California Republican Party Endorses Positions on November Ballot Measures
Posted by Chris Nguyen on August 12, 2012
Just moments ago, the California Republican Party approved the following endorsements of the measures on the November ballot.
- No on 30 – Temporary Taxes to Fund Education. Guaranteed Local Public Safety Funding. (Governor Jerry Brown Tax Increase)
- Yes on 31 – State Budget. State and Local Government. (Pay as you go)
- Yes on 32 – Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction. Contributions to Candidates. (Stop Special Interest Money)
- Yes on 33 – Auto Insurance Companies. Prices Based on Driver’s History of Insurance Coverage.
- No on 34 – Elimination of Death Penalty.
- Yes on 35 – Human Trafficking. Penalties
- No on 36 – Three Strikes Law. Repeat Felony Offenders. Penalties.
- No on 37 – Genetically Engineered Foods. Labeling.
- No on 38 – Tax to Fund Education and Early Childhood Programs. (Molly Munger Tax Increase)
- No on 39 – Tax Treatment for Multistate Businesses. Clean Energy Corporate Subsidies. (Tom Steyer Tax Measure)
- Yes on 40 – Redistricting State Senate Districts.
The party had previously taken the positions above for Props 30, 32, 33, and 38. The other seven measures are new endorsements.
On Prop 31, Tom Hudson spoke in opposition to the measure, expressing concern that the measure would never permit a tax cut ever again. Jon Fleischman spoke in favor of Prop 31, expressing support for its requirement that budget bills must be in print for 72 hours before any votes can occur (making it more difficult to pass last-minute tax increases). Fleischman also noted the top opponents to Prop 31 were labor unions, like SEIU and AFSCME. The party delegates voted in favor of Prop 31.
On Prop 40, Initiatives Committee Chairman Mike Spence stated a parliamentary ruling determined that while the party had previously voted to support the petition circulation to qualify Prop 40 for the ballot, the party had not voted on the measure itself.
Tom Hudson spoke urging the delegates to endorse a position of “No on Prop 40″ (i.e. support the referendum, reinforcing the position on the circulation), saying voters should overturn the lines because the Supreme Court had previously drawn excellent lines the last two times they did it in the 1970s and 1990s.
Senator Mimi Walters, who obtained and provided the bulk of the funding to qualify Prop 40 for the ballot, spoke urging the delegates to endorse a position of “Yes on Prop 40″ (i.e. oppose the referendum, leaving the lines in place), saying voters should not overturn the lines because the Senate seats up in 2014 are more favorable to Republicans, enabling the GOP to pick up two Senate seats in 2014. She stated she had qualified the referendum in hopes that the courts would stay the lines in the 2012 election pending the outcome of the referendum. The courts refused. She indicated the lines made it so that the Senate seats up in 2012 are more favorable to Democrats, allowing them to pick up 2-3 seats.
The party delegates voted with the position proposed by Walters, voting in favor of Prop 40 (i.e. leaving the lines in place by opposing the referendum).
The positions on all the other ballot measures passed without discussion.