Robyn Nordell.com - Recommendations for Statewide Propositions

Robyn Nordell's Conservative California Election Website

Recommendations Currently Posted on this site are for the NOVEMBER 6, 2012 Election

Please Check Back in May 2014 for Extensive Recommendations for the June 3, 2014 CA Primary Election

CALIFORNIA STATE PROPOSITION INFORMATION For the November 6, 2012 General Election

Robyn Nordell's Proposition Recommendations
Prop 30: NO! - More info...
Prop 31: NO - More info...
Prop 32: YES! Prop 32 is the most important proposition on the ballot! - More info...
Prop 33: YES - More info...
Prop 34: NO - More info...
Prop 35: YES - More info...
Prop 36: NO - More info...
Prop 37: NO - More info...
Prop 38: NO! - More info...
Prop 39: NO - More info...
Prop 40: YES - More info...

Proposition Recommendations from:
John Eastman; Congressman Tom McClintock; ElectionForum.org/Craig Huey; Steve Frank/CA Political News & Views; Frank Kacer/Christian Citizenship Council; California Republican Assembly (CRA); CA Republican Party; Lewis Uhler/ President of National Tax Limitation Committee; CA Family Alliance (CA Family Council); Capitol Resource Institute; Campaign for Children and Families; and Orange County Supervisor John Moorlach

Official California Secretary of State Info for November 6, 2012 Ballot Measures. Includes text, analysis, and "official" arguments For and Against each proposition.

Yes on Prop 32-"Special Interests"

Yes on 32 cuts the money tie between special interests and career politicians by:

Prohibiting corporations and unions from giving to candidates

Prohibiting the deduction of political money from worker paychecks, making all political contributions truly voluntary

Prohibiting contractors from giving to politicians who approve their contracts

NO on PROPOSTION 30

Editorial: NO on PROP. 30 & PROP. 38 tax hikes: Poor stewardship of public money doesn’t merit being given more of it, OC Register, 10/6/12

SaveCalifornia.com / Campaign for Children and Families
NO on PROPOSITION 30: Increasing the state sales tax on everyone and the income tax on some
"This is what politicians who waste money love to do -- take more money from you. Prop. 30 is a bad idea (and so are the other two tax-hike propositions, Prop. 38 and 39). Increasing the state sales tax for all Californians and state income tax for wealthier residents harms family budgets, jobs, prosperity, and the economy as a whole. In 2009, SaveCalifornia.com identified tens of billions of dollars wasted annually by California's Democrat-controlled state government. And Californians have the highest state and local tax burden on the West Coast. But now they want to harm families and businesses that provide jobs instead of cutting disgusting government waste? Vote NO on Prop. 30."

Ventura County Taxpayers Association:
"VCTA strongly opposes Prop 30. Higher taxes are not the answer to California's financial difficulty. Voters are urged to VOTE NO on 30 for the following reasons:

- The Governor and the Legislature are not serious about reigning in spending. They have been unwilling to address the crushing burden of public pensions, they want to spend more money on nonsensical projects like high speed rail and they are more interested in protecting a tax increase than they are in protecting the state's water system. These are not choices made by a body that can be trusted with more tax dollars.

- California is already overtaxed and is headed for meltdown while other states with lower taxes are prospering. California has the highest sales tax, the 2nd highest gas tax, the 2nd highest income tax, the 14th highest property tax and the highest Corporate income tax in the west. Higher tax rates are not the answer.

- California's economy is a disaster. Higher taxes will only create added burdens preventing any meaningful revenue improvement and create more incentive for business to take their business elsewhere."

Michelle Steel: Prop. 30 makes life harder for everyone; No evidence the extra tax money would go to classrooms," 9/24/12 OC Register

NO on PROPOSITION 31

Prop 31: The Devil Is In The Details, by Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, FlashReport, 8/23/12

California's Prop. 31: The Revolution Will Not Be Publicized, By Stanley Kurtz, National Review Online, 9/10/12
Comments by Stephen Frank on 09/23/2012

Beware Prop. 31: A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing, by Katy Grimes, FlashReport, 9/24/12.

YES on PROPOSITION 32

YES on 32 – Fact Sheet

YES on 32 - Myth vs Fact

Prop 32 – "In California, Vote FOR Prop. 32, A Much-Needed Reform," by Congressman Tom McClintock, Human Events, Nov 3, 2012
Excerpt: "It should be obvious that the more special interests spend on politicians the tighter their grasp over our government. In California, that grasp has become a stranglehold, in which crony capitalists and public employee union bosses now exercise life or death control over the legislative process.

A case in point is the biggest spender in California politics, the California Teachers Association (CTA), which "invested" more than $200 million on initiatives, candidates and politics over the past decade – money deducted directly from teachers’ paychecks without their consent. What kind of clout does that buy? Earlier this year, the CTA blocked a bill (SB 1530) that would have permitted school districts to fire a teacher for sexually abusing a child in his or her classroom. After passing the state Senate on a broad bi-partisan vote, four CTA-backed shills on an Assembly committee quietly killed it."

Which November Ballot Measures Deserve a YES Vote? 32, 33 AND 35," FlashReport, 9/18/12, by Lewis Uhler/ President of National Tax Limitation Committee

Excerpt: "Prop. 32 – It is a California campaign finance reform initiative that restricts and controls the special-interest money that flows into California politics and corrupts the political/legislation process.

Here is what it [Prop 32] does:

- Prohibits contributions to candidates by both corporations and labor unions;

- Stops government contractors from making contributions to government officials who control their contracts;

- Bans the use of payroll deductions for the collection of political dues by corporations and labor unions and requires that all employee political contributions be entirely voluntary.

It should be noted that public-employee unions – California Teachers Association (CTA), police, fire, etc. – are very fearful of Prop.32 because, among other disciplines, it stops the automatic deduction of political dues from the wages of public employees, a practice detested by a large number of public employees. It makes political contributions by employees entirely voluntary. Union leaders whose pay, perks and power flow from the current coerced dues process are pouring millions of dollars against Prop. 32. They have been running radio ads, which the Sacramento Bee labels as "misleading," claiming that Wall Street and big corporations are exempted from Prop. 32. That is untrue. All corporations and unions would be prevented from making direct contributions to candidates or contributions that constitute a conflict of interest."

YES on PROPOSITION 33

OC Register Editorial-Prop. 33 (car insurance premiums): Yes
Drivers who earn discounts for consistent coverage should be able to keep it when switching insurers, Orange County Register, 9/27/12

PROP. 33 – Common Sense Reform for Automotive Insurance, by Ken May, American Agents Alliance, FlashReport.org, 7/31/12

NO on PROPOSITION 34

Editorial: No on Prop. 34 (repeal of death penalty) – "While executions are few and far between, the ultimate sanction still serves a worthwhile purpose," Orange County Register, 9/29/12

EXCELLENT 5 MIN. VIDEO by Dennis Prager on Capital Punishment
"Is it immoral for the state to kill convicted murderers? Is it immoral for the state not to? Best selling author and nationally syndicated radio talk show host Dennis Prager answers both questions in this powerful five minute presentation."

SaveCalifornia.com / Campaign for Children and Families
NO ON PROPOSITION 34 : Banning the death penalty, weakening the message "you can't get away with murder"
"One of the worst ideas to make it to the ballot, Prop. 34 would ban the death penalty for murderers. But remember the victims, remember God's justice standards, and remember that the death penalty, if enforced -- and it likely will be in the future, with greater regularity, if Prop. 34 is defeated -- protects innocent human life by sending the unmistakable message to young people that you cannot get away with murder. Think about the victims -- innocent people who have been murdered. We support life by opposing murder. And we protect innocent human life in the strongest statement possible by supporting the ultimate penalty for those who would snuff out innocent lives. God in His Word consistently supports the death penalty for murderers, in both the Old and New Testaments (see Genesis 9:6, Romans 13:4, Luke 23:43, etc.). Vote NO on Prop. 34."

YES on PROPOSITION 35

Which November Ballot Measures Deserve a YES Vote? 32, 33 AND 35," FlashReport, 9/18/12, by Lewis Uhler/ President of National Tax Limitation Committee

Excerpts
"Prop. 35 – It is a measure dealing with sex-trafficking in California, especially among young girls/women. This is what it does:
- Increases fines and penalties for human trafficking;
- Designates traffickers as sex offenders who must register;
-Requires sex offenders to provide information regarding Internet access and identities they use in on-line activities;

Uses fine proceeds for law enforcement training and victim services.
In addition to more severe penalties and longer terms for those convicted, state law would conform to federal law in trafficking cases involving minors: prosecutors need not show that force or coercion occurred."

Orange County Register Editorial: Yes on Prop. 35 (human trafficking) California would get anti-trafficking statute based on federal laws. Fines would go to law enforcement, agencies that help victims. 9/25/12

The OC Register takes a "YES" position, but includes some of their reservations about the proposition within this article.

SaveCalifornia.com / Campaign for Children and Families
YES ON PROPOSITION 35: Throwing the book at human traffickers
"People are created in the image of God, and human trafficking is slavery that is often combined with rape and prostitution. Vote YES on Prop. 35 to curtail the burgeoning human trafficking trade in California. Prop. 35 would increase criminal penalties for human trafficking, as well as reform court practices in favor of victims, and would train police officers about the scourge of human trafficking in California. Vote YES on Prop. 35."

NO on PROPOSITION 36

SaveCalifornia.com / Campaign for Children and Families
NO ON PROPOSITION 36: Refusing to lock up career criminals, and letting them back on the streets
"Another soft-on-crime ballot measure, Prop. 36 weakens California's "Three Strikes and You're Out" law for career criminals. For the sake of public safety and the protection of California families, please vote NO to keep career criminals locked up. The genius of the 1994 "Three Strikes and You’re Out" law is that career criminals are caught and future crimes prevented because even criminals can count to three. A thug who has been convicted of two serious or violent crimes has a major character problem. He is a hardened criminal who cannot easily be reformed and should be locked up for a long time, even if the third "strike" -- a blatant crime -- was not "serious" or "violent." Ask yourself, do you really want to get softer on those convicted of violent crimes, especially when violent crime increased 18% last year? Bottom line, your NO vote on Prop. 36 will prevent hardened criminals from being released on the streets. Fresno's Mike Reynolds, author of "Three Strikes and You're Out," whose 18-year-old daughter, Kimber, was murdered by a killer who then received a short sentence, says, "Once someone has been convicted of two serious or violent offenses, I suggest it's pretty clear what they are capable of. If [Prop. 36] passes, we are likely to see property crimes going up all over the state, and in very short order." See this deeper analysis of Prop. 36. Vote NO on Prop. 36."

NO on PROPOSITION 37

The following conservatives oppose Prop 37:
Constitutional Scholar John Eastman; Congressman Tom McClintock; ElectionForum.org/Craig Huey; Steve Frank/CA Political News & Views; Frank Kacer/Christian Citizenship Council; California Republican Assembly (CRA); CA Republican Party; Lewis Uhler/ President of National Tax Limitation Committee; Capitol Resource Institute; OC Supervisor John Moorlach; Robyn Nordell

ElectionForum's Note on Prop 37: "We like the idea but it will result in frivolous lawsuits."

OC Register Editorial: No on Prop. 37 (food labeling), "Right to know" genetically modified food labeling comes at too high a price for our tastes," OC Register, 9/28/12

California's Prop. 37 is not stricter food regulation, By Colin A. Carter, Cal Watchdog, Sept. 26, 2012

SAVECALIFORNIA.COM / CAMPAIGN FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
PROPOSITION 37: NEUTRAL

Robyn's Note: CCF's statement recognizes the legitimate nutritional concerns of GMOs, but also hits on ONE of the key reasons why so many conservatives oppose Prop 37: LAWSUIT ABUSE!

Prop 37 – CCF's HELPFUL SUMMARY OF PROP 37
Excerpt: "As much as we hate GMOs, we abhor this kind of lawsuit abuse where the sued party always loses financially, even if innocent."

Grocery store labels on genetically-engineered foods, enforced by private attorneys

"Anyone who cares about nutrition should be interested in Prop. 37, which would require the labeling of unnatural, unhealthy "genetically modified organisms" (GMOs), which contain insecticides, in grocery stores. In animal tests, the fairly recent chemical invention of GMOs has shown to be harmful (no surprise, because going against God's creations can have negative consequences). Sadly, for us humans, GMOs are today in most of the corn, soy, canola, sugar beets, eggs and meats (because of GMOs in feed) you find at the grocery store -- yet consumers aren't told they're buying GMOs to feed their family. People deserve an informed choice on whether unhealthy GMOs are in their food, because it is easy to change a food label. What's hard is demanding honesty, which Prop. 37 proposes to achieve.

However, while GMOs are harmful, so is the lawsuit overkill that Prop. 37 would permit. To enforce the new law, private attorneys would be able to sue growers and grocery stores that don't comply with Prop. 37 (perhaps because they can't efficiently track every GMO coming into their store or perhaps because of some vagueness in defining a GMO). It's overkill because these private attorneys would extract tens of thousands of dollars, at least, from growers, packagers, and grocers, with every win in court. As much as we hate GMOs, we abhor this kind of lawsuit abuse where the sued party always loses financially, even if innocent. Enforcement by state officials unmotivated by personal profit would have been much more reasonable. We are therefore NEUTRAL on Prop. 37. If it passes, everyone who grows, processes, packages, and markets food for grocery stores must be diligent to be in compliance, starting in July 2014. If Prop. 37 is defeated, we urge everyone to avoid the rising tide of unhealthy, unnatural GMOs by buying organic foods wherever GMO dangers are likely."

NO on PROPOSITION 38

Editorial: NO on PROP. 30 & PROP. 38 tax hikes: Poor stewardship of public money doesn’t merit being given more of it, OC Register, 10/6/12

SaveCalifornia.com / Campaign for Children and Families
NO ON PROPOSITION 38: Increasing the income tax of most Californians
"Another bad idea from the liberals/progressives/Democrats/socialists, this time to hike the state income tax for most Californians. You can never tax a society into prosperity. Prop. 38 would harm families, businesses, jobs, and the entire economy. SaveCalifornia.com has identified tens of billions of dollars wasted annually by California's Democrat-controlled state government. We're urging a NO vote on both Prop. 30 and 38, two big tax increases that will harm people financially instead of slashing a mountain of waste in Sacramento. Vote NO on Prop. 38."

Ventura County Taxpayers Association:
VCTA recommends NO on Prop 38. This measure has all the negatives of prop 30 with all the disadvantages of ballot box budgeting (it never works). This is a bad idea dressed up in good intentions. California may need more revenue and schools are in terrible shape but higher tax rates are not the solution. What's needed is a growing economy. What's needed is a change in viewpoint by our legislature. What's needed is a change in decision making or a change in decision makers. Vote No on prop 38.

NO on PROPOSITION 39

Ventura County Taxpayers Association: VCTA recommends a no vote on prop 39. There may be a good argument to revise the current tax formula for corporations doing business in California. But if that new formula resulted in increased revenue then (a) the additional revenue should go toward reducing debt and balancing the state's budget, (b) there should not be any new spending and (c) there should not be increased taxes to fund unspecified, non-economic energy projects. NO on Prop 39.

Lewis K. Uhler, President, National Tax Limitation Committee"
"Prop. 39 – a special-interest measure designed and paid for by a hedge-fund billionaire which imposes a billion dollar tax increase on multistate businesses, $550 million to be devoted to 'green' projects controlled by a new nine-member unelected commission. This is ballot-box budgeting at its worst – a blank check signed by California taxpayers."

SaveCalifornia.com / Campaign for Children and Families
NO ON PROPOSITION 39
Increasing taxes on out-of-state businesses selling in California
Want to drive more workers and jobs out of California? Prop. 39 would increases state business taxes on out-of-state companies that sell in California. But this government money grab will harm families and the economy when these out-of-state businesses either leave California (taking jobs with them), or stay and raise their prices (government-caused inflation). Some have even suggested a third option: that these businesses will be able to sidestep Prop. 39's reformulated tax equations, rendering this ballot measure useless at least and financially harmful to Californians at most. Vote NO on Prop. 39.

YES on PROPOSITION 40

OC Register Editorial: Prop. 40 (redistricting): Yes "New state Senate district maps drawn by a citizens panel are flawed, but the job should not be returned to legislators."

Excerpt: "Unlike, perhaps, most of the statewide measures appearing on the Nov. 6 ballot, Proposition 40 is an open-and-shut case – so much so that those who qualified the proposition for the ballot have changed their minds. They, now, and we suggest a yes vote on Prop 40.

Opponents of the recently drawn electoral maps for state Senate districts in California qualified Prop. 40 for the ballot. The measure essentially seeks to challenge and overturn the new Senate districts, drawn for the first time by a citizens redistricting panel. Prop. 40 was a product of the California Republican Party, with the effort led by Sen. Mimi Walters, R-Laguna Niguel. Now the party and the lawmaker have both dropped their challenge to the new districts." (Robyn's Note: Senator Mimi Walters supports a YES on prop 40 vote.)

Fox & Hounds Daily Clarifies What a "YES" vs "no" Vote Means on Prop 40:
A "YES" Vote on 40 Means: Because Prop 40 is a referendum, the measure requires a YES vote to maintain the redistricting lines drawn by the commission. In other words, the voters with a YES vote would be declaring: Yes, we want to uphold the current districts.

A 'no" Vote on 40 Means: No, we don't want the current senate redistricting lines. We want to throw out the current districts and have them redrawn by court-appointed officials instead of the citizens' commission.

Scroll