California Proposition 30, Sales and Income Tax Increase Initiative (2012)

California Proposition 30
Election date November 6, 2012
Topic Taxes
Status a Approved
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin Citizens

California Proposition 30 was on the ballot as an initiated constitutional amendment in California on November 6, 2012. It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported this ballot initiative to: • increase the state sales tax from 7.25% to 7.50% for a period of four years; • create four new tax brackets and tax rates for incomes exceeding $250,000, $300,000, $500,000, and $1 million for a period of seven years; and • distribute the revenue from the tax increases to K-12 schools and community colleges.

A "no" vote opposed this ballot initiative to increase the state sales tax for a period of four years, create four new tax brackets and tax rates for incomes exceeding $250,000, and distribute the revenue from the tax increases to K-12 schools and community colleges.

Overview

Proposition 30 was designed to increase the state sales tax and state income tax for limited periods of time. The sales tax increased from 7.25% to 7.50% for four years. The ballot initiative also created four new income tax brackets and tax rates for incomes exceeding $250,000, $300,000, $500,000 and $1,000,000 (for single payers) for seven years. In 2016, voters approved a ballot initiative, Proposition 55, to extend the income tax increase for an additional 12 years.

Proposition 30 was also designed to distribute revenue from the tax increases into an Education Protection Account, which would then be distributed to K-12 schools (89%) and community colleges (11%).

Election results

See also: 2012 ballot measure election results

California Proposition 30
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		7,014,114	55.37%
No		5,653,637	44.63%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Full text

The full text can be read below:

This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 of Article II of the California Constitution.

This initiative measure adds a section to the California Constitution; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in underline type to indicate that they are new.

PROPOSED LAW THE SCHOOLS AND LOCAL PUBLIC SAFETY PROTECTION ACT OF 2012

SECTION 1. Title.

This measure shall be known and may be cited as "The Schools and Local Public Safety Protection Act of 2012."

SEC. 2. Findings.

2012 propositions
June 5
Proposition 28
Proposition 29
November 6
Proposition 30
Proposition 31
Proposition 32
Proposition 33
Proposition 34
Proposition 35
Proposition 36
Proposition 37
Proposition 38
Proposition 39
Proposition 40
Donations • Vendors
Endorsements • Full text
Ballot titles • Fiscal impact
Local measures

(a) Over the past four years alone, California has had to cut more than $56 billion from education, police and fire protection, healthcare, and other critical state and local services. These funding cuts have forced teacher layoffs, increased school class sizes, increased college fees, reduced police protection, increased fire response times, exacerbated dangerous overcrowding in prisons, and substantially reduced oversight of parolees.

(b) These cuts in critical services have hurt California's seniors, middle-class working families, children, college students, and small businesses the most. We cannot afford more cuts to education and the other services we need.

(c) After years of cuts and difficult choices, it is necessary to turn the state around. Raising new tax revenue is an investment in our future that will put California back on track for growth and success.

(d) The Schools and Local Public Safety Protection Act of 2012 will make California's tax system more fair. With working families struggling while the wealthiest among us enjoy record income growth, it is only right to ask the wealthy to pay their fair share.

(e) The Schools and Local Public Safety Protection Act of 2012 raises the income tax on those at the highest end of the income scale -- those who can most afford it. It also temporarily restores some sales taxes in effect last year, while keeping the overall sales tax rate lower than it was in early 2011.

(f) The new taxes in this measure are temporary. Under the California Constitution the 1/4-cent sales tax increase expires in four years, and the income tax increases for the wealthiest taxpayers end in seven years.

(g) The new tax revenue is guaranteed in the California Constitution to go directly to local school districts and community colleges. Cities and counties are guaranteed ongoing funding for public safety programs such as local police and child protective services. State money is freed up to help balance the budget and prevent even more devastating cuts to services for seniors, working families, and small businesses. Everyone benefits.

(h) To ensure these funds go where the voters intend, they are put in special accounts that the Legislature cannot touch. None of these new revenues can be spent on state bureaucracy or administrative costs.

(i) These funds will be subject to an independent audit every year to ensure they are spent only for schools and public safety. Elected officials will be subject to prosecution and criminal penalties if they misuse the funds.

SEC. 3. Purpose and Intent.

(a) The chief purpose of this measure is to protect schools and local public safety by asking the wealthy to pay their fair share of taxes. This measure takes funds away from state control and places them in special accounts that are exclusively dedicated to schools and local public safety in the state Constitution.

(b) This measure builds on a broader state budget plan that has made billions of dollars in permanent cuts to state spending.

(c) The measure guarantees solid, reliable funding for schools, community colleges, and public safety while helping balance the budget and preventing further devastating cuts to services for seniors, middle-class working families, children, and small businesses.

(d) This measure gives constitutional protection to the shift of local public safety programs from state to local control and the shift of state revenues to local government to pay for those programs. It guarantees that schools are not harmed by providing even more funding than schools would have received without the shift.

(e) This measure guarantees that the new revenues it raises will be sent directly to school districts for classroom expenses, not administrative costs. This school funding cannot be suspended or withheld no matter what happens with the state budget. (f) All revenues from this measure are subject to local audit every year, and audit by the independent Controller to ensure that they will be used only for schools and local public safety.

SEC. 4.

Section 36 is added to Article XIII of the California Constitution, to read:

Sec. 36.

(a) For purposes of this section:

(1) "Public Safety Services" includes the following:

(A) Employing and training public safety officials, including law enforcement personnel, attorneys assigned to criminal proceedings, and court security staff.

(B) Managing local jails and providing housing, treatment, and services for, and supervision of, juvenile and adult offenders.

(C) Preventing child abuse, neglect, or exploitation; providing services to children and youth who are abused, neglected, or exploited, or who are at risk of abuse, neglect, or exploitation, and the families of those children; providing adoption services; and providing adult protective services.

(D) Providing mental health services to children and adults to reduce failure in school, harm to self or others, homelessness, and preventable incarceration or institutionalization.

(E) Preventing, treating, and providing recovery services for substance abuse.

(2) "2011 Realignment Legislation" means legislation enacted on or before September 30, 2012, to implement the state budget plan, that is entitled 2011 Realignment and provides for the assignment of Public Safety Services responsibilities to local agencies, including related reporting responsibilities. The legislation shall provide local agencies with maximum flexibility and control over the design, administration, and delivery of Public Safety Services consistent with federal law and funding requirements, as determined by the Legislature. However, 2011 Realignment Legislation shall include no new programs assigned to local agencies after January 1, 2012, except for the early periodic screening, diagnosis, and treatment (EPSDT) program and mental health managed care.

(b) (1) Except as provided in subdivision (d), commencing in the 2011-12 fiscal year and continuing thereafter, the following amounts shall be deposited into the Local Revenue Fund 2011, as established by Section 30025 of the Government Code, as follows:

(A) All revenues, less refunds, derived from the taxes described in Sections 6051.15 and 6201.15 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, as those sections read on July 1, 2011.

(B) All revenues, less refunds, derived from the vehicle license fees described in Section 11005 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, as that section read on July 1, 2011.

(2) On and after July 1, 2011, the revenues deposited pursuant to paragraph (1) shall not be considered General Fund revenues or proceeds of taxes for purposes of Section 8 of Article XVI of the California Constitution.

(c) (1) Funds deposited in the Local Revenue Fund 2011 are continuously appropriated exclusively to fund the provision of Public Safety Services by local agencies. Pending full implementation of the 2011 Realignment Legislation, funds may also be used to reimburse the State for program costs incurred in providing Public Safety Services on behalf of local agencies. The methodology for allocating funds shall be as specified in the 2011 Realignment Legislation.

(2) The county treasurer, city and county treasurer, or other appropriate official shall create a County Local Revenue Fund 2011 within the treasury of each county or city and county. The money in each County Local Revenue Fund 2011 shall be exclusively used to fund the provision of Public Safety Services by local agencies as specified by the 2011 Realignment Legislation.

(3) Notwithstanding Section 6 of Article XIII B, or any other constitutional provision, a mandate of a new program or higher level of service on a local agency imposed by the 2011 Realignment Legislation, or by any regulation adopted or any executive order or administrative directive issued to implement that legislation, shall not constitute a mandate requiring the State to provide a subvention of funds within the meaning of that section. Any requirement that a local agency comply with Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code, with respect to performing its Public Safety Services responsibilities, or any other matter, shall not be a reimbursable mandate under Section 6 of Article XIII B.

(4) (A) Legislation enacted after September 30, 2012, that has an overall effect of increasing the costs already borne by a local agency for programs or levels of service mandated by the 2011 Realignment Legislation shall apply to local agencies only to the extent that the State provides annual funding for the cost increase. Local agencies shall not be obligated to provide programs or levels of service required by legislation, described in this subparagraph, above the level for which funding has been provided.

(B) Regulations, executive orders, or administrative directives, implemented after October 9, 2011, that are not necessary to implement the 2011 Realignment Legislation, and that have an overall effect of increasing the costs already borne by a local agency for programs or levels of service mandated by the 2011 Realignment Legislation, shall apply to local agencies only to the extent that the State provides annual funding for the cost increase. Local agencies shall not be obligated to provide programs or levels of service pursuant to new regulations, executive orders, or administrative directives, described in this subparagraph, above the level for which funding has been provided.

(C) Any new program or higher level of service provided by local agencies, as described in subparagraphs (A) and (B), above the level for which funding has been provided, shall not require a subvention of funds by the State nor otherwise be subject to Section 6 of Article XIII B. This paragraph shall not apply to legislation currently exempt from subvention under paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 6 of Article XIII B as that paragraph read on January 2, 2011.

(D) The State shall not submit to the federal government any plans or waivers, or amendments to those plans or waivers, that have an overall effect of increasing the cost borne by a local agency for programs or levels of service mandated by the 2011 Realignment Legislation, except to the extent that the plans, waivers, or amendments are required by federal law, or the State provides annual funding for the cost increase.

(E) The State shall not be required to provide a subvention of funds pursuant to this paragraph for a mandate that is imposed by the State at the request of a local agency or to comply with federal law. State funds required by this paragraph shall be from a source other than those described in subdivisions (b) and (d), ad valorem property taxes, or the Social Services Subaccount of the Sales Tax Account of the Local Revenue Fund.

(5) (A) For programs described in subparagraphs (C) to (E), inclusive, of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) and included in the 2011 Realignment Legislation, if there are subsequent changes in federal statutes or regulations that alter the conditions under which federal matching funds as described in the 2011 Realignment Legislation are obtained, and have the overall effect of increasing the costs incurred by a local agency, the State shall annually provide at least 50 percent of the nonfederal share of those costs as determined by the State.

(B) When the State is a party to any complaint brought in a federal judicial or administrative proceeding that involves one or more of the programs described in subparagraphs (C) to (E), inclusive, of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) and included in the 2011 Realignment Legislation, and there is a settlement or judicial or administrative order that imposes a cost in the form of a monetary penalty or has the overall effect of increasing the costs already borne by a local agency for programs or levels of service mandated by the 2011 Realignment Legislation, the State shall annually provide at least 50 percent of the nonfederal share of those costs as determined by the State. Payment by the State is not required if the State determines that the settlement or order relates to one or more local agencies failing to perform a ministerial duty, failing to perform a legal obligation in good faith, or acting in a negligent or reckless manner.

(C) The state funds provided in this paragraph shall be from funding sources other than those described in subdivisions (b) and (d), ad valorem property taxes, or the Social Services Subaccount of the Sales Tax Account of the Local Revenue Fund.

(6) If the State or a local agency fails to perform a duty or obligation under this section or under the 2011 Realignment Legislation, an appropriate party may seek judicial relief. These proceedings shall have priority over all other civil matters.

(7) The funds deposited into a County Local Revenue Fund 2011 shall be spent in a manner designed to maintain the State's eligibility for federal matching funds, and to ensure compliance by the State with applicable federal standards governing the State's provision of Public Safety Services.

(8) The funds deposited into a County Local Revenue Fund 2011 shall not be used by local agencies to supplant other funding for Public Safety Services.

(d) If the taxes described in subdivision (b) are reduced or cease to be operative, the State shall annually provide moneys to the Local Revenue Fund 2011 in an amount equal to or greater than the aggregate amount that otherwise would have been provided by the taxes described in subdivision (b). The method for determining that amount shall be described in the 2011 Realignment Legislation, and the State shall be obligated to provide that amount for so long as the local agencies are required to perform the Public Safety Services responsibilities assigned by the 2011 Realignment Legislation. If the State fails to annually appropriate that amount, the Controller shall transfer that amount from the General Fund in pro rata monthly shares to the Local Revenue Fund 2011. Thereafter, the Controller shall disburse these amounts to local agencies in the manner directed by the 2011 Realignment Legislation. The state obligations under this subdivision shall have a lower priority claim to General Fund money than the first priority for money to be set apart under Section 8 of Article XVI and the second priority to pay voter-approved debts and liabilities described in Section 1 of Article XVI.

(e) (1) To ensure that public education is not harmed in the process of providing critical protection to local Public Safety Services, the Education Protection Account is hereby created in the General Fund to receive and disburse the revenues derived from the incremental increases in taxes imposed by this section, as specified in subdivision (f).

(2) (A) Before June 30, 2013, and before June 30 of each year from 2014 to 2018, inclusive, the Director of Finance shall estimate the total amount of additional revenues, less refunds, that will be derived from the incremental increases in tax rates made in subdivision (f) that will be available for transfer into the Education Protection Account during the next fiscal year. The Director of Finance shall make the same estimate by January 10, 2013, for additional revenues, less refunds, that will be received by the end of the 2012-13 fiscal year.

(B) During the last 10 days of the quarter of each of the first three quarters of each fiscal year from 2013-14 to 2018-19, inclusive, the Controller shall transfer into the Education Protection Account one-fourth of the total amount estimated pursuant to subparagraph (A) for that fiscal year, except as this amount may be adjusted pursuant to subparagraph (D).

(C) In each of the fiscal years from 2012-13 to 2020-21, inclusive, the Director of Finance shall calculate an adjustment to the Education Protection Account, as specified by subparagraph (D), by adding together the following amounts, as applicable:

(i) In the last quarter of each fiscal year from 2012-13 to 2018-19, inclusive, the Director of Finance shall recalculate the estimate made for the fiscal year pursuant to subparagraph (A), and shall subtract from this updated estimate the amounts previously transferred to the Education Protecion Account for that fiscal year.

(ii) In June 2015 and in every June from 2016 to 2021, inclusive, the Director of Finance shall make a final determination of the amount of additional revenues, less refunds, derived from the incremental increases in tax rates made in subdivision (f) for the fiscal year ending two years prior. The amount of the updated estimate calculated in clause (i) for the fiscal year ending two years prior shall be subtracted from the amount of this final determination.

(D) If the sum determined pursuant to subparagraph (C) is positive, the Controller shall transfer an amount equal to that sum into the Education Protection Account within 10 days preceding the end of the fiscal year. If that amount is negative, the Controller shall suspend or reduce subsequent quarterly transfers, if any, to the Education Protection Account until the total reduction equals the negative amount herein described. For purposes of any calculation made pursuant to clause (i) of subparagraph (C), the amount of a quarterly transfer shall not be modified to reflect any suspension or reduction made pursuant to this subparagraph.

(3) All moneys in the Education Protection Account are hereby continuously appropriated for the support of school districts, county offices of education, charter schools, and community college districts as set forth in this paragraph.

(A) Eleven percent of the moneys appropriated pursuant to this paragraph shall be allocated quarterly by the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges to community college districts to provide general purpose funding to community college districts in proportion to the amounts determined pursuant to Section 84750.5 of the Education Code, as that code section read upon voter approval of this section. The allocations calculated pursuant to this subparagraph shall be offset by the amounts specified in subdivisions (a), (c), and (d) of Section 84751 of the Education Code, as that section read upon voter approval of this section, that are in excess of the amounts calculated pursuant to Section 84750.5 of the Education Code, as that section read upon voter approval of this section, provided that no community college district shall receive less than one hundred dollars ($100) per full time equivalent student.

(B) Eighty-nine percent of the moneys appropriated pursuant to this paragraph shall be allocated quarterly by the Superintendent of Public Instruction to provide general purpose funding to school districts, county offices of education, and state general-purpose funding to charter schools in proportion to the revenue limits calculated pursuant to Sections 2558 and 42238 of the Education Code and the amounts calculated pursuant to Section 47633 of the Education Code for county offices of education, school districts, and charter schools, respectively, as those sections read upon voter approval of this section. The amounts so calculated shall be offset by the amounts specified in subdivision (c) of Section 2558 of, paragraphs (1) through (7) of subdivision (h) of Section 42238 of, and Section 47635 of, the Education Code for county offices of education, school districts, and charter schools, respectively, as those sections read upon voter approval of this section, that are in excess of the amounts calculated pursuant to Sections 2558, 42238, and 47633 of the Education Code for county offices of education, school districts, and charter schools, respectively, as those sections read upon voter approval of this section, provided that no school district, county office of education, or charter school shall receive less than two hundred dollars ($200) per unit of average daily attendance.

(4) This subdivision is self-executing and requires no legislative action to take effect. Distribution of the moneys in the Education Protection Account by the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges and the Superintendent of Public Instruction shall not be delayed or otherwise affected by failure of the Legislature and Governor to enact an annual budget bill pursuant to Section 12 of Article IV, by invocation of paragraph (h) of Section 8 of Article XVI, or by any other action or failure to act by the Legislature or Governor.

(5) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the moneys deposited in the Education Protection Account shall not be used to pay any costs incurred by the Legislature, the Governor, or any agency of state government.

(6) A community college district, county office of education, school district, or charter school shall have sole authority to determine how the moneys received from the Education Protection Account are spent in the school or schools within its jurisdiction, provided, however, that the appropriate governing board or body shall make these spending determinations in open session of a public meeting of the governing board or body and shall not use any of the funds from the Education Protection Account for salaries or benefits of administrators or any other administrative costs. Each community college district, county office of education, school district, and charter school shall annually publish on its Internet Web site an accounting of how much money was received from the Education Protection Account and how that money was spent.

(7) The annual independent financial and compliance audit required of community college districts, county offices of education, school districts, and charter schools shall, in addition to all other requirements of law, ascertain and verify whether the funds provided from the Education Protection Account have been properly disbursed and expended as required by this section. Expenses incurred by those entities to comply with the additional audit requirement of this section may be paid with funding from the Education Protection Account, and shall not be considered administrative costs for purposes of this section.

(8) Revenues, less refunds, derived pursuant to subdivision (f) for deposit in the Education Protection Account pursuant to this section shall be deemed "General Fund revenues," "General Fund proceeds of taxes," and "moneys to be applied by the State for the support of school districts and community college districts" for purposes of Section 8 of Article XVI.

(f) (1) (A) In addition to the taxes imposed by Part 1 (commencing with Section 6001) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, for the privilege of selling tangible personal property at retail, a tax is hereby imposed upon all retailers at the rate of 1/4 percent of the gross receipts of any retailer from the sale of all tangible personal property sold at retail in this State on and after January 1, 2013, and before January 1, 2017.

(B) In addition to the taxes imposed by Part 1 (commencing with Section 6001) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, an excise tax is hereby imposed on the storage, use, or other consumption in this State of tangible personal property purchased from any retailer on and after January 1, 2013, and before January 1, 2017, for storage, use, or other consumption in this state at the rate of 1/4 percent of the sales price of the property.

(C) The Sales and Use Tax Law, including any amendments enacted on or after the effective date of this section, shall apply to the taxes imposed pursuant to this paragraph.

(D) This paragraph shall become inoperative on January 1, 2017.

(2) For any taxable year beginning on or after January 1, 2012, and before January 1, 2019, with respect to the tax imposed pursuant to Section 17041 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, the income tax bracket and the rate of 9.3 percent set forth in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 17041 of the Revenue and Taxation Code shall be modified by each of the following:

(A) (i) For that portion of taxable income that is over two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) but not over three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000), the tax rate is 10.3 percent of the excess over two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000).

(ii) For that portion of taxable income that is over three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) but not over five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000), the tax rate is 11.3 percent of the excess over three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000).

(iii) For that portion of taxable income that is over five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000), the tax rate is 12.3 percent of the excess over five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000).

(B) The income tax brackets specified in clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) of subparagraph (A) shall be recomputed, as otherwise provided in subdivision (h) of Section 17041 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, only for taxable years beginning on and after January 1, 2013.

(C) (i) For purposes of subdivision (g) of Section 19136 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, this paragraph shall be considered to be chaptered on the date it becomes effective.

(ii) For purposes of Part 10 (commencing with Section 17001) of, and Part 10.2 (commencing with Section 18401) of, Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, the modified tax brackets and tax rates established and imposed by this paragraph shall be deemed to be established and imposed under Section 17041 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.

(D) This paragraph shall become inoperative on December 1, 2019.

(3) For any taxable year beginning on or after January 1, 2012, and before January 1, 2019, with respect to the tax imposed pursuant to Section 17041 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, the income tax bracket and the rate of 9.3 percent set forth in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 17041 of the Revenue and Taxation Code shall be modified by each of the following:

(A) (i) For that portion of taxable income that is over three hundred forty thousand dollars ($340,000) but not over four hundred eight thousand dollars ($408,000), the tax rate is 10.3 percent of the excess over three hundred forty thousand dollars ($340,000).

(ii) For that portion of taxable income that is over four hundred eight thousand dollars ($408,000) but not over six hundred eighty thousand dollars ($680,000), the tax rate is 11.3 percent of the excess over four hundred eight thousand dollars ($408,000).

(iii) For that portion of taxable income that is over six hundred eighty thousand dollars ($680,000), the tax rate is 12.3 percent of the excess over six hundred eighty thousand dollars ($680,000).

(B) The income tax brackets specified in clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) of subparagraph (A) shall be recomputed, as otherwise provided in subdivision (h) of Section 17041 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, only for taxable years beginning on and after January 1, 2013.

(C) (i) For purposes of subdivision (g) of Section 19136 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, this paragraph shall be considered to be chaptered on the date it becomes effective.

(ii) For purposes of Part 10 (commencing with Section 17001) of, and Part 10.2 (commencing with Section 18401) of, Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, the modified tax brackets and tax rates established and imposed by this paragraph shall be deemed to be established and imposed under Section 17041 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.

(D) This paragraph shall become inoperative on December 1, 2019.

(g) (1) The Controller, pursuant to his or her statutory authority, may perform audits of expenditures from the Local Revenue Fund 2011 and any County Local Revenue Fund 2011, and shall audit the Education Protection Account to ensure that those funds are used and accounted for in a manner consistent with this section.

(2) The Attorney General or local district attorney shall expeditiously investigate, and may seek civil or criminal penalties for, any misuse of moneys from the County Local Revenue Fund 2011 or the Education Protection Account.

SEC. 5. Effective Date.

Subdivision (b) of Section 36 of Article XIII of the California Constitution, as added by this measure, shall be operative as of July 1, 2011. Paragraphs (2) and (3) of subdivision (f) of Section 36 of Article XIII of the California Constitution, as added by this measure, shall be operative as of January 1, 2012. All other provisions of this measure shall become operative the day after the election in which it is approved by a majority of the voters voting on the measure provided.

SEC. 6. Conflicting Measures.

In the event that this measure and another measure that imposes an incremental increase in the tax rates for personal income shall appear on the same statewide ballot, the provisions of the other measure or measures shall be deemed to be in conflict with this measure. In the event that this measure receives a greater number of affirmative votes than a measure deemed to be in conflict with it, the provisions of this measure shall prevail in their entirety, and the other measure or measures shall be null and void.

SEC. 7.

This measure provides funding for school districts and community college districts in an amount that equals or exceeds that which would have been provided if the revenues deposited pursuant to Sections 6051.15 and 6201.15 of the Revenue and Taxation Code pursuant to Chapter 43 of the Statutes of 2011 had been considered "General Fund revenues" or "General Fund proceeds of taxes" for purposes of Section 8 of Article XVI of the California Constitution.

Fiscal impact statement

See also: Fiscal impact statements for California's 2012 ballot propositions

The following is the fiscal impact statement for the ballot initiative:

“

Additional state tax revenues of about $6 billion annually from 2012–13 through 2016–17. Smaller amounts of additional revenue would be available in 2011–12, 2017–18, and 2018–19. These additional revenues would be available to fund programs in the state budget. Spending reductions of about $6 billion in 2012–13, mainly to education programs, would not take effect.

”

Support

Supporters

Officials

• Gov. Jerry Brown (D)

Parties

• California Democratic Party

Organizations

• California Federation of Teachers
• California Police Chiefs Association
• California State Sheriffs’ Association
• California Teachers Association
• League of Women Voters of California

Arguments

The following supporting arguments were presented in the official voter guide:

“ After years of cuts, California’s public schools, universities, and public safety services are at the breaking point. In the last four years alone, our schools have been hit with $20 billion in cuts, over 30,000 fewer teachers, and class sizes that are among the largest in the country. Our children deserve better. It’s time to take a stand and get California back on track. Proposition 30, the Schools & Local Public Safety Protection Act, is supported by Governor Jerry Brown, the League of Women Voters and a statewide coalition of leaders from education, law enforcement and business. There is broad support for Prop. 30 because it’s the only initiative that will protect school and safety funding and help address the state’s chronic budget mess: Prevents deep school cuts. Without Prop. 30, our schools and colleges face an additional $6 billion in devastating cuts this year. Prop. 30 is the only initiative that prevents those cuts and provides billions in new funding for our schools starting this year—money that can be spent on smaller class sizes, up-to-date textbooks and rehiring teachers. Guarantees local public safety funding. Prop. 30 is the only measure that establishes a guarantee for public safety funding in our state’s constitution, where it can’t be touched without voter approval. Prop. 30 keeps cops on the street. Helps balance the budget. Prop. 30 balances our budget and helps pay down California’s debt—built up by years of gimmicks and borrowing. It is a critical step in stopping the budget shortfalls that plague California. To protect schools and safety, Prop. 30 temporarily increases personal income taxes on the highest earners— couples with incomes over $500,000 a year—and establishes the sales tax at a rate lower than it was last year. Prop. 30’s taxes are temporary, balanced and necessary to protect schools and safety: Only highest-income earners pay more income tax: Prop. 30 asks those who earn the most to temporarily pay more income taxes. Couples earning below $500,000 a year will pay no additional income taxes. All new revenue is temporary: Prop. 30’s taxes are temporary, and this initiative cannot be modified without a vote of the people. The very highest earners will pay more for seven years. The sales tax provision will be in effect for four years. Money goes into a special account the legislature can’t touch: The money raised for schools is directed into a special fund the legislature can’t touch and can’t be used for state bureaucracy. Prop. 30 provides for mandatory audits: Mandatory, independent annual audits will insure funds are spent ONLY for schools and public safety. Join with the League of Women Voters and California teachers and public safety professionals. Vote YES on Proposition 30. Take a stand for schools and public safety. ”

Opposition

Opponents

Parties

• California Republican Party

Organizations

• Americans for Prosperity
• Americans for Tax Reform
• Howard Jarvis Taxpayers’ Association
• National Federation of Independent Business California
• Small Business Action Committee

Arguments

The following opposing arguments were presented in the official voter guide:

“ NO on Prop. 30: It is just a $50 Billion Political “Shell Game”—But Doesn’t Guarantee New Funds for Schools The politicians behind Prop. 30 want us to believe that if voters approve Prop. 30’s seven years of massive tax hikes, the new money will go to classrooms. Nothing could be further from the truth. Prop. 30 allows the politicians to play a “shell game” instead of providing new funding for schools: They can take existing money for schools and use it for other purposes and then replace that money with the money from the new taxes. They take it away with one hand and put it back with the other hand. No matter how you move it around, Prop. 30 does not guarantee one penny of new funding for schools. Many educators have exposed this flaw and even the California School Boards Association stated that “ . . . the Governor’s initiative does not provide new funding for schools.” (May 20, 2012) The Wall Street Journal identified the same flaw, stating that “California Governor Jerry Brown is trying to sell his tax hike to voters this November by saying it will go to schools. The dirty little secret is that the new revenues are needed to backfill the insolvent teacher’s pension fund.” Wall Street Journal Editorial, April 22, 2012 Even the official Title and Summary of Prop. 30 says the money can be used for “ . . . paying for other spending commitments.” In addition, there are no requirements or assurances that any more money actually gets to the classroom and nothing in Prop. 30 reforms our education system to cut waste, eliminate bureaucracy or cut administrative overhead. NO on Prop. 30—No Reforms The politicians and special interests behind Prop. 30 want to raise taxes to pay for their out of control spending, but refuse to pass meaningful reforms: Special interests and the politicians they control have blocked pension reforms. We have $500 billion in unfunded pension liabilities in California and still the politicians refuse to enact real reforms. The same people have blocked budget reform. The politicians continue to spend more than the state has. Prop. 30 rewards this dangerous behavior by giving them billions of dollars more to spend with no reforms, no guarantee the money won’t be wasted or that it will really get to the classroom. NO on Prop. 30—Stop the Politician’s Threats The Governor, politicians and special interests behind Prop. 30 threaten voters. They say “vote for our massive tax increase or we’ll take it out on schools,” but at the same time, they refuse to reform the education or pension systems to save money. We need to grow our economy to create jobs and cut waste, clean up government, reform our budget process and hold the politicians accountable instead of approving a $50 billion tax hike on small businesses and working families that doesn’t provide any accountability or guarantee new funding for schools. NO on Prop. 30—Reforms and Jobs First, Not Higher Taxes ”

Media editorials

See also: Endorsements of California ballot measures, 2012

Support

• The Bay Area Reporter: "We support Prop 30 for several reasons, not the least of which is that it is the product of the political process (although attempts to reach a legislative compromise failed) in which the governor, the Democratic majorities in the Legislature, and affected stakeholders were all part of the negotiations and compromise that resulted in the proposition before the voters."

• The Daily Democrat (Woodland, California): "This tax increase is supported by Gov. Jerry Brown and would avoid deep cuts to public schools, community colleges and universities."

• The Fresno Bee: "California's fiscal house remains shaky. Prop. 30 offers a way for the state to start climbing out of its pit. It's not ideal. But it is the best available option."

• The Lompoc Record: "...a tax increase to avoid calamity for school funding."

• The Long Beach Press-Telegram: "Proposition 30 lets our children -- not lawmakers -- off the hook."

• The Los Angeles Daily News: "Yes, our schools are being held hostage. The right thing to do is pay up -- and then demand that the reforms begun in Sacramento this year with pension and workers' comp reform continue. Proposition 30 lets our children -- not lawmakers -- off the hook."

• The Los Angeles Times: "Two years of belt-tightening have left parts of the state safety net in tatters and pushed college costs out of the reach of many families. Cuts in aid to the poor and working poor in this year's budget eliminated child-care subsidies for 14,000 children and preschool slots for 12,500 children. State aid for low-income seniors and the disabled is now as low as it was in 1983; welfare checks are smaller than they were 25 years ago. And K-12 spending per pupil remains $1,000 less than it was five years ago. California now spends less per student than all but three states."

• The Marin Independent Journal: "Passage of Proposition 30 would protect public schools — and our children's educational foundation and opportunities — from being slashed."

• The Merced Sun-Star: "Some entities, notably the California School Boards Association, recommends a 'yes' vote on both measures. We think it's more likely voters will support only one, and we think that Proposition 30 is preferable of the two."

• The Modesto Bee: "California's fiscal house remains shaky. There is massive debt and immense need. Proposition 30 offers a way for the state to start climbing out of its pit. It's not ideal. But it is the best available option."

• The Redding Record Searchlight: "The truth is there's not enough money for the state to do everything its citizens demand. The state frankly overspent straight through the Schwarzenegger administration, even in good years, and now we're at a moment of truth."

• The Sacramento Bee: "Gov. Jerry Brown's initiative to raise taxes by $6 billion a year is vital to California's future on many different levels."

• The San Bernardino Sun: "California already ranks among the lowest in per-pupil spending. The state's largest school district, Los Angeles Unified, already has the shortest school year in the nation. There's too much at stake to oppose this measure on principle."

• The San Francisco Bay Guardian: "And in a state with more billionaires than any other place in America, a fabulously rich place with the world's eighth-largest economy, the notion that we have to argue about raising $6 billion in taxes is farcical."

• The San Francisco Chronicle: "The governor and the ruling Democrats in the Legislature have given Californians who care about schools and the current-year deficit only one real choice: support Prop. 30, which would raise taxes on incomes starting at $250,000 for individuals, $500,000 for married couples, and the state portion of the sales tax (now 7.25 percent) by a quarter cent ... Prop. 30 provides a necessary budget patch - especially with the Legislature's Republicans unwilling to consider any tax increases."

• The San Gabriel Valley Tribune: "The overall tax burden will still be lower than it was two years ago."

• The San Jose Mercury News: "Proposition 30 is no substitute for long-term reforms in education funding, pensions and other areas, but it is a measured and sensible response to this crisis."

• The Santa Cruz Sentinel: "Critics of the measure say the governor won't dare administer such cuts. So far, however, we're unaware of any alternative plan for making up the $6 billion."

• The Vallejo Times-Herald: "Proposition 30 is no substitute for long-term reforms in education funding, pensions and other areas, but it is a measured and sensible response to this crisis."

• The Ventura County Star: "It is a reasonable, well-thought-out approach to an interim fix for the state's recurring deficit, thus giving lawmakers time to seek a long-term solution."

Opposition

• The Bakersfield Californian: "As desperate as the state is for money, we oppose Prop. 30 because it promotes the same bad budgeting policies that pushed the state into the mess it's in today."

• The Contra Costa Times: "Proposition 30 is like taking an Alka-Seltzer for your aching head when you need brain surgery. Sure, the pain might lessen for a while, but the root cause remains. Proposition 30 is not so much a solution as it is a cynical political calculation meant to determine just how much the voters will tolerate. And those voters have had to tolerate a lot recently. While claiming poverty, the Legislature and Gov. Jerry Brown forged ahead with the ill-advised and costly high-speed rail boondoggle."

• The North County Times: "The utter failure of Brown to fulfill his primary campaign promise and institute some kind of meaningful public pension reform means that any money raised from Prop. 30 is simply going to feed the beast. For voters to approve Prop. 30 at this time, when no real reform has been passed, would be to reward Sacramento's wasteful, irresponsible behavior."

• The Orange County Register: "The tax-and-spend culture in Sacramento needs a complete overhaul. Voters might be agreeable to paying more if they saw true reform, such as freeing families from underperforming public schools with tuition vouchers or enough charter schools to meet demand. Maybe if there were genuine reform to public-sector pensions. Or, if meaningful reform in providing public services could be achieved, rather than merely promised, or, if new spending meant equal reductions in old spending, perhaps voters would have reason to give more. We don't see these reforms ahead. As always, instead, we hear pleas to increase taxes for a broken system those in charge refuse to fix."

• The Press-Enterprise: "California would be foolish to raise taxes without providing real and enduring solutions to the state’s chronic budget shortfalls. Yet Props. 30 and 38 would increase taxes on Californians without putting state finances on a sustainable course. Voters should demand a comprehensive fix to the state’s yearly budget turmoil, and reject the flawed half-measures offered by Props. 30 and 38."

• The San Diego Union-Tribune: "California voters have a crucial choice this November. On Propositions 30 and 38, they can vote for higher taxes and accept the premise that this won’t hurt the struggling economy and that the main problem with our already-high-tax state is that its government doesn’t get enough money from its residents. Or they can vote no and force change in our broken status quo, starting with the public schools that eat up by far the biggest chunk of the state budget."

• The Victorville Daily Press: "Proposition 30 on November's ballot would raise money by increasing the California sales tax by a quarter cent. That doesn't sound like much, until you recall that California’s sales tax rate is already the highest in the United States. Couple that with the fact that the Congressional Budget Office says median U.S. family income has declined more than $4,000 a year since the advent of Obama nearly four years ago, and it’s easy to understand why none of us needs the additional burden. Gov. Jerry Brown argues that the money will go to California’s public schools, but that’s dishonest at best. He wants you to believe that when he says “schools” he means students. He doesn’t; he means teachers’ benefits, mostly pensions."

Polls

See also: Polls, 2012 ballot measures

Date of Poll	Pollster	In favor	Opposed	Undecided	Number polled
March 14-19, 2012	By GQR & AV for USC Dornsife/LAT	64%	33%	3%	1,500
April 3-10, 2012	PPIC	54%	39%	7%	823
May 14-20, 2012	PPIC	56%	38%	7%	2,002
May 21-29, 2012	Field Poll	52%	35%	13%	710
June 21-July 2, 2012	Field Poll	54%	38%	12%	997
August 3-7, 2012	PACE/USC Rossier School of Education	55%	36%	9%	1,041
September 9-16, 2012	PPIC	52%	40%	8%	2,003
September 6-18, 2012	Field Poll	51%	36%	13%	902
September 17-23, 2012	USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times	54%	37%	9%	1,504
October 7-9, 2012	SurveyUSA	33%	38%	29%	700
October 7-10, 2012	California Business Roundtable	49.5%	41.7%	8.8%	830
October 11-15, 2012	Reason-Rupe	50%	46%	4%	696
October 14-21, 2012	PPIC	48%	44%	8%	2,006
October 21-28, 2012	California Business Roundtable	49.2%	42.9%	7.8%	2,115
October 17-30, 2012	Field Poll	48%	38%	14%	1,912

Background

Income tax in California

The following table summarizes Proposition 30 compared to the prior tax brackets and rates:

Bracket	Previous Marginal Tax Rate	Proposition 30 Marginal Tax Rate
$0 - $7,142	1.0%	1.0%
$7,142 - $17,346	2.0%	2.0%
$17,346 - $27,377	4.0%	4.0%
$27,377 - $38,004	6.0%	6.0%
$38,004 - $48,029	8.0%	8.0%
$48,029 - $250,000	9.3%	9.3%
$250,000 - $300,000	9.3%	10.3%
$300,000 - $500,000	9.3%	11.3%
$500,000 - $1,000,000	9.3%	12.3%
$1,000,000 +	10.3%	13.3%

Path to the ballot

See also: California signature requirements

• Karen Getman and Thomas A. Willis submitted a letter requesting a ballot title on March 14, 2012.
• A ballot title and summary were expected by May 3, 2012. However, the Office of the Attorney General produced the ballot title and summary just two days after proponents filed the language for the initiative, on March 16, 2012.
• A total of 807,615 valid signatures were required for qualification purposes.
• The 150-day circulation deadline for #12-0009 was August 13, 2012.
• Signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot were filed on May 4.
• On June 20, the California Secretary of State announced that the initiative had qualified for the November 6, 2012, ballot.

Cost of signatures

See also: California ballot initiative petition signature costs

Two campaign committees ("Brown; Yes on Prop. 30 - To Protect Our Schools and Public Safety" and "Californians Working Together to Restore and Protect Public Schools, Universities and Public Safety") paid money to vendors to collect signatures to qualify Proposition 30 for the ballot.

The cumulative expenditure on signatures was $8,773,490.48. This amounted to a per-required-signature cost of $10.86.

All but $25,321 of the money spent on signatures went to Kimball Petition Management.

External links

• November 6, 2012, General Election Voter Guide

See also

2012 measures

• 2012 ballot measures
• Taxes on the ballot

California

• California ballot measures
• California ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls