Proposition 30‘s goal is to fund state budgets and to prevent further spending reductions to education programs.
For those that earn an income of over $250,000, taxes would be increased for seven years. In addition, sales taxes would be heightened by 1/4 of a cent over the next four years. These tax increases are predicted to generate six billion dollars in state revenues annually.
If the proposition passes, these tax revenues would go to benefiting programs in the state budget, whereas if it does not pass, state spending would be reduced by around six billion dollars. The majority of that six billion dollars would be cut from education, unfortunately affecting Cal Poly’s tuition.
This proposal would establish a two year state budget cycle.
It proposes to prohibit Legislature from creating expenditures exceeding 25 million dollars if comparable revenues or spending cuts are not identified.
During fiscal emergencies, Proposition 31 would allow the governor to cut the budget unilaterally.
Proposition 31 would make performance reviews of all state programs and performance goals in state and local budgets mandatory.
Fiscal impacts to take into consideration would be decreased state sales tax revenues of 200 million dollars annually and increased funding to local governments.
According to Sociology Professor Harold Kerbo, the number of Americans that belong to labor unions has decreased dramatically. Around 40 percent of Americans used to participate in unions and that percentage is now down to 11 percent.
“Proposition 32 would further decrease labor unions,” Kerbo said.
In Kerbo’s opinion, when Cal Poly students graduate and are not employees of a company with a labor union, they will be worse off.
A ‘yes’ on Proposition 32 would prohibit labor unions and corporations from taking money from an employee’s paycheck for political purposes.
For Cal Poly, this would mean that those who belong to the California Faculty Association (CFA) and currently get sixty dollars deducted each month from their pay to support the union, would not be able to continue this, Kerbo explained.
Labor unions would be suppressed further, losing money and support. “I’m sure that’s the purpose,” Kerbo said.
On the other hand, if Proposition 32 is negated, there would not be a change to the status quo of the ability of unions and corporations to use paycheck deducted money for political purposes.
The law in place would be changed to let insurance companies alter their rates based on whether their client previously held auto insurance with any other insurance company.
If this proposition passes, insurance companies could offer discounts on automobile insurance to new customers with some history of continuous coverage in the previous five years.
San Luis Obispo’s State Farm sales associate Rafael Bobadilla explained that for students who may be looking to come off of their parents’ insurance plans and start their own, assuming their parents had insurance in the previous five years, they would be able to qualify for a discount.
If this proposition does not pass, insurance companies can continue to give their loyal customers discounts, but would not be able to offer discounts to new customers switching insurance companies.
Bobadilla remarked that State Farm is against the proposition because they honor the loyalty of their customers. If the proposition allowed new customers to get discounts, consequently, insurance companies would then not be giving their long-term customers any benefits.
Bobadilla indicated that students, regardless of Proposition 33, do have access to auto insurance discounts. State Farm’s good student discount offers a reduced rate to full time students who have earned a 3.0 GPA or better in the last year.
With the passing of this proposal, offenders could not be sentenced to death under California law. Those who are presently sentenced to death would be re-sentenced to life without parole.
If the proposal does not pass, offenders guilty of murder can continue to be sentenced to death.
This proposition would have a one-time state cost of 100 million dollars for law enforcement grants. However, it would create savings of about 130 million dollars annually.
Proposition 35 would create longer prison times and larger fines for those guilty of human trafficking crimes.
Those convicted of human trafficking would be required to register as sex offenders.
The status quo of penalties for human trafficking would stay the same if proposition does not pass.
“You don’t base criminal justice policies on baseball metaphors,” sociology professor Christopher Bickel said.
If proposition 36 does not pass, offenders with two prior violent convictions who then commit a third felony can continue to be sentenced to life in prison.
“The three strikes law is the worst law I’ve ever seen,” Bickel said.
There is a crime and age correlation. Bickel explained that as one ages, the seriousness of their crimes lower. A person may commit two serious crimes, but their third crime is likely to be something less severe, such as drug use. A person does not deserve life in prison for using marijuana, in Bickel’s opinion.
The three strikes law is taking money away from Cal Poly. “We are spending the same money to incarcerate people as on higher education,” Bickel commented.
If the proposition does pass, offenders with two prior violent convictions who commit another non-violent felony would be sentenced to shorter prison terms.
Those that have been convicted of two previous serious crimes and have current life sentences could be re-sentenced to shorter terms in prison.
Even with the men’s prison so close to Cal Poly, Bickel does not think there will be an effect concerning violence or safety on Cal Poly.
Proposition 37 concerns the health of Americans and addresses their rights to know what kinds of food they are putting into their bodies.
The passing of Proposition 37 would require genetically engineered foods sold in California to be labeled as such. To monitor the labeling of foods, annual state costs would increase from a few hundred thousand dollars to over one million dollars.
A negative vote allows genetically-engineered foods to not have any specific labeling requirements.
A ‘yes’ on this proposition increases state personal income tax rates for twelve years. Revenues, around 10 billion dollars annually, would be used for K-12 schools, child care and repaying the state debt.
A ‘no’ on this proposition allows tax rates to remain the same. There would not be any additional money for schools, child care or state debt payments.
This proposal would require multistate businesses to pay income taxes relative to the percentage of their sales in California. Around half of this tax revenue for the next five years would support energy efficiency with the balance likely to be spent on schools.
If it does not pass, multistate businesses can continue to choose one of the two methods to determine their California taxable income.
The concerns of this proposition are the new State Senate districts drawn by the Citizens Redistricting Commission. If the proposition passes, the districts are approved.
If it is negated, the districts are not approved and will be adjusted by officials supervised by the California Supreme Court.