the Citizens Redistricting Commission, Bowen said. If it is rejected, the districts drawn by the citizen commission would be adjusted by officials supervised by the California Supreme Court, and cost the state and its counties about $1 million.

Those favoring Prop. 40 say it would protect the maps drawn by a voter-approved, independent Citizens Redistricting Commission, and upholds the voters’ decision to keep politics out of the redistricting process, required after each national census to adjust for population changes.

Those who initially opposed Prop. 40 have said they sought to overturn the Senate district maps, but have withdrawn their opposition based on a California Supreme Court ruling that keeps the lines in place for 2012.