Non-Partisan Voter Information Forum Program

1. Non-Partisan Voter Information Forum Program Hosted by the Graduate Association of Students in Public Policy and Administration Special Thanks to Associated Student Inc. & Sacramento State Public Affairs • 12:00- Welcome & Introductions by Katie Cardenas, Ricky Hurtado, & PPA Dept. Chair Rob Wassmer • 12:10- The California Initiative System by Sergio Aguilar • 12:20- Proposition 32 by Jennifer Calbonero • 12:30- Proposition 30 by Michael Billingsley • 12:40- Proposition 38 by Kevin Navarro • 12:50- Forum Discussion moderated by Provost Gossett Panel:PPA Alumni- Christopher CabaldonMayor of West Sacramento, Kevin McCarty Sacramento City Council Member, and Colleen Moore Research Specialist at the Institute of Higher Education Leadership & Policy. & PPA Faculty Member- Mary Kirlin. • 1:30- Audience Q&A moderated by Provost Gossett • 1:45- Getting Involved with ASI/OGA by Sarah Couch

2. The California Initiative System Sac State Non Partisan Voter Information Forum 11 / 1 / 2012 Sergio Aguilar Vice President of External Affairs Graduate Association of Student in Public Policy and Administration

3. What is the Initiative System? The initiative system is a process that enables citizens to bypass their state legislature by placing proposed statutes and constitutional amendments on the ballot. In California we have the direct initiative process, in which proposals that qualify go directly on the ballot.

4. Initiative System in California • California initiative process was established in 1911. This movement toward direct democracy was part of increasing popular demand across the country in the late 1800s for social and political reform. • A total of 350 initiatives have qualified for the ballot of which 116 were approved and 227 were rejected. • In California, any approved initiative cannot be amended or altered by the legislature without another vote of the people. California is the only state with this law.

5. Propositions in California Some of the most controversial/influential initiatives in California include: • Proposition 6 (1978) (defeated) on barring homosexuality in the public school system • Proposition 13 (1978) (passed) on property tax; imposing 2/3 requirement for budget vote, tax increases • Proposition 65 (1986) (passed) on notification of hazardous materials • Proposition 98 (1988) (passed) on school funding (requires minimum percentage of budget to be directed toward education with increases based on inflation) • Proposition 187 (1994) (passed, then declared unconstitutional) on denying illegal immigrants eligibility to receive public services (immediate stay was federally imposed and is still in effect) • Proposition 209 (1996) (passed) on banning affirmative action in public sector (employment, education, etc.) • Proposition 215 (1996) (passed) on legalizing medical marijuana • Proposition 22 (2000) (passed, then declared unconstitutional) on a statute banning same-sex marriage • Proposition 8 (2008) (pending appeal in the courts) on a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in order to override the In re Marriage (Proposition 22) decision earlier that year that legalized same-sex marriage • Proposition 14 (2010) (passed) established non-partisan blanket primaries in place of closed primaries • Proposition 19 (2010) (defeated) on the legalization of marijuana

6. Opinions on the Initiative System Opinions on the ballot initiative process in America vary widely. In California's experience, both the good and the bad are apparent. • Positives- • Direct democracy that lets voters make decisions on public policy issues the legislature refuses to address or is unable to resolve • Empowers citizens to pass laws, initiatives alleviate voter frustration with the political process • Stimulates citizens interest in public policy • Negatives- • Has become a tool of special interests • Misleading information • Many technical and complex issues with confusing language that makes it difficult for voters to fully understand

7. Something for Nothing Initiatives Something for nothing propositions: propositions that do not offer to provide source of funding to offset the new spending or tax reduction requested. In the past two decades California voters considered 259 ballot measures. Of those 127 proposed something for nothing and 80 passed. This is one of the reasons why California is in debt.

8. Why Does This Matter? Propositions we vote for have a huge effect on the state. In California, any approved initiative cannot be amended or altered by the legislature without another vote of the people. Voters need to analyze both sides of each proposition and make an informed vote because the outcome of the elections will have serious implications for all Californians.

9. Thank youThe California Initiative System Sergio Aguilar Vice President of External Affairs Graduate Association of Student in Public Policy and Administration

10. Proposition 32 Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction. Contributions to Candidates. Initiative Statute. Jennifer Calbonero

11. Prop 32 • Prohibits: • Unions and corporations from making contributions to state & local candidates • Contributions by government contractors to politicians who contracted them • Automatic deduction of wages to be used for politics • Fiscal Impact: • Costs could exceed $1 million annually to regulate

12. Background • Political Reform Act of 1974 • Established campaign finance & disclosure laws. • Places a cap on how much can be contributed towards campaign. • Makes it mandatory to report all campaign contributions. • Does not apply to federal campaigns.

13. Background • Similar measures failed: Both measures sought to protect payroll deductions. • Proposition 226 in 1998 • Defeated by 6% • Proposition 75 in 2005 • Defeated by 7%

14. YES on 32: Stop Special Interest Money • Supported By: • California Republican Party • Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association • Cal Watchdog • Citizens for California Reform • Democrats for Education Reform (DFER) • National Federation of Independent Business – California • Cal Watchdog  • California for Liberty  • California for Property Rights • California Business Alliance  • California Taxpayer Protection Committee • Supporters argue that special interests run Sacramento. Because of the amount of money that is being spent towards campaigns, politicians move away from the voices of the voters, and instead the needs of special interests who fund their campaigns. • Prop 32 would bring reform to the current system by preventing unions from spending members’ dues on political contributions. • No exemptions, no loopholes.Proposition 32 will put the people back in charge.

15. NO on 32: Stop the Special Exemptions Act • Opposed By: • California Democratic Party • California League of Women Voters • California Teachers Association • California Clean Money Campaign • California Public Interest Research Group • ACLU California • California Faculty Association • California School Employees Association • Sierra Club California • California Medical Association • California Labor Federation • Exemptions in the text of Prop 32: • Other political expenditures remain unrestricted, including corporate expenditures from available resources not limited by payroll deduction prohibition. • Opponents argue that Prop 32 is not real reform, because it is not equal, and contains too many exemptions. These exemptions allow business and corporate interests to continue their spending, but shuts out the voice of the representative unions. • Proposition 32 exempts the same corporate special interests that are funding the campaign: Big oil companies, insurance company executives, hedge fund managers, Wall Street bankers, big developers and Super PACs.

16. PROPOSITION 32 Funding: Total campaign cash as of October 27, 2012  Support:$59,400,000  Opposition:$68,800,000

17. FOR MORE INFORMATION: • Secretary of State Website www.sos.ca.gov • Yes on 32 www.yesonprop32.com • No on 32 www.votenoon32.com

18. Proposition 30 Constitutional AmendmentInitiative Temporary taxes to fund education. Guaranteed local public safety funding

19. Proposition 30 • Passage would mean sales and income taxes would be temporarily increased • Fund public education and local public safety. • Compromise between 2 of 3 proposed tax increase measures intended to fund education.

20. Revenue • Sales tax • 0.25% sales tax increase for 4 years • CA state sales tax now 7.25 %. • Passage would increase this to 7.50%.

21. Revenue • Sales tax • 0.25% sales tax increase for 4 years • CA state sales tax now 7.25 %. • Passage would increase this to 7.50%.

22. Progressive income tax – 7 years

23. Revenue • LAO projection $6 billion annually • Governor projects $9 billion annually • others project considerably less • revenues raised are difficult to estimate • wide range of revenue projections relates to the volatile nature of the California income tax. • California income tax relies on a relatively small group of high earners for the majority of revenue

24. Expenditures • The majority of revenue will go to public schools, K-14, the UC and CSU systems. • Additional public safety component. • Placed in an EPA (Educational Protection Account) • revenue will be allocated- 89% K-12 & 11% California Community Colleges • EPA revenue will be distributed similar to unrestricted per student funding minimum guarantee • $200 per student K-12, • $100 per student CCC system. • Public safety component of Prop 30 • Guarantees current levels of funding from state to local governments for re-alignment costs

25. Effects If Prop 30 passes: • Sales and Income taxes will be increased • The projected revenue is already included in the 2012-2013 state budget • Revenue would be used to fund public schools and enhance public safety • Excess funds could be used to balance state budget • CSU would rescind previous 9% tuition hike

26. Effects If Prop 30 does not pass: • Sales and Income taxes will not be increased • “Trigger Cuts” will go into effect and school spending will be cut • $5.5 Billion to K-12 and the CCC • These cuts would reduce spending in K-12 by $460 per student • $250,000,000 from UC • $250,000,000 from CSU • (CSU Board of Trustees has already approved 5% tuition hike if Prop 30 fails amounting to an increase of $150 per student in Spring & Fall 2013)

27. Effects • Cuts to Public Safety • $20,000,000 in state grants to City police departments • $10,000,000 to Cal Fire • Various smaller cuts to flood control, water safety, etc.

28. Proposition 30 • Make YOUR decision and VOTE

29. Tax to Fund Education and Early Childhood Programs Proposition 38 Kevin Navarro

31. Allocation of Revenues Raised by Prop 38 (from 2013-14 to 2016-17) (from 2017-18 to 2023-24)

32. How Prop 38 Revenues Are Allocated

33. Supporters • Molly Munger • California State PTA • Bakersfield Californian

34. Opponents • California Democratic Party • California Republican Party • Contra Costa Times • Los Angeles Times • Orange County Register • Sacramento Bee • San Diego Union-Tribune • San Francisco Chronicle

35. Panel Discussion Moderated by Provost Gossett Panel PPA Alumni- Christopher CabaldonMayor of West Sacramento, Kevin McCarty Sacramento City Council Member, and Colleen Moore Research Specialist at the Institute of Higher Education Leadership & Policy. PPA Faculty Member- Mary Kirlin.