|League of Women Voters Looks at State Ballot Propositions, Part 2||| Print ||
|Thursday, 01 November 2012 15:34|
By Amy Sylvestri
San Leandro Times
The League of Women voters of the Eden Area recently hosted a forum to introduce voters to the eleven propositions that will be on the November 6 general election ballot.
The League of Women Voters is non-partisan group and presented both sides of every issue.
Last week we looked at Propositions 30 through 35. Here is a look at Propositions 36 through 40.
Proposition 36 – Three Strikes Law
Proposition 36 would modify the “three strikes” law that puts all criminals convicted of three felonies in prison for life with the possibility of parole after no less than 25 years. Under the proposition, the person would only be given the life sentence if the third conviction was for a violent or serious felony.
For: Those for Proposition 36 say it will save the state between $70 to $90 million annually to house fewer prisoners and that it would also be a more fair punishment.
Against: Those against Proposition 36 says it will allow more criminals out on the streets or to go through the court system over and over and that the three strikes law has proven effective in reducing crime since it was created.
Proposition 37 – Genetically Engineered Foods
Proposition 37 would require food sold in California stores to be labeled if it contains any genetically engineered ingredients – it is common for foods like corn to be genetically engineered against pests. The law wouldn’t apply to restaurants.
For: Those for Proposition 37 says people should be informed about what they eat and that genetic engineering of food has the potential to be unhealthy.
Against: People against Proposition 37 say that it will be to costly for small mom and pop stores and food producers and could also make food more expensive for the consumer.
Proposition 38 – Tax to Fund Education and Early Childhood Programs
Proposition 38 would increase the income tax rate for those in all but the lowest tax bracket by up to 2 percent, depending on their tax bracket, through the year 2024. Initially, 70 percent would go to education and 30 percent to the state’s debt payments. After 2017, it would all go to education. Proposition 38 is similar to Proposition 30 as both increase income tax to benefit schools, but under 38 the tax would last longer and $4 billion more would be generated. If both are passed, the one with more votes will go into effect.
For: Those for Proposition 38 say it is necessary to restore education funding and about $10 billion would be generated each year.
Against: Those against Proposition 38 say that citizens will be taxed for over a decade with few solid plans for how the money will be spent.
Proposition 39 – Tax Treatment for Multi-State Businesses
Proposition 39 would require businesses that operate in California and at least one other state to pay state income taxes based on their total percentage of sales in California. The increase in tax revenue would be about $1 billion annually.
For: Those for Proposition 39 say that large corporations need to pay their fair share and the money could be used to fund schools as well as other projects.
Against: Those against Proposition 39 say it will lead to corporations leaving the state and lost jobs.
Proposition 40 – Redistricting
Proposition 40 approves the redistricting that happened following the 2010 census that evened out the number of people in Senate and Assembly districts.
The redrawn district maps would have been accepted without public vote, but a signature gathering effort last year caused a challenge to the redrawn Senate districts, resulting in this proposition.
However, the people who collected those signatures have stopped campaigning and are no longer asking for a “no” vote on Proposition 40.