California Proposition 38, State Income Tax Increase to Support Education (2012)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Proposition 38
Flag of California.png
Click here for the latest news on U.S. ballot measures
Quick stats
Type:State statute
Referred by:Petition signatures
Topic:Taxes, Education
Proposition 38, a "State Income Tax Increase to Support Public Education", was on the November 6, 2012 ballot in California as an initiated state statute, where it was defeated.[1]

If it had been approved, Proposition 38 would have:

  • Increased state income tax rates for most Californians, resulting in increased revenues to the state of about $10 billion a year. This income tax increase would have ended after 12 years, unless voters had reauthorized it.
  • Earmarked most of the new revenue of $10 billion for public school districts and early childhood development programs.[2]

Molly Munger was the primary advocate behind Proposition 38.[3][2] She had donated over $44 million to the campaign by early November, more than five times the $7.2 million she had already donated by early May.[4][5][6]

Election results

See also: 2012 ballot measure election results
California Proposition 38
Defeatedd No8,789,89271.3%
Yes 3,541,199 28.7%
These final, certified, results are from the California Secretary of State.

Text of measure

See also: Complete text of Proposition 38 and Ballot titles, summaries and fiscal statements for California's 2012 ballot propositions


Tax to Fund Education and Early Childhood Programs. Initiative Statute.

Note: The original title given to Proposition 38 by election officials during the petition circulation stage was, "Tax for Education and Early Childhood Programs. Initiative Statute."


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 38 said:

  • Increases personal income tax rates on annual earnings over $7,316 using sliding scale from .4% for lowest individual earners to 2.2% for individuals earning over $2.5 million, for twelve years.
  • During first four years, allocates 60% of revenues to K–12 schools, 30% to repaying state debt, and 10% to early childhood programs. Thereafter, allocates 85% of revenues to K–12 schools, 15% to early childhood programs.
  • Provides K–12 funds on school-specific, per-pupil basis, subject to local control, audits, and public input.
  • Prohibits state from directing new funds.

The short-form (ballot label) summary for Proposition 38 said:

"Increases taxes on earnings using sliding scale, for twelve years. Revenues go to K–12 schools and early childhood programs, and for four years to repaying state debt."

Fiscal impact

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

(This is a summary of the initiative's estimated "fiscal impact on state and local government" prepared by the California Legislative Analyst's Office and the Director of Finance.)

  • Increase in state personal income tax revenues from 2013 through 2024. The increase would be roughly $10 billion in 2013–14, tending to increase over time. The 2012–13 increase would be about half this amount.
  • In each of the initial years, about $6 billion would be used for schools, $1 billion for child care and preschool, and $3 billion for state savings on debt payments. The 2013–14 amounts likely would be higher due to the additional distribution of funds raised in 2012–13.
  • From 2017–18 through 2024–25, the shares spent on schools, child care, and preschool would be higher and the share spent on debt payments lower.

Competing tax initiatives

Logo of the "Millionaire's Tax" Initiative, a competing initiative that did not make the ballot

Proposition 38 was one of several competing tax increase measures on the November 6, 2012, ballot. The others were:

Munger's Proposition 38 and Proposition 30 (Jerry Brown's Tax Increase) were viewed by many pundits and political operatives in California as competing with each other. Why? Because it is conventional wisdom, buoyed by polls done in the spring of 2012, that with more than one tax increase on the November 2012 ballot, they collectively had a greater chance of losing than if just one tax hike proposition had qualified for the ballot.

  • Steve Glazer, who was working for the Jerry Brown tax hike, said, "When voters are offered choices among competing [tax] measures, it depresses the support for each of them. The likely result will be all of them failing."[8]
  • Darrell Steinberg, the President Pro Tem of the California State Senate: "The real problem is that if you have multiple measures on the ballot, you dramatically increase the likelihood that they will all fail. That’s not an acceptable outcome."[9]
  • Harold Meyerson, an op-ed columnist for the Washington Post, said, "...a look back at state history reveals numerous episodes in which Californians essentially championing the same cause have put rival measures on the same ballot, only to create a sea of voter confusion that doomed the proposals on election day."[10]

Munger came under fierce pressure to withdraw her initiative. Joe Mathews of Prop Zero described the pressure thusly: "if she doesn't drop her measure, she'll find herself on the business end of an unrelenting campaign of personal attack."[11]

Munger, an experienced litigator and political activist, made it clear she wouldn't back down. She 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."[12]

Order of ballot propositions

Initiated ballot propositions traditionally are given numbers and placed on the ballot in the order in which signatures are submitted and they qualify for the ballot. Munger's team submitted signatures for her initiative before Jerry Brown's team submitted signatures for the rival Proposition 30.

In June, Brown signed SB 1039, a bill that changed the way that ballot propositions are numbered and ordered on the ballot. The change benefited his tax hike (Proposition 30), because it said that all proposed constitutional amendments are to appear first on the ballot, before any proposed initiated state statutes. The Munger measure is a proposed state statute and, as a result of this new legislation, her measure appeared on the ballot well after his measure.[13][14][15]

Political columnist Dan Walters described this maneuver by Jerry Brown and his colleagues in the California State Legislature as "insular, arrogant and self-dealing governance."[16]


See also: 2012 ballot measure litigation

Munger immediately went into court seeking relief from the Brown ballot-ordering change. On Friday, June 29, judge Timothy Frawley issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) forbidding Debra Bowen from assigning ballot numbers based on the new ballot-numbering system, until he had a chance to fully assess the merits of the lawsuit. A hearing was scheduled for July 9.[15]

Munger's lawsuit says that although the law that changes the way ballot propositions appear on the ballot was part of a package of budget bills, it in fact "was in no way, shape or form related to the budget." The lawsuit also contended that the bill is an "abuse of political process and legislative power."[15]

Ultimately, however, the judge ruled that Brown's change could proceed.[17]

California's 3rd District Court of Appeals considered a lawsuit filed by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association that challenged the order in which the propositions were numbered by California's Secretary of State Debra Bowen. The day after Bowen assigned the numbers, the court said they wanted to hear a justification from Bowen by July 30 about the way she numbered the propositions.[18]


"Yes on Prop 38" website logo


  • Molly Munger was Proposition 38's main financial backer. According to Munger, "We're going to get this on the ballot and we're going to win."[2] In response to comparisons between her measure and the Jerry Brown Tax Increase Initiative (Proposition 30), Munger said, "I don't think we'd have a very good functioning democracy if we always just did what one person at the top wanted. In fact, one of the reasons we have democracy is because that old method, which is to just do what the king says, led to some very bad decisions over time."[19]
  • The California State PTA supported Proposition 38.[20]
  • Munger's team purchased TV spots in San Francisco and Los Angeles in late March to make the case that her initiative will generate "real money that really goes to schools, money that you can count, that you can trace and enforce, and that you can be sure will get to every school and every child."[21]
  • In response to the attacks on her initiative from those who support the Jerry Brown's Tax Increase (Proposition 30), Munger 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."[21]

The arguments in favor of Proposition 38 in the state's official voter guide were submitted by:

  • Carol Kocivar. Kocivar is the president of the California State Parent Teacher Association.
  • Edward James Olmos. Olmos, an actor, played teacher Jaime Escalante in "Stand and Deliver."
  • Arun Ramanathan. Ramanathan is the executive director of Education Trust-West.
  • Celia Jaffe. Jaffe is the president of the 4th District PTA, Orange County.
  • Alex Kajitani. Kajitani is the 2009 California Teacher of the Year.
  • Tini Repetti-Renzullo. Repetti-Renzullo is the 2010–2011 Los Angeles County Teacher of the Year.

Arguments in favor

The arguments presented in favor of Proposition 38 in the state's official voter guide included:

  • "Instead of investing in our schools, political leaders from both parties have been cutting. Since 2008, they’ve cut school budgets by $20 billion. Over 40,000 educators have been laid off, and California now has the largest class sizes in the nation."
  • "Proposition 38 makes schools a priority again. It provides guaranteed funding to restore a well-rounded education and improve educational outcomes. It guarantees billions of dollars to local schools based on enrollment, averaging $10 billion annually over twelve years."
  • "School sites can use the money to reduce class sizes or restore classes in art, music, math, science, vocational and technical education and college preparation—based on different needs at different schools."
  • "Proposition 38 helps prevent more budget cuts by setting aside $3 billion annually through 2016–17 to reduce the state deficit by repaying state education bond debt."
  • "As Californians, we should all contribute something to improve our schools because we will all share in the benefits better schools will bring to our state’s economy and quality of life."
  • "Proposition 38 provides $10 billion annually to restore school funding by raising state tax rates on income after all deductions, using a sliding scale based on ability to pay. The wealthiest taxpayers pay the most, with rates rising 2.2% for individuals on incomes over $2.5 million. At the low end, taxpayers with incomes under $25,000 would pay an annual average of $7.00."
  • "The Legislature can’t touch the money. 38 prohibits the Legislature from diverting or borrowing the money, and it cannot use the new money to replace money schools currently receive."
  • "School districts will be accountable for improvement at each school. They must set annual educational improvement goals for each school, and publicly report how the money was spent and whether improvement goals were achieved."


Total campaign cash Campaign Finance Ballotpedia.png
as of November 3, 2012
Category:Ballot measure endorsements Support: $47,800,000
Circle thumbs down.png Opposition: $42,300

These are the $10,000 and over donors to the "yes" campaign as of Saturday, November 3, 2012:[6]

Donor Amount
Molly Munger $44,128,399
Steve R. English $3,250,500
Greenlining Institute $195,000
Atlas Family Trust $25,000
Richard Spalding $18,027
Del Sol Group, Inc. $15,000
Mary Adams O'Connell $12,193
Janis Adams $10,000
Leonard Gumport $10,000
Steven Merrill $10,000
Wendy Munger $10,000
Louise Patterson $10,000

Campaign ads

This section includes a selection of the television ads that the "Yes on 38" campaign produced.



Edward James Olmos: "I AM 38"


Gov. Jerry Brown, who wanted Munger to withdraw her initiative


Munger's proposal was opposed by supporters of Jerry Brown's tax hike proposal. Steve Glazer, an adviser to the governor, tweeted on February 5, "When u have competing tax measures on the ballot, voters make choice. Likely result- all lose and children u claim to be protecting lose."[2]

David Kieffer of the SEIU said in late February 2012 that although he is sympathetic to the aims of the Munger proposal, its supporters should withdraw it from contention in favor of the Jerry Brown Tax Hike Initiative. Keiffer said, "From a public policy point of view, we're going to end up with a big mess, where three competing tax initiatives will collide at the ballot box and we won't get any of them passed."[22]

Gov. Jerry Brown sat down with the editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle in early March 2012 and argued that because the Munger Tax earmarks the money it would raise for education, it will do nothing to alleviate California's overall multibillion-dollar budget deficit.[23]

The California Business Roundtable announced on March 8 that it opposed Proposition 38. Jerry Carnahan of the group said, "We are aggressively moving forward to raise money and oppose these initiatives. We will ensure by the November election that the voters of California will understand their real impacts on our economy and jobs."[24]

The arguments against Proposition 38 in the state's official voter guide were submitted by:

  • Allan Zaremberg. Zaremberg is the president of the California Chamber of Commerce.
  • Ken Williams. Williams is a member of the Orange County Board of Education.
  • Thomas Hudson. Hudson is the executive director of the California Taxpayer Protection Committee.
  • Andrew Wong. Wong is a member of the Board of Education of the Pomona Unified School District.
  • Keith Royal. Royal is the president of the California State Sheriffs’ Association.
  • Richard Rider. Rider is the chairman of San Diego Tax Fighters.

Other opponents included:

Arguments against

"No on Prop 38" website logo

The arguments in opposition to Proposition 38 presented in the state's official voter guide included:

  • "If you earn $17,346 or more per year in taxable income, Prop. 38 raises your California personal income tax rate by as much as 21%, on top of what you pay the Federal government."[26]
  • "The Prop. 38 tax increase continues until 2024. If you have a child entering first grade, you’ll be paying higher income taxes until that child graduates from high school."
  • "Even as the economy improves and more people get back to work, the tax increases continue. Even without necessary reforms to our education system, like the ability to fire bad teachers, the tax increases still continue. Prop. 38 locks us into higher income tax rates for the next twelve years—no matter what!"
  • "The politicians and bureaucrats get billions of dollars in new taxes, with virtually no accountability on how the money is spent and how much actually gets into the classroom."
  • "Approximately 3.8 million California small businesses pay individual taxes on their earnings, rather than corporate taxes. Consequently, small businesses will be devastated by these higher taxes—even businesses making as little as $30,000 or $40,000 a year."
  • "Instead of creating jobs and improving the economy, Prop. 38 will force family businesses to cut jobs, move out of state, or even close. If they can stay in business, they’ll raise prices to pay the higher taxes, which will ultimately be passed on to consumers."
  • "Currently, 24% of California students don’t graduate from high school. Prop. 38 pours more money into a system that is failing our kids without requiring improvements in outcomes for students."[26]


Total campaign cash Campaign Finance Ballotpedia.png
as of November 3, 2012
Category:Ballot measure endorsements Support: $47,800,000
Circle thumbs down.png Opposition: $42,300

These are the $20,000 and over donors to the "no" campaign as of Saturday, November 3, 2012:

Donor Amount
California Chamber of Commerce $23,500

Campaign ads

This section includes a selection of television ads and/or online videos that oppose Proposition 38.

"No New Taxes" (from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association)

Editorial opinion

See also: Endorsements of California ballot measures, 2012

"Yes on 38"

2012 propositions
Flag of California.png
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
EndorsementsFull text
Ballot titlesFiscal impact
Local measures
  • The Bakersfield Californian: "Proposition 38 is one of the most promising education proposals we've seen in a long time. Where Proposition 30 would stop the bleeding in schools, Proposition 38 provides enough money to transform the state's education system, which now ranks 47th in per-pupil funding. Proposition 38 is the clear choice for voters who want their tax dollars to make a difference."[27]
  • The San Francisco Bay Guardian: "...the question facing the voters isn't whether Munger is a self-serving brat who went her own way on this, or whether there are flaws in the measure. It's whether the state ought to raise taxes to pay for education. With all the duly noted reservations, the answer to that question has to be yes."[28]

"No on 38"

  • The Bay Area Reporter: "Prop 38 did not result from a collaborative process but was the plan put forward by one wealthy individual."[29]
  • The Contra Costa Times: "The existing school funding system is a mess and it must be dramatically reformed, but we fear Proposition 38 will only complicate matters. The need is urgent, but not so urgent that voters should approve a funding scheme that could end up wasting precious taxpayer dollars."[30]
  • The Daily Democrat (Woodland, California): "This tax initiative by civil rights attorney Molly Munger would increase spending for public schools, but could derail Gov. Jerry Brown's Prop. 30, thus adding to the state's budget problems."[31]
  • The Fresno Bee: "The prospects for passage of Gov. Jerry Brown's Prop. 30 has been damaged by the supporters of Proposition 38, which is pushed by wealthy civil rights attorney Molly Munger. That measure would raise income taxes by $10 billion primarily to fund schools. Unfortunately, the competing measures could cause Californians to vote against both measures. That would be disastrous. Vote "yes" on Prop. 30 and vote "no" on Prop. 38. Munger's initiative does nothing to help public safety, a component of Prop. 30."[32]
  • The Lompoc Record: "Prop. 38 may help schools, but it ignores other budgetary deficiencies California is facing."[33]
  • The Long Beach Press-Telegram: "It would send money directly to schools, not districts -- even money for technology. That would be crazy."[34]
  • The Los Angeles Daily News: "This kind of ballot-box budgeting is bad policy."[35]
  • The Los Angeles Times: "Proposition 38 is a well-intentioned attempt to aid California's beleaguered schools, but a vote for the measure is a potential vote against Proposition 30. In addition, the singular focus of Proposition 38 on education is misplaced, particularly in light of the deep and damaging cuts the state has been making in programs that aren't already guaranteed half the state's general fund. As much as the schools need help, they aren't the only ones in need of rescue."[36]
  • The Marin Independent Journal: "Proposition 38 is competing with Proposition 30 for votes and its backers say Proposition 38 keeps Sacramento politicians' hands off its funds. But Proposition 38 doesn't stop deep funding cuts that would take place if Proposition 30 fails."[37]
  • 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."[38]
  • The Modesto Bee:[39]
  • The North County Times: "Prop. 38 is a bad way of trying to do some good work."[40]
  • 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."[41]
  • 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."[42]
  • The Redding Record Searchlight: "Both 30 and 38 are written so that only one can take effect. We think the governor's asking for plenty already, and we'll go with his plan."[43]
  • The San Bernardino Sun:[45]
  • 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."[46]
  • The San Francisco Chronicle: "Prop. 38 would further complicate and disrupt locked-in budget formulas. An analysis by the left-leaning California Budget Project concluded that the measure 'may not increase total school spending by as much as some estimate because the Legislature could reduce other state education spending.' One point for voters to consider: Public colleges and universities do not get anything from Prop. 38 - and could bear the brunt of resulting budget cuts."[47]
  • The San Gabriel Valley Tribune: "The measure layers a new funding and budgeting system on top of one that's already too complex."[48]
  • The San Jose Mercury News: "Proposition 38 would raise more money for schools overall but would pile on bureaucracy and restrict flexibility."[49]
  • The Santa Cruz Sentinel: "Prop. 38 funds would go to schools, bypassing the oversight of state education officials and legislators. None of the money can go to teachers' salaries. This provision and a series of other restrictions seem problematic; so does the stipulation that any amendments to the measure would have to be made by voters."[50]
  • The Vallejo Times-Herald: "Proposition 38 would raise more money for schools overall but would pile on bureaucracy and restrict flexibility."[51]
  • The Ventura County Star: "Proposition 38 is an example of 'ballot-box budgeting,' asking voters to approve higher income taxes while imposing unreasonable restrictions on how the funds are used in the future."[52]
  • The Victorville Daily Press: "We have the same recommendation for Prop. 38, another ballot measure which effectively does the same thing as Prop. 30. Naturally, our argument opposing 38 is the same as our argument against 30. Both benefit teachers’ retirement funds at the expense of taxpayers and students, and our arguments can actually be reduced to a sentence: Why help those who refuse to help themselves (in the form of a longer work career and higher personal contributions to pensions?"[53]

Polling information

See also: Polls, 2012 ballot measures

A Field Poll in February 2012 showed that a majority of likely voters oppose the measure.[54] An internal poll paid for by backers of the Jerry Brown Tax Hike Initiative (Proposition 30) indicated that the Munger proposal had the least public support of the three tax hike measures on the November 6, 2012, ballot. That internal poll also suggested that with all three on the ballot, none of them would win.[55][56]

Greenberg Quinlan Rosner and American Viewpoint jointly conducted a poll for USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll from March 14-19, 2012.[57]

A Field Poll conducted in mid-September showed support in the low 40s, with minimal change from a Field Poll conducted in May.[58][59]

The Public Policy Institute of California polled Proposition 38 for the first time in mid-September.[60]

Date of Poll Pollster In favor Opposed Undecided Number polled
February 14-18, 2012 Field 45% 48% 7% 344
March 14-19, 2012 By GQR & AV for USC Dornsife/LAT 32% 64% 4% 1,500
May 21-29, 2012 Field Poll 42% 43% 15% 710
June 21-July 2, 2012 Field Poll 46% 46% 8% 997
August 3-7, 2012 PACE/USC Rossier School of Education 40% 49% 11% 1,041
September 9-16, 2012 PPIC 45% 45% 11% 2,003
September 6-18, 2012 Field Poll 41% 44% 15% 902
September 17-23, 2012 USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times 34% 52% 14% 1,504
October 7-10, 2012 California Business Roundtable 41.9% 45.9% 12.2% 830
October 11-15, 2012 Reason-Rupe 42% 52% 6% 696
October 14-21, 2012 PPIC 39% 53% 8% 2,006
October 21-28, 2012 California Business Roundtable 33.0% 54.1% 12.8% 2,115
October 17-30, 2012 Field Poll 34% 49% 17% 1,912

Apart from polling that is specific to the language of the filed ballot initiative, other polling was done to assess the attitude of Californians to paying higher taxes to support public education. In November 2011, a USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll asked if likely voters favored increasing funding for schools even if that meant raising taxes. This poll found that 64% of state voters were in favor of increased taxes for higher education funding.[61]

Path to the ballot

See also: California signature requirements

Cost of signature collection:

The cost of collecting the signatures to qualify Proposition 38 for the ballot came to $4,952,513. This amounts to a cost-per-required-signature of $9.81/signature. The cost-per-required-signature of rival measure Proposition 30 was $10.86/signature.

The primary signature vendor was Arno Political Consultants. They collected $2,501,196 for their work on the Proposition 38 petition drive. However, 12 other vendors also worked on the petition drive. These vendors included Groundworks Campaigns ($486,663), Discovery Petition ($335,873), Harwig & Harwig ($333,437), JSM ($319,667), Victory Consultants ($283,682), Goldstein/Ostic ($241,192), Bay Area Petition ($197,716), Carl Schmitt ($131,091), the Monaco Group ($53,276), Pride Staff ($43,494) and Linda Roosna ($19,066).

One petition drive management company hired to collect signatures to qualify Proposition 38 for the ballot said in early April that in order to provide an incentive for those who were collecting the signatures on a paid basis to collect more signatures, it would give away a $15,000 automobile each week in a random drawing among those signature-gatherers who collected the most signatures the preceding week. Signature-gatherers for Proposition 38 were at that time being paid $1.50 per signature, while the Jerry Brown/Millionaire's Tax Merger Initiative was paying $3.00 per signature.[63]

See also: California ballot initiative petition signature costs

External links

Suggest a link

Basic information:



Additional reading:


  1. 1.0 1.1 Sacramento Bee, "Jerry Brown's proposal and two other tax measures qualify for November ballot," June 21, 2012
  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Capitol Alert, "Molly Munger pledges to put her money into qualifying tax hike," February 6, 2012
  3. Sacramento Bee, "Molly Munger changes tax initiative to address budget deficit," December 23, 2011
  4. The Republic, "Passion for civil rights, desire to improve schools motivate Jerry Brown's rival for tax hikes," March 27, 2012
  5. 5.0 5.1 News 10, "Poll position: Early jockeying by rival tax initiative camps," May 7, 2012
  6. 6.0 6.1, "Proposition 38: Tax for Education and Early Childhood Programs," November 3, 2012
  7. Business Week, "Brown Reaches Deal With Union on Tax-Increase Compromise," March 15, 2012
  8. San Francisco Examiner, "Tax tussles heading to ballot box," February 16, 2012
  9. Los Angeles Times, "California Senate leader calls for paring tax proposals on ballot," February 16, 2012
  10. Los Angeles Times, "California's glut of tax-hike initiatives," December 12, 2011
  11. Prop Zero, "The Munger Games," March 17, 2012
  12. Wall Street Journal, "California Democrats Duel Over Taxes, Budget," April 1, 2012
  13. Fox and Hounds Daily, "The Initiative That Has Most to Lose From Brown’s Leap," June 27, 2012
  14. Daily News, "Democrats try to change rules to help tax hike," June 26, 2012
  15. 15.0 15.1 15.2 California Healthline, "Judge Delays State Efforts To Order Nov. Ballot Measures," July 2, 2012
  16. Fox and Hounds Daily, "Molly Munger Will Win this Case Against “King” Jerry in the Court of Public Opinion," July 2, 2012
  17. Sacramento Bee, "What's In a Number?," July 9, 2012 (dead link)
  18. Sacramento Bee, "California appeals court to review ballot change that put Jerry Brown's measure on top," July 11, 2012
  19. San Francisco Chronicle, "Tax measures to compete with Gov. Brown's plan," February 7, 2012
  20. EdSource, "California Teachers Association endorses Brown tax initiative," January 29, 2012
  21. 21.0 21.1 Business Week, "AP Exclusive: Munger says Brown tax claims untrue," March 23, 2012
  22. Sacramento Bee, "SEIU director tells Jerry Brown's tax-plan rivals to step aside," February 29, 2012
  23. San Francisco Chronicle, "Jerry Brown pushes his tax proposal," March 7, 2012
  24. Los Angeles Times, "Poll: Millionaires tax stands best chance of approval in November," March 8, 2012
  25. 25.0 25.1 Walnut Creek Patch, "California Republicans Oppose Proposed Tax Measures," August 12, 2012
  26. 26.0 26.1 Official Voter Guide, "Arguments for and against Proposition 38"
  27. Bakersfield Californian, "No on 30: We've got a better option," September 22, 2012
  28. San Francisco Bay Guardian, "Endorsements 2012: State ballot measures," October 3, 2012
  29. Bay Area Reporter, "Yes on 30, No on 38," September 13, 2012
  30. Mercury News, "Contra Costa Times editorial: Vote no on Prop. 38," September 29, 2012
  31. Daily Democrat, "Democrat endorsements: Propositions," October 14, 2012
  32. Fresno Bee, "EDITORIAL: Prop. 30 is state's best option to move forward," October 16, 2012
  33. Lompoc Record, "Dueling props on the ballot," October 11, 2012
  34. Long Beach Press Telegram, "Endorsements: Yes on Prop. 30, No on Prop. 38," October 13, 2012
  35. Los Angeles Daily News, "Endorsements: Yes on Prop. 30, No on Prop. 38," October 13, 2012
  36. Los Angeles Times, "Yes on Proposition 30, no on Proposition 38," October 2, 2012
  37. Marin Independent Journal, "Editorial: IJ endorsements for state Propositions 38-40," October 13, 2012
  38. Merced Sun-Star, "Our View: Prop. 30 is best option for schools," October 15, 2012
  39. Modesto Bee, "Proposition 30 best option available to fund schools," October 15, 2012
  40. North County Times, "No on 30, 38," September 20, 2012
  41. Orange County Register, "Editorial: No on Prop. 30 & Prop. 38 tax hikes," October 2, 2012
  42. Press-Enterprise, "No on 30, 38," October 7, 2012
  43. Redding Record Searchlight, "Editorial: Cost of saying No to Prop. 30 just too steep," September 30, 2012
  44. Sacramento Bee, "'Yes' on Jerry Brown's Prop. 30; 'No' on Munger's Prop. 38," October 7, 2012
  45. San Bernardino Sun, "Endorsements: Yes on Prop. 30, No on Prop. 38," October 13, 2012
  46. San Diego Union-Tribune, "NO ON PROPS. 30, 38: STATE STATUS QUO MUST GO," September 30, 2012
  47. San Francisco Chronicle, "Editorial: Chronicle recommends," October 5, 2012
  48. San Gabriel Valley Tribune, "Our View: Yes on Prop. 30, no on Prop. 38," October 13, 2012
  49. San Jose Mercury News, "Mercury News editorial: Vote yes on Prop. 30, no on Prop. 38," September 28, 2012
  50. Santa Cruz Sentinel, "Editorial: Yes on 30; No on 38," October 11, 2012
  51. Vallejo Times-Herald, "'Yes' on Prop. 30, 'no' on Prop. 38: No easy answers at California's crossroads," October 21, 2012
  52. Ventura County Star, "Editorial: Education is at risk; Yes on Prop. 30, No on Prop. 38," September 22, 2012
  53. Victorville Daily Press, "Not only no, but double no," October 8, 2012
  54. Field Poll, "Both Millionaire's and Governor's Tax Initiatives favored by Majorities. Less Support for Munger Tax Plan," February 24, 2012
  55. Los Angeles Times, "Poll: Jerry Brown's tax can pass, but not with rivals on ballot," February 22, 2012
  56. February 20, 2012 memo from pollster Jim Moore to Jerry Brown (dead link)
  57. Fox 40, "Strong majority backs Jerry Brown's tax-hike initiative," March 25, 2012
  58. Field Poll, "Voters favor Governor Brown's Tax Initiative 52% to 35%, but evenly divided on Munger Plan. Seven in ten hold similar voting preferences toward both measures," June 9, 2012
  59. Field Poll, "California's Tax Initiatives," September 20, 2012
  60. Public Policy Institute of California, "Californians and Their Government," September 2012
  61. Los Angeles Times, "California's glut of tax-hike initiatives," December 12, 2011
  62. Sacramento Bee, "Signatures for Molly Munger's tax plan submitted in Los Angeles," May 2, 2012
  63. San Gabriel Valley Tribune, "Our View: Signature gatherers: Pull back the curtain," April 1, 2012