Along with selecting their picks for local, state, and federal offices, California voters will also choose “yes” or “no” on a number of initiatives on the November ballot.
In use since 1911, California’s initiative process has a national reputation for bypassing its elected representatives in favor of a vote at the polls, where the true majority
of voters can directly create new laws.

Following are analyses of the 11 ballot measures, and the positions of California Family Alliance. However, no positions are taken by CFA on measures considered too far
afield from CFA’s guiding issues of protecting traditional family, innocent life, and religious liberty. Download our Proposition Voter GuideDownload California Family Council's complete Voter Guide

Proposition 30 - Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger implemented a temporary tax increase in an attempt to close California’s gap between its budget and its
deficit. Gov. Jerry Brown wants to do the same thing, raising the state’s base sales tax and increasing taxes for a period of seven years on annual incomes higher than
$250,000. Supporters include labor unions of teachers, service employees and nurses, as well as the state’s Democratic Party. Opponents claim that the language of the
proposition does not guarantee the direction and use of the $7-$9 billion expected to be raised, and that this measure simply postpones the need to cut spending.

CFA position: NO on 30 - in California, raising taxes on all, or the wealthiest, shows no evidence of forcing government to budget responsibly. In addition,
although Gov. Brown claims the new revenues will go toward public education, the language of the measure does not mandate the direction of the spending.

Proposition 31 - This measure appears straightforward, but is described as complicated due to its length and claims of contradictory agendas. Several components
promote improved fiscal responsibility, such as requiring two-year state budgets, instead of the current annual cycle, and prohibiting the Legislature from creating
expenditures of more than $25 million without first proving the source of the funding, such as new revenues or cuts. Prop 31 would also permit the California governor to
unilaterally make budget cuts if the Legislature fails to act, and would require the establishment of performance goals for budget items and performance reviews of all
state programs. The California Republican Party recently changed its position on this measure, now opposing it, and the state Democratic Party opposes it because it increases the governor’s authority if legislative leadership does not act. The numbers in opposition are growing, with allegations that this amendment would allow
local governments to join together to create “Strategic Action Plans” that will benefit urban city powers while threatening the income and voice of the smaller suburbs.

CFA position: NO on 31 - Although on its face the measure has aspects that seem to control state spending, The Sacramento Bee calls the regional
collaborative plan a “radical element” creating a “patchwork of county-by-county rules when it comes to provision of basic services.”

Proposition 32 - Should this initiative pass, it would ban direct contributions to candidates by corporations and unions. It would also prohibit unions, corporations,
and government contractors from automatically deducting dues or fees from members or employees for political purposes. In support, the editorial board of the Wall Street
Journal wrote, “If California voters hope to stand a chance of reining in such benefits and fixing their dysfunctional state, they’ll have to break the government union
political monopoly…” In opposition, Trudy Schafer of the California League of Women Voters says, “[Prop 32] promises political reform but it’s really designed by its
special interest backers to help themselves and harm their opponents.” At last report, financial contributions in support of Prop 32 totaled $9 million, and the opposition
campaign had raised $36 million, primarily from labor associations with the California Teachers Association contributing $17 million. The total campaign will surpass the early projections of $50 million for and against. The total campaign is projected to spend $50 million for and against.

CFA position: YES on 32 - this measure gives union members and employees the freedom to decide on their political spending, not union and corporate leaders.

Proposition 33 - Under current California law, auto insurance carriers may not offer policy discounts to new customers, and insurers can only offer “loyalty” discounts
to existing customers. This measure would “[change] current law to allow insurance companies to set prices based on whether the driver previously carried auto insurance
with any insurance company.” Prop 33 would allow insurers to offer discounts to new customers who can show continuous coverage from any licensed auto insurance
company over the previous five years. The initiative also “allows increased [policy costs] for drivers without history of continuous coverage,” exempting those whose
policies may have lapsed for reasons such as military service or 18 months or more of unemployment. The proposition is supported by the California Republican Party, the
former State Senate president pro tempore Don Perata, and Juan Vargas, former chair of the State Assembly’s Insurance Committee. Opponents include the California
Democratic Party, Consumer Watchdog, and the Campaign for Consumer Rights.

CFA takes no position on 33.

Proposition 34 - If approved, this initiative would repeal the death penalty and replace it with life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, and would
retroactively apply to those already sentenced to death (725 people). The measure also creates a $100 million dollar fund to assist law enforcement with homicide and
rape cases. Arguments for the elimination of the death penalty include moral arguments against the taking of human life, the grave risk of executing people mistakenly
convicted, and the potential redistribution of financial resources from court and prison costs to public safety purposes. The primary ballot argument against the repeal of
the death penalty concerns justice being served on behalf of crime victims and their loved ones. Supporters of the initiative include the California Catholic Conference of
Bishops and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Opponents of Prop 34 include associations of police, sheriffs, and deputy district attorneys.

CFA position: NO on 34 - We agree with many points offered by the proponents of this measure, such as the exorbitant costs to support each person on Death
Row and poor evidence of the death penalty as a deterrent. However, both Old and New Testament scriptures support the use of the death penalty as a means of justice for
victims, and we favor the death penalty’s reform rather than its end.

Proposition 35 - This measure seeks to increase criminal penalties for human trafficking in the sex trades. It would require convicted sex traffickers to register as
sex offenders, would increase prison sentences up to 15 years to life, and would increase fines up to $1.5 million. Fines collected would be used for victim services and
law enforcement training. Supporters of Prop 35 include both the California Democratic and Republican Parties. Opponents of this measure include the Exotic Service
Providers Legal Education and Research Project, and Norma Jean Almodovar, an author, former police officer, and sex workers activist.

CFA position: YES on 35 - human trafficking is a lucrative, criminal business, and this measure attempts to deter its prevalence with increased prison terms,
monetary fines, and law enforcement training.

Proposition 36 - In 1994, California voters passed a “Three Strikes” Law, which mandates a minimum sentence of 25 years to life imprisonment for three-time
repeat offenders with multiple prior “serious” felony convictions. The number of persons now serving life sentences in California due to three convictions is 8,800. Prop 36
attempts to revise the “three strikes” law to impose life sentences only when the new conviction is deemed “serious or violent,” and would authorize a potential reduction
in sentence for an estimated 3,000 offenders now serving life sentences. Supporters claim the reduction in sentences could save the state more than $150 million annually,
and major support for the proposition comes from the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the California Democratic Party, and billionaire George Soros. Opponents claim that every state implementing a “three strikes” law has seen a significant reduction in crime, and California’s crime rate dropped 37% in the first four years after itsimplementation. Prop 36 is opposed by the California Republican Party and Mike Reynolds, the author of the 1994 “Three Strikes” proposition.

CFA position: YES on 36 - This measure seeks to refine, not dismiss, the “three strikes” law. Although prosecutors now have some discretion regarding punishment for a repeat offender, this measure is a modest revision that supports the creation of more standard criteria. CFA’s rationale is tied to the reunification of families whenever possible, and safe.

Proposition 37 - This measure would require “labeling on raw or processed food offered for sale to consumers if made from plants or animals with genetic material
changed in specified ways. Prohibits labeling or advertising such food as ‘natural.’” Major funding in support comes from Mercola Health Industries, an alternative, natural
medicine company, the Organic Consumers Fund, and Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps. Opponents of the initiative include the Council for Biotechnology Information, the GroceryManufacturers Association, and Pioneer Hi-Bred International. Potential costs to the state include $1 million annually in compliance monitoring, and “potentially significant”costs for the courts, the Attorney General, and district attorneys from possible violations of labeling.

CFA takes no position on 37.

Proposition 38 - This measure would raise personal income tax rates in California for a period of 12 years, resulting in estimated annual revenue increases of more
than $10 billion. The vast majority of revenues would be dedicated to grades K-12, with smaller portions going to debt repayment and early care and education programs.
Attorney and political activist Molly Munger is the chief financial backer having contributed nearly $9 million to the campaign. Munger claims that Prop 38 would restore
all the fiscal cuts that schools have experienced in the last four years. Both major political parties oppose Prop 38, as does Gov. Jerry Brown, who sees Prop 38 as a
competitor against his own Proposition 30.

CFA position: NO on 38 - Raising taxes for education avoids California’s real problem of budget gimmicks and special interest funding. If these issues are
responsibly addressed, public education will be adequately funded and families will not be over-taxed.

Proposition 39 - The major funder of this campaign claims that existing California law permits annual revenue loss of $1 billion through a loophole. This measure
would require all multi-state businesses to calculate their California tax liability based on their percentage of sales that took place in this state. Prop 39 would also mandate
that for the first five years $550 million of annual new revenue would be dedicated to the creation of energy efficiency projects and clean energy jobs in California. The
founder of a capital investment firm, Thomas Steyer, has personally given nearly $22 million to fund this campaign, and a Californians for Clean Energy and Jobs coalition has donated more than $1.2 million in support. Opponents of Prop 39 claim that “a massive $1 billion tax increase on California’s job creators...will result in the loss of thousands of middle class jobs.” Prop 39 is opposed by the California Republican Party, the California Manufacturers & Technology Association, and the California Asian
Pacific Chamber of Commerce.

CFA position: NO on 39 - This measure would direct more than of half of all new revenues toward state government’s agenda for “clean energy.” We believe that
private enterprise is the appropriate entity for investment in such projects, not the state government.

Proposition 40 - This measure was created as a referendum by the California Republican Party (CRP), attempting to repeal the California State Senate district
boundaries that were put in place in 2011 by the California Citizens Redistricting Commission. The CRP was not happy with the new boundaries developed by the
Commission, and hoped that by placing this referendum on the ballot it would keep the new boundaries from being implemented until the people could vote on Prop 40.
However, the California Supreme Court ruled that the new boundaries be implemented for the June 2012 Primary and November 2012 General Election. Therefore, in July
the CRP announced it would not put forth a campaign, as its objective for the referendum - postponing the new boundaries - did not succeed, and the CRP saw little reason
to spend money to conduct a campaign. Still, the proposition will remain on the ballot. A “no” vote would be a vote to overturn the new district boundaries and require
court-appointed officials to create interim boundaries for use in the next statewide election. A “yes” vote is a vote to uphold the Redistricting Commission’s boundaries.

CFA takes no position on 40.