Californians have spoken. And the results are telling, both about the nature of the voters and the direction in which the voters want to take the State. Unfortunately, the wild card is tens of millions of dollars are spent by the special interests to insure that their agenda prevails. In many cases, the special interests do not represent policies that bode well for the future of California. So, for better or worse, here are the results of the California propositions.
It’s over … the final results can be found using these links
Statement of Vote
- Complete Statement of Vote (pdf ~2.7MB)
- Cover (pdf ~144KB)
- Table of Contents (pdf ~17KB)
- About this Statement of Vote (pdf ~34KB)
Registration and Participation
- Voter Registration Statistics by County (pdf ~30KB)
- Voter Participation Statistics by County (pdf ~21KB)
- Historical Voter Registration and Participation in Statewide General Elections (pdf ~22KB)
Special Election Results
Vote Summaries
- Statement of Vote Summary Pages (pdf ~38KB)
Voting Systems Used By Counties in the General Election (pdf ~24KB)
The Statement of Vote
- Explanatory Note (pdf ~18KB)
- Certificate of the Secretary of State (pdf ~85KB)
- President by County (pdf ~43KB)
- United States Senator by County (pdf ~29KB)
- United States Representative by District (pdf ~80KB)
- State Senator by District (odd-numbered districts only) (pdf ~43KB)
- State Assemblymember by District (pdf ~102KB)
- State Ballot Measures (Propositions 30 - 40) by County (pdf ~68KB)
Previous post …
A NOTE ABOUT THESE RESULTS: Unprocessed Ballots StatusDuring each election cycle, hundreds of thousands of ballots are not counted on Election Day. Elections officials have approximately one month to complete their extensive tallying and certification work (known as the official canvass). Most notably,voting by mail has increased significantly in recent years and many vote-by-mail ballots arrive on Election Day. In processing vote-by-mail ballots, elections officials must confirm each voter’s registration status, verify each voter’s signature on the vote-by-mail envelope, and ensure each person did not vote elsewhere in the same election. Other ballots that are processed after Election Day include provisional ballots (processed similar to vote-by-mail ballots), and ballots that are damaged or cannot be machine-read and must be remade by elections officials. State law requires county elections officials to report their final results to the Secretary of State by December 7. The Secretary of State then has until December 14 to certify the results of the election |
100.0% ( 24,491 of 24,491 ) precincts partially reporting as of December 3, 2012, 4:29 p.m.
UNPROCESSED: 175,116
Turnout …
Comparison with 2008 turnout …
The turnout in 2012 was 71.3%, substantially lower than the 79.42% in 2008
FENU - Final Election Night Update. (No further updates will be provided on election night but ballot counting will continue during the 28-day post-election canvass period.)
Commentary with Original Picks and Suggestions
More taxes seems to be the word from already over-taxed Californians. |
| 30 - TEMPORARY TAXES TO FUND EDUCATION. GUARANTEED LOCAL PUBLIC SAFETY FUNDING. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Put on the Ballot by Petition Signature |
| 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. |
| OCS | CA GOP | YOU | CA DEM | COMMENTS |
| NO | NO | YES |
YES -- A YES vote on this measure means: The state would increase personal income taxes on high-income taxpayers for seven years and sales taxes for four years. The new tax revenues would be available to fund programs in the state budget.
NO -- A NO vote on this measure means: The state would not increase personal income taxes or sales taxes. State spending reductions, primarily to education programs, would take effect in 2012–13.
OCS -- I urge a NO vote on Proposition 30 which is little more than a class warfare ruse by the democrats to “tax the wealthy,” but always turns into larger taxes on the poor and middle class. What is required is fiscal conservatism and not HIGHER SALES TAXES! This measure does nothing to curb outrageous union pensions, cut spending on non-essentials and does not bring any measure of accountability for the funds.
Another procedural budget boondoggle continues. Like Californians get a legitimate budget from the politicians in the first place. |
| 31 - STATE BUDGET. STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE. Put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures |
| Establishes two-year state budget. Sets rules for offsetting new expenditures, and Governor budget cuts in fiscal emergencies. Local governments can alter application of laws governing state-funded programs. Fiscal Impact: Decreased state sales tax revenues of $200 million annually, with corresponding increases of funding to local governments. Other, potentially more significant changes in state and local budgets, depending on future decisions by public officials. |
| OCS | CA GOP | YOU | CA DEM | COMMENTS |
| YES | YES | NO |
YES -- A YES vote on this measure means: Certain fiscal responsibilities of the Legislature and Governor, including state and local budgeting and oversight procedures, would change. Local governments that create plans to coordinate services would receive funding from the state and could develop their own procedures for administering state programs.
NO -- A NO vote on this measure means: The fiscal responsibilities of the Legislature and Governor, including state and local budgeting and oversight procedures, would not change. Local governments would not be given (1) funding to implement new plans that coordinate services or (2) authority to develop their own procedures for administering state programs.
OCS – I urge a YES vote on Proposition 31 because it brings fiscal responsibility back to the state. It will prevent the state from passing budgets behind closed doors, stop politicians from creating programs with money the state doesn’t have, and require governments to report results before spending more money.
Californians have voted to institutionalize political corruption by allowing unions to purchase politicians and positions. |
| 32 - POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS BY PAYROLL DEDUCTION. CONTRIBUTIONS TO CANDIDATES. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures |
| Prohibits unions from using payroll-deducted funds for political purposes. Applies same use prohibition to payroll deductions, if any, by corporations or government contractors. Prohibits union and corporate contributions to candidates and their committees. Prohibits government contractor contributions to elected officers or their committees. Fiscal Impact: Increased costs to state and local government, potentially exceeding $1 million annually, to implement and enforce the measure’s requirements. |
| OCS | CA GOP | YOU | CA DEM | COMMENTS |
| YES | YES | NO |
YES - A YES vote on this measure means: Unions and corporations could not use money deducted from an employee’s paycheck for political purposes. Unions, corporations, and government contractors would be subject to additional campaign finance restrictions.
NO --A NO vote on this measure means: There would be no change to existing laws regulating the ability of unions and corporations to use money deducted from an employee’s paycheck for political purposes. Unions, corporations, and government contractors would continue to be subject to existing campaign finance laws.
OCS – I urge a YES vote on Proposition 32. It is time to bring fiscal sanity to the State of California – starting with the control over the political corruption caused by both unions and special interests. While this bill may not be 100% perfect, it is a necessary start. This is the one initiative the unions fear most as it reduces their influence on politicians who are able to sell out Californians.
The consumers lose the chance to obtain cheaper auto insurance. |
| 33 - AUTO INSURANCE COMPANIES. PRICES BASED ON DRIVER’S HISTORY OF INSURANCE COVERAGE. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures |
| Changes current law to allow insurance companies to set prices based on whether the driver previously carried auto insurance with any insurance company. Allows proportional discount for drivers with some prior coverage. Allows increased cost for drivers without history of continuous coverage. Fiscal Impact: Probably no significant fiscal effect on state insurance premium tax revenues. |
| OCS | CA GOP | YOU | CA DEM | COMMENTS |
| YES | YES | NO |
YES -- A YES vote on this measure means: Insurance companies could offer new customers a discount on automobile insurance premiums based on the number of years in the previous five years that the customer was insured.
NO -- A NO vote on this measure means: Insurers could continue to provide discounts to their long-term automobile insurance customers, but would continue to be prohibited from providing a discount to new customers switching from other insurers.
OCS – I urge a YES vote on Proposition 33 to force insurance companies to compete for your business by offering good driver and continuity discounts even if you switch carriers.
California wants to keep the death penalty as originally applied. Californians might want to consider donating to Project Innocence to protect innocent victims who have been wrongly convicted. |
| 34 - DEATH PENALTY. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures |
| Repeals death penalty and replaces it with life imprisonment without possibility of parole. Applies retroactively to existing death sentences. Directs $100 million to law enforcement agencies for investigations of homicide and rape cases. Fiscal Impact: Ongoing state and county criminal justice savings of about $130 million annually within a few years, which could vary by tens of millions of dollars. One-time state costs of $100 million for local law enforcement grants. |
| OCS | CA GOP | YOU | CA DEM | COMMENTS |
| YES | NO | YES |
YES -- A YES vote on this measure means: No offenders could be sentenced to death under state law. Offenders who are currently under a sentence of death would be resentenced to life without the possibility of parole. The state would provide a total of $100 million in grants to local law enforcement agencies over the next four years.
NO -- A NO vote on this measure means: Certain offenders convicted for murder could continue to be sentenced to death. The status of offenders currently under a sentence of death would not change. The state would not be required to provide local law enforcement agencies with additional grant funding.
OCS – I urge a YES vote on Proposition 34, but not because I am opposed to the death penalty – especially in heinous cases. However, because of all of the recent law enforcement misconduct and prosecutorial misconduct, I no longer have faith in the system to protect innocent men and women. I do not believe that “politics” should be used as a reason to kill an innocent man or woman so that law enforcement can quickly solve a case and get media attention or a prosecutor can bolster his future political career. We can always revisit this issue if circumstances change and trust in government is restored. Meanwhile Google the "Innocence Project" to see what egregious miscarriage of justice has occured and why I believe in this initiative.
Another added enhancement penalty which can be selectively imposed to win convictions for prosecutors. |
| 35 - HUMAN TRAFFICKING. PENALTIES. INITIATIVE STATUTE Put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures |
| Increases prison sentences and fines for human trafficking convictions. Requires convicted human traffickers to register as sex offenders. Requires registered sex offenders to disclose Internet activities and identities. Fiscal Impact: Costs of a few million dollars annually to state and local governments for addressing human trafficking offenses. Potential increased annual fine revenue of a similar amount, dedicated primarily for human trafficking victims. |
| OCS | CA GOP | YOU | CA DEM | COMMENTS |
| NO | YES | YES |
YES -- A YES vote on this measure means: Longer prison sentences and larger fines for committing human trafficking crimes.
NO -- A NO vote on this measure means: Existing criminal penalties for human trafficking would stay in effect.
OCS – I urge a “NO” vote because this is muddled legislation. It does not deter those who smuggle illegal aliens into our country, but does criminalize prostitution if the law is applied haphazardly. I think the law should separate human trafficking from sex crimes. This is the type of law where unintended consequences always bite innocent citizens in the butt. Both sex and human trafficking laws can be applied separately in any prosecution, so this is unnecessary legislation.
Californians wish to reduce the prison population and the costs of incarceration. After passage, the criminal’s third strike must be serious and violent. |
| 36 - THREE STRIKES LAW. REPEAT FELONY OFFENDERS. PENALTIES. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures |
| Revises law to impose life sentence only when new felony conviction is serious or violent. May authorize re-sentencing if third strike conviction was not serious or violent. Fiscal Impact: Ongoing state correctional savings of around $70 million annually, with even greater savings (up to $90 million) over the next couple of decades. These savings could vary significantly depending on future state actions. |
| OCS | CA GOP | YOU | CA DEM | COMMENTS |
| YES | NO | YES |
YES -- A YES vote on this measure means: Some criminal offenders with two prior serious or violent felony convictions who commit certain nonserious, non-violent felonies would be sentenced to shorter terms in state prison. In addition, some offenders with two prior serious or violent felony convictions who are currently serving life sentences for many nonserious, non-violent felony convictions could be resentenced to shorter prison terms.
NO -- A NO vote on this measure means: Offenders with two prior serious or violent felony convictions who commit any new felony could continue to receive life sentences. In addition, offenders with two prior serious or violent felony convictions who are currently serving life sentences for non-serious, non-violent felonies would continue to serve the remainder of their life sentences.
OCS – I urge a yes vote to restore three-strikes to its original intent: to control violent felons. Not to send someone to jail for life for stealing food. The argument that a “no” vote would release violent felons may be technically true – but they should have been put away for a third violent felony and not some lame excuse cooked up by prosecutors.
Genetically engineered foods do not have to carry a label. |
| 37 - GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS. LABELING. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures |
| Requires labeling of food sold to consumers made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways. Prohibits marketing such food, or other processed food, as “natural.” Provides exemptions. Fiscal Impact: Increased annual state costs from a few hundred thousand dollars to over $1 million to regulate the labeling of genetically engineered foods. Additional, but likely not significant, governmental costs to address violations under the measure. |
| OCS | CA GOP | YOU | CA DEM | COMMENTS |
| YES | NO | YES |
YES -- A YES vote on this measure means: Genetically engineered foods sold in California would have to be specifically labeled as being genetically engineered.
NO -- A NO vote on this measure means: Genetically engineered foods sold in California would continue not to have specific labeling requirements
OCS – I urge a “YES” vote as I believe in full disclosure. Because nobody really knows what the effect of these foods might be, there should be disclosure to permit you to decide whether or not you want to accept the risk.
It appears that Californians are confused between two propositions or do not want to keep funding failing education. |
| 38 - TAX TO FUND EDUCATION AND EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAMS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.. Put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures |
| 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: Increased state tax revenues for 12 years—roughly $10 billion annually in initial years, tending to grow over time. Funds used for schools, child care, and preschool, as well as providing savings on state debt payments. |
| OCS | CA GOP | YOU | CA DEM | COMMENTS |
| NO | NO | NO |
YES -- A YES vote on this measure means: State personal income tax rates would increase for 12 years. The additional revenues would be used for schools, child care, preschool, and state debt payments.
NO -- A NO vote on this measure means: State personal income tax rates would remain at their current levels. No additional funding would be available for schools, child care, preschool, and state debt payments.
OCS – I urge a NO vote on Proposition 38 because educators have failed to prove that they can adequately educate our children in spite to BILLIONS of dollars and shrinking enrollment. This is another tax increase that will go to infrastructure and personnel salaries. There are no safeguards for this program and it is just another continuing attempt to funnel taxpayer money into education. No fraud controls and it is a clear business killer. Where is the reform?
Businesses will be called upon to fund more environmentalism and green energy boondoggles. |
| 39 - TAX TREATMENT FOR MULTISTATE BUSINESSES. CLEAN ENERGY AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY FUNDING. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures |
| Requires multistate businesses to pay income taxes based on percentage of their sales in California. Dedicates revenues for five years to clean/efficient energy projects. Fiscal Impact: Increased state revenues of $1 billion annually, with half of the revenues over the next five years spent on energy efficiency projects. Of the remaining revenues, a significant portion likely would be spent on schools. |
| OCS | CA GOP | YOU | CA DEM | COMMENTS |
| NO | NO | NEUTRAL |
YES -- A YES vote on this measure means: Multistate businesses would no longer be able to choose the method for determining their state taxable income that is most advantageous for them. Some multistate businesses would have to pay more corporate income taxes due to this change. About half of this increased tax revenue over the next five years would be used to support energy efficiency and alternative energy projects.
NO -- A NO vote on this measure means: Most multistate businesses would continue to be able to choose one of two methods to determine their California taxable income.
OCS – I urge a NO vote on Proposition 39 because it is a significant tax hike that will be funneled into special interest-driven “green projects” -- which are not efficient, sustainable, reliable or cost-efficient. Usually requiring a government mandate for use – so that the “investors” can convert their energy into taxpayer dollars. This is the type of funding that feathers political nests and is squandered needlessly on unproductive projects run for the benefit of politically-connected special interests. Can you say waste, fraud and abuse? Can you say Solyndra?
Redistricting has been accepted as per the wishes of both parties. |
| 40 - REDISTRICTING. STATE SENATE DISTRICTS. REFERENDUM. Put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures |
| A “Yes” vote approves, and a “No” vote rejects, new State Senate districts drawn by the Citizens Redistricting Commission. If rejected, districts will be adjusted by officials supervised by the California Supreme Court. Fiscal Impact: Approving the referendum would have no fiscal impact on the state and local governments. Rejecting the referendum would result in a one-time cost of about $1 million to the state and counties. |
| OCS | CA GOP | YOU | CA DEM | COMMENTS |
| NO | YES | YES |
YES -- A YES vote on this measure means: The state Senate district boundaries certified by the Citizens Redistricting Commission would continue to be used.
NO -- A NO vote on this measure means: The California Supreme Court would appoint special masters to determine new state Senate district boundaries.
OCS – I urge a NO vote on Proposition 40 because I believe the redistricting process was corrupted with political shills and the political parties were complicit in the deception. The people, once again, have been screwed by the powers that be who divided the state into “safe districts” based on party and minority basis. This is wrong. There should be no gerrymandering to produce artificial Black, Latino, democrat or republican districts. You take the population that exists in a particular area and assign representation -- no funky maps or manipulation.
Bottom line …
Once more, we find our formerly golden state in jeopardy from the corrupt democrats and complacent republicans who have managed to perpetuate their one-party rule. With few exceptions, definitely not “honest brokers” to serve “we the people.”
I would be prepared to initiate a recall process involving all of our elected officials if they continue to pander to the illegal aliens and special interests who are destroying our state and pushing us ever onward towards bankruptcy.
-- steve
Reference Links …
Comments