11 propositions have been qualified for the ballot.
Proposition 30
This is an initiative constitutional amendment that would increase income tax on incomes over $250,000 for seven years and raise the statewide sales tax by 0.25% for four years, and allocates the additional incomes to education, as well as certain state services transferred from the state to local governments. If this measure and Proposition 38 both pass, then the measure with more "Yes" votes will take effect.
Proposition 31
This is an initiative constitutional amendment that would make several changes to the state budget process. It would change California's budget from an annual budget to a biennial budget, require the legislature to show how bills that increase state spending over $25 million would be offset, give the governor power to reduce spending if there is no budget for more than 45 days, require performance reviews of state and local programs, and allow local governments more power over how they administer programs funded by state taxes. It also requires bills to be published at least three days before they are voted on.
Proposition 32
is an initiative statute. It would prohibit unions from using payroll-deducted funds for political purposes. In addition, it would permit voluntary employee contributions to an employee-sponsored committee or union with yearly written authorization, ban contributions to candidates and candidate-controlled committees by corporations and labor unions, and ban contractors who receive government contracts from donating to office holders involved in awarding the contract or committees controlled by said officers.
Proposition 33
Similar to the failed Proposition 17 on the June, 2010 ballot. This is an initiative statute that would allow auto insurance companies to charge based on continuity of the buyer's insurance coverage.
Proposition 34
is an initiative statute that would end the death penalty in California. The proposition was eventually defeated with 53% of the vote against it, despite the fact that supporters had spent 6 times more money in the campaign than opponents.
Proposition 35
This is an initiative statute that would expand the definition of human trafficking and increase the penalties for participating in the activity, require convicted human traffickers to register as sex offenders, protect victims during court proceedings, and require "human trafficking training" for police officers. It would also require registered sex offenders to declare their "Internet identifiers" to the general public. Proposition 35 passed with 81% of the vote. The ACLU and Electronic Frontier Foundation challenged Proposition 35's internet disclosure requirements as an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment. In January 2013, U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson found the challengers were likely to succeed and issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of Proposition 35. U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jay Bybee affirmed the order blocking Proposition 35, finding the Proposition was unconstitutional even under intermediate scrutiny. California Attorney GeneralKamala Harris declined to appeal and has announced she will not enforce Proposition 35 until it is rewritten so as to be constitutional.
Proposition 36
This is an initiative statute that would modify California's three-strikes law to reduce life sentences for felons if the third offense was non-serious and non-violent.
Proposition 37
is an initiated state statute that would require labeling of genetically engineered food, with some exceptions. It would also disallow the practice of labeling genetically engineered food with the word "natural".
Proposition 38
This is an initiative statute that would raise income taxes on all incomes over $7,316 for a period of twelve years, directing the revenues to education and state debt payments for the first four years, and then to education for the last eight years. If both this measure and Proposition 30 pass, then the measure with more "Yes" votes would take effect.
Proposition 39
is an initiative statute that would change the way California businesses determine their state tax liabilities, and earmark up to $550 million of the anticipated additional revenue to alternative energy projects.
This is a legislatively referred statute that would authorize an $11.1 billion bond to upgrade California's water system. On August 9, 2010, the California Legislature postponed the vote on the proposition until 2012. This measure was again delayed to the November 2014 general election.
