.

Props. 30 and 38 Explained: Which Do You Support?

Baffled by the two ballot initiatives seeking to send billions of dollars to public schools? Don't be. EdSource's new infographic makes it all clear. Which proposition do you support?

Since Hiram Johnson and his fellow Progressives made ballot initiatives a part of the California political landscape 100 years ago, the state’s voters have been obliged to grasp some fairly slippery policy issues before casting their votes. Propositions 30 and 38 on the November ballot are representative of the thorny problems other states assign to their legislators, but in California are punted to voters as popular referendums. 

Both propositions aim to send more money to the state’s public schools, but that’s pretty much where the similarities end. For typical voters, even those who care deeply about public education, deciphering the long-term consequences of a simple for or against vote could require hours sifting through the arcana of school finance.

Fortunately, the folks over at EdSource did the hard work for us. They’ve prepared an infographic to explain the two propositions in a clear and illustrative format. As EdSource’s executive director Louis Freedberg noted in his accompanying blog, when voters are confused, they tend to vote against propositions—even propositions they might have supported had they possessed more knowledge.

Voters seeking more info on the initiatives can visit the Official Voter Information Guide, as well as analyses from the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the California Budget Project and the League of Women Voters.

They can also go to the official campaign websites of Prop. 30 and Prop. 38.

Kathy November 07, 2012 at 12:10 AM
I wouldn't assume everybody can afford a Starbucks or the Sales Tax Increase. Perhaps you can but others may not. Your assuming the the State Government is going to ACTUALLY give these monies to the Schools, LOL
David B Secor November 07, 2012 at 07:01 PM
The good news is that with the passage of Prop 30 there is a better chance that kids will become better educated than those who opposed the proposition. For those whose taxable income is above $250,000 I believe you will still be in the top 2% of District 50 incomes which should salve some of the pain. The sales tax increase we all incur has turned our $400 in purchasing power into $399. Not unbearable. Those who decry the loss of that $1 per $400 to schools, and at the same time insist on keeping the death penalty are disingenuous if not untruthful regarding their concern for wasting taxpayer money. Those on death row, who are no longer executed but after decades die there, cost taxpayers many millions more per year than had they simply been given life without parole in the first place. We spend those millions just for the "feel good" moment of hearing the "death penalty" imposed? Yes, it's imposed, and for that moment we feel "justice has been served," but we all know that justice will not be served, the murderer will never be executed in this state. No emotional excuse, no matter how "righteously" and deeply felt can justify the stupidity of wasting many millions of taxpayer dollars every year, for nothing but a moment of imaginary satisfaction. A murderer in California, whether sentenced to life without parole, or the "death penalty," will meet his/her maker on the very same day regardless. Wasting millions doesn't alter reality.
David B Secor November 07, 2012 at 07:43 PM
P.S. to Evan. If you think I would refuse to tell voters my position on issues for fear of losing votes, remember unlike Duncan Hunter, I am not a pandering coward. The final vote shows 69% for Hunter, 31% for me. The great majority in District 50 have sent a clear message to the nation: -We reject "choice" for women. -We reject a rape victim's right to take a "morning after pill" to ensure she doesn't carry the rapist's child. -We believe there were dinosaurs on Noah's Ark. -We agree 98% of people and 97% of small businesses in District 50 should be denied tax relief if the top 2% don't get it at the same time. -We prefer taxpayer money go to Pentagon contractors, not veterans or active duty personnel and their families. -We realize our rep is unaware there are no longer battleships in our Navy. -We oppose legislation to protect women on active duty from sexual assault (the STOP Act). -We believe an employer can, based on HIS "sense of morals" decide what, if any, health insurance coverage an employee may have. -We oppose equal pay for women. -We expect our congressman to refuse to compromise on any issue, as he has done for two terms thus far. -We want our representative to claim JOBS his #1 priority as he has in 2 races but understand that he will do absolutely nothing to actually get jobs. -We are pleased our congressman will continue residing at gridlock central in Washington. If we didn't feel this way we'd have voted for Secor, whoever he is.
Things I Learned November 07, 2012 at 08:11 PM
http://splicd.com/M_X2Xd1iOmM/41/42
David B Secor November 08, 2012 at 01:01 AM
You are insulting my potential constituents' intelligence, and are certainly a fool if you don't know it's an accurate partial list of the positions 69% of District 50 have endorsed as their own. This district also supports all anti-LGBT positions and increased military spending to be paid for by ending Social Security and Medicare (switching to a voucher program), etc. How do I know our congressman will not compromise on any of this? Because he said so. Hunter always pays no attention to his constituents. He votes solely based on his "conscience." That declaration was made May 19th at a public debate hosted by the Ramona Tea Party. You can go to my website, click on the Youtube icon and watch him make the statement in response to a question from the audience. (His entire unedited presentation, including laying the blame for all our current economic pain on all post WWII Americans, including his father.) He is a "Duncan Hunter" but faults his own father, without whose name he would be unemployed, and without hesitation says he pays no attention to his employers' views. He explained his behavior by saying, "When my ideology falls out of line with the people in my district I expect to be voted out." The list is no tantrum or "sour grapes." Naturally, I entered the race to give the people a choice the Dems didn't offer. - to remove an extremist ideologue, Hunter, who did not, and won't, represent the people's interests in Washington, only his own.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »