2012 California Proposition 32

Last updated

Proposition 32 is a California ballot measure that was decided by California voters at the statewide election on November 6, 2012. This initiative statute would have affected political contributions via payroll deductions, and contributions to political candidates. The proposition was defeated by voters by a margin of 56 to 44 percent. [1]

Contents

Details

Proposition 32 would have done the following:

Editorial opinions

The North County Times stated that Proposition 32 "does nothing to stifle unions' political voicesdespite claims to the contrary. Prop. 32 simply institutes an opt-in system for each employee's political donations." [3]

The Los Angeles Daily News noted that Proposition 32 leaves the decision on how to contribute political funds to workers, not unions. In other words, "unions will still have the power of numbers. Their members will continue to be able to mobilize in support of candidates and political stands, and to donate money on their own, but it would be their decision." [4]

According to the Press Enterprise , "The meat of Prop. 32 is a ban on the use of payroll deductions to finance political spending. That provision targets one of the largest special interests in California politics: public employee unions. Automatic deductions from paychecks are the primary way unions fund political campaigns — and ending that financing mechanism would ease unions’ stranglehold on political decisions." [5]

In mid-August 2012, Los Angeles Times' columnist Michael Hiltzik wrote that the proposition would exempt "such common business structures as LLCs, partnerships and real estate trusts", that the drafters included "conservative attorneys Thomas Hiltachk and Michael Capaldi", and concluded by citing a statistic that "business outspends organized labor 15 to 1". Supporters say the proposition allows workers to decide where their money is spent; opponents say it is a bill designed for corporations to legally fund millions of dollars to their candidates. [6]

The Wall Street Journal published a late-August 2012 profile of pro-proposition campaigner and former Democratic state legislator Gloria Romero who said that unions were too powerful in Sacramento and "must be brought down" before they cause the state to become bankrupt. [7] Romero said it was "telling" that advertisements against the measure "don't mention unions." [7]

On Labor Day weekend, political science professor and associate vice president of the California Faculty Association Andy Merrifield and League of Women Voters representative Dee Dee Bridges wrote against the proposition as "a particularly cynical ballot initiative ... to deny participation in the political process to working people". [8]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2004 California Proposition 60</span> Amendment to the Constitution of California

Proposition 60 was an amendment of the Constitution of California, enacted in 2004, guaranteeing the right of a party participating in a primary election to also participate in the general election that follows. It was proposed by the California Legislature and approved by the voters in referendum held as part of the November 2004 election, by a majority of 67%.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2004 California Proposition 62</span> California ballot proposition

Proposition 62 was a California ballot proposition on the November 2, 2004 ballot. It failed to pass with 5,119,155 (46.1%) votes in favor and 5,968,770 (53.9%) against.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2005 California Proposition 75</span> 2005 California ballot proposition

Proposition 75 was a ballot proposition in the California special election, 2005.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 California Proposition 8</span>

Proposition 8, known informally as Prop 8, was a California ballot proposition and a state constitutional amendment intended to ban same-sex marriage; it passed in the November 2008 California state elections and was later overturned in court. The proposition was created by opponents of same-sex marriage in advance of the California Supreme Court's May 2008 appeal ruling, In re Marriage Cases, which followed the short-lived 2004 same-sex weddings controversy and found the previous ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Proposition 8 was ultimately ruled unconstitutional by a federal court in 2010, although the court decision did not go into effect until June 26, 2013, following the conclusion of proponents' appeals.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 California Proposition 6</span>

California Proposition 6, also known as the Safe Neighborhoods Act and The Runner Initiative, is a statutory initiative that appeared on the November 2008 ballot in California. This proposition was rejected by voters on November 4 of that year.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 California Proposition 11</span>

Proposition 11 of 2008 was a law enacted by California voters that placed the power to draw electoral boundaries for State Assembly and State Senate districts in a Citizens Redistricting Commission, as opposed to the State Legislature. To do this the Act amended both the Constitution of California and the Government Code. The law was proposed by means of the initiative process and was put to voters as part of the November 4, 2008 state elections. In 2010, voters passed Proposition 20 which extended the Citizen Redistricting Commission's power to draw electoral boundaries to include U.S. House seats as well.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 Oregon Ballot Measure 64</span>

Oregon Ballot Measure 64 was an initiated state statute ballot measure on the November 4, 2008 general election ballot in Oregon.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2010 California Proposition 23</span> Referendum on environmental regulations

Proposition 23 was a California ballot proposition that was on the November 2, 2010 California statewide ballot. It was defeated by California voters during the statewide election by a 23% margin. If passed, it would have suspended AB 32, a law enacted in 2006, legally referred to its long name, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. Sponsors of the initiative referred to their measure as the California Jobs Initiative while opponents called it the Dirty Energy Prop.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2010 California Proposition 20</span> Approved Congressional Redistricting Initiative

A California Congressional Redistricting Initiative, Proposition 20 was on the November 2, 2010 ballot in California. It was approved by 61.2% of voters. Election officials announced on May 5 that the proposition had collected sufficient signatures to qualify for the ballot. The measure is known by its supporters as the VOTERS FIRST Act for Congress.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2010 California Proposition 27</span>

Proposition 27 was an unsuccessful ballot proposition on the November 2, 2010 ballot in California, placed there by the initiative process. If approved, this measure would have repealed California Proposition 11 (2008), which authorized the creation of the California Citizens Redistricting Commission to draw the electoral boundaries for State Assembly and State Senate districts. It would also have modified the provision in California law that says that proposed congressional districts can not be subjected to a veto referendum.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">November 2012 California elections</span>

The California state elections was held on Election Day, November 6, 2012. On the ballot were eleven propositions, various parties' nominees for the United States presidency, the Class I Senator to the United States Senate, all of California's seats to the House of Representatives, all of the seats of the State Assembly, and all odd-numbered seats of the State Senate.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2010 California Proposition 19</span> Failed measure to legalize marijuana

California Proposition 19 was a ballot initiative on the November 2, 2010, statewide ballot. It was defeated, with 53.5% of California voters voting "No" and 46.5% voting "Yes." If passed, it would have legalized various marijuana-related activities, allowed local governments to regulate these activities, permitted local governments to impose and collect marijuana-related fees and taxes, and authorized various criminal and civil penalties. In March 2010, it qualified to be on the November statewide ballot. The proposition required a simple majority in order to pass, and would have taken effect the day after the election. Yes on 19 was the official advocacy group for the initiative and California Public Safety Institute: No On Proposition 19 was the official opposition group.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2012 California Proposition 39</span> Referendum modifying corporate tax burdens

Proposition 39 is a ballot initiative in the state of California that modifies the way out-of-state corporations calculate their income tax burdens. The proposition was approved by voters in the November 6 general election, with 61.1% voting in favor of it.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2016 California Proposition 64</span> Referendum on recreational cannabis

The Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA) was a 2016 voter initiative to legalize cannabis in California. The full name is the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act. The initiative passed with 57% voter approval and became law on November 9, 2016, leading to recreational cannabis sales in California by January 2018.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2016 California Proposition 59</span>

California Proposition 59 is a non-binding advisory question that appeared on the 2016 California November general election ballot. It asked voters if they wanted California to work towards overturning the Citizens United U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2016 California Proposition 55</span>

Proposition 55 is a California ballot proposition that passed on the November 8, 2016 ballot, regarding extending by twelve years the temporary personal income tax increases enacted in 2012 on earnings over $250,000, with revenues allocated to K–12 schools, California Community Colleges, and, in certain years, healthcare. Proposition 55 will raise tax revenue by between $4 billion and $9 billion a year. Half of funds will go to schools and community colleges, up to $2 billion a year would go to Medi-Cal, and up to $1.5 billion will be saved and applied to debt.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2016 California Proposition 62</span>

Proposition 62 was a California ballot proposition on the November 8, 2016, ballot that would have repealed the death penalty and replaced it with life imprisonment and forced labor without possibility of parole. It would have applied retroactively to existing death sentences and increased the portion of life inmates' wages that may be applied to victim restitution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 California Proposition 15</span> Initiative to provide education funding

California Proposition 15 was a failed citizen-initiated proposition on the November 3, 2020, ballot. It would have provided $6.5 billion to $11.5 billion in new funding for public schools, community colleges, and local government services by creating a "split roll" system that increased taxes on large commercial properties by assessing them at market value, without changing property taxes for small business owners or residential properties for homeowners or renters. The measure failed by a small margin of about four percentage points.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 California Proposition 22</span> Gig economy workers employment status ballot initiative

Proposition 22 was a ballot initiative in California that became law after the November 2020 state election, passing with 59% of the vote and granting app-based transportation and delivery companies an exception to Assembly Bill 5 by classifying their drivers as "independent contractors", rather than "employees". The law exempts employers from providing the full suite of mandated employee benefits while instead giving drivers new protections:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2022 California Proposition 1</span>

Proposition 1, titled Constitutional Right to Reproductive Freedom and initially known as Senate Constitutional Amendment 10 (SCA 10), was a California ballot proposition and state constitutional amendment that was voted on in the 2022 general election on November 8. Passing with more than two-thirds of the vote, the proposition amended the Constitution of California to explicitly grant the right to an abortion and contraceptives, making California among the first states in the nation to codify the right. The decision to propose the codification of abortion rights in the state constitution was precipitated in May 2022 by Politico's publishing of a leaked draft opinion showing the United States Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. The decision reversed judicial precedent that previously held that the United States Constitution protected the right to an abortion.

References

  1. Maciag, Mike (November 7, 2012). "California Unions Help Defeat Ballot Measure Targeting Campaign Donations". Governing. Archived from the original on 13 November 2012. Retrieved 10 November 2012.
  2. "Proposition 32 - Official Title and Summary" (PDF). California Secretary of State. Retrieved October 17, 2012.
  3. "North County". Archived from the original on 2012-11-09.
  4. "Endorsement: Yes on Proposition 32 -- Unions have inordinate amount of power in state politics - LA Daily News". www.dailynews.com. Archived from the original on 4 November 2012. Retrieved 11 January 2022.
  5. "ELECTION: Yes on 32 | Breaking News | PE.com - Press-Enterprise". www.pe.com. Archived from the original on 2012-10-14.
  6. Hiltzik, Michael, "Proposition 32: A fraud to end all frauds", Los Angeles Times, August 19, 2012. Larry Sand, a retired teacher who taught for more than 28 years in California and New York, responded on August 24, 2012. Retrieved 2012-09-03.
  7. 1 2 Finley, Allysia, "Gloria Romero: The Trials of a Democratic Reformer", The Wall Street Journal, August 31, 2012. Retrieved 2012-09-03.
  8. Merrifield, Andy, and Dee Dee Bridges, "Guest Opinion: California's main threat to labor: Prop. 32" Archived 2013-02-08 at archive.today , September 2, 2012. Retrieved 2012-09-03.