October 24, 2016

Author

Claudia Sisomphou

Here in California, we have the opportunity to vote on more propositions than anywhere else in the country. However with the privilege of the direct democratic process comes great responsibility, and sometimes it is incredibly difficult to research and fully understand every initiative that you are voting on. With 17 propositions up for vote on this year's statewide ballot, it is essential that we all have a clear comprehension of what every one of our "yes" or "no" votes mean. Though I hate to admit it, I remember that the first time I ever voted on state and local measures I was so unclear on what each proposition meant that I simply didn't give my vote to any of them. Thankfully, after compiling information from different sources, this year's propositions make a lot more sense to me. Hopefully this guide will help you in your preparation for the November 8th elections too.

Keywords/Definitions:

CICA (Initiated Constitutional Amendment): an amendment to a state's constitution that comes about through the initiative process.

CISS (Initiated State Statute): a new law that a state adopts via the ballot initiative process.

CICA/SS (Combined Initiated Constitutional Amendment and State Statute): a ballot measure that combines an initiated constitutional amendment with an initiated state statute. If approved, it will change both a state's constitution and one or more state statutes.

LRSS (Legislatively Referred State Statute): a statute that appears on a state's ballot as a ballot measure because the state legislature in that state voted to put it before the voters.

VR (Veto Referendum): a group that opposes the new law collects enough signatures within the statutory timeframe in that state to place that new law on a ballot for the voters in the relevant political subdivision to either ratify the new law, or reject it.

AQ (Advisory Question): a type of ballot measure in which citizens vote on a non-binding question. The outcome of the ballot question will not result in a new, changed or rejected law or constitutional amendment, rather the advisory question symbolizes the general opinion of the voting population in regard to the issue at hand.

In This Post: Healthcare, Education, Elections and Campaigns, Entertainment, Business Regulation, Firearms, Government Accountability, Campaign Finance and Federal Issues, Taxes, Tobacco, Death Penalty, Marijuana, Environment, and Civil and Criminal Trials.

Subject: HEALTHCARE

Title: Proposition 52 - California Medi-Cal Hospital Reimbursement Initiative

Type: CICA/SS

In a Nutshell: Medicaid, also known as Medi-Cal in California, is a program of the federal government that helps pay for health care services provided to low-income patients. In order to receive Medicaid funds, a state must devote a matching contribution of its own money. In 2009, California hospitals adopted a new program which required them to pay a fee to help the state obtain the available federal Medicaid funds. As a result, California hospitals receive an additional $2 billion a year in federal funding for Medi-Cal. What has come to California voters' attention is that the state has diverted some of the hospital fee program funds to the state's general fund. This initiative would strengthen the language in the California Constitution to ensure that the money generated by the hospital fee would only be used for its intended purpose of supporting hospital care to Medi-Cal patients and paying for healthcare for low-income children, and by requiring voter approval before making changes to the hospital fee program to better protect funds.

Supporters are saying:

The proposition would "keep a good idea" working by extending the Medi-Cal hospital fee program.
The proposition would keep legislators from diverting federal matching funds from their original purposes by requiring that voter approval be obtained first.
The proposition would generate three billion dollars in federal matching funds without costing the taxpayers any money.

Opposers are saying:

The proposition would divert resources from patients and communities to special interests.
The proposition would not require any sort of accountability for hospital CEOs and lobbyists regarding how money is spent.
The proposition would not guarantee that funds are spent on healthcare.

Important Questions to Ask Yourself: What are the hospital fees funds that are being relayed into the state's general fund being used for? What are the pros and cons of the current structure?

Sustainability/Diversity Questions: If not all the funds are going to Medi-Cal health care services, care for uninsured patients, and children's health coverage, what else is the revenue funding?

So What Exactly Does a YES Vote Mean: "Yes" increases the vote ratio required for changing state fee allocation to a 2/3rds majority.

What a NO Vote Means: "No" maintains the current the vote ratio required for changing state fee allocation.

Title: Proposition 61 - California "Drug Price Relief Act" Initiative

Type: CISS

In a Nutshell: Currently state agencies purchase drugs at the prices set by drug companies. However in 2005, the Congressional Budget Office report revealed that the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (USDVA) pays about 42% of the market price and Medi-Cal pays about 51%. This initiative aims to restrict the amount of money that any state agency, or agency in which the state primarily provides the funding for the purchase of drugs, has to pay drug companies the lowest price paid for the same drug by the USDVA. The measure only applies to the purchasing of drugs by state agencies and does not apply to purchases made by individuals.[2] It is not certain how pharmaceutical companies could react or how this initiative could impact state finances.

Supporters are saying:

The proposition could fight price-gouging from drug companies.
The proposition could provide better access to live-saving drugs.
The proposition could save taxpayers billions of dollars in healthcare costs.

Opposers are saying:

The proposition could hurt veterans by increasing prescription drug prices for them.
The proposition could reduce patient access to medicines.
The proposition could increase bureaucracy, red tape, lawsuits, and taxpayer costs.
The proposition could increase state prescription drug costs.
The proponent wrote special provisions for his own organization regarding the proposition.

Important Questions to Ask Yourself: How do drug prices currently affect state agencies? What do drug companies have to lose/gain from this initiative? What was the intent of the author of the proposition?

Sustainability/Diversity Questions: What affect will this initiative have on veterans in California?

What a YES Vote Means: "Yes" means a vote in favor of requiring state agencies to pay the same prices that the USDVA pays for prescription drugs.

What a NO Vote Means: "No" is a vote against requiring state agencies to pay the same prices that the USDVA pays for prescription drugs.

Subject: EDUCATION

Title: Proposition 58 - California Multilingual Education Act

Type: LRSS

In a Nutshell: In 1998, California passed Proposition 227 which requires all children (including Limited English Proficient Students) to be taught English in public schools. School districts provide English learners with a structured/sheltered English-Immersion classroom for about a year, and once students acquire a sufficient amount of English they are transferred to an English classroom. Proposition 58 seeks to repeal Proposition 227 and require school districts to allow LEP students the option of being taught English in nearly all English. It also intends to authorize school districts to establish dual-language immersion programs, and allows parents/legal guardians of students to select the available language program that best suits their child.

Supporters are saying:

The proposition would allow all students to become proficient in English as soon as possible.
The proposition would encourage schools to use instruction programs rather than expand multilingual education, thereby providing English speakers the opportunity to learn a second language.
The proposition would restore local control for California schools.
The proposition's changes could prepare students more effectively for the future.
Multilingual education encourages "intercultural interactions and empathy".

Opposers are saying:

The official title of Proposition 58 is "English Language Education," but it actually repeals the requirement the children be taught English in California public schools.
In Section 8, the proposition repeals all restrictions on the California Legislature to make future changes, which would allow the Legislature to establish Spanish-almost-only instruction in the public schools by a simple majority vote, once again forcing Latino children into those classes against their parents' wishes.
Teaching English in our public schools is overwhelmingly supported by California parents.
For decades, millions of Latino children were forced into Spanish-almost-only classes dishonestly called "bilingual education."
It was an educational disaster and never worked.
Many Latinos never learned how to read, write, or even speak English properly.
Many major newspapers, even the New York Times, declared the new English immersion system a huge educational success.

Important Questions to Ask Yourself: How does this initiative affect students in public schools? How will this affect instruction and funding at public schools?

Sustainability/Diversity Questions: How does the current public school system, under Proposition 227, support non-native English speaking students? Is the current system doing enough to support non-native English speaking students?

So What Exactly Does a YES Vote Mean: "Yes" repeals most of Proposition 227, effectively allowing non-English languages to be used in public school instruction.

What a NO Vote Means: "No" maintains the current authority of Proposition 227.

Title: Proposition 51 - California Public Education Facilities Bond Initiative

Type: CISS

In a Nutshell: In 2014, California legislators tried to place an initiative on the ballot that would dedicate $9 billion for school maintenance and construction. The initiative passed in the Assembly but Governor Brown opposed it before it could move on to the Senate, effectively disqualifying it from the 2014 ballot. Now 2016 voters have the opportunity to make a decision on this initiative. The proposition would authorize $9 billion to be designated to general obligation bonds, with intended funds allocated as: $3 billion for new construction and $3 billion for modernization of K-12 public school facilities, $1 billion for charter schools and vocational education facilities, and $2 billion for California Community Colleges facilities. The fiscal impact of this initiative will cost the state a total of about $17.6 billion to pay off the principal ($9 billion) and interest ($8.6 billion) on the bonds. California would make payments of about $500 million per year for 35 years.

Supporters are saying:

Many elementary schools, high schools, and community colleges are in need of maintenance for some do not even meet basic earthquake safety, fire safety, and health risk standards.
Proposition 51 would be fiscally responsible and contain many taxpayer protection and accountability measures.
Improving and expanding community colleges would make affordable education accessible to more California residents, including veterans.
Improvements to the education system would be a good investment because it would make good jobs available to more California residents and reduce college debt, thereby boosting the economy.

Opposers are saying:

The bond money would be in the control of state officials not local boards, and Proposition 51 does not guarantee an equitable distribution of the bond money between schools.
The bond proposition proposes putting California further into debt, which the state can't afford.
Local school bonds are more effective than state school bonds, and local voters have shown willingness to approve local school debt, making a statewide bond proposition unnecessary.
Well-funded school districts with consultants will have a better chance of applying for and receiving money than smaller and poorer districts.
Proposition 51 was written and sponsored by construction companies to benefit construction companies by providing $9 billion in state spending from which they could profit.

Important Questions to Ask Yourself: Would this benefit California's public education system? How will the funds be managed if the initiative passes? What else could this money be going towards?

Sustainability/Diversity Questions: Would this improve the accessibility, affordability, and quality of education? Does this investment have any long-term benefits?

So What Exactly Does a YES Vote Mean: "Yes" supports the state issuing $9 billion in bonds to fund improvement and construction of school facilities for K-12 schools and community colleges.

What a NO Vote Means: "No" opposes the state issuing $9 billion in bonds to fund improvement and construction of school facilities for K-12 schools and community colleges.

Subject: ELECTIONS AND CAMPAIGNS

Title: Proposition 53 - California Voter Approval Requirement for Revenue Bonds above $2 Billion Initiative (Public Vote on Bonds Initiative)

Type: CICA

In a Nutshell: This initiative aims to require statewide voter approval before the state can issue or sell revenue bonds for certain projects if the bond exceeds $2 billion. Though bonds are occasionally put on the California ballot for the public to vote on, bonds that are paid for by out of state revenue are not required to be voter-approved regardless of the bond amount. Out of state revenue includes federal government taxation, excise taxes (taxes often included in the price paid when purchases are made on a specific good, such as gasoline), custom duties (tariff or tax imposed on goods when transported across international borders), or other sources, appropriated to the payment of the public expense. This proposition would apply to any projects that are owned, operated, managed, or financed by the state or a joint agency between the state and a federal government agency, another state, or a local government. This proposition would affect both future bonds and already approved projects if the remaining bond amount is $2 billion or more. It also prohibits dividing projects into multiple plans in order to avoid the voter approval requirement.

Supporters are saying:

Politicians and state agencies are currently allowed to borrow billions of dollars in state revenue bond debt without getting voter approval.
Proposition 53 would hold politicians accountable and would induce them to provide accurate estimates of how much a project would cost.
It does not impact local projects, the University of California, freeway construction, or natural disaster response.
Proposition 53 would close the loophole that allows politicians to issue massive new debt to pay for multi-billion dollar projects -- without giving Californians the right to vote.
It would give voters a say when state government wants to incur enormous new debt that the public will have to repay.
Proposition 53 would ensure voters understand the full cost of future projects, including interest payments, that they are expected to pay

Opposers are saying:

The proposition would impact local control and community infrastructure improvements negatively.
It would require a statewide vote for certain local projects.
Proposition 53 does not contain an exemption for emergencies/natural disasters.
The proposition would negatively impact water supply and drought preparedness.
It would inhibit California's ability to repair outdated infrastructure.
Proposition 53 would serve the interests of the multi-millionaire funding the initiative.

Important Questions to Ask Yourself: We have elected legislators to represent us and speak in the best interest of California voters so why are they asking us? What $2 billion bonds have been passed in the past?

Sustainability/Diversity Questions: What kind of projects could be restricted because of this proposition? Who would benefit from the passing or the failure of this initiative?

So What Exactly Does a YES Vote Mean: "Yes" requires voter approval before the state issues more than $2 billion in public infrastructure bonds that would require an increase in taxes or fees for repayment.

What a NO Vote Means: "No" continues to allow the state to issue bonds of more than $2 billion without voter approval.

Subject: ENTERTAINMENT

Title: Proposition 60 - Condoms in Pornographic Films Initiative

Type: CISS

In a Nutshell: This proposition would require performers in adult films to use condoms during the filming of sexual intercourse with the liability held on producers, certain distributors, performers who have a financial interest in the film, and talent agents who knowingly violate or do not comply with the law. Producers of adult films would be responsible for paying for performer vaccinations, testing, and medical examinations related to sexually transmitted infections. It would also require producers to obtain a state health license and to post condom requirements at film sites. The proposition permits the state, performers, or any state resident to enforce violations. This proposition could potentially have a financial impact of reduced state and local tax revenue of millions of dollars per year. It would likely cost the state a few million dollars annually to administer the law.

Supporters are saying:

The proposition would hold pornographers accountable for work safety and health, specifically by closing loopholes and improving enforcement of existing law.
The proposition would only hold adult film producers, directors, and agents accountable, not adult performers.
The proposition would reduce the risk of sexually transmitted diseases for adult performers and the larger community.
The proposition would save taxpayer money in that taxpayers would have to pay for less treatments for sexually transmitted diseases and other related diseases.

Opposers are saying:

The proposition language is poorly drafted.
The proposition would lead to many lawsuits that could threaten the safety of adult performers.
The proposition would violate worker privacy.
The proposition would instate the proponent as a state employee who would review pornographic films for infractions, and only legislators would be able to vote the proponent out of the position if necessary.
The proposition would cost taxpayers millions of dollars unnecessarily.
Proposition 60 gives EVERY Californian the right to sue adult film performers, including LGBT performers, on-set workers, and even cable and satellite television companies.

Important Questions to Ask Yourself: How would this proposition affect the revenue of California? Who would benefit from the passing of this proposition and who would benefit if the proposition does not pass?

Sustainability/Diversity Questions: Does this proposition actually promote safe sex and protect the health of performers in our adult films?

So What Exactly Does a YES Vote Mean: "Yes" requires the use of condoms and other protective measures during the filming of pornographic films, and requires pornography producers to pay for certain health requirements and checkups for performers.

What a NO Vote Means: "No" does not require the use of condoms and other safety measures during the filming of pornographic films or require producers to pay for certain health requirements and checkups for performers.

Subject: BUSINESS REGULATION

Title: Proposition 67 - California Plastic Bag Ban Veto Referendum

Type: VR

In a Nutshell: This initiative is to ratify, or make officially valid, Senate Bill 270 which prohibits regulated stores from providing single-use carryout bags to customers and requires them to charge at least 10 cents for each recycled paper bag or reusable plastic bag sold at the point of sale. However this still allows for single-use plastic bags for meat, bread, produce, bulk food and perishable items. Additionally the state will also provide $2 million to state plastic bag manufactures for the purpose of helping retain jobs and transition to making thicker, multi-use, recycled plastic bags. The fiscal impact of this initiative if it passes would be relatively small. There could be a minor increase in state administrative costs and possible minor local government savings from reduced litter and waste management costs. The proposition would help the environment by reducing litter, protecting oceans and wildlife, and reducing clean-up costs. The proposition is also conscious to exempt consumers using a payment card or voucher issued by the California Special Supplemental Food Program from being charged for bags.

Supporters are saying:

A coalition of environmental groups, grocers, and others, is leading the "Yes" campaign to uphold SB 270.
The proposition would help the environment by reducing litter, protecting oceans and wildlife, and reducing clean-up costs.
The proposition would continue California's success in phasing out plastic bags. Nearly half the state has already banned plastic bags.
The proposition is opposed by four large out-of-state plastic bag companies.
Recycling plastic bags isn't enough in California. Less than 5 percent get recycled.

Opposers are saying:

The American Progressive Bag Alliance is leading the "No" campaign to repeal SB 270.
The proposition would cost consumers more money, as they would be required to pay 10 cents per bag for paper or thicker plastic reusable bags at checkout.
The proposition would not allocate revenue generated from reusable bag fees for helping the environment, the revenue would go to grocers as extra profit.
Not washing reusable bags increases the risk of E. coli, whereas single-use plastic bags are used just once.

Important Questions to Ask Yourself: Who is funding the opposition of this proposition? What is the relation between this proposition and Proposition 65? Do grocers actually generate a significant profit from the sale of 10 cent single-use bags?

Sustainability/Diversity Questions: Will this proposition benefit California's environment and reduce everyday pollution? Do we want California to continue to be a leader in environmental and sustainability legislation?

So What Exactly Does a YES Vote Mean: "Yes" is a vote in favor of ratifying Senate Bill 270, the legislation banning plastic bags.

What a NO Vote Means: "No" is a vote in favor of reversing Senate Bill 270.

Subject: FIREARMS

Title: Proposition 63 - Background Checks for Ammunition Purchases and Large-Capacity Ammunition Magazine Ban

Type: CISS

In a Nutshell: This proposition was designed to prohibit the possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines and require most individuals to pass a background check and obtain authorization from the California Department of Justice to purchase ammunition. It requires most ammunition sales to be made through licensed ammunition vendors and reported to the Department of Justice, as well as requiring lost or stolen firearms and ammunition to be reported to law enforcement. Persons convicted of stealing a firearm would be prohibited from possessing firearms, and it establishes new procedures for prohibiting firearm possession by felons and violent criminals. The financial impact of this proposition seems to balance itself out. There would be an increase in state costs in the tens of millions annually due to the regulation of ammunition sales, and an increase in court and law enforcement costs to remove firearms from prohibited persons as part of court sentencing proceedings. These costs would likely be offset by the various regulatory fees authorized by the measure, and there would potentially be an increase in state and local correctional costs related to new and increased penalties.

Supporters are saying:

The proposition would keep guns and ammunition out of the wrong hands by closing loopholes in existing law.
The proposition would protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to own guns for self-defense, hunting, and recreation.
The proposition would address the issue of illegally armed felons.

Opposers are saying:

The proposition would burden law-abiding citizens who own firearms.
The proposition would not keep terrorists and violent criminals from accessing firearms and ammunition.
The proposition would divert resources away from local law enforcement and burden an already overburdened court system.
The proposition would make Californians less safe and would waste public resources and money.
The proposition would be difficult for the legislature to amend.

Important Questions to Ask Yourself: Both supporters and opposers have made strong statements but they both claim the proposition will have very different results; what facts are they basing their arguments on? Who is in support of this proposition and who is against it?

Sustainability/Diversity Questions: Is your well-being or the well-being of those around you, affected by the current process of and policies on ammunition purchases? As a California citizen, does this proposition make you safer?

So What Exactly Does a YES Vote Mean: "Yes" to prohibiting the possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines.

What a NO Vote Means: "No" to prohibiting the possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines.

Subject: GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

Title: Proposition 54 - Public Display of Legislative Bills Prior to Vote

Type: CICA

In a Nutshell: This proposition promotes a much more public and accessible bill passing process. If passed, every bill must be published in print and online at least 72 hours before the California Assembly or Senate can vote on it, except in cases of public emergency. It would require that the legislature make audiovisual recordings of its public proceedings and publish the recordings online within 24 hours, and also authorizes any individual to record any open legislative proceedings either through audio or visual means and use the recordings for any legitimate purpose. To put this proposition into action it would require the state a one-time cost of $1 million to $2 million and ongoing costs of about $1 million annually to record legislative meetings and make videos of those meetings available on the Internet.

Supporters are saying:

The proposition would increase transparency in California's state government.
The proposition would stop the practice of "gutting and amending" legislation.
Several California city legislatures already follow the practice of posting recordings of their sessions online.

Opposers are saying:

The proposition would serve the interests of the billionaire funding the initiative.
The proposition could introduce unnecessary restrictions on the law crafting process in the legislature.
Requiring the legislature to wait three days before voting on a bill could give powerful lobbyists and well-funded special interests time to launch campaigns to attack bipartisan compromises.
The proposition could hinder legislators' ability to develop bipartisan solutions for issues.
The proposition could give special interests too much power in regards to the legislative process.

Important Questions to Ask Yourself: How was this initiative introduced and with what intent? Would the passing of this proposition incentivize you to watch the public proceedings videos on the Internet?

Sustainability/Diversity Questions: How would this initiative change the transparency of, and ability of the public to engage in, the California legislature bill voting process?

So What Exactly Does a YES Vote Mean: "Yes" prohibits the legislature from passing any bill until it has been published in print and online at least 72 hours prior to the vote.

What a NO Vote Means: "No" does not prohibit the legislature from passing any bill regardless of if it is publically published after the vote.

Subject: CAMPAIGN FINANCE AND FEDERAL ISSUES

Title: Proposition 59 - Overturn of Citizens United Act Advisory Question

Type: AQ

In a Nutshell: This proposition aims to get voters opinion on whether California elected officials should use their authority to propose and ratify an amendment to the federal Constitution overturning the United States Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In 2014 Senate Bill 1272 (Proposition 49), which called for an advisory question of whether to overturn the Citizen's United v. Federal Election Commission decision be placed on the ballot for the public to vote on, was introduced to the California state legislature. The decision ruled that laws placing certain limits on political spending by corporations and unions are unconstitutional. Both the California Senate and Assembly passed the proposition and the measure was approved for the ballot. However a month later in 2014, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association filed a lawsuit to challenge the advisory question, and the California Supreme Court ordered that the initiative be withdrawn from the ballot while the court review was pending. In January of this year the California Supreme Court ruled that the advisory question could in fact be put on the ballot. This initiative would have no direct fiscal effect on state or local governments.

Supporters are saying:

The proposition could be the first step to limiting excessive political spending.
It could encourage members of Congress to do everything in their power to reverse Citizens United, and to limit and regulate campaign spending

Opposers are saying:

The proposition would have no legally binding power.
This would "clutter our ballots with non-binding measures as citizens rightfully assume that their votes are meant to have legal effect" (Gov. Jerry Brown).
The proposition could hurt small businesses and other entities that are incorporated as corporations.

Important Questions to Ask Yourself: Should the California legislature begin discussing whether corporations and unions should have restrictions on how much money they can spend supporting or opposing a political campaign? Is limitless political spending by corporations and unions currently an issue?

Sustainability/Diversity Questions: Who would benefit and who would suffer from beginning discussions about the overturning of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision?

So What Exactly Does a YES Vote Mean: "Yes" is a vote in favor of the California Legislature beginning the process of overturning the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, and regulate the campaign spending of corporations and unions.

What a NO Vote Means: "No" is a vote against the California Legislature beginning the process of overturning the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision.

Subject: TAXES

Title: Proposition 55 - Extension to Fund Education and Healthcare (Extension of the Proposition 30 Income Tax)

Type: CICA

In a Nutshell: In 2012, California voters approved Proposition 30, an income tax and sales tax that went directly towards assisting K-12, community colleges and, in certain years, healthcare. About 89% of the funds go towards K-12 education and 11% go towards community colleges. Since its approval in 2012, it has generated about $6 billion per year. The proposition will phase out starting in 2018, and the sales tax portion will expire at the end of 2016. Proposition 55 aims to extend the Proposition 30 tax and continue the funding for California's education and healthcare. This initiative only addresses the income tax on incomes over $250,000 and would not extend the sales tax. If passed, the tax would increase state revenues to between $4 billion and $9 billion, depending on the state of the economy and stock market, annually from 2019-2030. This revenue would then be used to fund schools, community colleges, health care for low-income people, funding for budget reserves, and debt payments.

Supporters are saying:

The proposition would not raise taxes for anyone, and would lower the sales tax.
The proposition would only affect the wealthiest Californians.
The proposition would provide strict accountability and transparency standards, ensuring that money goes to local schools.
The proposition would prevent budget cuts while continuing to restore funding lost during the recession.

Opposers are saying:

The proposition would extend a measure that was supposed to be temporary, amounting to a broken promise made by politicians.
Education, healthcare, and state government can all be funded without new or higher taxes, making the proposition unnecessary.
The proposition could hurt small businesses.

Important Questions to Ask Yourself: Both sides make big statements on the propositions importance and who it would affect; What facts are they basing their arguments off of? Are you affected by this income tax or the revenues generated from it?

Sustainability/Diversity Questions: What programs or school systems, including the CSU System, will be affected if voters choose not to extend Prop 30? How has Prop 30 assisted the funding of schools, community colleges, and health care since its implementation?

So What Exactly Does a YES Vote Mean: "Yes" is a vote to support the extension of the personal income tax on incomes over $250,000 (Prop 30) in order to fund education and healthcare.

What a NO Vote Means: "NO" does not support the extension of the personal income tax on incomes over $250,000 (Prop 30) in order to fund education and healthcare.

Subject: TOBACCO

Title: Proposition 56 - Cigarette Tax to Fund Healthcare, Tobacco Use Prevention, Research, and Law Enforcement (Tobacco Tax Increase)

Type: CICA

In a Nutshell: This initiative is designed to increase cigarette tax by $2.00 per pack, as well as an equivalent increase on other tobacco products and electronic cigarettes containing nicotine. If passed, the revenue generated by the tax would primarily be used to increase funding for existing healthcare programs. However, it would also be used to fund tobacco use prevention/control programs, tobacco-related disease research, tobacco-related law enforcement, University of California physician training, dental disease prevention programs, and administration. Additionally, if this tax caused a decrease in tobacco consumption, the tax revenues would be used to offset the decreases in existing tobacco-funded programs and sales tax revenues.

Supporters are saying:

The proposition could reduce tobacco-related healthcare costs and help pay for those costs.
The proposition could prevent youth smoking and address tobacco marketing aimed at youth as a target customer, such as candy-flavored electronic cigarettes containing nicotine.
The proposition includes transparency and accountability safeguards for use of the tax revenue generated.
It has been proven that higher tobacco taxes reduce teen smoking.
The proposition asks smokers to pay their fair share to improve health care and fight cancer.

Opposers are saying:

The proposition could fund insurance companies and special interests more than it would fund treatments for smoking related illnesses and youth smoking prevention.
The proposition would not allocate funds for improving schools or other issues.
The proposition could waste money on overhead and bureaucracy.

Important Questions to Ask Yourself: How does California's tax on tobacco compare to the rest of the United States? Who would benefit or suffer from the passing of this proposition?

Sustainability/Diversity Questions to ask yourself: Would the passing of this proposition encourage California's population to stop smoking tobacco? What current programs are funded by tobacco sales tax?

So What Exactly Does a YES Vote Mean: "Yes" increases the cigarette tax to $2.00 per pack, with equivalent increases on other tobacco products and electronic cigarettes.

What a NO Vote Means: "No" opposes increasing the cigarette tax to $2.00 per pack, with equivalent increases on other tobacco products and electronic cigarettes.

Subject: DEATH PENALTY

Title: Proposition 62 - Repeal of the Death Penalty

Type: CISS

In a Nutshell: This initiative seeks to repeal the state death penalty as the maximum punishment for murder and replace it with life imprisonment without possibility of parole. This would apply retroactively to those already sentenced to death. Those sentenced would be required by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to work while in prison. The portion of wages earned by persons sentenced to life without the possibility of parole would be increased by 60%. Their wages may be applied to any victim restitution fines or orders against them. If passed, it is estimated that there could be a net reduction in state and local government costs of around $150 million annually in the next few years because of the elimination of the death penalty.

Supporters are saying:

The proposition could save taxpayer money by replacing a costly, inefficient system that is unworkable.
The proposition would provide criminals the opportunity to work and pay restitution to victims' families.
The proposition could provide victims' families closure.
The proposition could eliminate the risk of executing an innocent person.
The proposition could erase the most extreme racial inequality in the criminal justice system, the disparity in death penalty sentencing.
The proposition is supported by former death penalty advocates.

Opposers are saying:

The proposition could protect the worst criminals while diminishing protection of victims' rights.
The proposition could cost taxpayers millions of dollars.
The proposition would end the death penalty system when it should be mended.

Important Questions to Ask Yourself: What are the costs, both financial and social, of preserving the death penalty vs the costs of eliminating it?

Sustainability/Diversity Questions: Do you believe that the criminal justice system perpetuates racial inequality? How does that relate to how you feel about the death penalty?

So What Exactly Does a YES Vote Mean: "Yes" is a vote in favor of repealing the death penalty as the maximum punishment for murder.

What a NO Vote Means: "No" is a vote to maintain the death penalty.

Title: Proposition 66 - Death Penalty Procedures

Type: CISS

In a Nutshell: This initiative aims to change the procedures that govern state court appeals and petitions challenging death penalty convictions and sentences. It addresses a variety of areas within the entire spectrum of the death penalty process. It imposes time limits on state court death penalty reviews, designates the superior court for initial petitions, and limits successive petitions. The proposition requires appointed attorneys who take noncapital appeals to accept death penalty appeals, exempts or excuses prison officials from the existing regulation process for developing execution methods, and authorizes death row inmate transfers among California prisons. If this measure receives more affirmative votes than the other voter approved initiatives on the ballot related to the death penalty, such as Proposition 62, the other initiatives become void. If this initiative passes there could be significant financial impacts: an increase in state court costs for processing legal challenges to death sentences as well as costs potentially in the tens of millions annually due to an acceleration of spending to address new time lines on legal challenges to death sentences. There could also be savings of tens of millions of dollars in the future for state prisons.

Supporters are saying:

The proposition would keep the death penalty system, which California needs.
The proposition could speed up the death penalty appeals process.
The proposition could mean that the worst criminals receive the strongest sentence.
The proposition could provide closure to victims' families.
The proposition could save taxpayers millions of dollars.

Opposers are saying:

The proposition could cost taxpayers millions of dollars unnecessarily, due to increased prison spending, legal defense, death row facility construction, and litigation.
The proposition is poorly written and confusing.
The proposition could increase California's risk of executing an innocent person, and would remove important legal safeguards.

Important Questions to Ask Yourself: Look back at Proposition 62; Which is more aligned with your opinion on the death penalty? (Both could ultimately cost taxpayers money and then eventually save taxpayers money)

Sustainability/Diversity Questions: What does this change in the death penalty process mean for the public? (Particularly regarding the racial and social issues intertwined with the criminal justice system.)

So What Exactly Does a YES Vote Mean: "Yes" supports changing the current procedures governing state court appeals and petitions that challenge death penalty convictions and sentences.

What a NO Vote Means: "No" opposes any changes to the current system for governing death penalty appeals and petitions.

Subject: MARIJUANA

Title: Proposition 64 - Marijuana Legalization (Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Initiative)

Type: CISS

In a Nutshell: Multiple, separate initiatives designed to legalize recreational use of marijuana were filed for the election ballot in 2016, but this initiative was the only one that qualified for the ballot. This initiative aims to legalize the use of marijuana and hemp in California for adults 21 or over, as well as enact a 15% sales tax and a cultivation tax of $9.25 per ounce for flowers and $2.75 per ounce for leaves (exceptions for qualifying medical marijuana). This proposition will designate state agencies to license and regulate the marijuana industry, and seeks to prevent licenses to corporate or large-scale marijuana businesses in the first five years to avoid a monopoly power over the industry. There are other provisions that relate to employers rights, driving under the influence, marketing and advertising, restrictions for products, and the locations of marijuana businesses.

Notably, this initiative authorizes resentencing and destruction of records for prior marijuana convictions. The fiscal impacts if passed will greatly depend on how state and local governments regulate and tax, whether the federal government enforces federal laws prohibiting marijuana, and how prices and consumption change under the measure. Potentially state and local tax revenues could range from the high hundreds of millions of dollars to over $1 billion annually. Most of this revenue would be required to be spent on youth programs, environmental protection, and law enforcement. State and local government savings could reach up to the tens of millions of dollars annually due to the decline in the number of marijuana offenders being held in county jails and state prisons.

Supporters are saying:

The proposition has specific safeguards that would protect children while allowing responsible use of adult marijuana.
The proposition would incorporate best practices from other states that already legalized marijuana use and would adhere to recommendations provided by California's Blue Ribbon Commission on Marijuana Policy.
The proposition could generate tax revenue and decrease law enforcement costs, providing funding for things like afterschool programs, drug prevention education and drug/alcohol addiction treatment, law enforcement training and research on impaired driving, and other programs.
The proposition would prevent legislators from using generated revenue for their pet projects.
The proposition could provide an environment where marijuana is safe, controlled, and taxed.

Opposers are saying:

The proposition could result in more highway fatalities and more impaired driving.
The proposition would allow marijuana growing near schools and parks, and would erode local control.
The proposition could increase black market and drug cartel activity.
The proposition would allow marijuana smoking advertisements to be aired.
The proposition could hurt underprivileged neighborhoods.
The proposition could put small marijuana farmers in northern California out of business.

Important Questions to Ask Yourself: Is the legal recreational and medical use of marijuana something I support? How could the potential state and local government savings to be used for the funding of other things? How would the federal law, which maintains that marijuana is still illegal, come into play if Proposition 64 is passed in California?

Sustainability/Diversity Questions: Because the growing of marijuana is illegal, the current pollution and land use of marijuana farms has been devastating to the environment: How will the environmental impact of the new regulated marijuana farms differ? As enforcement has shown to be racially biased, what are the implications on arrests and incarceration rates?

So What Exactly Does a YES Vote Mean: "Yes" supports the legalization of the recreational use and cultivation of marijuana and hemp under state law, and the implementation of certain sale and cultivation taxes.

What a NO Vote Means: "No" rejects the legalization of marijuana and hemp under state law, and the implementation of certain sale and cultivation taxes.

Subject: ENVIRONMENT

Title: Proposition 65 - Dedication of Revenue from Disposable Bag Sales to Wildlife Conservation Fund

Type: CISS

In a Nutshell: This initiative is designed to require that all revenue generated by the state-mandated sale of carryout bags (currently 10 cents a bag in most stores) be put into a special fund administered by the Wildlife Conservation Board. These proceeds would then be used to support specified categories of environmental projects. If passed, this proposition has the potential to generate state revenue up to several tens of millions of dollars annually, and would help support certain environmental programs. However the catch with this proposition is that the result of this proposition only matters if Prop 67 is passed. If this proposition receives more "yes" votes than 67, the revenue from the sale of 10 cent bags will be put into a Wildlife Conservation Board special fund.

Supporters are saying:

The proposition would stop the deal made between legislators and lobbyists that allowed grocery stores to keep plastic bag fee revenue as extra profits.
The proposition gives voters an additional opportunity to voice how they want revenue from bag bans to be spent.
The proposition would dedicate plastic bag fee revenue to environmental projects like drought relief and litter removal, and would make the California Wildlife Conservation Board responsible for allocating the revenue generated from plastic bag fees.

Opposers are saying:

The proposition would only serve the interests of plastic bag companies and would distract from phasing out plastic bags entirely.
The proposition would do little to help the environment, as plastic bags need to be eliminated completely in order to have an effective impact.
The proposition would create an unnecessary bureaucracy to deal with a small amount of revenue.
The proposition would undermine retail support for Proposition 67 by turning the 10 cent fee for retailers into a government tax.
Proponents of the proposition are attempting to confuse voters.

Important Questions to Ask Yourself: How much revenue is actually being generated by the sale of 10 cent single-use plastic bags? Who benefits and who suffers from the passing of this proposition? Do you understand the relationship between Prop 65 and 67?

Sustainability/Diversity Questions: Does directing the sale funds towards environmental projects actually undermine the movement towards banning single-use plastic bags?

So What Exactly Does a YES Vote Mean: "Yes" is a vote to redirect the money collected from the sale of carry-out bags by grocery or other retail stores to a special fund administered by the Wildlife Conservation Board.

What a NO Vote Means: "No" is a vote against redirecting money collected from the sale of carry-out bags by grocery or other retail stores to a special fund administered by the Wildlife Conservation Board.

Subject: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL TRIALS

Title: Proposition 57 - Parole for Nonviolent Criminals and Juvenile Court Trial Requirements (Parole, Early Release and Juvenile Trial Reform)

Type: CICA/SS

In a Nutshell: This initiative would increase the chances of parole for felons convicted of nonviolent crimes, and authorize the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to award sentence credits for rehabilitation, good behavior, or educational achievement. If passed it would allow judges, rather than prosecutors, to have the authority to decide whether to try certain juveniles as adults in court. People convicted of nonviolent felony crimes who have already served their basic sentences and passed screening for public security would be eligible for parole. After California voters approved Prop 47 in 2014, which reduced non-violent and non-serious crimes to misdemeanors and promoted more consideration for parole, prison numbers decreased. Proposition 57 was also meant to address the 2009 federal order mandating that California reduces its prison population numbers. As of the beginning of 2016, there were about 25,000 non-violent state felons that could seek early release and parole under Proposition 57. The state could potentially save tens of millions of dollars annually because of reductions in the prison population, however it could cost counties a few million dollars annually.

Supporters are saying:

The proposition could provide a sustainable way to reduce California's overcrowded prison population while rehabilitating juvenile and adult inmates.
The proposition would still keep dangerous offenders in prison.
The proposition could save taxpayers millions of dollars.
The proposition could be better than the status quo because it addresses evidence-based rehabilitation for juveniles and adults.

Opposers are saying:

The proposition was poorly drafted and could allow criminals convicted of crimes like rape, lewd acts against a child, and human trafficking to be released early from prison.
The proposition could allow career criminals to be treated as first offenders
The proposition could overturn provisions of victims' rights legislation like Marsy's Law, "three strikes," Victim's Bill of Rights, and the Californians Against Sexual Exploitation Act
The proposition could force victims to relive their experience more often with more parole hearings.
The proposition could result in higher crime rates.
The proposition would place the new privileges for criminals in the California Constitution, making it more difficult for the legislature to change the language if necessary.

Important Questions to Ask Yourself: What are the potential benefits and potential costs of passing this proposition? What constitutes a nonviolent crime in the state of California? What are the facts that support the conclusions of both sides?

Sustainability/Diversity Questions to ask yourself: Should judges have the authority over prosecutors to determine whether a juvenile should be tried as an adult in court?

So What Exactly Does a YES Vote Mean: "Yes" supports increasing parole and good behavior opportunities for felons convicted of nonviolent crimes, as well as allowing judges to decide whether to try certain juveniles as adults in court.

What a NO Vote Means: "No" opposes increasing parole and good behavior opportunities for felons convicted of nonviolent crimes, and is against allowing judges to decide whether to try certain juveniles as adults in court.

caliballotguide.png