Politichaos

Resolving the Ruckus

Proposition 63

vote.jpg

Firearms. Ammunition Sales.

"Safety for All Act of 2016"

initiative statute

*PASSED*

Official Summary

Requires background check and Department of Justice authorization to purchase ammunition. Prohibits possession of large–capacity ammunition magazines (>10 rounds), and requires their disposal. Establishes procedures for enforcing laws prohibiting firearm possession by specified persons. Requires Department of Justice's participation in federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System (currently optional).

Fiscal Impact: Increased state and local court and law enforcement costs, potentially in the tens of millions of dollars annually, related to a new court process for removing firearms from prohibited persons after they are convicted.

Notes

  • requires most ammunition sales be made through licensed ammunition vendors and reported to Dept of Justice
    • 1 year license
    • not required if hunter selling less than 50 rounds per month to another licensed hunter on hunting trip
    • firearm dealers will automatically get ammunition license
    • dealers must report any theft within 48 hours
    • vendor who fails to comply 3 times will have license permanently revoked
    • starting Jan 2018, most ammo sales must take place through licensed ammo dealer (including internet sales)
    • starting July 2019, CA residents bringing ammo into state must have ammo delivered to a dealer (1.5 yrs before current law goes into effect)
    • if transaction between 2 non-licensed individuals, must go to licensed dealer to do check before transfer happens, unless immediate family member
    • requires specific signage at licensee
    • gun show sales are included
    • report of sales (current process for handgun ammo) adjusted - removes requirement for right thumbprint on form; must keep ammo sales records - Ammunition Purchase Records File
  • Dept of Justice approval to buy ammo
    • starting July 2019, dealer will need to check with DOJ to be sure person buying is not on prohibited list
    • check not necessary for people with conceal carry permits (July 2016 law negates this)
    • individuals must obtain a 4-year permit from Dept of Justice (up to $50 fee)
  • large capacity magazines (hold more than 10 rounds)
    • have not been sold in CA since 2000
    • persons who owned them before 2000 could keep them
    • beginning July 2017, these magazines would be illegal
    • exempt: if firearm only can use large capacity magazine
    • exempt: current and retired law enforcement, armored car businesses, licensed collector of firearms
  • in quite a bit of the law's changes, "handgun ammo" is being replaced by "ammo"
  • requires lost or stolen firearms and ammunition be reported to law enforcement within 5 days, except antique firearms and for law enforcement individuals
    • name, date of birth, physical description
  • requires Dept of Justice to provide information about prohibited persons to federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) - currently optional
  • taking guns away
    • new court process to have certain offenders define a designee who will turn over their guns to local law enforcement for holding for 30 days, sell them or give them to a licensed firearms dealer for storage
  • prohibited persons:
    • convicted of felonies and some misdemeanors (such as assault, battery)
    • court determines they are a danger to themselves or others  due to mental illness
    • with a restraining order against them
  • CA Dept of Justice maintains a database of individuals who have legally bought or registered a firearm with the state
  • Under federal law, firearm dealers must already do background checks on individuals seeking to buy firearms
  • Current Law - 10 day waiting period when buying gun from dealer
  • Fines defined in laws, lots of them, mostly $100-$1000

Proposition 64

vote.jpg

Marijuana Legalization.

"Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act"

initiative statute

*PASSED*

Official Summary

Legalizes marijuana under state law, for use by adults 21 or older. Imposes state taxes of 15% on sales and taxes of $9.25/oz flowers or $2.75/oz leaves on cultivation. Provides for industry licensing and establishes standards for marijuana products. Allows local regulation and taxation.

Fiscal Impact: Additional tax revenues ranging from high hundreds of millions of dollars to over $1 billion annually, mostly dedicated to specific purposes. Reduced criminal justice costs of tens of millions of dollars annually.

Notes

  • taxes
    • on growing: $9.25/oz flowers or $2.75/oz leaves
    • retail tax: 15%
    • existing state and local sales tax (currently 7.5%-10%) - only on non-medical
    • funds deposited into California Marijuana Tax Fund
  • legal to:
    • possess up to 28.5 grams of marijuana
    • possess up to 8 grams of concentrated cannabis
    • possess up to 6 plants in a private residence, and the marijuana produced by them (in locked space, not visible from public space)
  • allows for local regulation/taxes/prohibition
  • authorizes resentencing and destruction of records (within 2 years) for prior marijuana convictions
  • mandatory labeling and packaging requirements
  • large scale cultivation licenses prohibited for the first 5 years; license could be denied if the grower could "allow unreasonable restraints on competition by creation or maintenance of unlawful monopoly power"
  • mandates that products cannot be advertised or marketed towards children
  • allows industrial hemp to be grown, regulated separately from cannabis with higher delta-9 THC concentrations
  • prohibited:
    • smoking in public spaces
    • smoking where tobacco smoking is prohibited
    • smoking or ingesting within 1000 feet of K-12 school, day care center or youth center when children are present except upon grounds of private residence if smoke is not detectable on those grounds
    • no open containers in vehicles
    • penalties: drug education programs + community service for those under 18, fines up to $250
  • licenses will start to be distributed in 2018; until 2020, must have been continuous California residency since Jan 1, 2015; until 2020, priority given to existing medical marijuana vendors; not to violent/serious/embezzlement/fraud/drug activities with a minor/drug trafficking felons or persons previously convicted of illegal marijuana activities within 3 years
  • patients with current medical marijuana permit will have to be re-certified by 2018 (fee up to $100)
  • under federal law, it is illegal to posses or use marijuana, but US DOJ chooses not to prosecute most marijuana users and businesses that follow state and local law
  • 1996 Prop 215 legalized medical marijuana in CA
  • regulated by the Bureau of Marijuana Control - handles both medical and non-medical regulations and licensing; edibles and testing regulated byDept of Public Health; growers also regulated by Dept of Food and Agriculture, State Water Resources Control Board, Dept of Fish and Wildlife, Dept of Pesticide Regulation
  • purchase would occur at state-licensed business (not within 600 feet of a K-12 school, day care or youth center) or through their delivery service
  • state-licensed business could not sell alcohol or tobacco products, could allow on-site consumption with local authorization
  • cultivation applicants must include procedures on the application for: cultivation, extraction and infusion methods, transportation process, inventory process, quality control, water source(s), diagram of premises
  • California Marijuana Tax Fund allocations
    • $10-50 Million - grants to communities most affected by past drug policies
    • $10 Million - evaluate effects of the measure (2018-2028)
    • $3 Million - create and adopt methods to determine whether someone is driving while impaired (2018-2022)
    • $2 Million - study risks and benefits of medical marijuana
    • 60% of remaining - youth programs, including substance use disorder education, prevention and treatment
    • 20% of remaining - clean up and prevent environmental damage of illegal growing of marijuana
    • 20% of remaining - programs designed to reduce driving under the influence and grant program designed to reduce any potential negative impacts on public health or safety resulting from the measure

Proposition 65

vote.jpg

Carryout Bags. Charges.

The Environmental Fee Protection Act

initiative statute

*Failed*

Official Summary

Redirects money collected by grocery and certain other retail stores through mandated sale of carryout bags. Requires stores to deposit bag sale proceeds into a special Wildlife Conservation Board fund to support specified environmental projects.

Fiscal Impact: Potential state revenue of several tens of millions of dollars annually under certain circumstances, with the monies used to support certain environmental programs.

Notes

  • law was passed (SB 270) in 2014 requiring stores to charge at least 10 cents for carryout bags, and stores keep those monies. If this referendum passes it will go into effect, if not it will be repealed.
  • funds from minimum charge for single use bags would now go into the Environmental Protection ad Enhancement Fund instead of being kept by retailers
  • relevant for stores with gross annual sales of over $2 Million of groceries, is over 10,000 sf including pharmacy or is a convenience store that has a liquor license
  • Environmental Protection ad Enhancement Fund grants for:
    • drought mitigation
    • recycling
    • clean drinking water supplies
    • state, regional and local parks
    • beach cleanup
    • litter removal
    • wildlife habitat restoration
    • max 2% admin fees
    • $400k for annual audit
    • Proposition 67 also concerns single use bags. Here's what would happen if each passes/fails.
prop65-fig1
prop65-fig1

Proposition 66

vote.jpg

Death Penalty. Procedures.

"Death Penalty Reform and Savings Act of 2016"

initiative statute

*pending*

Official Summary

Changes procedures governing state court challenges to death sentences. Designates superior court for initial petitions and limits successive petitions. Requires appointed attorneys who take noncapital appeals to accept death penalty appeals. Exempts prison officials from existing regulation process for developing execution methods.

Fiscal Impact: Unknown ongoing impact on state court costs for processing legal challenges to death sentences. Potential prison savings in the tens of millions of dollars annually.

Notes

  • establishes time frame for state court death penalty review
    • total of 5 years max instead of current system when it could take decades
  • under current law, death penalty verdicts are immediately appealed ("direct appeal") to California Supreme Court, then they can ask the US Supreme Court to review the case
  • many cases also involve Habeas Corpus appeals, in the California Supreme Court and the federal courts
  • Habeas Corpus petitions - new
    • must be first heard in trial courts by the judge that handeled the original trial, instead of California Supreme Court (within 1 year of original verdict). Next step would be the Court of Appeals (must file within 30 days of trial court appeal verdict), then California Supreme Court
    • must be filed within 1 year of attorney appointment, currently about 5 years
    • limits to one petition
    • Habeas Corpus Resource Center board dissolved, Center put under California Supreme Court, and its attorneys shall be paid the same as public defenders
  • Califonia Supreme Court appoints attorneys for inmates that cannot afford them; currently 409 are waiting to get attorneys appointed
  • authorizes death row inmate transfers among California prisons
  • increases portion of condemned inmates' wages that may be applied to victim restitution (from 50% wages to 70%, including wages and trust account deposits)
  • exempts the state's execution procedures from the Administrative Procedures Act, trial court would offer valid method of execution (lethal gas or lethal injection)
  • states that other death penalty measures are void if this one receives more votes
  • Related: Proposition 62 abolishes the Death Penalty in California , but if this gets more votes, the death penalty stays put

Proposition 67

vote.jpg

Ban on Single-Use Plastic Bags.

referendum

*PASSED*

Official Summary

Prohibits grocery and other stores from providing customers single–use plastic or paper carryout bags but permits sale of recycled paper bags and reusable bags at a minimum of 10 cents per bag.

Fiscal Impact: Relatively small fiscal effects on state and local governments, including a minor increase in state administrative costs and possible minor local government savings from reduced litter and waste management costs.

Notes

  • currently 40% of California's population lives in areas where single use bags are banned, normally requiring stores to charge at least 10 cents, which the store keeps
  • law was passed (SB 270) in 2014 requiring stores to charge at least 10 cents for carryout bags, and stores keep those monies. If this referendum passes it will go into effect, if not it will be repealed.
  • this measure creates new standards for durability of carryout bags
    • design: handle good for 125 uses; volume of 15 liters; can carry 22 lbs for min 175 feet; for plastic at least 2.25 mils thick; for fabric at least 80 grams per square meter and sewn
    • has label
    • able to be cleaned
    • recyclable
    • does not contain toxic material
    • made of post-consumer recycled material min 20% before 2020, 40% after
    • special section for compostable bags
    • reusable grocery bag producer list maintained
      • producers of recyclable bags must be certified every 2 years
      • process for consumers to say eusable bag is not up to snuff
      • relevant for stores with gross annual sales of over $2 Million of groceries, is over 10,000 sf including pharmacy or is a convenience store that has a liquor license
      • customers using WICS don't have to pay for single use bags
      • monies collected by stores for single use bags must be used for cost of those bags, complying with regulation and educational materials encouraging use of recyclable bags
      • penalty for noncompliance, starting at $1000/day, up to $5000/day
      • states that no other laws on single use bags can be implemented or enforced
      • provides for loans to producers of reusable bags
      • Proposition 65 also concerns single use bags. Here's what would happen if each passes/fails.
prop67-fig1
prop67-fig1

Proposition 39 : Corporate Taxation and Energy Fund

Official title : Tax Treatment for Multistate Businesses. Clean Energy and Energy Efficiency Funding. Initiative Statute.

State analysis      /    Money trail

Summary :

  1. Requires multistate businesses to calculate their California income tax liability based on the percentage of their sales in California.
  2. Repeals existing law giving multistate businesses an option to choose a tax liability formula that provides favorable tax treatment for businesses with property and payroll outside California.
  3. Dedicates 50%, up to $550 million annually for 5 years for the purpose of funding projects that create energy efficiency and clean energy jobs in California. The rest would go in the General Fund.

Notes:

  1. There is specific language related to large cable companies.
  2. Eligible energy projects include:
    1. energy efficiency retrofits and alternative energy projects in public schools, colleges, universities, and other public facilities
    2. financial and technical assistance for energy retrofits
    3. job training and workforce development programs related to energy efficiency and alternative energy
    4. Expected increase in revenues of $1B annually. Currently $9.6B.

Proposition 38 : Income Tax Increase for Education

Official title : Tax to Fund Education and Early Childhood Programs. Initiative Statute.

State analysis     /    Money trail

Summary :

  1. Increases personal income tax rates on annual earnings over $7,316 using sliding scale from .4% for lowest individual earners to 2.2% for individuals earning over $2.5 million, for 12 years.
  2. During first four years, allocates 60% of revenues to K–12 schools, 30% to repaying state debt (focusing on education-related debt), and 10% to early childhood programs. Thereafter, allocates 85% of revenues to K–12 schools, 15% to early childhood programs.
  3. Provides K–12 funds on school-specific, per-pupil basis, subject to local control, audits, and public input.
  4. Prohibits state from directing new funds, can only be reallocated with ballot measure.

Notes:

 

  • Details for income tax increases:
  • 60% of taxpayers would have an increased tax bill
  • Moneys for schools from this proposition are over and above current budget requirements for schools.
  • Distribution of money to specific schools (not to the districts):
    1. 70% based on per-student grants based on each student's grades, used for instruction, school support staff (such as counselors and librarians), and parent engagement.
    2. 18% based on low income student population (based on how many qualify for free meals), used for instruction, school support staff (such as counselors and librarians), and parent engagement.
    3. 12% based on student population, used for training school staff and purchasing up-to-date technology and teaching materials.
    4. When the school governing board decides how to spend the funds, it must explain—publicly and online—how CETF school expenditures will improve educational outcomes and how those improved outcomes will be measured.
    5. All school districts must create and publish an online budget for each of their schools. The budget must show funding and expenditures at each school from all funding sources, broken down by various spending categories.
    6. up to 1 percent of a school district’s allocation to be spent on budgeting, reporting, and audit requirements. The measure prohibits CETF school funds from being used to provide salary or benefit increases unless the increases are provided to other like employees that are funded with non-CETF dollars.
    7. In the initial years, it is estimated that schools would receive approximately $1000 per student.
    8. Early childhood program funds are specifically allocated in 7 areas.
    9. State would be required to spend at least the same level of funding as in 2012-2013 in the future (roughly 1%) for ECE.
    10. ECE facility rating system introduced - higher rated facilities would get more money.
    11. Toddler program established.
    12. Initial additional revenue would be about $10B, $3B which could be used for General Fund.
    13. This proposition is funded by Molly Munger ($31M as of 10/10/12)

Proposition 37 : Genetically Engineered Food Labeling

Official title : Genetically Engineered Foods. Labeling. Initiative Statute.

State analysis      /    Money trail

Summary :

  1. Requires labeling on raw or processed food offered for sale to consumers if made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways.
  2. Prohibits labeling or advertising GE food as “natural,” “naturally made,” “naturally grown,” or “all natural”
  3. Exempts foods that are:
    1. certified organic
    2. unintentionally produced with genetically engineered material
    3. made from animals fed or injected with genetically engineered material but not genetically engineered themselves
    4. processed with or containing only small amounts of genetically engineered ingredients
    5. administered for treatment of medical conditions
    6. sold for immediate consumption such as in a restaurant
    7. alcoholic beverages.
    8. Requires Department of Public Health to regulate the labeling of such foods
    9. Allows individuals to sue food manufacturers who violate the measure’s labeling provisions under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, which allows consumers to sue without needing to demonstrate that any specific damage occurred as a result of the alleged violation.

Notes:

  1. Genetically engineered foods definition
  2. On raw foods, the label must be on the front package or label.
  3. on processed foods, must have “Partially Produced with Genetic Engineering” or “May be Partially Produced with Genetic Engineering.” on label.
  4. Retailers would be responsible for the products on their shelves being correctly labeled. For each product that is not labeled as GE, a retailer generally must be able to document why that product is exempt from labeling via
    1. a sworn statement from the provider of the product (such as a wholesaler) indicating that the product has not been intentionally or knowingly genetically engineered or
    2. by receiving independent certification that the product does not contain GE ingredients.

Proposition 36 : 3 Strikes Law

Official title : Three Strikes Law. Repeat Felony Offenders. Penalties. Initiative Statute.

State analysis       /    Money trail

Summary :

  1. Revises three strikes law to impose life sentence only when new felony conviction is serious or violent, and certain sex, drug and gun felonies.
  2. Authorizes re-sentencing for offenders currently serving life sentences if third strike conviction was not serious or violent and  offender does not pose unreasonable risk to public safety. Currently 25 yrs to life, change would be to double the normal term, with some exceptions for certain sex, drug and gun prior felonies.
  3. Maintains life sentence penalty for felons with nonserious, non-violent third strike if prior convictions were for rape, murder, or child molestation.

Notes:

  1. Current 3 strikes law says that if a person who is convicted of a felony, and who previously has been convicted of one or more violent or serious felonies
    1. if they had 1 previous serious felony and new crime is a violent felony, the term is doubled.
    2. if they
    3. if they had 2 previous serious felonies and they commit a new crime (felony or not), the term is life, parole a possibility after 25 years.
    4. As of March 2012, about 33,000 inmates were second strikers and 9,000 were third strikers.
    5. Savings expected to be $70M annually.

Proposition 35 : Human Trafficking

Official title : Human Trafficking. Penalties. Initiative Statute.

State analysis      /    Money trail

Summary :

  1. Increases criminal penalties for human trafficking, including prison sentences up to 15-years-to-life (currently 5 to 8 yrs) and fines up to $1,500,000, used for victim services (70%) and law enforcement (30%).
  2. Requires sex offenders to provide information regarding Internet access and identities they use in online activities.
  3. Prohibits evidence that human trafficking victim engaged in sexual conduct from being used against them in court proceedings (eg. prostitution).
  4. Requires 2 hours of human trafficking training for police officers.
  5. Expands definition of human trafficking to include creation and distribution of obscene materials depicting minors.

Notes:

  1. Most human trafficking cases are handled by the Feds. There are currently 18 human traffickers in jail convicted by the State.
  2. Federal definition of human trafficking includes sex trafficking and labor trafficking.
  3. CA state law defines human trafficking as violating the liberty of a person with the intent to either (1) commit certain felony crimes (such as prostitution) or (2) obtain forced labor or services.
  4. Summary of changes to maximum penalties:
    1. Labor trafficking - current = 5 years, new = 12 years
    2. Sex trafficking of an adult, forced - current = 5 years, new = 20 years
    3. Sex trafficking of a minor without force - current = none, new = 12 years
    4. Sex trafficking of a minor, forced - current = 8 years, new = life term
    5. Great bodily injury, on top of other penalties - current = 6 years, new = 10 years
    6. Prior human trafficking offense, on top of other penalties - current = none, new = 5 years per prior conviction
    7. Sex trafficking a minor - current = up to $100k, new = $1.5M for all human trafficking offenses

Proposition 34 : Death Penalty

Official title : Death Penalty. Initiative Statute.

State analysis     /    Money trail

Summary :

  1. Repeals death penalty and replaces it with life imprisonment without possibility of parole, and they must work while in prison with their wages subject to deductions to be applied to any victim restitution fines or orders against them.
  2. Directs $100 million to law enforcement agencies for investigations of homicide and rape cases, paid over the next 4 years (SAFE California Fund).

Notes:

  1. Inmates are currently required to work. Change is that this would require every person found guilty of murder to work and have their pay deducted for any debts they owe to victims of crime.
  2. Any death penalty verdict is automatically appealed to the CA Supreme Court. Current death penalty appeals would move from the CA Supreme Court to Court of Appeal or Superior Court.
  3. Annual savings for trials estimated at $100M annually.
  4. First degree murder with special circumstances is the only crime where the death penalty is applicable.
  5. Since the current death penalty law was enacted in California in 1978, around 900 individuals have received a death sentence. Of these, 14 have been executed, 83 have died prior to being executed, and about 75 have had their sentences reduced by the courts. As of July 2012, California had 725 offenders in state prison who were sentenced to death.

Proposition 33 : Auto Insurance Discount

Official title : Auto Insurance Companies. Prices Based on Driver’s History of Insurance Coverage. Initiative Statute.

State analysis    /    Money trail

Summary :

  1. Allows insurance companies to give continuous coverage discounts to drivers with some history of prior insurance coverage at another provider. Currently can only give that discount if coverage is at existing provider. Children residing with a parent could qualify for the discount based on their parent’s eligibility. Discount may be prorated based on % covered over the last 5 years.
  2. Treats drivers with lapse as continuously covered if lapse is due to military service, or 18 months in the last 5 years due to loss of employment, or if lapse is less than 90 days in 5 years.

Notes:

  1. Since 1988, the CA Insurance Commissioner reviews and approves rate changes for certain types of insurance, including automobile insurance, before changes to the rates can take effect. Factors are: (1) the insured’s driving safety record, (2) the number of miles they drive each year, and (3) the number of years they have been driving plus 16 other factors.
  2. Money supporting this initiative is primarily from Mercury Insurance and other insurance companies/agents.

Proposition 32 : State and Local Political Contributions

Official title : Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction. Contributions to Candidates. Initiative Statute.

State analysis   /    Money trail

Summary :

  1. Prohibits unions, corporations and government contractors from using payroll-deducted funds for state & local political purposes.
  2. Prohibits unions and corporations from contributing directly or indirectly to state & local candidates and candidate controlled committees. They can contribute to superPACs, ballot measures, etc via independent expenditures.
  3. Prohibits government contractor contributions to elected officers or officer-controlled committees who play a role in awarding their contracts, from the time the contract is being considered until contract is expired.

Notes: none at this time

Proposition 31 : State Budget

Official title : State Budget. State and Local Government. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute

State analysis     /    Money trail

Summary :

  1. Establishes two-year state budget cycle beginning in 2015.
  2. Prohibits Legislature from creating expenditures of more than $25 million unless offsetting revenues or spending cuts are identified.
  3. Permits Governor to cut budget unilaterally during declared fiscal emergencies if Legislature fails to act.
  4. Requires performance reviews of all state programs at least once every 5 years.
  5. Requires performance goals in state and local budgets.
  6. Requires publication of bills at least three days prior to legislative vote (except for natural disaster and terrorost attack measures).
  7. Allows local governments to decide how to provide services and instead of implementing state laws/regulations, create "functionally equivalent" procedures.
  8. Local governments get to decide how property taxes are allocated among local government entities.

Notes:

  1. Budget:
    1. Currently budget requires passing by a majority in both houses, 2/3 vote in both houses to increase state taxes.
    2. State constitution mandates that the overall budget be balanced.
    3. Under this proposition, if a bill increases spending by over $25M, Legislature must show how it would be offset by other spending reductions and/or revenue increases.
    4. Exemptions:
      1. one-time spending for a state department or program
      2. increase funding for a department or program due to increases in workload or the cost of living
      3. provide funding required by federal law
      4. increase the pay or other compensation of state employees pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement
      5. bills that restore funding to state programs reduced to help balance the state budget in any year after 2008–09
      6. Under this proposition, if a bill decreases revenues by over $25M, Legislature must show how it would be offset by spending reductions and/or other revenue increases.
      7. Additional Governor powers:
        1. Only comes into play if the Legislature does not pass legislation to address a fiscal emergency within 45 days.
        2. Governor could not reduce spending that is required by the Constitution or federal law (most school spending, debt service, pension contributions, and some health and social services).
        3. Total amount of the reductions could not exceed the amount necessary to balance the budget.
        4. The Legislature could override all or part of the reductions by a two-thirds vote in both of its houses.
        5. Local procedures notes:
          1. Services included: economic development, education, social services, public safety, and public health
          2. State funds would be used for the local "functionally equivalent" procedures instead of the state law or regulation.
          3. Local procedures could be vetoed by the State Legislature
          4. Local procedures would expire after 4 years.

Proposition 30 : 2012 Budget Agreement - Income and Sales Tax Increases

Official title : Temporary Taxes to Fund Education. Guaranteed Local Public Safety Funding. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

State analysis    /    Money trail

Summary :

  1. CA income tax increased for 7 years for  taxable income over $250k (approx 1% of taxpayers = 40% of CA income tax revenue)) from 2012 to 2018:
    1. single between $250k-$300k, up 1% (now 9.3%)
    2. joint  between $500k-$600k, up 1% (now 9.3%)
    3. HOH between $340k-$408k, up 1% (now 9.3%)
    4. single  between $300k-$500k, up 2% (now 9.3%)
    5. joint  between $600k-$1M, up 2% (now 9.3%)
    6. HOH  between $408k-$680k, up 2% (now 9.3%)
    7. single  over $500k up 3% (now 9.3%)
    8. joint  over $1M up 3% (now 9.3%)
    9. HOH over $680k up 3% (now 9.3%)
    10. single over $1M up 3% (now 10.3%)
    11. Increases sales and use tax by ¼ cent for 4 years, from 1/1/2013 through 12/31/2016.
    12. Allocates temporary tax revenues 89% to K–12 schools and 11% to community colleges.
    13. Permanently excludes the sales tax revenues redirected to local governments from the calculation of the minimum funding guarantee for schools and community colleges.
    14. Provisions concerning public safety services moved from state to local control in 2011 :
      1. Guarantees money to local government for public safety services moved from state to local control in 2011.
      2. Local governments would not be required to implement any future state laws that increase local costs to administer the program responsibilities transferred in 2011, unless the state provided additional money to pay for the increased costs. The measure requires the state to pay part of any new local costs that result from certain court actions and changes in federal statutes or regulations related to the transferred program responsibilities.
      3. Under the Constitution, the state must reimburse local governments when it imposes new responsibilities or “mandates” upon them. Under current law, the state could be required to provide local governments with additional funding (mandate reimbursements) to pay for some of the transferred program responsibilities. This measure specifies that the state would not be required to provide such mandate reimbursements.
      4. The Ralph M. Brown Act requires that all meetings of local legislative bodies be open and public. In the past, the state has reimbursed local governments for costs resulting from certain provisions of the Brown Act (such as the requirement to prepare and post agendas for public meetings). This measure specifies that the state would not be responsible for paying local agencies for the costs of following the open meeting procedures in the Brown Act.

Notes :

  1. Expected to bring in $6 billion annually.
  2. The 2012-2013 budget passed by the legislature assumes this will pass. If it doesn't, automatic spending cuts will happen to the tune of $6B.
  3. Proposition 38 also deals with personal income tax increases. If both pass, the tax rate provisions of one with the higher number of votes would be implemented. If Prop 38 gets more votes and both pass, the trigger cuts of $6B would take place.
  4. Trigger cut details:
    1. Schools and community colleges (K-14) - $5,354M
    2. University of California - $250M
    3. California State University - $250M
    4. Department of Developmental Services - $50M
    5. City police department grants - $20M
    6. CalFire - $10M
    7. DWR flood control programs - $7M
    8. Local water safety patrol grants - $5M
    9. Department of Fish and Game - $4M
    10. Department of Parks and Recreation - $2M
    11. DOJ law enforcement programs - $1M
    12. Public safety services that were transferred from state to local control in 2011 (roughly $6B):
      1. incarcerating certain adult offenders
      2. supervising parolees
      3. providing substance abuse treatment services