Here are the propositions on this November’s CA ballot that I recommend voting for or against, and why- briefly.
Proposition 30- Yes
The trigger cuts if this doesn’t pass would have significant negative effects on the state. For the same reason, I recommend against Proposition 38, due to the trigger cuts on non-education spending activating if it passes and gets more votes than 30 (I assume that 38’s funding would partially go to offset the trigger cuts to education, at least). (Reference on vote totals and triggers- see “What happens” box)
Proposition 31- Yes
Stops unpaid tax cuts, and requires proper funding for new programs. It would also improve transparency (and potentially allow for public comment to change outcomes) by requiring laws to be public for 3 days before votes. (Reference- section 2 and 3 for transparency; section 4 and 11 for funding, pages 85-6, 92 (pdf))
Proposition 32- No
This proposition is designed to attack unions. Despite the fact that it states its ban on required deductions being used for political purposes applies to unions and corporations alike, corporations don’t need to make deductions to pay for their political spending. Furthermore, the text of the proposition appears to be disingenuous- it says that employees of a government employer aren’t government contractors, but their unions automatically are. (References- Section 2, 85151a, page 93 for ban on required deductions; Section 2, 85152 subsections b and f, page 94 for the government contractor definitions (pdf))
Proposition 33- No
This proposition would increase your auto insurance costs if you decided to not have insurance for more than 3 months in any 5 years (unless you’re in the military, or unemployed for less than 18 months in 5 years). Live in a city with good mass transit and no parking for a year and don’t have a car? Pity you dropped your insurance- that’s a 20% less continuous coverage “discount” for you. (Reference- Section 4, 1861.023 subsection b1,2,3 and 4c, page 95 for military, unemployment, general case, and proportional reduction respectively (pdf))
Proposition 34- Yes
The death penalty is a waste of money, and runs the risk of executing innocents, permanently tarnishing our justice system and undermining the rule of law. Life without parole is a severe punishment in itself.
Proposition 35- Yes
This proposition strengthens protections against human trafficking, of minors in particular. Section 4 of the proposition prevents liability for trafficked individuals, and the increased penalties in section 5 do not apply to voluntary acts (counter to the proposition opponent’s assertions). (Reference- Section 4, Section 5 subsection h, pages 101 and 2 (pdf))
Proposition 36- Yes
Our prisons are massively overcrowded. This proposition allows for re-sentencing of people who have committed non-violent felonies, while keeping many criminals behind bars for long periods of time or permanently. Additionally, it allows for judicial discretion on whether to release non-violent third strike offenders even if they are eligible for release, so there’s little to no public safety risk (though this may offset the overcrowding removal benefits of the proposition). (References- section 6 1170.26 subsections b and e, page 109 for re-sentencing; section 4 1170.12c, pages 108-9 for increased felony penalties and determination of mandatory life imprisonment; section 6 subsections f and g, pages 109-10 for judicial discretion (pdf))
Proposition 37-No
If you think that GMOs are dangerous, then all genetically modified organisms should be labeled. Exemptions for animal feed, alcohol and restaurants fatally undermine the stated purpose of this proposition. (Reference- Section 3, 110809.2 subsections a, d and h, page 112 for animals, alcohol and restaurants respectively (pdf))
Proposition 38- No
If this passes, trigger cuts will happen. (See reasons for 30).
Proposition 39- Yes
Requires taxation based on sales within the state, rather than letting businesses choose their most favorable taxation. There’s a 50% deduction for cable companies (net, tv), which is problematic, but not sufficient to eliminate the benefits of the rest of the law. Also, funds going into creating new green energy jobs will be regularly, independently audited; with general oversight by an board of experts. (References-section 2 chapter 4 section 6, page 128 for taxation; section 2 chapter 4 section 9, page 129 for deal; section 2 chapter 3, pages 126-7 for panel of experts (pdf))
Proposition 40- Yes
The proposed districts appear reasonable, and would be implemented even if this measure was defeated (just at extra cost). Note that there is no formal opposition to this proposition.
Rafael's thoughts 
The choices made Nov 6 will determine the state’s course for years. Both Prop 32, 30 levy significant taxes on Californians.
The wounds that Prop 30, 32 are to heal have been self inflicted largely by elected officials in Sacramento who simply do not say no to any influential interest group (lobbyists) be they public employees, business, teachers or other unions or environmental groups.
And now the Sacramento politicians and their lobbyists are using Prop 32, 30, 38 to blackmail us.
Vote! Vote No on Prop 32, 30, 38. Save California for our children.
I suspect you wanted to attack 31 along with 30 and 38, since 32 isn’t really related to taxes. I can see your argument with regards to 30 and 38 (though I disagree with it), but 31 would limit unpaid programs. Unless you think borrowing is preferable in all cases to tax increases.
And with regards to the for the children line, both of the tax bills are designed to give more funds to education. If these were bond measures, I might be able to accept a mortgaging the future argument, but this is taxation- we’d be paying for it now. If we want our children to have better lives, then we should be willing to pay for it.