OC Political

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

Posts Tagged ‘Proposition 36’

“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 »

Field Poll: Brown Tax Leads, Even Split on Munger & Steyer Taxes, High-Speed Rail Decreases Support for Brown Tax

Posted by Chris Nguyen on July 9, 2012

Since you’re reading this post, you obviously passed the test we posted on Friday to avert being knocked off the Internet.

Three tax measures have qualified for the November ballot, sponsored by Governor Jerry Brown, multimillionaire heiress attorney Molly Munger, and billionaire businessman Tom Steyer, respectively.

Ballot Measure Proponents Jerry Brown, Molly Munger, and Tom Steyer

Munger Sues State

The battle between Munger and Brown on ballot measure numbering has a hearing scheduled today at 9:00 AM. (Munger asked the court to delay the hearing for another nine days, stating the Los Angeles County Registrar of Voters had refused to supply documents or completely answered questions, but was apparently unsuccessful in getting the delay.)  For more details on the suit, read my post from last Monday (note that on Thursday, the Legislature approved legislation moving the water bond from the 2012 ballot to the 2014 ballot; the water bond would have been Proposition 30 regardless of Munger’s lawsuit, so when reading that post, just remove Proposition 30 and subtract one from the numbering of all the other measures; other than that, everything in the post is still current information).

If Munger prevails, her ballot measure will be Proposition 36 rather than Proposition 38, Brown’s ballot measure will be Proposition 37 rather than Proposition 30, and Steyer’s will be Proposition 38 rather than Proposition 39.  In other words, if Munger prevails, the ballot order will be six other measures, the Munger measure, the Brown measure, the Steyer measure, and two other measures.  If Brown prevails, the ballot order will be the Brown measure, seven other measures, the Munger measure, the Steyer measure, and the Senate redistricting referendum.

Brown’s Income and Sales Tax Increase Measure Leads, But is Threatened by High-Speed Rail

The latest Field Poll finds Governor Jerry Brown’s income and sales tax increase ballot measure leads 54%-38%, with 8% undecided.  (The poll found a similar result in May, with the measure leading 52%-35%, with 13% undecided.)   Brown’s tax increase ballot measure leads among every demographic and geographic group, as well as liberals, moderates, Democrats, and independents.  Only conservatives and Republicans oppose the measure.  However, not all is rosy for the Brown tax increase measure…

21% of the measure’s supporters indicated that they would be less inclined to support the Brown tax increase if the high-speed rail funding bill was approved.  Conversely, only 5% of the measure’s opponents indicated that they would be more inclined to support the Brown tax increase if the high-speed rail funding bill was approved.

(The poll was completed shortly before the Senate passed the high-speed rail funding bill 21-16 on Friday and the Assembly passed the bill 51-27 on Thursday.  Brown is expected to sign the bill this week.)

The high-speed rail bill’s approval may very well endanger Brown’s tax increase initiative.  Ballot measures typically lose support as campaigns wear on, and the high-speed rail may send support for Brown’s tax increase measure under 50%, making it that much more difficult to pass once the campaign season begins in the fall.

Voters Evenly Split on Munger Income Tax Increase Measure

Molly Munger’s income tax increase ballot measure has voters perfectly split, with 46% supporting it and 46% opposing it.

Republicans oppose the Munger income tax increase, Democrats support it, and independents are evenly split.  Conservatives and moderates oppose it while liberals support it.  Men oppose it while women support it.  Whites oppose it, Latinos support it, and other ethnic groups were split.

Voters under 40 support the Munger income tax increase measure while voters over 40 oppose it.  Union households support it while non-union households were split.  People making less than $40,000 support it while voters making more than $40,000 oppose it.

As expected, San Francisco Bay Area voters support the Munger income tax increase measure while other Northern Californians oppose it.  Strangely, Los Angeles County voters are evenly split on the measure while other Southern Californians were supportive, upending the typical result of LA County being less tax-averse than other Southern Californians (in this same poll, on the Brown and Steyer measures, the more-expected result of LA County being less tax averse than the rest of Southern California occurred).

Voters Evenly Split on Steyer Singles Sales Factor for Business Income Tax Calculation Measure

Tom Steyer’s measure requiring the singles sales factor for business income tax calculation has voters effectively split, with 44% supporting it and 43% opposing it.

Conservatives and Republicans oppose the Steyer single sales factor measure while independents, moderates, Democrats, and liberals support it.  While both genders were split within the margin of error, men were more likely to oppose while women were more likely to support.  Whites oppose the measure, Latinos support it, and other ethnic groups were evenly split.

Voters under 40 support the Steyer singles sales factor measure, voters over 65 oppose it, while middle-aged voters were even split.  Union households were supportive while non-union households were evenly split.  Voters making making $40,000-$99,999 support the measure while those making more than $100,000 oppose the measure.  Oddly, those making less than $40,000 were evenly split.

The San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles County support the Steyer single sales factor measure while the rest of Northern and Southern California oppose it.

Will the LA County Measure R Sales Tax Extension Accidentally Kill All the Tax Measures?

In 2008, LA County voters approved Measure R, a 0.5% sales tax increase to fund transportation projects that took effect July 1, 2009, and expires 30 years later in 2039.  Inexplicably, the LA Metropolitan Transportation Authority voted to place an extension of Measure R on the November 2012 ballot to add 30 years to the 0.5% sales tax increase making it expire in 2069.

Just four years into a thirty-year tax, voters are being asked to make it a sixty-year tax.  If approved, nearly all people who vote on this ballot measure will be dead by the time the tax expires.

It seems strategically odd to ask for an extension so soon after the initial passage.  It would have seemed more strategically sound to wait until 2030 or so when Measure R was nearing expiration.

The placement of the Measure R extension on the November ballot means LA County voters will be faced with four tax measures on their ballot.  Voter tax fatigue will take its toll in LA County.

Why does LA County tax fatigue matter to the rest of the state?  Well, 1/4 of all Californians live in Los Angeles County.

Look at Prop 29: it failed by 0.6%.  The San Francisco Bay Area went overwhelmingly for it.  Most of Northern and Southern California went overwhelmingly against it.  Los Angeles County narrowly went against Prop 29.

This Measure R extension may be the inadvertent death knell of the tax-related statewide ballot measures in November.

LA County support is pivotal for any tax measure hoping to pass in California.

What the Three State Ballot Measures Would Do

For those of you who are wondering what the three state ballot measures would do…

Brown’s measure (likely Proposition 30 or Proposition 37, it is officially titled, “Temporary Taxes to Fund Education. Guaranteed Local Public Safety Funding. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. “) would increase personal income taxes for amounts above $250,000 per year for seven years and raise the state sales tax by 0.25% for four years. Specifically, income taxes on amounts:

  • between $250,000-$300,000 would increase by 1% to 10.3%
  • between $300,000-$500,000 would increase by 2% to 11.3%
  • above $500,000 would increase by 3% to 12.3%

Sales taxes in OC would climb to 8%, except in La Habra, where it would go to 8.5%. LA County sales tax would go up to 9%.

For seven years, 89% of the tax money is allocated to K-12 schools with 11% to community colleges. On a permanent basis, 1.0625% sales tax would be permanently removed from the Prop 98 education funding formula to fund local public safety realignment programs.

Click here for the Legislative Analyst Office’s official fiscal analysis of the Brown measure.

Munger’s measure (likely Proposition 36 or Proposition 38, it is officially titled, “Tax for Education and Early Childhood Programs. Initiative Statute.”) would increase personal income taxes on nearly all Californians for twelve years.  Specifically, for individuals who are not heads of households, income taxes on amounts:

  • between $7,316-$17,346 would increase by 0.4% to 2.4%
  • between $17,346-$27,377 would increase by 0.7% to 4.7%
  • between $27,377-$38,004 would increase by 1.1% to 7.1%
  • between $38,004-$48,029 would increase by 1.4% to 9.4%
  • between $48,029-$100,000 would increase by 1.6% to 10.9%
  • between $100,000-$250,000 would increase by 1.8% to 11.1%
  • between $250,000-$500,000 would increase by 1.9% to 11.2%
  • between $500,000-$1,000,000 would increase by 2.0% to 11.3%
  • between $1,000,000-$2,500,000 would increase by 2.1% to 11.4%
  • above $2,500,000 would increase by 2.2% to 11.5%

For heads of households, income taxes on amounts:

  • between $14,642-$34,692 would increase by 0.4% to 2.4%
  • between $34,692-$44,721 would increase by 0.7% to 4.7%
  • between $44,721-$55,348 would increase by 1.1% to 7.1%
  • between $55,348-$65,376 would increase by 1.4% to 9.4%
  • between $65,376-$136,118 would increase by 1.6% to 10.9%
  • between $136,118-$340,294 would increase by 1.8% to 11.1%
  • between $340,294-$680,589 would increase by 1.9% to 11.2%
  • between $680,589-$1,361,178 would increase by 2.0% to 11.3%
  • between $1,361,178-$3,402,944 would increase by 2.1% to 11.4%
  • over $3,402,944 would increase by 2.2% to 11.5%

For the first four years, 60% of the tax money is allocated to K-12 schools, 10% to early childhood programs, and 30% to repaying state debt. For the remaining eight years, 85% of the tax money is allocated to K-12 schools and 15% to early childhood programs.

Click here for the Legislative Analyst Office’s official fiscal analysis of the Munger measure.

Steyer’s measure (likely Proposition 38 or Proposition 39, it is officially titled, “Tax Treatment for Multistate Businesses. Clean Energy and Energy Efficiency Funding. Initiative Statute.”) would permanently impose the single sales factor calculation on income taxes for multistate businesses.

For five years, $550,000,000 would be allocated from the state General Fund into the “Clean Energy Job Creation Fund,” which would be used for energy efficiency retrofits and alternative energy installations in government buildings, local government energy retrofit financial assistance programs, and job training and workforce development programs.

Click here for the Legislative Analyst Office’s official fiscal analysis of the Steyer measure.

Posted in California | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a 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 »