Propositions on the November 6, 2012 General Election Ballot As part of their ongoing education efforts for local districts, the boards of the California Community College Trustees (CCCT) and the Chief Executive Officers of the California Community Colleges (CEOCCC) review each initiative to determine those which affect community colleges. The propositions are provided so that local boards can review them, consider their impacts and share that information with local faculty, staff and students through passage of a resolution and/or other education activities. At their recent meetings the CCCT and CEOCCC boards reviewed the following analysis of the propositions that will appear on the November 6, 2012 General Election Ballot. Both boards (CCCT and CECCCC) voted to support Proposition 30 and oppose Proposition 32. In addition, the CCCT board voted to support Propositions 34, 36, and 39, while the CEOCCC took no position on any of these measures. Proposition 30: Schools and Local Public Safety Protection Act This initiative constitutional amendment would: Increase the uniform state sales tax by 0.25% for four years (from January 1, 2012 through December, 2016); Adjust the top two upper income brackets from a 1.5% increase to a 2% increase for incomes over $600,000 for joint filers and from 2% to 3% for incomes over $1 million for joint filers with the bracket for incomes over $500,000 for joint filers remaining at a 1% increase. This adjustment would remain in effect for seven years (from the 2012 tax year through the end of the 2018 tax year); and Place new tax revenues in an Education Protection Account which would count toward the Proposition 98 guarantee, and allocate the education funds in a split of 89% for K-12 schools and 11% to community colleges. This measure would bar use of these funds for administrative costs, but provide local school governing boards with the discretion to decide, in open meetings and subject to an annual audit, how the funds are to be spent. It also guarantees funding for public safety services realigned from state to local governments. While this measure places new tax revenues in an "Education Protection Account," these funds also count toward the Proposition 98 guarantee and thus free up General Fund money for other purposes including the public safety realignment which took effect last year. Supporters argue that: The new revenue from sales and very high income people would help the state meet its funding requirements to maintain support for public schools, which would then free up discretionary money for social services and public safety programs.
This proposal was crafted by budget experts as well as local governments, teachers and others with a stake in state spending and balance and would also provide funds to clear the budget deficit and have money in reserve for the next downturn of the economy. This measure funds the public safety programs shifted to local governments in 2011, which will help to stabilize the funding of local governments. This measure funds schools and community colleges as well as addresses the debt. The governor intends to use the money from this tax measure to support programs, pay down the debt, and prepare for the next recession by building up a reserve to guard against the falloff in revenue that comes from having so much reliance on the income tax. Opponents argue that: The funding for education is fraudulent since this measure proposes only limited new funds for education and really allows the state to spend a large share of the money on any general fund purpose. There is plenty of fraud, waste, and abuse in state government that can limit or eliminate the need for a tax increase. These tax increases will hurt the state's economic recovery and hit families when they cannot afford to pay more. The Legislative Analyst s Office estimates the fiscal impact over the next several fiscal years to average $6 billion annually but could change significantly from year to year -- either above or below the revenue projections because the vast majority of the additional revenue is from the personal income tax rate increase on high incomes which are volatile and difficult to predict. These revenues would be available to: Pay for the state's school and community college funding requirements, as increased by this measure, and Address the state's budgetary problem by paying for other spending commitments. Here is a listing, by fiscal year, of the funds which are estimated to be available under this proposal: Revenue Estimate Fiscal Year (in millions) 2011-12 $2,816 2012-13 $4,872 2013-14 $5,671 2014-15 $6,098 2015-16 $6,402 2016-17 $5,977 2017-18 $5,434 2018-19 $2,216
Fiscal Impact on Community Colleges This measure would have a significant fiscal impact on community colleges over the next seven years. In the current (2012-13 fiscal year), the measure provides $548.5 million. Failure of the measure would slash community college enrollment by 85,000 full-time equivalent students as the existing community college budget would be cut by $338.6 million. Over the next seven years, the measure would provide over $3 billion for community colleges. Organizations in Support Association of California School Administrators (ACSA) California Teachers Association (CTA) California County Superintendents Educational Services Association (CCSESA) California Federation of Teachers (CFT) California School Boards Association (CSBA) Community College League of California (CCLC) Governor Jerry Brown League of Women Voters (LWV) Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) Tom Torlakson Position: Support The 2012-13 budget includes a mid-year trigger cuts of $250 million each on UC and CSU, as well as a $548.5 million reduction in community college funding if this initiative is not approved by the voters in November. Proposition 31: Government Performance and Accountability Act This initiative constitutional amendment and statute would: Establish a two-year state budget cycle. Prohibit the Legislature from creating expenditures of more than $25 million unless offsetting revenues or spending cuts are identified. Permit the Governor to cut the budget unilaterally during a declared fiscal emergency if the Legislature fails to act, thereby expanding the power of the Governor. Require a performance review of every state program at least every five years. Require performance goals in state and local budgets. Require publication of all bills at least three days prior to a legislative vote. Give counties the power to alter state statutes or regulations related to spending unless the Legislature or a state agency vetoes changes within 60 days. Shift some state sales tax revenues (an estimated $200 million annually) from the state to local governments. Supporters argue that this measure would: Bring transparency and accountability to California s government; Restore California s environment and support vulnerable communities;
Improve California s stifled business climate. Opponents argue that this measure: Is flawed and would permanently damage the state by vastly expanding the power of the governor by allowing him or her to cut or eliminate virtually any existing program during a fiscal emergency, including midyear cuts to K-12 education, community colleges, the state's public university systems, and health care services for low-income households with the only way to prevent this being a two-thirds vote of each legislative house. Would put at risk state laws that govern clean air, public safety and workers' rights by allowing local governments to adopt "Community Strategic Action Plans" to tailor programs more closely to local needs. This goes too far in permitting local communities to tweak crucial state regulations - for example, the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Clean Water Act. Would implement "pay-as-you-go" rules, requiring lawmakers to identify a funding source for new programs or tax reductions over $25 million, but would do nothing to curb the real spending problem in California - using bonds to finance long-term expenditures. Over the past decade, the state has tied its hands financially by paying for current expenditures by borrowing. The state is now on the hook for $81 billion in bonds for infrastructure and other long-term investments. The Legislative Analyst estimates that this measure will shift revenues from the state to local governments, probably in the range of about $200 million annually, beginning in 2013-14. They also believe that it has the potential to increase state program costs or revenues due to changes in the fiscal authority of the Legislature and Governor, as well as increased state and local costs of tens of millions of dollars annually to implement new budgeting practices. Over time, the Analyst believes that these costs would moderate and potentially be offset by savings from improved program efficiencies. Fiscal Impact on Community Colleges Unknown Organizations in Support California Forward Organizations in Opposition California Teachers Association (CTA) League of Women Voters (LWV) Proposition 32: Prohibition on Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction and on Contributions to Candidates This initiative statute would:
Prohibit the government from deducting union dues that would be used for political purposes from government employee paychecks. Permit voluntary employee contributions to employer or union committees if authorized yearly, in writing. Ban contributions to candidate-controlled committees by corporations and labor unions. Ban contractors who receive government contracts from donating to the office holder who awarded the contract. Allow other political expenditures, including corporate expenditures from available resources not limited by the payroll deduction prohibition. (This measure, known as paycheck protection by its supporters (and paycheck deception by its opponents) is the third effort to restrict union funds for political purposes. The first two efforts -- Proposition 226 in 1998 and Proposition 75 in 2005 -- failed at the ballot box.) Supporters argue that: This is a broad-based and fair solution [which] addresses the special interests' control of government and returns power to the voters by limiting both corporate and union political giving. Opponents argue that: The initiative's ban on contributions to candidate-controlled committees is meaningless, merely a cover for another blatant attempt to reduce funds for liberal candidates while letting contributions to conservatives continue unfettered. This initiative is deceptive because, while it bans both unions and corporations from contributing directly to candidates, it is especially hard on unions because it eliminates their primary method of raising money through payroll deductions. Corporations, by contrast, raise the bulk of their campaign money from top executives and shareholders and thus would be relatively unaffected by this measure. Claims that it takes all corporate and labor union money out of politics but does not; instead, it removes workers and unions, but while retaining corporations. : The Legislative Analyst s Office and the Director of Finance estimate that this measure would result in increased state implementation and enforcement costs of up to hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, potentially offset in part by revenues from fines. Fiscal Impact on Community Colleges No direct impact but significant indirect effects possible without financial support for state and local general obligation bond and other funding measures. Organizations in Opposition Association of California School Administrators California Federation of Teachers California Teachers Association League of Women Voters
Position: Oppose Proposition 33: Changes To Allow Auto Insurance Companies to Set Prices Based on a Driver s History of Insurance Coverage This measure would: Allow auto insurance companies to set prices based on whether the driver previously carried auto insurance with any insurance company. Allow insurance companies to give proportional discounts to drivers with some prior insurance coverage. Allow insurance companies to increase the cost of insurance to drivers who have not maintained continuous coverage. Treat drivers with lapsed coverage as though they were continuously covered if the lapse is due to military service, loss of employment or if the lapse is less than 90 days. Supporters argue that this measure would: Allow drivers to switch insurance companies and keep their continuous coverage discount. Reward drivers for following the law and maintaining car insurance with the company of their choice. Make it easier to switch insurance companies, leading to more competition and lower rates for all drivers. Protect consumers and apply the continuous coverage discount to everyone who has followed the law. Protect military families, consumers who are unemployed or furloughed, and young drivers. Opponents argue that: This measure would deregulate automobile insurance policies, in direct contradiction of the vote of the people to require such regulation and could raise rates even for drivers with perfect driving records. This is almost exactly the same initiative that voters rejected in 2008 and is another corporate attempt to buy legislation. This measure permits insurance companies to increase the cost of insurance to drivers who have not maintained continuous coverage. This measure would allow car insurance companies to raise rates on good drivers, even if their gap in coverage was because they didn't own a car. This policy has been shown to discriminate against drivers with low income or who are struggling economically. According to the Legislative Analyst, the net impact on state premium tax revenues from this measure would probably not be significant.
Fiscal Impact on Community Colleges No known impact Proposition 34: End the Death Penalty : This initiative statute would: Repeal the death penalty as the maximum punishment for those found guilty of murder and replace it with life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Apply retroactively to those already sentenced to death. Require persons found guilty of murder to work while in prison, with their wages to be applied to any victim restitution funds or orders against them. Create a $100 million fund to be distributed to law enforcement agencies to help solve more homicide and rape cases. This measure should create net savings to the state and counties that could amount to the high tens of millions of dollars annually on a statewide basis due to the elimination of the death penalty and add one-time state costs totaling $100 million from 2012-13 through 2015-16 to provide funding to local law enforcement agencies. Fiscal Impact on Community Colleges Although there is no direct impact on the colleges from this measure, the colleges are likely to benefit from passage of this measure because it would result in lower court and incarceration costs which are much higher for prisoners at risk for the death penalty, and thus will free up funds for education. Organizations in Support League of Women Voters CCCT Position: Support Proposition 35: Increased Penalties for Human Trafficking. Sex Offender Registration This initiative measure would: Increase criminal penalties for human trafficking, including prison sentences up to 15 years to life and fines up to $1.5 million, with fines used for victim services and law enforcement. Require that a person convicted of trafficking register as a sex offender. Require sex offenders to provide information regarding Internet access and identities they use in online activities.
Prohibit evidence that a victim engaged in sexual conduct from being used against the victim in court proceedings. Require that human trafficking training be provided for police officers. The Legislative Analyst has indicated that the fiscal effects are somewhat uncertain since most trafficking cases are currently handled by the federal government. However, they suggest that the most likely costs are: a minor increase in state and local criminal justice costs from increased penalties (with costs not likely to exceed a couple million dollars annually); a potential increase in local law enforcement training costs (which could result in counties and cities incurring costs of up to a few million dollars on a one-time based to train existing staff and provide back-up staff to officers in training) and increased fine revenue for victim services. Fiscal Impact on Community Colleges No known direct impact Organizations in Support California Teachers Association League of Women Voters Proposition 36: Three Strikes Reform This measure would: Revise the three-strikes law to impose life sentences only when the new felony conviction is serious or violent. Authorize re-sentencing for offenders currently serving life sentences if their third strike conviction was not serious or violent and if the judge determines that the re-sentence does not pose an unreasonable risk to public safety. Continue to impose a life sentence penalty if the third strike conviction is for "certain non-serious, non-violent sex or drug offenses or involves firearm possession." Fiscal Impact on State This measure would reduce state prison costs in two ways. First, fewer inmates would be incarcerated for life sentences under the three strikes law because of the measure s provisions requiring that such sentences be applied only to third strikers whose current offense is serious or violent. This would reduce the sentences of some future felony offenders. Second, the resentencing of third strikers could result in many existing inmates receiving shorter prison terms. This would result in a reduction in the inmate population beginning in the near term. The measure would also result in reduced state parole costs because offenders affected by this measure would generally be supervised by county rather than state -- parole officers. This is because their current offense would be non-serious and non-violent. In addition, this measure
also would reduce the number of parole consideration hearings that the parole board would need to conduct in the future. State correctional savings from the above changes would likely be around $70 million annually, with even higher savings up to $90 million annually over the next couple of decades. However, these annual savings could be tens of millions of dollars higher or lower depending on several factors, including the number of third strikers resentenced by the court and the rate at which the parole board would have released third strikers in the future under current law. This measure could result in a variety of other state and local government fiscal effects. For instance, governments would incur additional costs to the extent that offenders released from prison because of this measure require government services (such as government-paid health care for persons without private insurance coverage) or commit additional crimes. There also would be some additional state and local government revenue to the extent that offenders released from prison enter the workforce. The magnitude of these impacts is unknown Impact on Community Colleges No known direct impact although to the extent that this measure reduces the number of prisoners in California, more funds would be available for non-penal portions of the budget (including community colleges). Organizations in Support California Community College Trustees (CCCT) CCCT Position: Support Prop 37: Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Modified Food This measure would: Require labeling on raw or processed food offered for sale to consumers if made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways. Prohibit labeling or advertising genetically-modified food as natural. Exempt from its provisions foods that are: certified organic; unintentionally produced with genetically engineered material; made from animals fed or injected with genetically engineered material but not genetically engineered themselves; processed with, or containing only small amounts of, genetically engineered ingredients; administered for treatment of medical conditions; sold for immediate consumption such as in a restaurant; or alcoholic beverages. This measure could result in a potential increase in state administrative costs of up to $1 million annually to monitor compliance with the disclosure requirements specified in the measure, including unknown but potentially significant costs for the courts, the Attorney General, and
district attorneys due to litigation resulting from possible violations of the provisions of this measure. Fiscal Impact on Community Colleges: No known impact Proposition 38: Tax for Education and Early Care and Education (ECE) Programs This initiative statute, the Munger initiative, would increase personal income tax rates for all taxpayers with annual earnings over $7,316 using a sliding scale from.4% for the lowest individual earners to 2.2% for individuals earning over $2.5 million, ending after twelve years. During the first four years, 60% of the revenues would go to K-12 schools, 30% to repaying education (pre-kindergarten through university) debt-service costs (until there are no outstanding education debt-service costs and would then be used to pay other general obligation debtservice costs), and 10% to early care and education programs. Thereafter, this measure would allocate 85% of the revenues to K-12 schools and 15% to ECE programs. The K-12 funds would be provided on a school-specific, per-pupil basis, subject to local control, audits, and public input and the state would be prohibited from directing or using the new funds. Supporters argue that: This is the only initiative that sends money straight to K-12 schools and early care and education programs, bypassing Sacramento. This represents a significant realignment of both funding and policy, the first major effort since Proposition 13. Opponents argue that: This initiative would lock the state into new spending without closing out the current structural deficit. This measure provides for tax increases for individuals with an annual incomes as low as $7,316, which is far too low. Any tax increases should be focused on those who can afford to pay. This measure exacerbates the budget situation by once again providing revenues for a pre-determined portion of the budget while eliminating the ability of the Legislature, and severely limiting the ability of the electorate, to modify its provisions should the need arise. Fiscal Impact The Legislative Analyst s Office (LAO) and the Director of Finance (DOF) estimate that this measure will increase state personal income tax revenues beginning in 2013 and ending in 2024. Estimates of the revenue increases vary from $10 billion to $11 billion per fiscal year beginning in 2013-14, tending to increase over time. The 2012-13 revenue increase would be about half this amount.
Until the end of 2016-17, 60 percent of revenues would be dedicated to K-12 education and 10 percent would be provided to ECE programs with the remainder used for debt service repayment. The education allocations would supplement existing funding for K-12 programs and be above the Proposition 98 guarantee. In 2017-18 and subsequent years, 85 percent would be provided to K-12 education and 15 percent to ECE programs. The LAO and DOF estimate general fund savings on debt-service costs of about $1.5 billion in 2012-13 and $3 billion in 2013-14, with savings tending to grow thereafter until the end of 2016-17. In 2015-16 and subsequent years with stronger growth in state personal income tax revenues, some of the revenues raised by this measure several hundred million dollars per year would be used for debt-service costs, which would result in additional state savings. Impact on Community Colleges No direct impact because funding for community colleges is not included in the provisions of this measure Organizations in Support California Parent Teachers Association (PTA) California School Boards Association (CSBA) Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson Organizations in Opposition Association of California School Administrators (ACSA) League of Women Voters (LWV) (former) Superintendent of Public Instruction Delaine Easton Prop 39: Green Jobs Tax on Multi-State Businesses This measure would: Require multi-state businesses to calculate their California income tax liability based on the percentage of their sales in California. Repeal a 2009 legislative deal that created new flexibility for large corporations in calculating their state taxes, including an option allowing those with very few California customers to only pay taxes based on those limited in-state sales. Supporters argue that: This measure raises an estimated $1 billion per year and dedicates $550 million annually for five years to fund projects that "create energy efficiency and clean energy jobs" in California. This measure would overturn existing law that gives multi-state businesses an option to choose a tax liability formula that provides favorable tax treatment for businesses with property and payroll outside California. In doing so, it shifts a larger corporate tax burden to companies that sell products in California but have few employees, facilities, and equipment in the state.
This measure will bring California s tax policy in line with many other states tax policies, including those of New York, Indiana, Texas, and Michigan. Opponents argue that: This initiative does more than just undo the 2009 deal which allows multi-state businesses to choose their tax liability formula; it determines that half of the funds would be dedicated to energy projects, thereby locking the state into new spending without legislative oversight. Since this measure will raise taxes at a time when the economy is weak, it will cause further damage to the economy. Approximately $500 million in additional state General Fund revenues in 2012-13 and $1 billion annually thereafter from requiring a single sale factor formula for corporate taxes, with about half of the additional annual revenues from 2013-14 through 2017-18 supporting energy efficiency and alternative energy projects. Increased Proposition 98 minimum funding guarantee of roughly $225 million annually from 2012-13 through 2017-18 and by roughly $500 million each year thereafter, as a result of additional state General fund revenues. Fiscal Impact on Community Colleges Approximately 11% of the increased Proposition 98 funds which will result from this measure CCCT Position: Support because it reverses a tax break for out-of-state corporations and will provide significant funding for community colleges. Prop 40: Referendum on the State Senate Redistricting Plan A "no" vote on this referendum would suspend the revised State Senate boundaries that were drawn by the California Citizens Redistricting Commission (created by 2008 s Proposition 11 on the ballot) and place them before the California Supreme Court. Arguments in Opposition There are no arguments in opposition since the proponents -- the California Republican Party -- have withdrawn from the campaign.