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

Proposition 30
Type	Initiated amendment
Origin	Petition signatures
Topic	Taxes
Status	a

Proposition 30, a Sales and Income Tax Increase Initiative, was on the ballot in California on November 6, 2012, as an initiated constitutional amendment, where it was approved.

Gov. Jerry Brown (D) led the charge for Proposition 30, which was a merger of two previously competing initiatives: the "Millionaire's Tax" and Brown's First Tax Increase Proposal.

Proposition 30 instituted the following changes:

• Raised California’s sales tax to 7.5 percent from 7.25 percent, a 3.45 percent increase over the previous policy. (Under the Brown Tax Hike, the sales tax would have increased to 7.75 percent.)
• Created four high-income tax brackets for taxpayers with taxable incomes exceeding $250,000, $300,000, $500,000 and $1,000,000. This increased tax was set to be in effect for seven years.
• Imposed a 10.3 percent tax rate on taxable income over $250,000 but less than $300,000—an increase of 10.6 percent over the previous policy of 9.3 percent. The 10.3 percent income tax rate was previously paid only by taxpayers with over $1 million in taxable income.
• Imposed an 11.3 percent tax rate on taxable income over $300,000 but less than $500,000—an increase of 21.5 percent over the previous policy of 9.3 percent.
• Imposed a 12.3 percent tax rate on taxable income over $500,000 up to $1,000,000—an increase of 32.26 percent over the previous policy of 9.3 percent.
• Imposed a 13.3 percent tax rate on taxable income over $1,000,000—an increase of 29.13 percent over the previous "millionaires tax" policy of 10.3 percent.
• Since this proposition was passed in November 2012, the income tax applied retroactively to all income earned or received after January 1, 2012.
• Based on California Franchise Tax Board data for 2009, the additional income tax was imposed on the top 3 percent of California taxpayers.

The estimated revenue from Proposition 30 varied from Jerry Brown's $9 billion estimate to the $6.8 billion estimated by the nonpartisan Legislative Analysts Office (LAO). The differences stemmed from the volatility caused by capital gains income from high-income earners, an issue in California's tax system previously identified by the Legislative Analysts Office (LAO).

Election results

See also: 2012 ballot measure election results

California Proposition 30
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		7,014,114	55.4%
No		5,653,637	44.6%

These final, certified, results are from the California Secretary of State.

Aftermath

In the aftermath of the approval of Proposition 30, pundits across the country debated whether Proposition 30's higher taxes on wealthy individuals would lead any of those individuals to decide to leave the state.

Chris Plastiras, the owner of a real estate company in Nevada, said that since Proposition 30 passed, 14 of the 27 high-end homes he sold between the election and the end of January 2013 were to wealthy individuals leaving California for Nevada. He said, "They're buying fast and furious, absolutely. I've never seen anything quite like this. Prop. 30 really got a lot of people upset and they feel like they're being singled out, and that was pretty much the straw that broke the camel's back for them."

Text of measure

See also: Complete text of Proposition 30 and Ballot titles, summaries and fiscal statements for California's 2012 ballot propositions

Title

Temporary Taxes to Fund Education. Guaranteed Local Public Safety Funding. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

Summary

The state's official voter guide included two summaries for each statewide ballot measure. One summary, in bullet-point format, was in the long-form description of each measure. A shorter form of the summary was on the ballot label in the front of the voter guide.

The long-form summary for Proposition 30 said:

Increases personal income tax on annual earnings over $250,000 for seven years. Increases sales and use tax by ¼ cent for four years. Allocates temporary tax revenues 89% to K–12 schools and 11% to community colleges. Bars use of funds for administrative costs, but provides local school governing boards discretion to decide, in open meetings and subject to annual audit, how funds are to be spent. Guarantees funding for public safety services realigned from state to local governments.

The short-form (ballot label) summary for Proposition 30 said:

"Increases taxes on earnings over $250,000 for seven years and sales taxes by ¼ cent for four years, to fund schools. Guarantees public safety realignment funding. Fiscal Impact: Increased state tax revenues through 2018–19, averaging about $6 billion annually over the next few years. Revenues available for funding state budget. In 2012–13, planned spending reductions, primarily to education programs, would not occur."

Fiscal impact

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

Below is a summary of Proposition 30's estimated "fiscal impact on state and local government" prepared by the California Legislative Analyst's Office and the Director of Finance.

	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.

Constitutional changes

Proposition 30 changed the California Constitution. It did this by adding a new Section 36 to Article XIII of the California Constitution.

Support

"Yes on Prop 30" website logo

Supporters

Supporters included the following groups and individuals:

• Jerry Brown
• League of Women Voters of California
• California Democratic Party
• California Teachers Association (CTA)
• California State Council of Service Employees (SEIU)
• California School Employees Association (CSEA)
• American Federation of Teachers (AFT)
• California Federation of Teachers (CFT)

The arguments in favor of Proposition 30 in the state's official voter guide were submitted by the individuals listed below:

• Jennifer A. Waggoner: president of the League of Women Voters of California
• Dean E. Vogel: president of the California Teachers Association
• Keith Royal: president of the California State Sheriffs’ Association
• Joshua Pechthalt: president of the California Federation of Teachers
• Scott R. Seaman: president of the California Police Chiefs Association

Arguments in favor

The arguments presented in favor of Proposition 30 in the state's official voter guide included the following:

• "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."

• "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."

• "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."

Donors

Total campaign cash as of November 3, 2012
Support:	$67,100,000
Opposition:	$53,400,000

About $67.1 million had been contributed to the "yes" campaign as of Saturday, November 3, 2012.

Twenty-two different campaign committees registered in support of Proposition 30. The main campaign organizations who supported it are listed below:

• Brown; Californians To Protect Schools, Universities And Public Safety, A Ballot Measure Committee Supported By Governor Jerry Brown (1343257)
• Californians Working Together To Restore And Protect Public Schools, Universities And Public Safety (1346049)

Donors of $250,000 or more to Proposition 30 are listed below.

These numbers were last updated on Saturday, November 3, 2012:

Donor	Amount
California Teachers Association	$11,439,297
SEIU/California State Council of Service Employees	$10,746,928
Democratic State Central Committee of California	$5,089,646
American Federation of Teachers	$4,179,229
The Coca-Cola Company	$2,072,793
California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems	$2,000,000
Pepsico Incorporated	$1,633,863
PACE of California School Employees Association	$1,500,495
California Beer & Beverage Distributor's	$1,094,311
California Nurses Association	$1,106,417
Reed Hastings	$1,000,000
United Brotherhood of Carpenters	$1,000,000
Laborers International Union of North America	$855,056
United Domestic Workers of America Operating Account	$800,000
Laborers' Pacific Southwest Regional Organizing Coalition	$600,000
Occidental Petroleum	$500,000
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America	$500,000
California Statewide Law Enforcement Association	$426,552
State Building and Construction Trades Council of California	$400,000
Educators and Working Families to Restore California	$360,000
California State Association of Electrical Workers	$300,000
PICO California	$259,000
AERA Energy	$250,000
American Beverage Association	$250,000
California Medical Association PAC	$250,000
CSLEA Issues Committee	$250,000
KP Financial Services	$250,000
Laborer's International Union	$250,000
Northern California Carpenter's Regional Council	$250,000
SW Regional Council of Carpenters	$250,000

Opposition

"No on Prop 30" website logo

Opponents

The arguments against Proposition 30 in the state's official voter guide were submitted by the individuals listed below:

• Jon Coupal: head of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
• Tom Bogetich: former executive director of the California State Board of Education
• Doug Boyd: member of the Los Angeles County Board of Education
• Joel Fox: president of the Small Business Action Committee
• John Kabateck: executive director of the California branch of the National Federation of Independent Business
• Kenneth Payne: president of the Sacramento Taxpayers Association

Other opponents included the following:

• The California Republican Party

• Full list of opponents

Arguments against

The arguments in opposition to Proposition 30 presented in the state's official voter guide included the following:

• Based on the wording of the proposition, there was no guarantee that the money would be used for schools. Thus, opponents referred to it as a "$50 billion shell game." To buttress this argument, opponents quoted the California School Boards Association, which said in May 2012, "the Governor's initiative does not provide new funding for schools."
• "Nothing in Prop 30 reforms our education system to cut waste, eliminate bureaucracy or cut administrative overhead."
• Opponents claimed that, instead of supporting education, the new tax money raised by Proposition 30 would go to "backfill the insolvent teacher's pension fund."
• "The Governor, politicians and special interests behind Proposition 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."
• "Politicians would rather raise taxes instead of streamlining thousands of state-funded programs...look at what they just did: politicians authorized nearly $5 billion in California bonds for the 'bullet train to nowhere', costing taxpayers $380 million a year. Let's use those dollars for schools! Instead, the politicians gave us a false choice -- raise sales taxes by $1 billion per year and raise income taxes on small businesses OR cut schools."

The list below includes other arguments made against Proposition 30:

• The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association conducted a "Don't Sign the Petition" campaign, urging people to decline to sign the petition. On their website, which was devoted to encouraging people not to sign the petition, they said, "Petition gatherers may tell you their measure is to increase school funding. But simply put, It’s a Tax Increase! California is already a poorly managed state. We have a $15 billion budget deficit - a result of overspending - $500 billion in unfunded pension liabilities, a tax and regulatory climate that drives businesses away, wasteful and ineffective use of our tax dollars and a political system unduly influenced by special interests. We do NOT need higher taxes. Join us by telling everyone you know not to sign Jerry Brown's tax initiative."

• Proposition 30 is opposed by columnist Debra Saunders, who said, "I fear [it will] drive golden geese out of the state. Sure, most families earning $500,000 or more aren't going to move over a lousy $5,000, but moguls who make 20 times that and own multiple homes just might decide to migrate. And there go all their tax dollars."

• Some people who generally support tax increases in California said that they have problems with the specifics of Proposition 30. An example of this was Molly Munger, who said, "You sort of hope that the Democrats are the party that stand up for investment in children and in education. Those are two bedrock principles of the Democratic Party. It is a little bit ironic that so many elements of the Democratic Party are, you know, supporting an initiative that does not invest in the main engine we have for social mobility and opportunity in our society, which is our K-12 schools." Another example is columnist George Skelton, who said, "Brown wants voters to believe that all the billions raised by his tax hike would go to K-12 schools and community colleges. They won't. And he knows that as well as anyone."

• Molly Munger additionally said, "Under our proposal, virtually all the cuts that the schools have suffered in the last four years would all be restored—and under the governor's initiative, virtually none would be."

Donors

Total campaign cash as of November 3, 2012
Support:	$67,100,000
Opposition:	$53,400,000

The "No on 30" campaign raised about $53.4 million as of November 3, 2012. That amount, however, included well over $40 million in contributions to a joint campaign committee (the Small Business Action Committee) that simultaneously supported Proposition 32 and opposed Proposition 30.

The donors listed in the chart below had donated $20,000 or more to the "No on 30" campaign as of Saturday, November 3, 2012. Some of these donors gave their money to a committee that was simultaneously supporting or opposing more than one of the ballot propositions on the November 6, 2012, ballot. In those cases, it was not generally possible to break down how much of that donor's money was spent specifically on the campaign for a particular proposition. Those contributions are listed below with shading; readers should not assume that all or even most of a donation to a multi-purpose committee was used for expenditures related to this particular proposition.

Donor	Amount
Charles Munger, Jr.	$35,075,000
Americans for Responsible Leadership	$11,000,000
William Oberndorf	$1,100,000
Jerrold Perenchio	$750,000
John Scully	$500,000
Margaret Bloomfield	$500,000
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association	$440,249
New Majority California PAC	$350,000
Charles B. Johnson	$200,000
T. Boone Pickens	$100,000
Jon Cox	$100,000
Errotabere, Inc.	$100,000
George Hume	$100,000
Robert Weltman	$99,000
Craig McCaw	$75,000
Robert Rodriquez	$75,000
Robert Arnott	$50,000
Leonard Baker	$50,000
Frank Baxter	$50,000
David Baylor	$50,000
David Fishman	$50,000
Amish Mehta	$50,000
Jesse Rogers	$50,000
Alexander Slusky	$50,000
Mark Stevens	$50,000
Jeffrey Ubben	$50,000
David Golob	$25,000
Park Place Asset Management	$25,000
Bob Tuttle	$25,000
William H. Younger	$25,000
Thomas V. McKernan, Jr.	$25,000
Tench Coxe	$25,000

California tax policies

The following table summarizes the Proposition 30 tax increases compared to the previous tax policy. The table includes the following information:

• The starting income for the bottom end of the tax bracket (for single-filer taxpayers)
• The income for the top end of the tax bracket (for single-filer taxpayers)
• The marginal tax rate for the income bracket under the previous policy
• The new tax rate for the income bracket under the proposed tax hike
• The rate increase (proposed rate - previous rate)
• The percentage increase in the rate over the previous policy ( (proposed rate - previous rate)/previous rate )
• The number of taxpayers who paid an increased tax rate under the tax hike. These estimates come from 2009 California Franchise Tax Board data. There were 14,638,204 individual income taxpayers in 2009. The tax hike affected approximately the top 400,000 taxpayers, about 2.7 percent of the taxpayer population.
• The percentage of taxpayers who paid more taxes under the tax hike. These estimates come from 2009 California Franchise Tax Board data.
• The extra amount owed due to the tax increase for incomes at the bottom end of the tax bracket
• The extra amount owed due to the tax increase for incomes at the top end of the tax bracket

Bottom of Income Bracket	Top of Income Bracket	Previous Marginal Income Tax Rate	Proposed Marginal Income Tax Rate	Income Tax Rate Increase	Percentage Rate Increase Over Previous Policy	Number of Taxpayers Affected by Tax Hike	Percentage of Taxpayers Affected by Tax Hike	Extra $$$ Owed at Bottom of Bracket	Extra $$$ Owed at Top of Bracket
$0	$7,142	1.0%	1.0%	0%	0%	0	0%	$0	$0
$7,142	$17,346	2.0%	2.0%	0%	0%	0	0%	$0	$0
$17,346	$27,377	4.0%	4.0%	0%	0%	0	0%	$0	$0
$27,377	$38,004	6.0%	6.0%	0%	0%	0	0%	$0	$0
$38,004	$48,029	8.0%	8.0%	0%	0%	0	0%	$0	$0
$48,029	$250,000	9.3%	9.3%	0%	0%	0	0%	$0	$0
$250,000	$300,000	9.3%	10.3%	1%	10.75%	156,000	1.07%	$0	$500
$300,000	$500,000	9.3%	11.3%	2%	21.50%	145,000	0.99%	$500	$4,500
$500,000	$1,000,000	9.3%	12.3%	3%	32.26%	65,000	0.44%	$4,500	$19,500
$1,000,000	no limit	10.3%	13.3%	3%	29.13%	34,000	0.23%	$19,500	$19,500 + 3% of income over $1M

Editorial opinion

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

See also: Endorsements of California ballot measures, 2012

"Yes on 30"

• 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."

"No on 30"

• 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."

Polling information

See also: Polls, 2012 ballot measures

A USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll was conducted from March 14-19, 2012. A PPIC poll was conducted in early April. PPIC also conducted a poll from May 14-20.

A Field Poll conducted in late May indicated declining support. The Sacramento Bee described the results of that poll as "public support for Gov. Jerry Brown's effort to raise taxes hangs precariously above 50 percent, with confidence in Brown slipping."

In August, a poll released by the Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE)/USC Rossier School of Education indicated 55 percent support for Proposition 30.

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

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

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.

See also: California ballot initiative petition signature costs

Uphill climb

According to Joe Mathews of Prop Zero, the initiative faced an uphill climb to get the signatures it needed to qualify for the November ballot. He said:

"The reasons are technical and complicated, but here is a brief summary. The key date to keep in mind is June 28. That's the final day -- 131 days before the election -- for the California Secretary of State to determine whether an initiative has qualified for the ballot. That date is a little more than 3 months away. But the full process takes well more than that. And the reviews and signature gathering need to be completed by early May for the measure to have a real chance.

That will be extremely difficult. Once the initiative is filed, the department of finance and the Legislative Analyst's Office have 25 days to prepare a fiscal impact statement. The attorney general has another 15 days to prepare the title and summary.

Even if the full 40 days aren't required and this politically sensitive measure is fast-tracked, it should be mid-April, at best, by the time this measure hits the streets.

Practically, that could leave less than 3 weeks to collect signatures. Why? Because the signatures must be verified. Counties are supposed to conduct a raw count of the signatures that are turned in by May 2; and by May 11, the Secretary of State must receive those raw counts from the counties and decide whether there are more than enough signatures to qualify."

Cost of signatures

The San Francisco Chronicle reported on March 17 that it could have cost as much as $7 million to qualify the measure for the ballot; signature-gatherers were considered likely to charge more per signature than they normally would due to time constraints. The paper also reported that the backers of the Millionaire's Tax would underwrite the expensive signature-gathering effort, while Jerry Brown was expected to sit on his campaign warchest in case the expedited signature-gathering effort for the merger initiative failed:

"Who's going to be raising all this money? Apparently Assembly Speaker John Pérez, Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and their new partners from the former millionaires tax campaign (namely the California Federation of Teachers and the Courage Campaign). We hear the governor will reserve his war chest for his original tax plan - just in case the new, compromise measure can't get on the ballot."

In early April, it was reported that signature-gatherers were being offered $3.00 per signature.

Direct mail

Supporters of Proposition 30 resorted to the use of direct mail to obtain signatures on the petition. According to columnist George Skelton, in so doing, they were taking a page from "the longtime GOP strategy of mailing ballot-measure petitions directly to voters for their signatures." Recipients of the direct mail package also received a follow-up robocall, asking them to sign and return the petition.

According to Gale Kaufman, "Given the time frame, it seemed a combo of traditional signature-gathering and some mail would give us the quickest and best opportunity to collect signatures."

External links

Suggest a link

• Complete November 6, 2012 official voter guide
• Ballot title, summary and LAO analysis of Proposition 30
• Arguments for and against Proposition 30 in the official state voter guide
• Letter requesting a ballot title for Initiative 12-0009
• Living Voter's Guide to Proposition 30
• Proposition 30, an overview prepared by the League of Women Voters of California
• Proposition 30 on Voter's Edge
• Proposition 30 Cheatsheet from KCET
• Proposition 30 on California Choices (sponsored by Next 10, IGS at UC Berkeley, the UC San Diego Political Science Department, the Bill Lane Center for the American West at Stanford, and the Center for CA Studies at Sac State)
• Proposition 30 at the California Voter Foundation

Support:

• "Yes on Prop 30"
• "Yes on Prop 30" on Facebook
• "Yes on Prop 30" on Twitter
• Campaign finance filings of "Brown; Yes on Prop. 30 - To Protect Our Schools and Public Safety," #1343257
• Campaign finance filings of "Californians Working Together to Restore and Protect Public Schools, Universities and Public Safety," #1346049

Opposition:

• "No on Prop 30", opposition website
• "No on Prop 30" on Facebook
• "No on Prop 30" on Twitter
• Campaign finance reports of "No on 30," #1347735
• Campaign finance reports of "Small Business Action Committee PAC, No on 30/Yes on 32, Citizens for Reforming Sacramento," #1270683
• "Defeat Prop.30", opposition website run by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

Additional reading:

• Why the Millionaires Tax Was Worth Fighting For at Labor Notes
• Brown's Tax Increase Proposition in Trouble
• Dan Morain: Gov. Jerry Brown's legacy hinges on Nov. 6 election
• Propositions 30, 38 set to go head-to-head
• Reality check: Anti-Proposition 30 twists the facts
• Propositions 30, 38 offer school districts much-needed relief
• The Time for Reform is Now … and SBAC is Going to Help
• School Budgets Are on the Ballot in California