By Donna Beth Weilenman
Staff Reporter

Editor’s note: This first of a series of stories on the Nov. 6 general election, examines Propositions 30 through 34. Subsequent stories will look at Props. 35-40 and the political office races.

When Benicians go to the polls Nov. 6, or cast their vote-by-mail ballots before then, they’ll be deciding more than the Presidential and other political races.

They also will be giving their approval or disapproval to 11 propositions as well.

The first five concern issues of taxes, budgets, campaign contributions, automobile insurance pricing and the death penalty.

Proposition 30

Proposition 30, as described by those who put it on the ballot through petition signatures, would establish temporary, seven-year taxes, through 2018, on those earning more than $250,000 and increase sales taxes by a quarter cent for four years, through 2016, to raise money to raise money for schools.

It also would guarantee funding for public safety realignment, the policy of sending state prisoners convicted of non-violent crimes to county custody in order to achieve mandates issued by the United States Supreme Court.

The tax increases are expected to raise about $6 billion each year for the state budget, and would avert some of the state’s budget cuts, particularly directed at education programs, proponents have said.

According to Secretary of State Debra Bowen, if the ballot measure passes, it would let California increase personal income taxes for seven years on those making more than $250,000 a year, and increase the sales tax for four years.

Its defeat would prevent those tax increases from taking places, and state spending reductions would be effective for the 2012-13 budget.

Advocates of the proposition include Gov. Jerry Brown. He said it would prevent steep tuition hikes at colleges.

Multiple school districts have endorsed the proposition, including Solano Community College District, as have several law enforcement, business, health care, labor and community associations, including the League of Women Voters.

Opponents say the proposition raises $50 billion in higher sales and income taxes, but doesn’t guarantee the money would go to schools or increase funding for schools.

They have contended the proposition doesn’t reform schools, revise pension programs or reduce wasteful spending, but instead threatens small business and the jobs they provide.

Among those against Prop. 30 are multiple Chambers of Commerce, taxpayer associations and nearly 40 municipal and county level officials, including Solano County Supervisor Michael Reagan.

Also siding against the proposition are dozens of business owners, from recyclers, construction-related companies, employment services, retailers and farmers.

Also on the ballot is another proposition, 38, that would raise taxes for schools. This one would increase taxes on a sliding scale on earnings for 12 years, with the money to go to kindergarten through 12th grades, and early childhood programs, as well as for repaying state debt.

Should both propositions pass, conflicting portions would be resolved by the one getting the most “yes” votes prevailing, according to the California constitution, Bowen said.

Proposition 31

Proposition 31, on the ballot through petition signatures, is a Constitutional amendment initiative that would establish two-year state budgets, set rules for offsetting new expenditures and governor-instigated budget cuts in fiscal emergencies.

It would let local governments modify how laws governing state-funded programs are applied.

While it would decrease sales tax by $200 million each year, it would increase funding to local governments, Bowen described in the official voter information guide on the Nov. 6 ballot.

Should it pass, Bowen the measure would change some of the fiscal responsibilities, especially the budget and oversight procedures, of the governor and Legislature.
Local governments develop their procedures for administering state programs would get state funding to enact those plans.

If the measure fails, the oversight and budgeting jobs of both the governor and Legislature would not change, nor would local government get funding for or the authority to make new plans for administering state programs.

Advocates, including the political organization California Forward, contend the proposition would require legislators to say what funding would pay for new programs costing $25 million or more annually; require performance reviews; require printed copies of new bills be available to the public at least three days before a vote, unless the bill addresses disasters or emergency situations.

Under this Constitutional change, the governor could cut spending in a fiscal emergency if the Legislature doesn’t act. While the Legislature or state agencies would retain veto power, it would give local governments greater participation in the creation of required programs.

Opponents have called Prop. 31 a well-intended but flawed initiative with mandated changes that would make government operations more expensive. They question its pay-as-you-go approach to budgeting, and say it would shift $200 million away from education and other functions and toward experimental county programs.

They have said the changes would lead to lawsuits and confusion, and would threaten public health, the environment and future increases in spending for schools, while blocking tax cuts.

Among the advocates for Prop. 31 are State Sen. Lois Wolk (D-Davis) and Assembly member Kristin Olsen (R-Modesto). The proponent California Forward previously supported the top-two open primary and Citizens Redistricting Commission.

Opponents include the California League of Conservation Voters, the California Federation of Teachers and Peace Officers Research Association of California.

Proposition 32

In her voters’ guide, Bowen said this initiative, also put on the ballot by petition, concerns political contributions and would prohibit unions from using payroll-deducted funds for political purposes, and would apply the same use prohibitions to corporations and government contractors.

It also would prohibit unions and corporate donations to candidates or their committees, or donations by government contractors to elected officials or their committees. Bowen said the proposition would cost about $1 million annually to put in place and enforce.

She said if the measure passes, unions and corporations couldn’t use money deducted from employees’ paychecks for political purposes.
If it is defeated, she said, no changes would be made to current laws governing contributions.

Those in favor of the Prop. 32 say it would cut the money between special interests and politicians, so that any contribution to a political campaign would be strictly voluntary.

Those in opposition say the proposition exempts super political action committees (PACs) and other corporations for complying, while it would force the restrictions on employees and unions.

Advocates include the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Citizens for California Reform, Democrats for Education Reform, the National Federation of Independent Business-California, former U.S. Secretary of State George Schultz, Retired California Supreme Court Justice John Arguelles and multiple taxpayer organizations.

Among those opposing Prop. 32 are the League of Women Voters, labor organizations, educators, firefighters, school and health care employees.and California Common Cause.

Proposition 33

Bowen said this measure, put on the ballot through petition, would let insurance companies set prices based on whether a driver previously carried automobile insurance with any company, and would allow proportional discounts for those with some prior coverage, and permit increased costs for drivers without a history of continuous coverage.

She said it would be expected to have little impact on state insurance premium tax revenues.

If it passes, Prop. 33 would let companies offer new customers a discount on insurance premiums based on how long during the past five years the customer carried insurance.

If it’s defeated, insurers could still offer discounts to their long-time customers, but would not be allowed to offer similar discounts to those switching companies.

Those favoring the proposition say it would allow those who switch insurers to qualify for the same discounts they can receive if they stay with one company. Advocates say this would offer drivers greater freedom, would make rates more competitive and would insure more drivers.

Opponents, who say the ballot measure is funded almost exclusively by George Joseph, founder of Mercury Insurance Group of Los Angeles, are calling Prop. 33 deceptive.
They contend it resembles a similar proposition on the 2010 ballot that would have let insurers raise premiums of drivers up to $1,000 and punish those who stopped driving for legitimate reasons. They say it would prompt driver insurance surcharges.

Those endorsing the proposition include the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars of California, several law enforcement and firefighters associations, the California Republican Party, former California Senate President Don Perata, former Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante and former Democratic Speaker of the Assembly Willie Brown, and multiple Hispanic, African-American, Asian American and Chinese Chambers of Commerce.

Opponents include the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), several associations representing both older, retired and younger Californians, California Democratic Party, Consumer Federation of California and several other consumer groups, Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 1000, International Federation of professional and Technical Engineers Local 21 and Public Employees Union Local 1.

Proposition 34

Proposition 34 would repeal the death penalty, replacing it with life in prison without the possibility of parole, Bowen said.
Should this proposition pass, the law would apply retroactively to those on Death Row in California prisons.

It would direct $100 million to law enforcement agencies for investigations of homicides and rape cases, Bowen said, but in a few years, it could save state and county criminal justice operations roughly $130 million each year.

Should Prop. 34 pass, no offender could be sentenced to death under state law, and those so sentenced would be switched to life in prison without parole, Bowen said. The state then would allocate $100 million in grants to local levels of police for the next four years.

Should it fail, those convicted and sentenced to death would remain on Death Row, and certain other offenders would be eligible for the death penalty. Nor would the state be obligated to provide the grants to local law enforcement agencies.

Proponents say the proposition would guarantee that no innocent person would be put to death. Convicts would be required to work and pay court-ordered restitution to victims, they point out, and it would save the state more than $100 million annually in wasted tax dollars while providing more funding to those investigating murders and rapes. Otherwise, they say, the state will be spending $1 billion in the next five years on the current system.

Citing a study by U.S. Ninth Circuit Judge Arthur Alarcon and Loyola law School professor Paula Mitchell, they say capital punishment costs California about $308 million for each of the 13 executions from 1978 to 2011, and that in 2011, the state’s 714 Death Row prisoners cost California $184 million more each year than those sentenced to life without the possibility of parole, and that death penalty prosecutions cost up to 20 times than those for life without parole cases.

Opponents say the state can’t afford the four-year plan to give $100 million in grants to police, and say taxpayers would be giving up $50,000 each year for health care and housing to those convicted of heinous crimes.

They contend that the studies that indicate it costs more to have the death penalty in place were written by capital punishment opponents or used information from them. They say the costs of investigating and prosecuting rapes and murders will remain, no matter the decision on this proposition, and that murder defendants won’t stop fighting and appealing their sentences in court should Prop. 34 pass – fixed court costs would remain.

They dispute the proponents’ figured for housing inmates, saying the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation does not track those costs separately, but noting that the average cost per inmate at San Quentin is $57,339, according to a state audit. They said the advocates’ explanation of the expenditure of $308 million per executions is flawed, because the total $4 billion in Death row costs aren’t just spent on executions, but cover the cost of more than 700 inmates.

Advocates say those endorsing Prop. 34 number more than 1,300, including the former warden of San Quentin state prison Jeanne Woodford, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, State Sen. Loni Hancock, a Democrat, and El Dorado County Supervisor Ron Briggs, a Republican; such religious organizations as the Catholic Bishops of California, the Board of Rabbis of Northern California, the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California and the Episcopal Diocese of California; multiple unions and other business leaders as well as such murder victim families as Lorrain Taylor, whose twin sons were murdered, Ronnie Sandoval, father of a murder victim, and Judy Kerr, whose brother’s murder remains at large.

The list of opponents include former governors Pete Wilson and George Deukmejian, multiple district attorneys, sheriffs and agencies representing law enforcement and criminal justice members, as well as victims’ surviving family members, including Marc Klaas, father of murder victim Polly Klaas; former NFL player Kermit Alexander, whose mother was murdered; Collene Campbell, former mayor of San Juan Capistrano, whose son was murdered; Phyllis Loya, mother of Pittsburg Police officer Larry Lasater who was fatally shot by suspects in a robbery; and Sandy Friend, whose 8-year-old son was murdered.

The last day to register to vote is Oct. 22. Benicians may do so by using the application printed on the back of sample ballot booklets mailed by the Solano County Registrar of Voters, or through the websites www.sos.ca.gov/elections/vote-by-mail/pdf/fill-in-vote-by-mail-app-instruct.pdf or www.solanocounty.com/depts/rov/.

Vote by mail ballots are being sent to those requesting them by Oct. 30, using the application printed on the back of sample ballot booklets mailed by the Solano County Registrar of Voters, or through the websites www.sos.ca.gov/elections/vote-by-mail/pdf/fill-in-vote-by-mail-app-instruct.pdf or www.solanocounty.com/depts/rov/.

Registered Benicia voters may cast ballots in person prior to Nov. 6 by visiting the Solano County Registrar of Voters office, 675 Texas St. Suite 2600 in Fairfield.

During election day, those who haven’t mailed in their ballots may drop them off at any polling place within Solano County, including the elections office.

Polls will be open Election Day from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Nov. 6.

In addition, vote by mail ballots can be dropped off in a locked box at the City Clerk’s office at City Hall, 250 East L St.