This week’s informal myMotherLode polls were related to propositions that will be on the November ballot.
The most recent poll asks “Should Auto Insurance Companies be able to Set Prices Based on a Driver’s History of Insurance Coverage?” 56 percent voted yes and 42 percent voted no.
The question was related to Prop 33, take directly from the state’s summary of the proposition. The statement about the measure approved by the secretary of State says “Changes current law to permit insurance companies to set prices based on whether the driver previously carried auto insurance with any insurance company. Allows insurance companies to give proportional discounts to drivers with some prior insurance coverage. Will allow insurance companies to increase cost of insurance to drivers who have not maintained continuous coverage. Treats drivers with lapse as continuously covered if lapse is due to military service or loss of employment, or if lapse is less than 90 days.” The Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government says there is “Probably no significant fiscal effect on state insurance premium tax revenues.”
A previous poll related to Prop 37 asked: “Do You Support Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods?” 78 percent voted yes and 21 percent voted no.
Prop 37 requires labeling on raw or processed food offered for sale to consumers if made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways. It also prohibits labeling or advertising such food as “natural.”
The propositions states there are exemptions for foods that are:
Unintentionally produced with genetically engineered material
Made from animals fed or injected with genetically engineered material but not genetically engineered themselves
Processed with or containing only small amounts of genetically engineered ingredients
Administered for treatment of medical conditions
Sold for immediate consumption such as in a restaurant
or alcoholic beverages
The statement on the fiscal impact on state and local government says, “Potential increase in state administrative costs of up to one million dollars annually to monitor compliance with the disclosure requirements specified in the measure. Unknown, but potentially significant, costs for the courts, the Attorney General, and district attorneys due to litigation resulting from possible violations to the provisions of this measure.”