OC Political

A right-of-center blog covering local, statewide, and national politics

Posts Tagged ‘Proposition 31’

“Citizens for Good Government” Slate Mailer Improperly Uses Trademarked CRA Logo, Advocates Against CRA Positions

Posted by Chris Nguyen on November 5, 2012

It seems every election year, one slate mailer or another draws attention for their negative actions.  In 2012, it’s “Citizens for Good Government” in the negative spotlight.

It recommends the entire Republican slate of candidates along with the following ballot recommendations:

Prop 30 – Yes (CRA Says No on 30)
Prop 31 – No
Prop 32 – No (CRA Says Yes on 32)
Prop 33 – Yes (CRA is Neutral on 33)
Prop 34 – No
Prop 35 – Yes
Prop 36 – No
Prop 37 – No
Prop 38 – No
Prop 39 – Yes (CRA Says No on 39)
Prop 40 – No

Now you may be wondering why I brought up four measures where the California Republican Assembly disagreed with the “Citizens for Good Government” slate mailer.  Well look closely at the inside of the mailer (in the lower left corner of the mailer) to the left of Yes on 39 and below No on 38.

Citizens for Good Government Slate Mailer - Outside  Citizens for Good Government Slate Mailer - Inside

Yep, that’s the CRA logo.  If you click on the photo to blow it up to full size, you’ll see the CRA logo they used even has the “TM” symbol to indicate it’s trademarked.

(The particular one above was sent to Stanton Republicans, but Republicans in Garden Grove and Fullerton also received versions of this slate mailer.)

The caption for the CRA logo reads:

If you would like to volunteer to help elect good Republicans to public office, go to http://www.californiarepublicanassembly.com for the name of your local Republican club.

Hopefully voters who might have used this slate mailer took its advice and visited  http://www.californiarepublicanassembly.com, where the home page clearly lists CRA’s positions on ballot measures, in which the CRA differed with “Citizens for Good Government” on Props 30, 32, 33, and 39.

No CRA officer has stated they gave “Citizens for Good Government” permission to use the CRA logo, especially since the slate mailer is designed to show that it is supportive of CRA and imply (falsely) that its recommendations are backed by CRA.

CRA officials are consulting attorneys to see what action, if any, can be taken to prevent future use of the CRA logo and what can be done to repair the damage done to CRA by this slate mailer.

Posted in California, Mail | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

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.

Posted in California, Republican Central Committee | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Judge Rules Against Munger, Brown’s Ballot Measure Arrangement Bill Stands, Propositions Numbered at Last

Posted by Chris Nguyen on July 10, 2012

As I wrote about here, Molly Munger filed suit to stop AB 1499 from taking effect. AB 1499, which Governor Jerry Brown signed into law on June 27, changed the order that ballot measures appear on the ballot.

Sacramento Superior Court Judge Timothy M. Frawley rejected Munger’s suit entirely.

Consequently, his temporary restraining order preventing the Secretary of State’s office from numbering the ballot propositions has ended.

The Secretary of State’s office has now numbered the ballot measures, so these are the propositions for the statewide ballot for November:

Proposition 30 – Temporary Taxes to Fund Education. Guaranteed Local Public Safety Funding. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. (This is Governor Jerry Brown’s tax measure.)

Proposition 31 – State Budget. State and Local Government. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute. (This is the two-year budget measure.)

Proposition 32 – Prohibits Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction. Prohibitions on Contributions to Candidates. Initiative Statute. (This is best known as Stop Special Interest Money Now.)

Proposition 33 – Changes Law to Allow Auto Insurance Companies to Set Prices Based on a Driver’s History of Insurance Coverage. Initiative Statute.

Proposition 34 – Death Penalty Repeal. Initiative Statute.

Proposition 35 – Human Trafficking. Penalties. Sex Offender Registration. Initiative Statute.

Proposition 36 – Three Strikes Law. Sentencing for Repeat Felony Offenders. Initiative Statute.

Proposition 37 – Genetically Engineered Foods. Mandatory Labeling. Initiative Statute.

Proposition 38 – Tax for Education and Early Childhood Programs. Initiative Statute. (This is Molly Munger’s tax measure.)

Proposition 39 – Tax Treatment for Multistate Businesses. Clean Energy and Energy Efficiency Funding. Initiative Statute. (This is Tom Steyer’s tax measure.)

Proposition 40 – Redistricting. State Senate Districts. Referendum.

Arguments for and against these ballot propositions are due to the Secretary of State by 5:00 PM today.  In case of multiple arguments being submitted, the Secretary of State’s office is required by law to give priority to the official proponents, followed by bona fide associations of citizens, and then individuals.

Rebuttal arguments are due by 5:00 PM on Thursday, July 19.  Litigation regarding these statements must be filed by 5:00 PM on Monday, August 13.

(In the interest of full disclosure, Custom Campaigns has done some consulting work for Stop Special Interest Money Now, now known as Proposition 32.  For the record, we do not accept payments for blogging and require disclosures when a blogger has a potential conflict of interest in a blog post, unless it’s something really obvious, like a blogger blogging about their own candidacy for office.)

Posted in California | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Looking at the November Ballot: Twelve Propositions Qualified

Posted by Chris Nguyen on June 27, 2012

Well, tomorrow is the last day for an initiative or referendum to qualify for the November ballot.  With only one measure whose signatures are still pending verification (but that one appears to be falling far short of signature requirements), we now know which initiatives and referenda have made it to the November ballot.

Note the proposition numbers are tentative.  The Legislature can still add measures to the ballot (or remove the Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2012 from the ballot), which would alter the numbering of the propositions.  Here’s the list:

Proposition 30 – Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2012 (This was the water bond deal of 2009 authored by then-Senate Republican Leader Dave Cogdill that the Legislature put on the 2010 ballot before moving it to the 2012 ballot.)

Proposition 31 – Prohibits Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction. Prohibitions on Contributions to Candidates. Initiative Statute. (This is best known as Stop Special Interest Money Now.)

Proposition 32 – Changes Law to Allow Auto Insurance Companies to Set Prices Based on a Driver’s History of Insurance Coverage. Initiative Statute.

Proposition 33 – Death Penalty Repeal. Initiative Statute.

Proposition 34 – Human Trafficking. Penalties. Sex Offender Registration. Initiative Statute.

Proposition 35 – Three Strikes Law. Sentencing for Repeat Felony Offenders. Initiative Statute.

Proposition 36 – Genetically Engineered Foods. Mandatory Labeling. Initiative Statute.

Proposition 37 – Temporary Taxes to Fund Education. Guaranteed Local Public Safety Funding. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. (This is Governor Jerry Brown’s tax measure.)

Proposition 38 – Tax for Education and Early Childhood Programs. Initiative Statute. (This is Molly Munger’s tax measure.)

Proposition 39 – Tax Treatment for Multistate Businesses. Clean Energy and Energy Efficiency Funding. Initiative Statute.

Proposition 40 – State Budget. State and Local Government. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute. (This is the two-year budget measure.)

Proposition 41 – Redistricting. State Senate Districts. Referendum.

Again, these numbers are tentative and can be changed if the Legislature yanks the first one off the ballot or adds other measures to the ballot.

These are the official titles from the Attorney General’s office from when these measures were cleared for circulation.  It’s odd that the three crime-related measures were bunched together and the four fiscal measures were bunched together; that was just convenient from ballot qualification order.

More will come once we have a clearer look at the ballot after the deadline for the Legislature to place/remove measures for the November ballot.

(In the interest of full disclosure, Custom Campaigns has done some consulting work for Stop Special Interest Money Now, tentatively Proposition 31.  For the record, we do not accept payments for blogging and require disclosures when a blogger has a potential conflict of interest in a blog post, unless it’s something really obvious, like a blogger blogging about their own candidacy for office.)

Posted in California | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »