This is an archive of a past election.
See for current information.
LWV League of Women Voters of California Education Fund If you appreciate our service to voters, please consider helping us with a donation.
Smart Voter
State of California November 6, 2012 Election
Proposition 30
Temporary Taxes to Fund Education. Guaranteed Local Public Safety Funding
State of California

Initiative Constitutional Amendment - Majority Approval Required

Pass: 6,902,562 / 55.3% Yes votes ...... 5,584,785 / 44.7% No votes

See Also: Index of all Propositions

Results as of Dec 3 10:07pm, 100.0% of Precincts Reporting (24491/24491)
Information shown below: Summary | Fiscal Impact | Yes/No Meaning | Official Information | Arguments |

Should the California Constitution be amended to (a) temporarily increase sales and personal income tax rates; (b) guarantee certain revenue transfers to local governments; and (c) eliminate state funding of certain mandates to local governments?

Summary Prepared by the State Attorney General:

  • Increases personal income tax on annual earnings over $250,000 for seven years.
  • Increases sales and use tax by 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.

Fiscal Impact from the Legislative Analyst's Office:

  • 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.

Meaning of Voting Yes/No
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.

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.

Official Sources of Information
Arguments Submitted to the Secretary of State

Summary of Arguments FOR Proposition 30:
After years of cuts to schools and public safety, it's time to take a stand. Prop. 30 asks the wealthiest to temporarily pay more to prevent deep school cuts, provide billions in new education funding, guarantee local public safety and help balance the state budget. Learn more at

Summary of Arguments AGAINST Proposition 30:
NO on 30--$50 billion in higher sales and income taxes, but no guarantee of additional money for schools. Prop. 30 doesn't reform schools, pensions or cut waste and bureaucracy. We'll never know where the money really goes. Educators, small businesses and taxpayer groups say NO on 30.
Contact FOR Proposition 30:
Ace Smith; Yes on Proposition 30
2633 Telegraph Avenue #317
Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 628-0202

Contact AGAINST Proposition 30:
No on 30--Californians for Reforms and Jobs, Not Taxes
925 University Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95825
(866) 955-5508

  Official Information

Secretary of State

Campaign Finance Data

Who contributes? What is spent?

Nonpartisan Information

League of Women Voters of California Education Fund California Channel Video Events

Pros & Cons Meetings

  • Many Leagues hold public meetings on the state propositions. Enter only your zip code into our lookup to find a meeting in your area.
News and Analysis

San Diego U-T

Google Search
  • About this proposition - Note: This link to an external resource is offered strictly as a convenience for users interested in coverage by outside news organizations. The content is provided by organizations unaffiliated with Smart Voter and its partners, and no endorsement of any views expressed or guarantee of its accuracy is intended or implied.
This election is archived. Any links to sources outside of Smart Voter may no longer be active. No further links will be added to this page.
Links to sources outside of Smart Voter are provided for information only and do not imply endorsement.

Arguments For Proposition 30 Arguments Against Proposition 30

A Message from the League of Women Voters of California and California Teachers and Law Enforcement Professionals

Fellow Californians,

After years of cuts, California’s public schools, universities, and public safety services are at the breaking point.

In the last four years alone, our schools have been hit with $20 billion in cuts, over 30,000 fewer teachers, and class sizes that are among the largest in the country. Our children deserve better.

It’s time to take a stand and get California back on track.

Proposition 30, the Schools & Local Public Safety Protection Act, is supported by Governor Jerry Brown, the League of Women Voters and a statewide coalition of leaders from education, law enforcement and business.

There is broad support for Prop. 30 because it’s the only initiative that will protect school and safety funding and help address the state’s chronic budget mess:

  • Prevents deep school cuts. Without Prop. 30, our schools and colleges face an additional $6 billion in devastating cuts this year. Prop. 30 is the only initiative that prevents those cuts and provides billions in new funding for our schools starting this year—money that can be spent on smaller class sizes, up-to-date textbooks and rehiring teachers.
  • Guarantees local public safety funding. Prop. 30 is the only measure that establishes a guarantee for public safety funding in our state’s constitution, where it can’t be touched without voter approval. Prop. 30 keeps cops on the street.
  • Helps balance the budget. Prop. 30 balances our budget and helps pay down California’s debt—built up by years of gimmicks and borrowing. It is a critical step in stopping the budget shortfalls that plague California.

To protect schools and safety, Prop. 30 temporarily increases personal income taxes on the highest earners—couples with incomes over $500,000 a year—and establishes the sales tax at a rate lower than it was last year.

Prop. 30’s taxes are temporary, balanced and necessary to protect schools and safety:

  • Only highest-income earners pay more income tax: Prop. 30 asks those who earn the most to temporarily pay more income taxes. Couples earning below $500,000 a year will pay no additional income taxes.
  • All new revenue is temporary: Prop. 30’s taxes are temporary, and this initiative cannot be modified without a vote of the people. The very highest earners will pay more for seven years. The sales tax provision will be in effect for four years.
  • Money goes into a special account the legislature can’t touch: The money raised for schools is directed into a special fund the legislature can’t touch and can’t be used for state bureaucracy.
  • Prop. 30 provides for mandatory audits: Mandatory, independent annual audits will insure funds are spent ONLY for schools and public safety.

Join with the League of Women Voters and California teachers and public safety professionals.

Vote YES on Proposition 30.

Take a stand for schools and public safety.

To learn more, visit

League of Women Voters of California
DEAN E. VOGEL, President
California Teachers Association
KEITH ROYAL, President
California State Sheriffs’ Association

Rebuttal to Arguments For

Supporters of Prop. 30 say we either have to approve a huge tax hike or schools get cut.

We all want excellent schools in California, but raising taxes isn’t the only way to accomplish this.

The politicians would rather raise taxes instead of streamlining thousands of state funded programs, massive bureaucracy and waste.

Look at what they just did: politicians authorized nearly $5 billion in California bonds for the “bullet train to nowhere,” costing taxpayers $380 million per year. Let’s use those dollars for schools!

Instead, the politicians give us a false choice—raise sales taxes by $1 billion per year and raise income taxes on small business OR cut schools.

PROP. 30 IS NOT WHAT IT SEEMS: It doesn’t guarantee even one new dollar of funding for classrooms.

No on Prop. 30: It allows the politicians to take money currently earmarked for education and spend it on other programs. We’ll never know where the money really goes.

No on Prop. 30: It gives the Sacramento politicians a blank check without requiring budget, pension or education reform.

No on Prop. 30: It hurts small businesses and kills jobs.

No on Prop. 30: It’s just more money for the Sacramento politicians to keep on spending.

Don’t be mislead, Prop. 30 is not what it seems. It is just an excuse for Sacramento politicians to take more of your money, while hurting the economy and doing nothing to help education.

Californians are too smart to be fooled: Vote No on Prop 30!

JOEL FOX, President
Small Business Action Committee

JOHN KABATECK, Executive Director
National Federation of Independent Business/California

Sacramento Taxpayers Association

NO on Prop. 30: It is just a $50 Billion Political “Shell Game”—But Doesn’t Guarantee New Funds for Schools

The politicians behind Prop. 30 want us to believe that if voters approve Prop. 30’s seven years of massive tax hikes, the new money will go to classrooms. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Prop. 30 allows the politicians to play a “shell game” instead of providing new funding for schools:

  • They can take existing money for schools and use it for other purposes and then replace that money with the money from the new taxes. They take it away with one hand and put it back with the other hand. No matter how you move it around, Prop. 30 does not guarantee one penny of new funding for schools.
  • Many educators have exposed this flaw and even the California School Boards Association stated that “ . . . the Governor’s initiative does not provide new funding for schools.” (May 20, 2012)
  • The Wall Street Journal identified the same flaw, stating that “California Governor Jerry Brown is trying to sell his tax hike to voters this November by saying it will go to schools. The dirty little secret is that the new revenues are needed to backfill the insolvent teacher’s pension fund.” Wall Street Journal Editorial, April 22, 2012
  • Even the official Title and Summary of Prop. 30 says the money can be used for “ . . . paying for other spending commitments.”

In addition, there are no requirements or assurances that any more money actually gets to the classroom and nothing in Prop. 30 reforms our education system to cut waste, eliminate bureaucracy or cut administrative overhead.

NO on Prop. 30—No Reforms

The politicians and special interests behind Prop. 30 want to raise taxes to pay for their out of control spending, but refuse to pass meaningful reforms:

  • Special interests and the politicians they control have blocked pension reforms. We have $500 billion in unfunded pension liabilities in California and still the politicians refuse to enact real reforms.
  • The same people have blocked budget reform. The politicians continue to spend more than the state has. Prop. 30 rewards this dangerous behavior by giving them billions of dollars more to spend with no reforms, no guarantee the money won’t be wasted or that it will really get to the classroom.

NO on Prop. 30—Stop the Politician’s Threats

The Governor, politicians and special interests behind Prop. 30 threaten voters. They say “vote for our massive tax increase or we’ll take it out on schools,” but at the same time, they refuse to reform the education or pension systems to save money.

We need to grow our economy to create jobs and cut waste, clean up government, reform our budget process and hold the politicians accountable instead of approving a $50 billion tax hike on small businesses and working families that doesn’t provide any accountability or guarantee new funding for schools.

NO on Prop. 30—Reforms and Jobs First, Not Higher Taxes

JON COUPAL, President
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers’ Association

TOM BOGETICH, Executive Director (Retired)
California State Board of Education

Los Angeles County Board of Education

Rebuttal to Arguments Against

After years of cuts, it’s time to draw a line to protect schools and local public safety.

Prop. 30’s TOUGH FISCAL CONTROLS insure money is spent ONLY on schools and public safety:

  • Revenue is guaranteed in the constitution to go into a special account for schools that the legislature can’t touch.
  • Money will be audited every year and can’t be spent on administration or Sacramento bureaucracy.
  • Prop. 30 authorizes criminal prosecution for misuse of money.

Our kids deserve better than the most crowded classrooms in the country. Prop. 30 asks the very wealthy to pay their FAIR SHARE to keep classrooms open and cops on the street.

  • PREVENTS DEEP SCHOOL CUTS THIS YEAR: Prop. 30 is the only initiative that prevents $6 billion in automatic cuts to schools and universities this year. Without Prop. 30, we face a shortened school year, teacher layoffs and steep tuition increases this year.
  • PROVIDES BILLIONS IN NEW SCHOOL FUNDING: Prop. 30 provides billions in additional funds to reduce class sizes and restore programs like art and PE.
  • PROTECTS LOCAL PUBLIC SAFETY: Prop. 30 guarantees local public safety funding in the State Constitution and helps save billions in future prison costs.
  • HELPS BALANCE THE BUDGET: Prop. 30 is part of a long-term solution to balance the state budget.

Teachers, law enforcement, business leaders and Governor Jerry Brown all support Proposition 30 because it’s the only measure that will put California on the road to recovery.

Learn more at

League of Women Voters of California

California Federation of Teachers

SCOTT R. SEAMAN, President
California Police Chiefs Association

California Home Page || Statewide Links || About Smart Voter || Feedback
Created: December 17, 2012 13:48 PST
Smart Voter <>
Copyright © League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
The League of Women Voters neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office or political parties.