Capitol Update: Friday, April 20, 2018

Official CFRW Proposition Positions

That June Primary Election is sneaking up on us! The California Federation of Republican Women take official positions on each of the ballot measures each election. From now until June, the Capitol Update will provide our official positions, as well as a "Prop Spotlight" to explain further our position, talking points,background, and information about each proposition. It is up to YOU, as a member of the California Federation of Republican Women, to educate voters on these ballot measures! Californians are tragically uniformed, and the legislature thrives on it. Remind them that these propositions were placed on the ballot by the legislature, written with a bias, and are intentionally deceptive. Californians deserve better!

Prop Spotlight: Prop 68 - The California Parks, Environment, and Water Bond

The CFRW recommends a NO vote.

Ballot Title: Authorizes Bonds Funding Parks, Natural Resources Protection, Climate Adaptation, Water Quality and Supply, and Flood Protection

Ballot Summary:

Authorizes $4 billion in general obligation bonds for: creation and rehabilitation of state and local parks, natural resources protection projects, climate adaptation projects, water quality and supply projects, and flood protection projects.
Reallocates $100 million of unused bond authority from prior bond acts for the same purposes.
Appropriates moneys from the General Fund to pay off bonds.
Requires non-state matching funds for certain projects and favors disadvantaged communities for certain projects.
Requires annual audits
Background

This proposition began as SB 5 (De Leon, D) in 2016. It passed along party lines in the Senate, but was amended in the Assembly to raise the price from $3.8 billion to $4 billion, earning three Republican votes as it passed there 56-21. There are two types of bonds that we, as Californians, vote on: general obligation bonds and revenue bonds. Prop 68 is a general obligation bond. This means that the bond is sold to investors as taxpayer pays back the bond over many years, in this prop's case, 30 years. Accoring to our state's constitution, any bond issued over $300,000 must be placed on a statewide ballot to go before voters. Since 1993 when that law came into place, 39 general obligation bonds have been on our ballots. Of those, 31 of them were passed by our voters. An even more shocking statistic, just 6 of those 39 general obligation bonds were citizen-driven bonds. A total of 33 general obligation bonds, since 1993, have been put on our ballots by our legislature. The most common bonds are water and education bonds- 7 each have appeared since 1993. California has $73.33 billion in outstanding general obligation bond debt. Perhaps worse, we have $31.9 billion in unissued bonds that the voters have passed.

Talking Points

• Prop 68 is deceptive. What is billed as a $4 billion bond will really cost us closer to $7 billion. This means higher taxes so that a few coastal politicians can divvy out our money for pet projects. The money issued here is not even fairly divided among Californians so that all could see local park improvements.
• The authors of this prop would have you believe the funding is necessary for drought and groundwater investment. But only 13% of this proposition's funds would be allocated for that purpose. The rest would be doled out for conservation grants with little left over for necessary deferred maintenance.
• With a 3.5% interest rate over 30 years, our politicians are passing the buck on this bond. At least $2.53 billion in interest will accumulate, bringing the total cost of this bond to $6.53 billion.
• Currently our state has unfunded pension liablities costs that are rising. Our public school borrowed debt is $500 million a year, retiree medical pension liability is at $91 billion, and affordable housing debt is at $169 million a year. Why are we throwing more debt onto the pile?
• We need to ask ourselves two simple questions: 1. How effective have past bond measures been (particularly our 2014 water bond)? and 2. Do we really need to add to our state's debt?

_____

Official CFRW Positions

• Prop 68: NO
• Prop 69: NO
• Prop 70: NO
• Prop 71: YES
• Prop 72: YES

June Ballot Measures

Proposition 68: California Parks, Environment, and Water Bond- would issue a $4 billion general obligation bond, with a 3.5% interest rate over 30 years, bringing the bill to the taxpayers up to $6.4 billion total. The CFRW says vote NO.

Proposition 69: Transportation Taxes and Fees Lockbox and Appropriations Limit Exemption Amendment- states that Senate Bill 1 revenue from diesel taxes will be placed in a “lockbox” and used only for transportation fund purposes. The CFRW says vote NO.

Proposition 70: Vote Requirement to Use Cap and Trade Funds Amendment- would require a one-time vote in 2024 by a 2/3rds legislative majority to allocate state Cap and Trade program revenue. The CFRW says vote NO.

Proposition 71: Effective Date of Ballot Measures Amendment- changes the date for when voter approved ballot measures take effect from the day after the election to the fifth day after the Secretary of State certifies the election. The CFRW says vote YES.

Proposition 72: Rainwater Capture Systems Excluded from Property Tax Assessment- would exclude any new rainwater capture structures from property value tax reassessment from counting as a new structure. The CFRW says vote YES.

If you would like ALL the talking points for each proposition, please email our Advocate at advocate@cfrw.org.
____
____

AB 1745 Update

AB 1745 (Ting, D) was scheduled to be heard in the Assembly Transportation Committee this week. Assemblyman Ting cancelled the hearing without rescheduling. This is good news! As you will recall, AB 1745 would have mandated that all gas-powered vehicles would be banned from DMV registration in California by 2040. This bill has no foresight, no plan, and so many unintended consequences. We will keep you posted on its status!
____

Sharing is Caring!

We encourage our Republican Women Federated members to share the information they find here in the Capitol Update. As a member of the CFRW, you have access to information about what is happening in our state Capitol that is not readily available or easy to find. Now we want you to pass on this information to other Californians who need to know what is really being passed in Sacramento. You can print out your copy of the Capitol Update to hand out. You can copy and paste into your club's newsletter. You can forward this email to people you know (if you do choose to forward, remember to erase the “Unsubscribe” link at the bottom of the email. It will be a “live” link, even in the email forward, and if someone clicks it, they will unsubscribe the original receiver- you). You can even copy and paste segments of the Capitol Update into your Social Media. However you choose to share, please just share!
______

Disclaimer: The Capitol Update is an activity of the CFRW Advocate's Office. The update is for information only. CFRW official positions on legislation are stated immediately preceding the stated legislation or immediately following the stated legislation in this report.

California, Florida Vote Fraud? ‘Tens of Thousands’ of Opened Absentee Ballots

Florida Vote Fraud? ‘Tens of Thousands’ of Opened Absentee Ballots https://t.co/F0pzKhSDLS via @american_lens#FLpol #Election2016

— A.P. Dillon (@APDillon_) November 3, 2016

'Voter fraud'? Man finds 80 ballots all with same address... https://t.co/D5ZS1uDgEt

— DRUDGE REPORT (@DRUDGE_REPORT) November 3, 2016

Secretary of Election employees in Broward County, FL caught filling out absentee ballots! #FloridaFraud pic.twitter.com/MqjmFtDXHX

— Mike Cernovich 🇺🇸 (@Cernovich) November 4, 2016

Proposition 47: Criminal Sentences. Misdemeanor Penalties

◼ Proposition 47 | Official Voter Information Guide - CA SOS
◼ Proposition 47 - Criminal Sentences. Misdemeanor Penalties. - Legislative Analyst's Office
◼ California Proposition 47, Reduced Penalties for Some Crimes Initiative - Ballotpedia

◼ Proposition 47 would lower penalties to reduce prison population, pay for programs - Sam Stanton/Sacramento Bee

Over the years, California voters have been asked to decide a number of criminal justice issues, ranging from whether to keep the death penalty to modifying the state’s “three-strikes” law. Now, voters are now being given the chance to alter punishments for nonviolent crimes in a move that proponents say ultimately will reduce crime statewide.

Proposition 47 asks voters to approve reducing from felonies to misdemeanors punishments for a variety of property crimes that supporters of the measure say will reduce overcrowding in California’s 34 adult prisons. The measure is the latest in a series of attempts by penal reform groups and state officials to cut California’s prison costs by reducing inmate populations.... KEEP READING

WHO’S FOR IT?▪ San Francisco District Attorney George Gascón
▪ Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos
▪ Santa Clara District Attorney Jeff Rosen
▪ William Lansdowne, former chief of police for San Diego, San Jose and Richmond
▪ Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice
▪ California Catholic Conference
▪ State Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg
▪ California Democratic Party
▪ League of Women Voters of California
▪ California Teachers Association
▪ California Labor Federation
◼ YES ON 47 claims it is for SAFE NEIGHBORHOODS and SCHOOLS: It's a simple and common-sense idea, but a powerful one. This reform will improve public safety, reduce prison spending and invest hundreds of millions in K-12 schools, victim services, and mental health and drug treatment.
◼ San Francisco Chronicle says Yes. Claims: Savings from the initiative, projected at $150 million to $250 million per year, would be channeled into a safe neighborhoods and schools fund for anticrime programs, including mental health treatment, truancy and dropout prevention and victim compensation.

WHO’S AGAINST IT?▪ California District Attorneys Association
▪ California Police Chiefs Association
▪ California State Sheriffs’ Association
▪ California Peace Officers Association
▪ California Coalition Against Sexual Assault
▪ Crime Victims United of California
▪ California Fraternal Order of Police

Arguments against
U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (D), said Proposition 47, called the "Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act" by supporters, "will do anything but make our communities safer." She elaborated:

“Prop. 47 would do two things. First, it would reclassify a wide range of crimes from a felony to a misdemeanor. This would mean shorter prison sentences for serious crimes like stealing firearms, identity theft and possessing dangerous narcotics such as cocaine and date rape drugs.

Second, Prop. 47 would result in the resentencing and release of thousands of individuals already convicted of these crimes.

The crimes that would be reclassified from a felony to a misdemeanor are not minor crimes.

For instance, the penalty for stealing a firearm valued at up to $950 would be reduced from a felony to a misdemeanor, reducing a sentence from up to three years in prison today to a maximum of just 12 months under Prop. 47.

Stolen firearms often end up in the hands of felons and others who cannot legally possess them, where they are used to commit violent crimes. Theft of a firearm should be punished as a felony, plain and simple...

The problem is the definition of “unreasonable risk of danger to public safety” is extraordinarily narrow. It covers only those who are at risk of committing eight specific crimes: three specific sex offenses, murder or solicitation to commit murder, assault with a machine gun on a peace officer or firefighter, possession of a weapon of mass destruction or an offense punishable by life in prison or death.

This means an individual at risk of committing serious crimes other than the eight listed above, such as carjacking or robbery, would automatically qualify for resentencing if he is serving time for a crime covered by Prop. 47...

By the time a person has been convicted of a felony covered by the proposition, he has most likely been through the judicial system several times.

Simply put, the reduction in sentences proposed by Proposition 47 would ultimately lead to the release of thousands of dangerous criminals, and a wholesale reclassification of many dangerous felonies as misdemeanors would put the people of California at continued risk going forward.”
—U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein

Other arguments against the propositions include:
The National Association of Drug Court Professionals, a group opposing Proposition 47, said, "Proposition 47 provides for virtually no accountability, supervision or treatment for addicted offenders. Prop 47 removes the legal incentive for seriously addicted offenders to seek treatment... Proposition 47 turns a blind eye to over two decades of research and practice that demonstrates addicted offenders need structure and accountability in addition to treatment to become sober..."

__________________
◼ CFRW recommends a "NO" Vote
◼ The California Republican Party recommends a "NO" Vote
◼ Tom McCLintock recommends a "NO" Vote

We’ve gone overboard on some drug-related offenses, but this Proposition can only be described as a drug-induced hallucination. It reduces many grand-theft crimes to misdemeanors and would release an estimated 10,000 incarcerated criminals back on the streets. Basically, it is a burglar’s get-out-of-jail free card. Good news for alarm companies and the handful of 60’s radicals nostalgic for Rose Bird – bad news for the rest of us. Hide the silver.

Times-Standard Editorial: Fair Wage Act unfair to city — vote no on R

◼ Vote no on R - Times-Standard EDITORIAL

In principle, it's a noble idea. In practice, without additional measures to ensure economic development in the city, it's a time bomb that would turn Eureka into a commercial ghost town ringed by businesses whose proprietors were smart enough to get out while the getting was good.

Coming on the heels of California's July 1 minimum wage hike, Measure R is too high a jump in too short a time, one that threatens to put Eureka — hardly a thriving commercial metropolis — at further disadvantage. Fearful employers are already drafting contingency plans: where to move, how many jobs to cut.

There is no doubt that the working men and women of Eureka deserve a break. But they don't deserve to have the economic health of their community broken, and that's what Measure R would do.
__________________

◼ Measure R Vote NO

__________________
◼ NO ON MEASURE R: Fair Wage Folks” have fooled a lot of people, Measure R was never about a living wage - Jaison Chand, Eureka
◼ Local nonprofits ponder impact of Eureka's Measure R - Clay McGlaughlin/Times-Standard
◼ MORE ON MEASURE R
__________________
◼ CFRW Ballot Recommendations
◼ CAGOP Ballot Recommendations
◼ Tom McClintock Ballot Recommendations
◼ Unofficial Guide to Judges on the Ballot

Eureka City Schools proposes Measure S to modernize, repair buildings

◼ Eureka City Schools District officials say Measure S — a nearly $50 million bond on the November ballot — will fund the repair of school buildings that are falling apart. - Melissa Simon and Will Houston/Times-Standard

Opponents call Measure S too much too soon, pointing to unfinished projects such as a high school gym that were never delivered under a previous bond....Leo Sears, former chairman of the Humboldt Taxpayers League, said Measure S comes too soon after the 2002 bond.

"The bond isn't even paid off yet and now they want more money," Sears said. "The thing is, the money last time was spent on beautification and on things that were nice but not necessary because it didn't benefit the kids or the classrooms."

...Gregg Gardiner, chairman of the Citizens in Support of Eureka City Schools committee, said the bond comes down to one thing: students.

"The conditions of the schools are bad. It doesn't take a scientist to see that," he said. "There are so many issues that need to be taken care of, and our kids deserve better. We need to ask ourselves if these conditions are OK for our own families. The bathrooms at Alice Birney, for instance, are terrible and I believe the superintendent has said that he wouldn't use those bathrooms. How can we expect our kids to use them? It's just not a good learning environment for the kids, and if they don't feel good about going to school, it's like why even be there? These are the formative years, and we want our students to strive to be the best they can be — whether it's a diesel mechanic or a scientist — and we need to improve those classrooms to provide that."
__________________
◼ CFRW Ballot Recommendations
◼ CAGOP Ballot Recommendations
◼ Tom McClintock Ballot Recommendations
◼ Unofficial Guide to Judges on the Ballot

Editorial: Humboldt County's Measure P is more harm than good

◼ Measure P, which would ban "the propagation, cultivation, raising and growing of genetically modified organisms" in Humboldt County, is poorly written, unnecessary regulation that removes choice from local agricultural producers. Don't vote for it. - Times Standard EDITORIAL

...Measure P's enforcement mechanism is complaint-driven, and has the potential to turn neighbor against neighbor. Measure P assumes that the accused is guilty until proven innocent. The county agricultural commissioner would be responsible for enforcing it, requiring extensive and expensive testing at a time when the county doesn't have enough money to keep proven threats to health, safety and property behind bars. Then again, 10 years of a similar ban in Mendocino County produced a grand total of zero offenses. So we get to choose between burdensome or unnecessary?

• Former Humboldt State University president and genetics professor Rollin Richmond has argued that a vote for Measure P is a vote that may outlaw vaccinating your pets. If that sounds ridiculous, it is — but here's the kicker: Richmond's right. Because the text of Measure P bans not only the "cultivation, raising and growing" of GMOs, but also the "propagation," and because vaccines work by introducing a weakened yet very much alive variant of a nasty bug that propagates itself within the body until the immune system can learn to destroy it, and because Measure P's medical exemption applies only to medical care for human patients, Richmond is right. Measure P, as written, does outlaw GMO vaccines for rabies and feline leukemia....KEEP READING...
__________________
◼ CFRW Ballot Recommendations
◼ CAGOP Ballot Recommendations
◼ Tom McClintock Ballot Recommendations
◼ Unofficial Guide to Judges on the Ballot

Here’s Why You Should Vote Against Measure P, Even If You Hate GMOs UPDATED

Updated: Critics of genetically modified organisms or GMOs claim that they pose health risks to the public. Jimmy (Kimmel) is always interested in people who have strong opinions, so (they) sent a crew to one of (the) local farmers markets to ask people why they avoid GMOs and, more specifically, what the letters GMO stand for.



◼ Even if you are against the use of GMOs (genetically modified organisms), you shouldn’t support Measure P because the wording of the measure is very problematic. - Op-Ed by HSU biology professor Mark Wilson/Lost Coast Outpost

It is so flawed that it would exempt Roundup Ready corn and alfalfa from the ban, even though these are the GMOs most likely to be grown in Humboldt County in the near term. Meanwhile, the measure would ban hundreds of non-GMO varieties, some of which would be difficult for farmers to identify before planting. Farmers who have grown non-GMO varieties may find out mid-season that some of the crops they’ve been growing for years are prohibited.

Most people think of GMOs as being transgenic organisms, that is, organisms in which one or a small number of genes from an unrelated organism have been inserted using a variety of laboratory techniques. However, that is not how Measure P defines it.

...Because the authors of Measure P used the flawed wording that the USDA is in the process of revising, that flawed wording would be codified into county law. Based on the USDA comments, it seems likely that many local farmers are growing crops that somewhere in their history underwent gene doubling, or cell fusion. The farmers who planted these crops are almost certainly unaware of their breeding histories.

What would happen if one of the massive GMO corporations (which have been conspicuously silent), or even just a mischievous student, stepped in, not to challenge the Measure P definitions but to force the county to actually follow the letter of the law? Farmers would have 30 days to destroy crops that they had planted in good faith, and more importantly crops that there is no rational reason to think are somehow dangerous. A major disruption to our local farmers is possible....◼ READ The ENTIRE PIECE, It is well worth your time.

◼ This is a discussion document by a Subcommittee of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB). Discussion documents are posted for public comment, and may later become proposals for full Board consideration. They are not final Board proposals or recommendations, or NOP policy. from links in the op-ed above

◼ READ MEASURE P

◼ If wild anti-GMO claims were anything more than contrived hysteria, that would rock the world - Chad White/Mad River Union

“P” is for Pseudoscience, Poverty, Prejudice, and Prohibition

Something I learned from scientist Kevin Folta is that if his lab had a slight hint that GMOs were dangerous, he would do his best to repeat that study, get a collaborator to repeat it independently, and then publish the data on the covers of Science, Nature and every news outlet that would take it. IT WOULD ROCK THE WORLD, and he would be rich and famous.

Showing that 70-something percent of our food was poisonous? That would be a HUGE story – “we are talking Nobel Prize and free Amy’s Organic Pot Pies for life!” hos.ufl.edu/faculty/kmfolta

◼ Measure P’s fear, prejudice and ideology, part 1 - Chad White/Mad River Union
◼ Anti-GMO tribal conformity and mythology, part 2 - Chad White/Mad River Union

◼ Recent Letters to the Editor regarding GMOs and Measure P - Mad River Union

◼ Mark Wilson: Megacorps and tribal compulsions derail informed decisionmaking about GMOs

We don’t need to be afraid of the future and should reject those who try to scare us in the name of “Fairness, Prosperity and Protection.” KEEP READING

Mark Wilson is a Biology Professor at Humboldt State University, a microbial geneticist with a Ph.D from Cornell University. He has no ties, financial or otherwise, to any agricultural biotechnology company.

◼ Rollin Richmond: Education and knowledge, not fearful ideology, are key to understanding GMOs - Rollin Richmond/Mad River Union

The recent article, “What the GMO Four aren’t Telling you about biotech food,” by Dr. John Schaefer in the Aug. 26 Mad River Union is a classic example of the “fear factor” that unfortunately often affects people who are forced to deal with a new scientific discovery or technical tool and have not been adequately educated about its basis and use....KEEP READING

Evolutionary biologist Rollin R. Richmond is the former president of Humboldt State University. He has no ties, financial or otherwise, to any agricultural biotechnology company.

◼ What's in Measure P's DNA? - Times-Standard
◼ Measure P seeks to ban GMO crops in Humboldt County - Times-Standard

MEASURE 'R'

◼ MATTHEW IN THE MIDDLE: The Unfair Wage Act - Lost Coast Outpost

...This coming November we are voting on Measure R, AKA the “Eureka Fair Wage Act,” a citizens’ initiative to raise the current minimum wage by 33% to $12 per hour for any Eureka employer with 25 or more (full-time, part-time or seasonal – as low as 2 hours per week) employees, beginning 90 days from passage. Besides raising the minimum wage, it would institute an annual Cost Of Living Adjustment (COLA) increase based on the Consumer Price Index each year.

This initiative is being brought forth by former Occupy regulars - an anarchist, a homeless activist and the homeless - as a vendetta against Wal-Mart. What else do these people have in common? Not one of them owns a business, nor has to meet payroll. I know because I sat in on one of their Wednesday night meetings where I was about as welcome as Michael Moore showing up at an NRA rally....

◼ Mystery Donors Fight ‘Fair Wage Ordinance,’ Plus Eureka Candidates’ Fundraising Totals - Ryan Burns/Lost Coast Outpost

◼ Letter: Measure R is bad medicine for Eureka's economy - Fred Mangels/Times-Standard

Measure R is bad medicine for Eureka's economy Raising Eureka's minimum wage to $12 an hour is a bad idea. The state just raised the minimum wage to $10 July 1 and will raise it again next year to $11.

◼ Measure R puts Eureka at unfair disadvantage: Vote no - Don Smullin/Times-Standard

◼ Measure R: An overview of Eureka's Fair Wage Act - Will Houston/Times-Standard

This is the first story in a four-part series looking at Eureka's Fair Wage Act, known as Measure R, which will be on the city's Nov. 4 General Election ballot.

◼ 'Fair Wage Folks' seek $12 minimum wage in Eureka - Clay McGlaughlin/Times-Standard

This is the second story in a four-part series looking at Eureka's Fair Wage Act, known as Measure R, which will be on the city's Nov. 4 General Election ballot.

◼ Measure R: Business weighs in on $12 minimum wage - Jillian Singh and Will Houston/Times-Standard

This is the third story in a four-part series looking at Eureka's Fair Wage Act, known as Measure R, which will be on the city's Nov. 4 General Election ballot.

◼ Measure R: Comparing wage hikes in California cities - Will Houston/Times-Standard

Editor's note: This is the last story in a four-part series looking at Eureka's Fair Wage Act, known as Measure R, which will be on the city's Nov. 4 General Election ballot.

PRO MEASURE R:


◼ We need Measure R: Support the Eureka Fair Wage Act - Verbena Lea aka Kim Starr/Times-Standard

"Poverty level wages are not a gamble, they're a guaranteed loss for the community" — Working Families Party. Working people are ripped off by misguided public policy which claims that giving more money to the already-wealthy creates jobs.

For more information, visit the group's website at ◼ http://fairwages.org, email info@fairwages.org or call 707-442-7465.
__________________
◼ Times-Standard Editorial: Fair Wage Act unfair to city — vote no on R - Times-Standard EDITORIAL

The Real Effects of Measure R. (Eureka's Minimum Wage Hike Proposal)

The Real Effects of Measure R. Vote No on Measure R and PROTECT: • Senior Meal and Nutrition Programs • Youth Recreation Services • After School Programs • Childcare Services • Low Income Transportation Programs • Home Health Care

Local: Friday election update unlikely

◼ ...the office discovered eight trays of ballots in the elections vault that still need to be opened and sorted, and it was “questionable” that the count would be complete by Friday. - The Times-Standard

The elections office final report, released in the early morning hours after Election Day, showed a tie in the race for the Ferndale mayor seat and a tight race for a Eureka City Council seat, with 2nd Ward incumbent Linda Atkins edging ahead of challenger Joe Bonino by 208 votes.

Ferndale mayoral candidates Stuart Titus and Ken Weller were locked in a dead heat with 287 votes each, according to the elections office final report.

CFRW Capitol Update Friday, VOTING GUIDE

NO on Prop 34!

The CFRW OPPOSES Prop 34which would eliminate the death penalty. There have been 13 people executed in California since 1978. There are currently 725 inmates on death row. The voters have approved the death penalty, so why aren’t we using it? There are costs associated with repealing the death penalty that the supporters of Prop 34 did not consider, and those costs are dangerous. If Prop 34 passes, the status of 725 death row inmates would become prisoners with life without parole (or LWOP) and integrated into the general LWOP prison community. This would create a very dangerous environment in our prisons, for our prison guards, wardens, and other prisoners. The people on death row are not your common criminal. Gangs form in prisons and their crimes do not stop just because they are off the streets. Californians will be paying for these prisoner’s lifetime housing and health benefits while they continue their crime sprees. There are also many studies that find the death penalty actually deters murders, such as a study done at the University of Colorado by Professor Mocan. Also, the threat of the death penalty is a very powerful tool for our state’s District Attorneys, especially in solving murders and finding victims’ bodies. The system needs fixing, but this is not the solution. NO on PROP 34
__________________

CFRW Proposition Positions
__________________
Many members have been asking for talking points for each proposition that they can use in engaging voters. Please see below or click on each proposition below to access our short talking points for our ballot positions. You or anyone can also access this information on our homepage at ◼ www.CFRW.org. Thank you!

◼ Prop 30 - NO
◼ Prop 31 - NO
◼ Prop 32 - YES
◼ Prop 33 - YES
◼ Prop 34 - NO
◼ Prop 35 - YES
◼ Prop 36 - NO
◼ Prop 37 - NO
◼ Prop 38 - NO
◼ Prop 39 - NO
◼ Prop 40 YES

For all the props and their talking points on one PDF document, ◼ CLICK HERE.
__________________
Prop 30 - NO
◼ This prop would raise our sales tax to 7.5%, already the highest in the country, for 4 years
◼ It increases personal income taxes for top earners making $250,000 yearly and above for 7 years, driving them out of the state
◼ Governor Brown is using “bully budgeting” by threatening the voters, “vote for this tax increase or I’ll cut education!”
◼ The revenues from this proposition are not guaranteed, in fact could change significantly year to year and come in far below projections
◼ Governor Brown claims that the revenues would be used for “education”, but reality is that there is no guarantee or requirement that the revenue be allocated for education funding
__________________
Prop 31 - NO
◼ 31 has some merits- a 2 year budget cycle and bills required to be in print for 72 hours before a vote. But that is where the merits end.
◼ Prop 31 would create a “pay-go” system where legislators would fudge the numbers and create fantasy spending cuts that never materialize. The “pay- go” requirement of $25 million would lead to programs costing $24.9 million so as to circumvent the obligation.
◼ Prop 31 is written so poorly and contradictory that it will lead to lawsuits and confusion.
◼ It creates “Community Strategic Action Plans” where localities and regions can override state law and regulations. This also allows localities to “tax pool” their property tax revenues, which will inevitably lead to litigation.
__________________
Prop 32 - YES
◼ Prop 32 will ban both corporate and union contributions to state and local candidates, ban contributions by government contractors to the politicians who control contracts awarded to them, and ban automatic deductions by corporations, unions, and government employees’ wages to be used for politics.
◼ Union members will still be able to give for political purposes, but they have to give voluntarily each year, in writing.
◼ In 2010, the corporations and unions gave state politicians $48 million. If Prop 32 passes it will significantly limit the power of the unions in California.
◼ Implements reforms evenhandedly, applying each provision to both corporations and unions: These fair and simple reforms reduce the influence of special interests across the board.
__________________
Prop 33 - YES
◼ Corrects a flaw in a previous auto insurance coverage law, where if a consumer had a lapse in coverage, for any reason, the insurance company could increase their prices.
◼ With Prop33, if your lapse of coverage was because you served in the military, you are or were unemployed, or if the lapse was only for 90 days, then they cannot increase your prices. You will still qualify for the “continuous coverage” discount offered by auto insurance companies.
__________________
Prop 34 - NO
◼ Californians voted for the death penalty in 1978 and since then numerous public opinion polls have shown overwhelming support for the death penalty.
◼ If Prop 34 passes, the 725 death row inmates would become prisoners with life without parole (or LWOP) and integrated into the general LWOP prison community. This would create a very dangerous environment in our prisons, for our prison guards, wardens, and even other prisoners.
◼ The threat of the death penalty is not only a proved, scientific deterrence of crime, but it is also an important tool to assist our state’s District Attorneys in facilitating solving murders or finding victims’ bodies.
__________________
Prop 35 - YES
◼ 35 would increase prison terms for human traffickers, require convicted sex traffickers to register as sex offenders, require all registered sex offenders to disclose their internet accounts and activity.
◼ It would require criminal fines from convicted human traffickers to pay for services to help victims and mandate law enforcement training on human trafficking.
◼ The FBI cites three California cities (San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego) as high intensity child sex trafficking areas. Prop 35 would help to protect women and children from this exploitation.
__________________
Prop 36 - NO
◼ Prop 36 narrows the Three Strikes Law to provide that its penalties for a third strike (25 years in prison to life in prison) only apply if third strike or a previous strike was for a “serious or violent” felony. The voters opposed a similar bill in 2004, they should do the same in 2012!
◼ When voters approved the Three Strikes law in 1994, our state’s crime rate fell and continues to remain low because of the current law.
◼ If passed, Prop 36 would allow 3,000 criminals to appeal for reduced sentences. Criminals so dangerous that a jury convicted them, a Judge imposed a 25-to-life prison sentence, and criminals so dangerous that their legal appeals were denied.
◼ These same criminals would be allowed to ask a different judge to set them free and worse yet, some of these same criminals would be released WITHOUT ANY PAROLE OR SUPERVISION.
__________________
Prop 37 - NO
◼ Prop 37 is billed as “The Right to Know” your food is genetically engineered, but it was written by trial lawyers with the “right to sue” in mind.
◼ Prop 37 would force state bureaucrats to administer complex requirements by monitoring tens of thousands of food labels and tens of thousands of grocery stores, retail outlets, distributors, farms and food companies. This is going to drive up food costs and leave these businesses (especially small businesses) susceptible to costly litigation.
◼ Prop 37 is full of absurd exemptions that make no sense. It requires special labels on soy milk, but exempts cow milk. Tofu requires a label, but meat, poultry, eggs and dairy are exempt. Juice requires a label but alcohol is exempt. Food sold in grocery stores requires a label, but the same food sold in restaurants is exempt.
◼ Food imported from China and other foreign countries are exempt if sellers simply claim their products are “GE” (genetically engineered) free.
__________________
Prop 38 - NO
◼ Prop 38 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 twelve years.
◼ This will drive our top income earners, those providing jobs for the rest of us, out of the state.
◼ Prop 38 would throw $120 billion in new tax dollars into a new unaccountable state bureaucracy.
◼ Prop 38 targets small businesses that file their taxes as individuals and not as corporations. Even businesses that make as little as $30,000 would see their taxes raised.
◼ Hidden in the fine print is a mandate that prohibits any changes to the law until 2024, even in the case of waste, fraud, or abuse.
__________________
Prop 39 - NO
◼ Prop 39 requires multistate businesses to calculate their California income tax liability based on the percentage of their sales in California. It 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. This would send profitable businesses out of California in droves. Businesses that provide jobs for most middle class Californians would have no incentives to do business here and would leave.
◼ It would then dedicate $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.
◼ What proponents don’t realize that if Prop 39 passes, there won’t be any significant revenue to provide for their new clean, green jobs. Because businesses just won’t do business in California.
__________________
Prop 40 YES
◼ A “YES” vote means that the state Senate district maps would remain as the Citizen’s Redistricting Commission drew them.
◼ Prop 40 holds politicians accountable with the lines drawn by the independent citizen’s commission. They are no longer guaranteed reelection and are accountable to the voters.
◼ A “NO” vote would reject the senate district maps as drawn by the CRC and a California Supreme Court established committee would redraw the lines. This would cost the taxpayers $500,000 and counties would have costs of $500,000 statewide in order to develop new precinct maps and other election related material.
__________________Disclaimer: The Capitol Update is an activity of the CFRW Advocate's Office. The update is for information only. CFRW official positions on legislation are stated immediately preceding the stated legislation or immediately following the stated legislation in this report.

◼ View this article online: http://www.cfrw.org/index.cfm/article_271.htm - LOGIN REQUIRED, (No we still don't know why.)
__________________

NLRB Loses Court Challenge Over Secret Ballots

◼ Just one unlawful act of many by President Obama this year delivered control of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to his union boss backers. His intent was to stack the board with hard left radicals to make it easier for them to unionize the private sector. - Doug Ross

Therefore, in an act unprecedented in all of American history, President Obama unilaterally declared the Senate in recess over a long weekend earlier this year (though it clearly was not) and named his radicals through recess appointments.

Fortunately, some of the courts have not been cowed: A federal government agency [the NLRB] lost its court challenge of an Arizona constitutional amendment that guarantees workers in the state can vote by secret ballot on whether to join a union.

◼ NLRB Loses Court Challenge Over Secret Ballots - Melanie Trottman/Wall St. Journal

Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne said in a statement that the judge’s decision is a “stinging rebuke to an outrageous National Labor Relations Board attack” on the sanctity of the secret ballot.

Voters in the state of Arizona approved the amendment to the constitution on Nov. 2, 2010. Similar amendments were approved at the time in South Dakota,Utah and South Carolina, but the NLRB said it would only selectively file lawsuits because of limited resources.

Court to Decide if Gingrich, Huntsman, Santorum, Perry Will Be on Virginia’s Primary Ballot

◼ Yesterday, Judge Gibney ordered the Virginia State Board of Elections to notify all local county electoral boards that they are barred “from ordering any ballots” or “from mailing out any absentee ballots” until after the judge holds a hearing on the case on January 13. - Heritage.org

Judge John Gibney just filed a five-page order in which he states that

...there is a strong likelihood that the Court will find the residency requirement for petition circulators to be unconstitutional. The authorities make clear that circulating petitions for candidates is a form of protected speech, and that the Commonwealth has a heavy burden to justify the restriction on speech by showing not only that the limitation achieves a valid state interest but also that the limitation is no broader in scope than necessary to achieve that purpose. As in all strict scrutiny cases, the state has a difficult task to demonstrate the propriety of its limitation on protected speech. For this reason, the Court believes that the plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of succeeding on the merits, at least on the issue of the validity of the residency requirement....