Though field polls have indicated that Californians are likely to pass both propositions 28 and 29, let’s take a look at the language of the propositions along with the pros and cons. Both propositions were put on the ballot by petition signatures.
****
PROP 28: LIMITS ON LEGISLATORS’ TERMS IN OFFICE. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Reduces total amount of time a person may serve in the state legislature from 14 years to 12 years. Allows 12 years’ service in one house. Applies only to legislators first elected after measure is passed. Fiscal Impact: No direct fiscal effect on state or local governments.
This proposition currently has about 50% of the voters’ support according to most field polls. A YES vote would essentially limit terms to 12 years, despite how many years were spent in the State Assembly or the State Senate (in other words, it permits a person to spend all 12 years in either house; this adds up to more time in one arena but less time overall in Sacramento). A NO vote would allow those serving to keep 14-year limits with a maximum of six years in the State Assembly and eight years in the State Senate.
Supporters of the proposition claim it fixes the two-decade long loophole issue which allows some people to serve for almost 17 years. Detractors, however, are worried about the increased time an individual can spend in a single house.
PROP 29: IMPOSES ADDITIONAL TAX ON CIGARETTES FOR CANCER RESEARCH. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
Imposes additional $1.00 per pack tax on cigarettes and an equivalent tax increase on other tobacco products. Revenues fund research for cancer and tobacco-related diseases. Fiscal Impact: Net increase in cigarette excise tax revenues of about $735 million annually by 2013–14 for certain research and tobacco prevention and cessation programs. Other state and local revenue increases amounting to tens of millions of dollars annually.
Prop 29, named the California Cancer Research Act, currently stands with about 50% of voters supporting it. A YES vote essentially means you support the increase, with a tax on a pack of cigarettes increasing to $1.87. A NO vote essentially leaves the current cigarette tax untouched, remaining at $.87 per pack.
The piece was written by medical heavyweights — the American Lung Association, the American Heart Association, and the American Cancer Society — and their argument evolves around bringing some $700 million annually to the State for research as well as the initiative’s supposed capabiity of decreasing underage smoking and increasing the amount of people breaking the habit of cigarette smoking. Not to mention, of course, that the $.87 per pack tax falls far behind the $1.46 national average.
Anti-29 folks — including an endorsement from the Los Angeles Times back in April urging a NO vote — are worried that the bill does little to solve state budget woes and, bluntly put, there are more pressing needs within the State than cancer research, such as job creation and school funding, of which the monies the initiative would garner would not be geared towards.