Ballot titles, summaries and fiscal statements for California 2012 ballot propositions

See also: California 2012 ballot propositions

* * *

2012 propositions

June 5
Proposition 28
Proposition 29
November 6
Proposition 30
Proposition 31
Proposition 32
Proposition 33
Proposition 34
Proposition 35
Proposition 36
Proposition 37
Proposition 38
Proposition 39
Proposition 40
Donations • Vendors
Endorsements • Full text
Ballot titles • Fiscal impact
Local measures

## Contents

* 1 June 5
* 1.1 Proposition 28
* 1.1.1 Title
* 1.1.2 Summary
* 1.1.3 Fiscal impact
* 1.2 Proposition 29
* 1.2.1 Title
* 1.2.2 Summary
* 1.2.3 Fiscal impact
* 2 November 6
* 2.1 Proposition 30
* 2.1.1 Title
* 2.1.2 Summary
* 2.1.3 Fiscal impact
* 2.2 Proposition 31
* 2.2.1 Title
* 2.2.2 Summary
* 2.2.3 Fiscal impact
* 2.3 Proposition 32
* 2.3.1 Title
* 2.3.2 Summary
* 2.3.3 Fiscal impact
* 2.4 Proposition 33
* 2.4.1 Title
* 2.4.2 Summary
* 2.4.3 Fiscal impact
* 2.5 Proposition 34
* 2.5.1 Title
* 2.5.2 Summary
* 2.5.3 Fiscal impact
* 2.6 Proposition 35
* 2.6.1 Title
* 2.6.2 Summary
* 2.6.3 Fiscal impact
* 2.7 Proposition 36
* 2.7.1 Title
* 2.7.2 Summary
* 2.7.3 Fiscal impact
* 2.8 Proposition 37
* 2.8.1 Title
* 2.8.2 Summary
* 2.8.3 Fiscal impact
* 2.9 Proposition 38
* 2.9.1 Title
* 2.9.2 Summary
* 2.9.3 Fiscal impact
* 2.10 Proposition 39
* 2.10.1 Title
* 2.10.2 Summary
* 2.10.3 Fiscal impact
* 2.11 Proposition 40
* 2.11.1 Title
* 2.11.2 Summary
* 3 See also
* 4 Footnotes

## June 5[edit]

### Proposition 28[edit]

See also: California Proposition 28, Change in State Legislative Term Limits Initiative (June 2012)

#### Title[edit]

Limits on Legislators' Terms in Office. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

#### Summary[edit]

Reduces the total amount of time a person may serve in the state legislature from 14 years to 12 years. Allows a person to serve a total of 12 years either in the Assembly, the Senate, or a combination of both. Applies only to legislators first elected after the measure is passed. Provides that legislators elected before the measure is passed continue to be subject to existing term limits.

#### Fiscal impact[edit]

No direct fiscal effect on state or local governments.

### Proposition 29[edit]

See also: California Proposition 29, Tobacco Tax for Cancer Research Fund Initiative (June 2012)

#### Title[edit]

Imposes Additional Tax on Cigarettes for Cancer Research. Initiative Statute.

#### Summary[edit]

Imposes additional five cent tax on each cigarette distributed ($1.00 per pack), and an equivalent tax increase on other tobacco products, to fund cancer research and other specified purposes. Requires tax revenues be deposited into a special fund to finance research and research facilities focused on detecting, preventing, treating, and curing cancer, heart disease, emphysema, and other tobacco-related diseases, and to finance prevention programs. Creates nine-member committee charged with administering the fund.

#### Fiscal impact[edit]

Increase in new cigarette tax revenues of about $850 million annually by 2011-12, declining slightly annually thereafter, for various health research and tobacco-related programs. Increase of about $45 million annually to existing health, natural resources, and research programs funded by existing tobacco taxes, but a decrease of about $45 million annually in tobacco taxes for early childhood programs. Increase in state and local sales taxes of about $32 million annually.

## November 6[edit]

Sponsors of an initiative are required to file their proposed language with the Attorney General of California prior to petition circulation. That office then provides them with an official ballot title and ballot summary. This official language must appear on the petitions that are circulated.

In 2012, after the period for circulation had drawn to a close and eleven initiatives had qualified for the ballot, the Attorney General of California made changes to seven of the eleven official titles. In the list below, a note appears for each of the seven ballot initiatives where a change occurred in its official title. The changed title is given, as well as the original title.

### Proposition 30[edit]

See also: California Proposition 30, Sales and Income Tax Increase (2012)

#### Title[edit]

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

#### Summary[edit]

"Increases personal income tax on annual earnings over $250,000 for seven years. Increases sales and use tax by ¼ cent for four years. Allocates temporary tax revenues 89 percent to K-12 schools and 11 percent to community colleges. Bars use of funds for administrative costs, but provides local school governing boards discretion to decide, in open meetings and subject to annual audit, how funds are to be spent. Guarantees funding for public safety services realigned from state to local governments."

#### Fiscal impact[edit]

(This is a summary of the initiative's estimated "fiscal impact on state and local government" prepared by the California Legislative Analyst's Office and the Director of Finance.)

"Increased state revenues over the next seven fiscal years. Estimates of the revenue increases vary—from $6.8 billion to $9 billion for 2012-13 and from $5.4 billion to $7.6 billion, on average, in the following five fiscal years, with lesser amounts in 2018-19. These revenues would be available to (1) pay for the state's school and community college funding requirements, as increased by this measure, and (2) address the state's budgetary problem by paying for other spending commitments. Limitation on the state's ability to make changes to the programs and revenues shifted to local governments in 2011, resulting in a more stable fiscal situation for local governments."

### Proposition 31[edit]

See also: California Proposition 31, Two-Year State Budget Cycle Initiative (2012)

#### Title[edit]

State Budget. State and Local Government. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

#### Summary[edit]

"Establishes two-year state budget cycle. Prohibits Legislature from creating expenditures of more than $25 million unless offsetting revenues or spending cuts are identified. Permits Governor to cut budget unilaterally during declared fiscal emergencies if Legislature fails to act. Requires performance reviews of all state programs. Requires performance goals in state and local budgets. Requires publication of all bills at least three days prior to legislative vote. Gives counties power to alter state statutes or regulations related to spending unless Legislature or state agency vetoes changes within 60 days."

#### Fiscal impact[edit]

(This is a summary of the initiative's estimated "fiscal impact on state and local government" prepared by the California Legislative Analyst's Office and the Director of Finance.)

"Decreased state revenues and commensurate increased local revenues, probably in the range of about $200 million annually, beginning in 2013-14. Potential decreased state program costs or increased state revenues resulting from changes in the fiscal authority of the Legislature and Governor. Increased state and local costs of tens of millions of dollars annually to implement new budgeting practices. Over time, these costs would moderate and potentially be offset by savings from improved program efficiencies."

### Proposition 32[edit]

See also: California Proposition 32, Ban on Political Contributions from Payroll Deductions Initiative (2012)

#### Title[edit]

Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction. Contributions to Candidates. Initiative Statute.

Note: The original title given to Proposition 32 by election officials during the petition circulation stage was, "Prohibits Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction. Prohibitions on Contributions to Candidates. Initiative Statute."

#### Summary[edit]

Proposition 32's ballot label has gone through three versions. The third and final version was given to it by a Sacramento County Superior Court Judge on August 13, 2012.[1]

The final label is:

"Prohibits unions from using payroll-deducted funds for political purposes. Applies same use prohibition to payroll deductions, if any, by corporations or government contractors. Prohibits union and corporate contributions to candidates and their committees. Prohibits government contractor contributions to elected officers or their committees."

The second version, given to Proposition 32 after it qualified for the ballot, said:

"Restricts union political fundraising by prohibiting use of payroll-deducted funds for political purposes. Applies same use restrictions to payroll deductions, if any, by corporations or government contractors. Prohibits union and corporate contributions to candidates and their committees. Prohibits government contractor contributions to elected officers or their committees."

The original version given to Proposition 32 by election officials during the petition circulation stage was:

"Restricts union political fundraising by prohibiting use of payroll-deducted funds for political purposes. Same use restriction would apply to payroll deductions, if any, by corporations or government contractors. Permits voluntary employee contributions to employer or union committees if authorized yearly, in writing. Prohibits unions and corporations from contributing directly or indirectly to candidates and candidate-controlled committees. Other political expenditures remain unrestricted, including corporate expenditures from available resources not limited by payroll deduction prohibition. Limits government contractor contributions to elected officers or officer-controlled committees."

#### Fiscal impact[edit]

(This is a summary of the initiative's estimated "fiscal impact on state and local government" prepared by the California Legislative Analyst's Office and the Director of Finance.)

"Increased state implementation and enforcement costs of up to hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, potentially offset in part by revenues from fines."

### Proposition 33[edit]

See also: California Proposition 33, History of Automobile Insurance Discount Initiative (2012)

Note: Supporters of Proposition 33 filed a lawsuit seeking changes in the official title. The lawsuit said, in part, "The Ballot Label and Ballot Title and Summary prepared by the Attorney General for Proposition 33 contain inaccurate language that is highly likely to prejudice voters against the measure...Specifically, the Ballot Label and Ballot Title and Summary state that Proposition 33 changes current law to allow insurance companies to 'set prices.' This is not true. Under California law, insurance companies cannot simply set prices, and Proposition 33 will not change this fact."[2][3] Sacramento Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley rejected the lawsuit. This rejection was described by Proposition 33 opponent Jamie Court of Consumer Watchdog as a "total victory" for opponents.[4]

#### Title[edit]

Auto Insurance Companies. Prices based on Driver's History of Insurance Coverage. Initiative Statute.

Note: The original title given to Proposition 33 by election officials during the petition circulation stage was, "Changes Law to Allow Auto Insurance Companies to Set Prices Based on a Driver's History of Insurance Coverage. Initiative Statute."

#### Summary[edit]

"Changes current law to permit insurance companies to set prices based on whether the driver previously carried auto insurance with any insurance company. Allows insurance companies to give proportional discounts to drivers with some prior insurance coverage. Will allow insurance companies to increase cost of insurance to drivers who have not maintained continuous coverage. Treats drivers with lapse as continuously covered if lapse is due to military service or loss of employment, or if lapse is less than 90 days."

#### Fiscal impact[edit]

(This is a summary of the initiative's estimated "fiscal impact on state and local government" prepared by the California Legislative Analyst's Office and the Director of Finance.)

"Probably no significant fiscal effect on state insurance premium tax revenues."

### Proposition 34[edit]

See also: California Proposition 34, Abolition of the Death Penalty Initiative (2012)

#### Title[edit]

Death Penalty. Initiative Statute.

Note: The original title given to Proposition 34 by election officials during the petition circulation stage was, "Death Penalty Repeal. Initiative Statute."

Supporters of Proposition 34 filed a lawsuit in California Superior Court (Sacramento) seeking to change Proposition 34's official ballot title. Their lawsuit was rejected by Sacramento Superior Court Judge Timothy M. Frawley.[2]

#### Summary[edit]

"Repeals death penalty as maximum punishment for persons found guilty of murder and replaces it with life imprisonment without possibility of parole. Applies retroactively to persons already sentenced to death. Requires persons found guilty of murder to work while in prison, with their wages to be applied to any victim restitution fines or orders against them. Creates $100 million fund to be distributed to law enforcement agencies to help solve more homicide and rape cases."

#### Fiscal impact[edit]

(This is a summary of the initiative's estimated "fiscal impact on state and local government" prepared by the California Legislative Analyst's Office and the Director of Finance.)

"Net savings to the state and counties that could amount to the high tens of millions of dollars annually on a statewide basis due to the elimination of the death penalty. One-time state costs totaling $100 million from 2012-13 through 2015-16 to provide funding to local law enforcement agencies."

### Proposition 35[edit]

See also: California Proposition 35, Ban on Human Trafficking and Sex Slavery Initiative (2012)

#### Title[edit]

Human Trafficking. Penalties. Initiative Statute.

Note: The original title given to Proposition 35 by election officials during the petition circulation stage was, "Human Trafficking. Penalties. Sex Offender Registration. Initiative Statute."

#### Summary[edit]

"Increases prison sentences and fines for human trafficking convictions. Requires convicted human traffickers to register as sex offenders. Requires registered sex offenders to disclose Internet activities and identities."

Note: The original summary given to Proposition 35 by election officials during the petition circulation stage was, "Increases criminal penalties for human trafficking, including prison sentences up to 15-years-to-life and fines up to $1,500,000. Fines collected to be used for victim services and law enforcement. Requires person convicted of trafficking to register as sex offender. Requires sex offenders to provide information regarding Internet access and identities they use in online activities. Prohibits evidence that victim engaged in sexual conduct from being used against victim in court proceedings. Requires human trafficking training for police officers."

#### Fiscal impact[edit]

(This is a summary of the initiative's estimated "fiscal impact on state and local government" prepared by the California Legislative Analyst's Office and the Director of Finance.)

"Costs of a few million dollars annually to state and local governments for addressing human trafficking offenses. Potential increased annual fine revenue of a similar amount, dedicated primarily for human trafficking victims."

Note: The original fiscal note given to Proposition 35 by election officials during the petition circulation stage was, "Potential one-time local government costs of up to a few million dollars on a statewide basis, and lesser additional costs incurred each year, due to the new mandatory training requirements for certain law enforcement officers. Minor increase to state and local governments on the costs of incarcerating and supervising human trafficking offenders. Unknown amount of additional revenue from new criminal fees, likely not to exceed the low millions of dollars annually, which would fund services for human trafficking victims."

### Proposition 36[edit]

See also: California Proposition 36, Changes to Three Strikes Sentencing Initiative (2012)

#### Title[edit]

Three Strikes Law. Repeat Felony Offenders. Penalties. Initiative Statute.

Note: The original title given to Proposition 36 by election officials during the petition circulation stage was, "Three Strikes Law. Sentencing for Repeat Felony Offenders. Initiative Statute."

#### Summary[edit]

"Revises three strikes law to impose life sentence only when new felony conviction is serious or violent. Authorizes re-sentencing for offenders currently serving life sentences if third strike conviction was not serious or violent and judge determines sentence does not pose unreasonable risk to public safety. Continues to impose life sentence penalty if third strike conviction was for certain non-serious, non-violent sex or drug offenses or involved firearm possession. Maintains life sentence penalty for felons with non-serious, non-violent third strike if prior convictions were for rape, murder, or child molestation."

#### Fiscal impact[edit]

(This is a summary of the initiative's estimated "fiscal impact on state and local government" prepared by the California Legislative Analyst's Office and the Director of Finance.)

"State savings related to prison and parole operations that potentially range in the high tens of millions of dollars annually in the short run, possibly exceeding $100 million annually in the long run. Increased state and county costs in the millions to low tens of millions of dollars annually in the first few years, likely declining substantially in future years, for state court activities and county jail, community supervision, and court-related activities."[5]

### Proposition 37[edit]

See also: California Proposition 37, Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food Initiative (2012)

#### Title[edit]

Genetically Engineered Foods. Labeling. Initiative Statute.

Note: The original title given to Proposition 37 by election officials during the petition circulation stage was, "Genetically Engineered Foods. Mandatory Labeling. Initiative Statute."

#### Summary[edit]

"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. Prohibits labeling or advertising such food as “natural.” Exempts foods that are: certified organic; unintentionally produced with genetically engineered material; made from animals fed or injected with genetically engineered material but not genetically engineered themselves; processed with or containing only small amounts of genetically engineered ingredients; administered for treatment of medical conditions; sold for immediate consumption such as in a restaurant; or alcoholic beverages."

#### Fiscal impact[edit]

(This is a summary of the initiative's estimated "fiscal impact on state and local government" prepared by the California Legislative Analyst's Office and the Director of Finance.)

"Potential increase in state administrative costs of up to one million dollars annually to monitor compliance with the disclosure requirements specified in the measure. Unknown, but potentially significant, costs for the courts, the Attorney General, and district attorneys due to litigation resulting from possible violations to the provisions of this measure."

### Proposition 38[edit]

See also: California Proposition 38, State Income Tax Increase for Education Funding Initiative (2012)

#### Title[edit]

Tax to Fund Education and Early Childhood Programs. Initiative Statute.

Note: The original title given to Proposition 38 by election officials during the petition circulation stage was, "Tax for Education and Early Childhood Programs. Initiative Statute."

#### Summary[edit]

"Increases personal income tax rates for annual earnings over $7,316 using sliding scale from .4% for lowest individual earners to 2.2% for individuals earning over $2.5 million, ending after twelve years. During first four years, 60% of revenues go to K-12 schools, 30% to repaying state debt, and 10% to early childhood programs. Thereafter, allocates 85% of revenues to K-12 schools, 15% to early childhood programs. Provides K-12 funds on school specific, per-pupil basis, subject to local control, audits, and public input. Prohibits state from directing or using new funds."

#### Fiscal impact[edit]

(This is a summary of the initiative's estimated "fiscal impact on state and local government" prepared by the California Legislative Analyst's Office and the Director of Finance.)

"Increased state personal income tax revenues beginning in 2013 and ending in 2024. Estimates of the revenue increases vary from $10 billion to $11 billion per fiscal year beginning in 2013-14, tending to increase over time. The 2012-13 revenue increase would be about half this amount. Until the end of 2016-17, 60 percent of revenues would be dedicated to K-12 education and 10 percent would be provided to early care and education programs. These allocations would supplement existing funding for these programs. In 2017-18 and subsequent years, 85 percent would be provided to K-12 education and 15 percent to early care and education. General Fund savings on debt-service costs of about $1.5 billion in 2012-13 and $3 billion in 2013-14, with savings tending to grow thereafter until the end of 2016-17. In 2015-16 and subsequent years with stronger growth in state personal income tax revenues, some of the revenues raised by this measure—several hundred million dollars per year— would be used for debt-service costs, resulting in state savings."

### Proposition 39[edit]

See also: California Proposition 39, Out-of-State Business Tax Liability Calculations and Energy Funding Initiative (2012)

#### Title[edit]

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

#### Summary[edit]

"Requires multistate businesses to calculate their California income tax liability based on the percentage of their sales in California. 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. Dedicates $550 million annually for five years from anticipated increase in revenue for the purpose of funding projects that create energy efficiency and clean energy jobs in California."

#### Fiscal impact[edit]

(This is a summary of the initiative's estimated "fiscal impact on state and local government" prepared by the California Legislative Analyst's Office and the Director of Finance.)

"Approximately $500 million in additional state General Fund revenues in 2012-13 and $1 billion each year thereafter from requiring a single sales factor formula for corporate taxes, with about half of the additional annual revenues from 2013-14 through 2017-18 supporting energy efficiency and alternative energy projects. Increased Proposition 98 minimum funding guarantee for K-14 schools of roughly $225 million annually from 2012-13 through 2017-18 and by roughly $500 million each year thereafter, as a result of additional state General Fund revenues."

### Proposition 40[edit]

See also: California Proposition 40, State Senate Redistricting Plan Referendum (2012)

#### Title[edit]

Redistricting. State Senate Districts. Referendum.

#### Summary[edit]

"State Senate districts are revised every ten years following the federal census. This year, the voter-approved California Citizens Redistricting Commission revised the boundaries of the 40 Senate districts. This referendum petition, if signed by the required number of registered voters and filed with the Secretary of State, will: (1) Place the revised State Senate boundaries on the ballot and prevent them from taking effect unless approved by the voters at the next statewide election; and (2) Require court-appointed officials to set interim boundaries for use in the next statewide election."

## See also[edit]

* Ballot titles, summaries and fiscal statements for California 2010 ballot propositions

## Footnotes[edit]

1. ↑ Superior Court of the State of California County of Sacramento, "Ashlee Titus v. Debra Bowen"
2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Sacramento Bee, "Judge upholds rulings in CA death penalty ballot wording," August 10, 2012
3. ↑ Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; no text was provided for refs named `guide`
4. ↑ Sacramento Bee, "Judge rejects challenge to ballot language on insurance measure," August 9, 2012 (dead link)
5. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Plan to change three-strikes law moves toward November ballot," January 3, 2012

v • e

State of California
Sacramento (capital)

|

Elections |

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2026 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Government |

Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy