HomeMy WebLinkAboutOfficial Voter Information Guide - November 3, 2020 General★ ★ ★ ★ ★OFFICIAL VOTER INFORMATION GUIDE ★ ★ ★ ★ ★
California General Election Tuesday, November 3, 2020
Polls Are Open From 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Election Day!
Every registered voter in California will receive a vote-by-mail ballot in
the General Election. Learn more about changes to the election inside.
Certifcate of Correctness
I, Alex Padilla, Secretary of State of the State of California, do hereby
certify that the measures included herein will be submitted to the
electors of the State of California at the General Election to be held
throughout the State on November 3, 2020, and that this guide has
been correctly prepared in accordance with the law. Witness my
hand and the Great Seal of the State in Sacramento, California,
this 10th day of August, 2020.
Alex Padilla, Secretary of State
★You may request additional copies of the Offcial Voter Information Guide by contacting your county elections offcial or by calling (800) 345-VOTE (8683) ★
VOTE SAFE at Early Voting Locations
One or more early voting locations will be available in many counties for at least four days
beginning the Saturday before the November 3, 2020, election. Voting locations will offer voter
registration, replacement ballots, accessible voting machines, and language assistance.
You can help keep voting locations safe for voters and election workers in these three ways:
Skip the line.
You can return completed ballots by mail with no stamp needed, at a secure
ballot drop box, or at a voting location. Voting locations will have separate lines
for voters dropping off completed ballots.
Find a nearby drop box or voting location at CAEarlyVoting.sos.ca.gov
2 Vote early.
If you visit a voting location in person, go before Election Day to help with
physical distancing. One or more voting locations in many counties will be open
for at least four days beginning the Saturday before Election Day.
Follow safety procedures.
Protect your health and the health of other voters and election workers at voting
locations by taking the following precautions:
1
3
VOTING LOCATION SAFETY CHECKLIST
Wear a face covering while at the voting location.
Keep 2 arms’ length distance from other people.
Wash hands before and after entering the voting location.
Use hand sanitizer after touching doors or voting equipment.
Bring a ballpoint pen to avoid touching high-contact surfaces.
Want more information about how to stay safe while voting?
Review Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines at
www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/election-polling-locations.html
Voters who can vote by mail will help ensure safe physical distancing at voting locations.
County elections offces will begin sending vote-by-mail ballots to California voters beginning
October 5, 2020. Ballots returned by mail must be postmarked by November 3, 2020; ballots
returned at a secure ballot drop box must be deposited by 8:00 p.m. on November 3, 2020.
2
VOTE SAFE with Your Vote-By-Mail Ballot
All California voters will receive a vote-by-mail ballot for the November 3, 2020, election. Your
county elections offce will begin mailing ballots, similar to the one pictured below, beginning
October 5, 2020.
Vote-by-mail
Offcial ballot
Vota por correo
Boleta ofcial
Franklin County Elections Department 4321 Franklin Avenue Franklin, HN 99999-1234
RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED
OFFICIAL VOTE-BY-MAIL BALLOT MATERIAL
Valentina Q. Voter
5678 Seventh Ave, Apt 9863 Franklin, HN 99999 –1278
Voting by mail is SAFE and EASY.
After marking your choices on your ballot, simply:
Seal it.
Secure your ballot inside the envelope from your county elections offce.
Sign it.
Make sure the signature on your ballot envelope matches the one on your CA driver
license/state ID, or the one you provided when registering. Your county elections offce
will compare them to protect your vote.
Track it.
You can sign up at wheresmyballot.sos.ca.gov for alerts by text (SMS),
email, or voice call on the status of your vote-by-mail ballot.
Return it.
By mail—Make sure your
ballot is postmarked by
November 3, 2020.
No stamp required!
In person—Drop your ballot off at a
secure drop box, polling place, vote
center, or county elections offce by
8:00 p.m. on November 3, 2020.
OR
Voters who can vote by mail will help ensure safe physical distancing at voting locations. Voting
locations will be available in all counties before Election Day. Voting locations will offer voter
registration, replacement ballots, accessible voting machines, and language assistance.
3
VOTER BILL OF RIGHTS
YOU HAVE THE FOLLOWING RIGHTS:
1 The right to vote if you are a registered
voter. You are eligible to vote if you are:
•a U.S. citizen living in California
•at least 18 years old
•registered where you currently live
•not currently in state or federal prison or
on parole for the conviction of a felony
•not currently found mentally incompetent
to vote by a court
2 The right to vote if you are a registered
voter even if your name is not on the
list. You will vote using a provisional
ballot. Your vote will be counted if
elections offcials determine that you
are eligible to vote.
3
4
5
The right to vote if you are still in line
when the polls close.
The right to cast a secret ballot without
anyone bothering you or telling you how
to vote.
The right to get a new ballot if you
have made a mistake, if you have not
already cast your ballot. You can:
Ask an elections offcial at a polling place
for a new ballot,
Exchange your vote-by-mail ballot for a
new one at an elections offce or at your
polling place, or
Vote using a provisional ballot.
6
7
8
9
10
The right to get help casting your ballot
from anyone you choose, except from
your employer or union representative.
The right to drop off your completed
vote-by-mail ballot at any polling place
in California.
The right to get election materials in a
language other than English if enough
people in your voting precinct speak
that language.
The right to ask questions to elections
offcials about election procedures
and watch the election process. If the
person you ask cannot answer your
questions, they must send you to the
right person for an answer. If you are
disruptive, they can stop answering you.
The right to report any illegal or
fraudulent election activity to an
elections offcial or the Secretary of
State’s offce.
On the web at www.sos.ca.gov
✆By phone at (800) 345-VOTE (8683)
By email at elections@sos.ca.gov
IF YOU BELIEVE YOU HAVE BEEN DENIED ANY OF THESE RIGHTS, CALL THE SECRETARY OF STATE’S
CONFIDENTIAL TOLL-FREE VOTER HOTLINE AT (800) 345-VOTE (8683).
4
7
PAGE TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK REFERENCE GUIDE
PROPOSITIONS
14 Authorizes Bonds Continuing Stem Cell Research. Initiative Statute.16
15 Increases Funding Sources for Public Schools, Community Colleges, and Local Government Services by
Changing Tax Assessment of Commercial and Industrial Property. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. 22
16 Allows Diversity as a Factor in Public Employment, Education, and Contracting Decisions.
Legislative Constitutional Amendment. 26
17 Restores Right to Vote After Completion of Prison Term. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.30
18 Amends California Constitution to Permit 17-Year-Olds to Vote in Primary and Special Elections
If They Will Turn 18 by the Next General Election and Be Otherwise Eligible to Vote.
Legislative Constitutional Amendment. 34
19 Changes Certain Property Tax Rules. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.38
20 Restricts Parole for Certain Offenses Currently Considered to Be Non-Violent. Authorizes Felony
Sentences for Certain Offenses Currently Treated Only as Misdemeanors. Initiative Statute. 44
21 Expands Local Governments’ Authority to Enact Rent Control on Residential Property. Initiative Statute.52
22 Exempts App-Based Transportation and Delivery Companies From Providing Employee Benefts to
Certain Drivers. Initiative Statute. 56
23 Establishes State Requirements for Kidney Dialysis Clinics. Requires On-Site Medical Professional.
Initiative Statute. 60
24 Amends Consumer Privacy Laws. Initiative Statute.66
25 Referendum on Law That Replaced Money Bail With System Based on Public Safety and Flight Risk.72
OVERVIEW OF STATE BOND DEBT
TEXT OF PROPOSED BOND
VOTER INFORMATION
Vote Safe at Early Voting Locations 2 Voter Registration Privacy Information 82
Vote Safe With Your Vote-by-Mail Ballot 3 Pre-register at Sixteen 82
Voter Bill of Rights 4 Election Results 83
Find Your Polling Place 5 How to Vote by Mail 83
Letter From the Secretary of State 6 Assistance for Voters With Disabilities 84
Census 2020 14 Frequently Asked Questions 85
Where’s My Ballot? 15 Check Your Voter Status 88
Presidential Candidate Statements 80 Text of Proposed Laws Notice 109
Elections in California 80 County Elections Offces 110
Top Contributors to Ballot Measures 81 Dates to Remember 111
Voter Registration 82
Find Your Polling Place or a Vote Center
Polling places and vote centers are established by county elections offcials. Look for your polling place address or vote center
locations in the county Voter Information Guide that you receive in the mail a few weeks before Election Day.
You may also visit the Secretary of State’s website at vote.ca.gov or call the toll-free Voter Hotline at (800) 345-VOTE (8683).
You can also text Vote to GOVOTE (468683) to fnd the location of your polling place.
If you live in Amador, Butte, Calaveras, El Dorado, Fresno, Los Angeles, Madera, Mariposa, Napa, Nevada, Orange, Sacramento, San Mateo, Santa Clara, or Tuolumne County, you can vote in any vote center in your county. Visit voterschoice.sos.ca.gov for more information.
78
89
5
Secretary of State
Dear Fellow Californian,
Free and fair elections are the foundation of American democracy. Throughout
our nation’s history, we have held elections during times of peace and times
of war, during good economic times and during recessions, and even
prior pandemics.
In 2020, California elections offcials are rising to meet the challenge of
COVID-19.
•Every registered voter will receive a vote-by-mail ballot.
•Every registered voter can sign up to receive vote-by-mail ballot tracking by
text (SMS), email, or voice call.
•Extra sanitation methods and social distancing measures will be in place
at all voting locations.
You can visit vote.ca.gov for more helpful information and tools for this year’s
election.
If you have any questions about voter registration or casting your ballot
this fall, you can contact the Secretary of State’s offce by calling
toll-free (800) 345-VOTE (8683).
As Secretary of State, my mission is to help every citizen vote safely and
securely — but I need your help.
Due to COVID-19, there may be fewer in-person voting locations in your county
than normal. You can help your community by voting early this year, either by
mail or in person. Smaller crowds and shorter lines on Election Day will help
elections offcials maintain healthier voting locations and allow poll workers
to better serve voters who need assistance — including our neighbors with
disabilities, those who need assistance in another language, or those who
need a replacement ballot.
Please make a plan now for casting your ballot this fall. The participation of
citizens — like you — is what makes our democracy so resilient.
6
★ ★ ★ ★ ★QUICK REFERENCE GUIDE ★ ★ ★ ★ ★
California General Election Tuesday, November 3, 2020
Polls Are Open From 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Election Day!
Pull out this Reference
Guide and take it with
you to the polls!
This pull-out reference guide
contains summary and contact
information for each state
proposition appearing on the
November 3, 2020, ballot.
Special Notice
•Polls are open from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Election Day.
•Instructions on how to vote can be obtained from a poll worker
or by reading your county Voter Information Guide.
•New voters may be asked to provide identifcation or other
documentation according to federal law. You have the right
to cast a provisional ballot, even if you do not provide the
documentation.
•Only eligible voters can vote.
•It is against the law to tamper with voting equipment.
Quick Reference Guide | 7
QUICK REFERENCE GUIDE
INCREASES FUNDING SOURCES FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS,PROP PROP COMMUNITY COLLEGES, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES BYAUTHORIZES BONDS CONTINUING14 CHANGING TAX ASSESSMENT OF COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL STEM CELL RESEARCH. INITIATIVE STATUTE. 15 PROPERTY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
SUMMARY Put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures
Authorizes $5.5 billion state bonds for: stem cell and other medical research, including training; research facility construction; administrative costs. Dedicates $1.5 billion to brain-related diseases. Appropriates General Fund moneys for repayment. Expands related programs. Fiscal Impact: Increased state costs to repay bonds estimated at about $260 million per year over the next roughly 30 years.
WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS YES A YES vote on this NO A NO vote onmeasure means: this measure means: The state could sell The state could not sell $5.5 billion in general $5.5 billion in general obligation bonds primarily for obligation bonds primarily for stem cell research and the stem cell research and the development of new medical development of new medical treatments in California. treatments in California.
ARGUMENTS PRO Prop. 14 funds CON No on Prop. 14.further development Would commit of treatments and cures for $7.8 billion we cannot afford chronic, life-threatening during this economic and diseases like Cancer, budget crisis. Funds a state Alzheimer’s, Heart Disease, agency with management Diabetes, Parkinson's, challenges and poor results Kidney Disease. Builds on after $3 billion already spent. 2,900 medical discoveries; Servicing debt of Prop. 14 increases patient access & could increase pressure for affordability; stimulates higher taxes or layoffs of California’s economy; ensures nurses, frst responders and strict accountability. Doctors, other public employees. Nobel Prize Scientists, over 70 leading Patient Advocate Organizations, urge YES on 14.
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
FOR AGAINST YES on 14: Californians for John Seiler Stem Cell Research, P.O. Box 25683 Treatments and Cures Santa Ana, CA 92799 P.O. Box 20368 (714) 376-0109Stanford, CA 94309 writejohnseiler@gmail.com(888) 307-3550YESon14@CAforCures.comwww.YESon14.com
SUMMARY Put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures
Taxes such properties based on current market value, instead of purchase price. Fiscal Impact: Increased property taxes on commercial properties worth more than $3 million providing $6.5 billion to $11.5 billion in new funding to local governments and schools.
WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS YES A YES vote on this NO A NO vote on thismeasure means: measure means: Property taxes on most Property taxes on commercial commercial properties worth properties would stay the more than $3 million would go same. Local governments up in order to provide new and schools would not get funding to local governments new funding. and schools.
ARGUMENTS PRO Prop. 15 is a fair CON Prop 15 is aand balanced reform $12.5 billion that: closes property tax property tax increase that loopholes beneftting wealthy raises our cost of living and corporations, cuts taxes for makes everything we buy - small businesses, protects food, gas, utilities, day care homeowners and renters, and health care - more requires full transparency and expensive. Prop 15 repeals reclaims billions of dollars for taxpayer protections in schools and local Prop 13. NO on Prop 15! communities. Supported by nurses, teachers, small business owners, affordable housing advocates and community organizations.
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
FOR AGAINST Tracy Zeluff No on Prop 15—Stop Higher Schools and Communities Property Taxes and Save First—Yes on Prop 15 Prop 13 731 South Spring St. (916) 538-0376Los Angeles, CA 90014 info@NOonProp15.org(213) 935-8009 www.NOonProp15.orginfo@schoolsandcommunitiesfrst.org yes15.org
8 | Quick Reference Guide
QUICK REFERENCE GUIDE
PROP ALLOWS DIVERSITY AS A FACTOR IN PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT, PROP RESTORES RIGHT TO VOTE AFTER COMPLETION OF PRISON TERM.16 EDUCATION, AND CONTRACTING DECISIONS. 17 LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
SUMMARY Put on the Ballot by the Legislature
Permits government decision-making policies to consider race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in order to address diversity by repealing constitutional provision prohibiting such policies. Fiscal Impact: No direct fscal effect on state and local entities. The effects of the measure depend on the future choices of state and local government entities and are highly uncertain.
WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS YES A YES vote on this NO A NO vote on thismeasure means: measure means: State and local entities could The current ban on the consider race, sex, color, consideration of race, sex, ethnicity, and national origin color, ethnicity, and national in public education, public origin in public education, employment, and public public employment, and public contracting to the extent contracting would remain in allowed under federal and effect. state law.
ARGUMENTS PRO Prop. 16 expands CON Politicians wantequal opportunity to strip our to all Californians, increasing Constitution of its prohibition access to fair wages, good on discrimination and jobs, and quality schools for preferential treatment based everyone. Prop. 16 fghts on race, sex, color, ethnicity or wage discrimination and national origin. They want to systemic racism, opening up play favorites. If there’s opportunities for women and anything that should be people of color. Supported by fundamental in our society it’s League of Women Voters of that the state should treat all California, California Californians equally. VOTE NO. Federation of Teachers, Minority Business Consortium, and state higher education leaders. Vote YesOnProp16.org
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
FOR AGAINST Yes on 16, Opportunity for Ward Connerly, President All Coalition Gail Heriot and 1901 Harrison Street, Manuel Klausner, Co-chairs Suite 1550 Californians for Equal Rights Oakland, CA 94612 No on 16 (323) 347-1789 P.O. Box 26935 info@voteyesonprop16.org San Diego, CA 92196 VoteYesOnProp16.org info@californiansforequalrights.org https://californiansforequalrights.org/
SUMMARY Put on the Ballot by the Legislature
Restores voting rights upon completion of prison term to persons who have been disqualifed from voting while serving a prison term. Fiscal Impact: Annual county costs, likely in the hundreds of thousands of dollars statewide, for voter registration and ballot materials. One-time state costs, likely in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, for voter registration cards and systems.
WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS YES A YES vote on this NO A NO vote on thismeasure means: measure means: People on state parole who People on state parole would are U.S. citizens, residents continue to be unable to vote of California, and at least in California. 18 years of age would be able to vote, if they register to vote.
ARGUMENTS PRO Prop. 17 restores a CON Vote NO oncitizen’s right to Proposition 17 vote after they fnish their because it: • Amends prison term—aligning California’s Constitution to California with other states. A grant violent criminals the recent parole commission right to vote before completing report found that citizens who their sentence including complete their prison terms parole. • Allows criminals and have their voting rights convicted of murder, rape and restored are less likely to child molestation to vote commit future crimes. before paying their debt to Yes on Prop. 17. society. • Denies justice to crime victims.
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
FOR AGAINST Dana Williamson Ruth Weiss Free the Vote, Yes on Prop. 17 Election Integrity Project 1787 Tribute Road, Suite K California Sacramento, CA 95815 27943 Seco Canyon Rd. #521 (916) 382-4686 Santa Clarita, CA 91350 YesonProp17@gmail.com ruthweiss@eip-ca.com Yeson17.vote www.eip-ca.com
Quick Reference Guide | 9
QUICK REFERENCE GUIDE
AMENDS CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION TO PERMIT 17-YEAR-OLDS PROP PROPTO VOTE IN PRIMARY AND SPECIAL ELECTIONS IF THEY WILL CHANGES CERTAIN PROPERTY TAX RULES. TURN 18 BY THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION AND BE OTHERWISE18 19 LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. ELIGIBLE TO VOTE. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
SUMMARY Put on the Ballot by the Legislature
Fiscal Impact: Increased statewide county costs likely between several hundreds of thousands of dollars and $1 million every two years. Increased one-time costs to the state of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS YES A YES vote on this NO A NO vote on this measure means: measure means: Eligible 17-year-olds who will No one younger than 18 years be 18 years old by the time of of age may vote in any the next general election may election. vote in the primary election and any special elections preceding the general election.
ARGUMENTS PRO Proposition 18 will CON Science and legal allow frst-time consistency demand voters to participate in a full a NO vote on Proposition 18. election cycle provided that Law prohibits younger teens they are 18 by the time of the from smoking, drinking and general election. This measure even tanning because research is needed to boost youth civic shows the logic and reasoning engagement in our elections area of their brains is not fully and help create more lifelong developed. Those abilities are participants in the most vital to responsible voting. We fundamental process of must not lower the voting age. democracy.
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
FOR AGAINST Assemblymember Kevin Mullin Ruth Weiss info@caprop18.com Election Integrity Project CAprop18.com California 27943 Seco Canyon Rd. #521 Santa Clarita, CA 91350 (661) 313-5251 info@eip-ca.com www.eip-ca.com
SUMMARY Put on the Ballot by the Legislature
Allows homeowners who are over 55, disabled, or wildfre/ disaster victims to transfer primary residence’s tax base to replacement residence. Changes taxation of family-property transfers. Establishes fre protection services fund. Fiscal Impact: Local governments could gain tens of millions of dollars of property tax revenue per year, probably growing over time to a few hundred million dollars per year. Schools could receive similar property tax gains.
WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS YES A YES vote on this NO A NO vote on this measure means: measure means: All homeowners who are over Some homeowners who are 55 (or who meet other over 55 (or who meet other qualifcations) would be qualifcations) would continue eligible for property tax to be eligible for property tax savings when they move. savings when they move. All Only inherited properties used inherited properties would as primary homes or farms continue to be eligible for would be eligible for property property tax savings. tax savings.
ARGUMENTS PRO Prop. 19 Limits CON Proposition 19 is a Taxes on Seniors, billion-dollar tax Severely Disabled increase on families. It takes Homeowners, and Wildfre away one of the best tools Victims; CLOSES unfair tax parents have to help their loopholes used by wealthy children—the right, enshrined out-of-state investors; and in California’s Constitution PROTECTS Prop. 13 savings. since 1986, to pass their Join Disability Rights and home and other property on Senior/Housing Advocates, without any increase in Firefghters, Emergency property taxes. Medical Responders, Business VOTE NO ON 19. & Labor, Democrats & Republicans. Get the Facts at YESon19.vote.
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
FOR AGAINST Yes on 19 Howard Jarvis Taxpayers (916) 492-5210 Association info@Yeson19.vote 921 11th St #1201 www.Yeson19.vote. Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 444-9950 (213) 384-9656 info@hjta.org www.HJTA.org
10 | Quick Reference Guide
QUICK REFERENCE GUIDE
RESTRICTS PAROLE FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES CURRENTLY PROP EXPANDS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS’ AUTHORITY TOPROP CONSIDERED TO BE NON-VIOLENT. AUTHORIZES FELONY 20 ENACT RENT CONTROL ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. SENTENCES FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES CURRENTLY TREATED 21 INITIATIVE STATUTE. ONLY AS MISDEMEANORS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
SUMMARY Put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures
Limits access to parole program established for non-violent offenders who have completed the full term of their primary offense by eliminating eligibility for certain offenses. Fiscal Impact: Increase in state and local correctional, court, and law enforcement costs likely in the tens of millions of dollars annually, depending on implementation.
WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS YES A YES vote on this NO A NO vote on this measure means: measure means: People who commit certain Penalties for people who theft-related crimes (such as commit certain theft-related repeat shoplifting) could crimes would not be increased. receive increased penalties There would be no change to (such as longer jail terms). the state’s process for Additional factors would be releasing certain inmates from considered for the state’s prison early. Law enforcement process for releasing certain would continue to be required inmates from prison early. Law to collect DNA samples from enforcement would be required adults only if they are arrested to collect DNA samples from for a felony or required to adults convicted of certain register as sex offenders or misdemeanors. arsonists.
ARGUMENTS PRO Proposition 20 CON Prop. 20 is a prison closes a loophole in spending scam. the law that now allows California already has severe convicted child molesters, and lengthy sentences— sexual predators and others including life in prison—for convicted of violent crimes to serious and violent crimes. be released from prison early. Prison special interests want Proposition 20 also expands to scare you into spending DNA collection to help solve tens of millions on prisons rapes, murders and other which could force draconian serious crimes, and cuts to rehabilitation, schools, strengthens sanctions against mental health, and habitual thieves who steal homelessness. repeatedly.
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
FOR AGAINST Nina Salarno Besselman, Dana Williamson Proponent Stop the Prison Spending Yes on 20—Keep California Scam, No on Prop 20 Safe 1787 Tribute Road, Suite K YesOn20.org Sacramento, CA 95815 (916) 382-4686 NoOnProp20@gmail.com NoProp20.vote
SUMMARY Put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures
Allows local governments to establish rent control on residential properties over 15 years old. Local limits on rate increases may differ from statewide limit. Fiscal Impact: Overall, a potential reduction in state and local revenues in the high tens of millions of dollars per year over time. Depending on actions by local communities, revenue losses could be less or more.
WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS YES A YES vote on this NO A NO vote on this measure means: measure means: State law would allow cities State law would maintain and counties to apply more current limits on rent control kinds of rent control to more laws cities and counties can properties than under current apply. law.
ARGUMENTS PRO Proposition 21 is CON Prop. 21 will make the change we need Califonia’s housing to tackle homelessness. A YES crisis worse. Prop. 21 Vote on Proposition 21 is a undermines the strongest vote to keep families in their statewide rent control law in homes. A strong coalition of the nation, costs jobs, reduces elected leaders; affordable home values, stops new housing providers; and senior, housing from being built, and veteran, and homeless eliminates homeowner advocates agree that protections while providing no Proposition 21 will help protections for renters, prevent homelessness. seniors, veterans or the disabled.
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
FOR AGAINST Yes on 21—Renters and info@noonprop21.vote Homeowners United to Keep https://noonprop21.vote/ Families in Their Homes 6500 Sunset Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90028 (323) 962-0140 contact@YesOn21CA.org www.YesOn21CA.org
Quick Reference Guide | 11
QUICK REFERENCE GUIDE
PROP ESTABLISHES STATE REQUIREMENTS FOR KIDNEY DIALYSIS PROP EXEMPTS APP-BASED TRANSPORTATION AND DELIVERY COMPANIES FROM PROVIDING EMPLOYEE BENEFITS TO CERTAIN DRIVERS. CLINICS. REQUIRES ON-SITE MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL.22 INITIATIVE STATUTE. 23 INITIATIVE STATUTE.
SUMMARY Put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures
Classifes app-based drivers as “independent contractors,” instead of “employees,” and provides independent-contractor drivers other compensation, unless certain criteria are met. Fiscal Impact: Minor increase in state income taxes paid by rideshare and delivery company drivers and investors.
WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS YES A YES vote on this NO A NO vote on this measure means: measure means: App-based rideshare and App-based rideshare and delivery companies could hire delivery companies would have drivers as independent to hire drivers as employees if contractors. Drivers could the courts say that a recent decide when, where, and how state law makes drivers much to work but would not employees. Drivers would have get standard benefts and less choice about when, protections that businesses where, and how much to work must provide employees. but would get standard benefts and protections that businesses must provide employees.
ARGUMENTS PRO Yes on 22 CON No on 22 stops PROTECTS app-billion-dollar app based drivers’ choice to be companies like Uber, Lyft, and independent contractors—by DoorDash from writing their 4:1 margin drivers support own exemption to California independence! • SAVES law and profting from it. 22 rideshare, delivery services denies their drivers rights and & hundreds of thousands of safety protections they jobs • PROVIDES drivers new deserve: sick leave, healthcare benefts, earnings and unemployment. guarantee • STRENGTHENS Companies proft; exploited public safety • ENDORSED by drivers lose rights and overwhelming majority of protections. Vote NO. drivers, community, public safety, small business groups • VoteYesProp22.com
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
FOR AGAINST Yes on 22—Save App-Based No on Prop 22, Slam the Jobs & Services Brakes on Uber, Lyft and (877) 581-8711 DoorDash info@protectdriversandservices.com 600 Grand Avenue #410 www.VoteYesProp22.com Oakland, CA 94610 (213) 537-4863 info@nooncaprop22.com nooncaprop22.com
SUMMARY Put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures
Requires physician, nurse practitioner or physician assistant on site during dialysis treatment. Prohibits clinics from reducing services without state approval. Prohibits clinics from refusing to treat patients based on payment source. Fiscal Impact: Increased state and local government costs likely in the low tens of millions of dollars annually.
WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS YES A YES vote on this NO A NO vote on this measure means: measure means: Chronic dialysis clinics would Chronic dialysis clinics would be required to have a doctor not be required to have a on-site during all patient doctor on-site during all treatment hours. patient treatment hours.
ARGUMENTS PRO Combats poor CON American Nurses hygiene in dialysis Association\ clinics by requiring infection California, California Medical reporting. Improves staffng, Association, patient advocates including requiring a doctor in strongly urge NO on 23! clinics during treatment. Stops Prop. 23 would force many discrimination based on community dialysis clinics to patients’ insurance. Applies shut down—threatening the improvements to ALL clinics, lives of 80,000 California whether in wealthy patients who need dialysis to neighborhoods or poor, rural, survive. Prop. 23 increases Black or Brown communities. health care costs by hundreds Patients, healthcare of millions annually; makes our professionals, veterans, faith doctor shortage and ER leaders agree: overcrowding worse. YesOnProp23.com NoProposition23.com
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
FOR AGAINST Yes on Prop 23: Better Care No on 23—Stop the for Dialysis Patients Dangerous & Costly Dialysis (888) 251-5367 Proposition info@YesOnProp23.com (888) 424-0650 www.YesOnProp23.com info@NoProposition23.com www.NoProposition23.com
12 | Quick Reference Guide
QUICK REFERENCE GUIDE
PROP REFERENDUM ON LAW THAT REPLACED PROP AMENDS CONSUMER PRIVACY LAWS. 24 MONEY BAIL WITH SYSTEM BASED ONINITIATIVE STATUTE. 25 PUBLIC SAFETY AND FLIGHT RISK.
SUMMARY Put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures
Permits consumers to: prevent businesses from sharing personal information, correct inaccurate personal information, and limit businesses’ use of “sensitive personal information,” including precise geolocation, race, ethnicity, and health information. Establishes California Privacy Protection Agency. Fiscal Impact: Increased annual state costs of at least $10 million, but unlikely exceeding low tens of millions of dollars, to enforce expanded consumer privacy laws. Some costs would be offset by penalties for violating these laws.
WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS YES A YES vote on this NO A NO vote on this measure means: measure means: Existing consumer data privacy Businesses would continue to laws and rights would be be required to follow existing expanded. Businesses required consumer data privacy laws. to meet privacy requirements Consumers would continue to would change. A new state have existing data privacy agency and the state’s rights. The state’s Department Department of Justice would of Justice would continue to share responsibility for oversee and enforce these overseeing and enforcing state laws. consumer privacy laws.
ARGUMENTS PRO YES ON PROP. 24 CON Proposition 24 TO STRENGTHEN reduces your PRIVACY RIGHTS privacy rights in California. Parents, Common Sense Proposition 24 allows “pay for Media, the California NAACP privacy” schemes, makes and a Nobel Prize winning workers wait years to learn economist say vote YES on what confdential information PROP. 24. Make privacy laws employers collect on them, stronger! Protect kids online! and makes it harder to stop Strengthen privacy laws and tech giants from selling your hold corporations accountable information. Proposition 24 when they violate your was written behind closed fundamental rights. YES ON doors with input from social PROP. 24! media corporations.
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
FOR AGAINST Robin Swanson Californians For Real Privacy Californians for Consumer CaliforniansForRealPrivacy.org Privacy mail@RealPrivacyNoOn24.org 1020 16th Street #31 (415) 634-0335 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 440-0424 info@caprivacy.org www.caprivacy.org
SUMMARY Put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures
A “Yes” vote approves, and a “No” vote rejects, law replacing money bail with system based on public safety and fight risk. Fiscal Impact: Increased costs possibly in mid hundreds of millions of dollars annually for a new process for release from jail prior to trial. Decreased county jail costs, possibly in high tens of millions of dollars annually.
WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS YES A YES vote on this NO A NO vote on this measure means: measure means: No one would pay bail to be Some people would continue released from jail before trial. to pay bail to be released from Instead, people would either jail before trial. Other people be released automatically or could continue to be released based on their assessed risk without paying bail. Fees may of committing another crime continue to be charged as a or not appearing in court if condition of release. released. No one would be charged fees as a condition of release.
ARGUMENTS PRO Yes on 25 replaces CON Prop. 25 was money bail with a written by fairer, safer and less costly Sacramento politicians to take process. Currently, if a person away every Californian’s option can afford to pay a bail bond to post bail and replaces this company, they go free until right with a new trial. If they can’t afford to DISCRIMINATORY system of pay, even if they’re innocent, computer-generated they stay in jail. That’s blatant PROFILING administered by discrimination. Vote YES. government bureaucrats— costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Prop. 25 is unfair, unsafe and costly. Vote NO on Prop. 25.
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
FOR AGAINST Yes on Prop. 25, End Money No on Prop. 25—Stop the Bail Unfair, Unsafe and Costly 1130 K Street, Suite 300 Ballot Proposition Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 209-0144 (213) 373-5225 info@stopprop25.com info@yesoncaprop25.com StopProp25.com yesoncaprop25.com
Quick Reference Guide | 13
BE COUNTED,
CALIFORNIA
CENSUS 2020
Complete the
2020 Census
Today!
Taking just a few minutes to answer the 9 simple questions helps
determine dollars that fund important programs for the next 10 years.
The Census provides billions of dollars to help support
key community services, including:
HEALTHCARE FACILITIES & CHILDREN’S NUTRITIONAL HOUSING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
EMERGENCY SERVICES PROGRAMS EDUCATION PROGRAMS & JOBS CREATION
Californians can help achieve a complete
count by participating in one of three ways:
BY MAIL ONLINE AT BY PHONE AT Complete and return my2020census.gov 844-330-2020 your Census form!
All communities deserve the opportunity to
thrive and provide for their families.
Complete the Census before September 30, 2020.
Your 2020 Census data is safe, protected, and confdential.
CaliforniaCensus.org @CACensus
14
The California Secretary of State is now offering voters a new way to track and receive
notifcations on the status of their vote-by-mail ballot. The “Where’s My Ballot?” tool
lets voters know where their ballot is, and its status, every step of the way. Sign up at
WheresMyBallot.sos.ca.gov.
When you sign up for “Where’s My Ballot?” you will receive automatic updates when
your county elections offce:
• Mails your ballot,
• Receives your ballot,
• Counts your ballot, or
• If there are any issues with your ballot.
Voters who sign up at WheresMyBallot.sos.ca.gov can choose to receive automatic
updates by:
• Email
• Text Message (SMS)
• Voice Call
Tracking your ballot
—when it is mailed, received, and counted —
has never been easier.
WheresMyBallot.sos.ca.gov
15
14
PROPOSITION
14 AUTHORIZES BONDS CONTINUING
STEM CELL RESEARCH.
INITIATIVE STATUTE.
OFFICIAL TITLE AND SUMMARY PREPARED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
The text of this measure can be found on page 89 and the Secretary of State’s website at
voterguide.sos.ca.gov.
• Authorizes $5.5 billion in state general
obligation bonds to fund grants from
the California Institute of Regenerative
Medicine to educational, nonprofit, and
private entities for: stem cell and other
medical research, including training; stem
cell therapy development and delivery;
research facility construction; and
associated administrative expenses.
• Dedicates $1.5 billion to research and
therapy for Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s,
stroke, epilepsy, and other brain and
central nervous system diseases and
conditions.
• Appropriates General Fund moneys to pay
bond debt service.
• Expands programs promoting stem cell
and other medical research, therapy
development and delivery, and student and
physician training and fellowships.
SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S ESTIMATE
OF NET STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
FISCAL IMPACT:
• Increased state costs to repay bonds
estimated at about $260 million per year
over the next roughly 30 years.
Summary of State Costs
New Borrowing
Principal $5.5 billion
Interest 2.3 billion
Total Estimated Cost $7.8 billion
Payments
Average annual cost $260 million
Assumed payment period 30 years
Source of payments Primarily General Fund
tax revenue
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
BACKGROUND
Researchers Use Stem Cells to Study and
Treat Many Diseases. Stem cells are certain
types of cells that exist within humans.
Researchers are interested in stem cells for
their potential to regenerate cells, tissues,
and organs, thereby potentially helping to
treat or cure certain diseases. Researchers
engaged in “regenerative medicine” are
focused on addressing many diseases,
including Alzheimer’s disease, HIV/AIDS,
stroke, diabetes, and cancer.
Voters Approved Earlier Stem Cell Ballot
Measure. In 2004, voters approved
Proposition 71, which added a provision to
the State Constitution affirming the right of
researchers in California to conduct stem
cell research. The measure also created
the California Institute for Regenerative
Medicine (CIRM), primarily for the purpose
of providing grants to universities and other
entities in California to support stem cell
research, development of new treatments,
clinical trials, new research facilities,
and other related activities. The measure
also established (1) a governing board to
adopt CIRM policies and allocate grant
funds, (2) three advisory working groups to
help guide the governing board on certain
matters, and (3) an independent oversight
committee to review CIRM’s finances.
16 | Title and Summary / Analysis
PROPOSITIONAUTHORIZES BONDS CONTINUING
STEM CELL RESEARCH.
INITIATIVE STATUTE. 14 14
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
Measure Allowed State to Issue General
Obligation Bonds. Proposition 71 allowed the
state to sell $3 billion in general obligation
bonds, which are a form of borrowing. The
state sold the bonds to investors, and the
money generated from these sales funded
CIRM grants and operations. After selling
bonds, the state has been repaying investors
with interest over many years. As is typically
the case with these kinds of bonds, the state
has made most debt payments from the
General Fund—the state’s main operating
account, which pays for education, prisons,
health care, and other public services. The
measure required that a small amount of
interest be paid by funds from the bond
sales. (For more information on the state’s
use of bonds, see “Overview of State Bond
Debt” later in this guide.)
CONTINUED
Grants Have Funded Several Purposes.
Figure 1 shows how CIRM has used its grant
funding. Funded projects have involved
conducting basic science research (such
as laboratory research on stem cells),
developing potential treatments, and
undertaking clinical trials. Grant funds also
have supported other activities, including
construction of new research facilities and
research internships for college students.
The University of California has received
the greatest amount of grant funding,
followed by private nonprofit universities and
institutions (such as Stanford University).
In addition to receiving a grant from CIRM,
many grant recipients receive additional
funding from other sources for their projects.
Other common fund sources are industry
$2.7 Billion Awarded Since 2004
Summary of Proposition 71 Stem Cell Grants
Figure 1
Basic
Research
Development
and Clinical
Testing of
New Treatments
Education
Initiatives
Facilities
and Other
Infrastructure
By Program
University of
California and
Other Public
Entities
Private
Nonprofit
Institutions
For-Profit Entities
By Recipient
For the full text of Proposition 14 see page 89. Analysis | 17
14
PROPOSITION
14 AUTHORIZES BONDS CONTINUING
STEM CELL RESEARCH.
INITIATIVE STATUTE.
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
contributions, private donations, and federal
grants.
Grant Recipients Are Required to Share
Invention-Related Income With the State.
Some stem cell research can lead to
new inventions, including new medical
technologies and treatments. Proposition 71
required grant recipients who license or sell
their inventions to share a portion of the
resulting income with the state. The state’s
share of the income is deposited into the
General Fund and may be used to support
any state program. Over the years, CIRM’s
governing board has developed rules for how
income revenue is shared with the state.
The state began receiving income from
CIRM-funded inventions in 2017. To date,
these inventions have provided a total of
approximately $350,000 to the state.
CIRM Has Spent Nearly All Available Funds. As
of June 2020, CIRM had spent most of its
Proposition 71 funds. According to CIRM,
around $30 million remains available for
grants. As it nears the end of its funding,
CIRM has been decreasing its staffing. The
institute currently employs 35 full-time
staff, down from its peak of over 50 full-time
staff. It plans to maintain some staff for the
next few years as remaining projects are
completed.
PROPOSAL
Authorizes New Bonds for Stem Cell Activities.
Proposition 14 allows the state to sell
$5.5 billion in general obligation bonds. The
bonds primarily would fund additional grants
to support research and the development
of treatments (including clinical trials) for
many diseases. The proposition sets aside at
least $1.5 billion specifically to research and
develop treatments for diseases affecting
the brain and central nervous system (such
18 | Analysis
CONTINUED
as Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s
disease). The proposition directs CIRM to
allocate a small share of grant funding for
training opportunities for students at the
California State University and the California
Community Colleges, as well as a small
share for helping to establish and support
facilities focused on research and clinical
trials. For some types of grants, CIRM
would be required to ensure grant recipients
are located across the state and prioritize
applicants that offer matching funds. The
proposition allows CIRM to spend no more
than 7.5 percent of bond funds on its
administrative costs.
Establishes Certain Rules Relating to the Bonds.
The proposition limits the amount of bonds
the state could sell to $540 million per year,
thereby spreading out bond sales over at
least 11 years. For the first five years after
the proposition is approved, the state would
make interest payments using funds from the
bond sales, thereby reducing the amount of
bond funding available for research projects.
Beginning January 1, 2026, the state would
no longer use funds from bond sales to make
interest payments. Instead, the state would
make remaining debt payments from the
General Fund.
Makes Numerous Changes to CIRM. Most
notably, the proposition makes several
changes intended to improve patient access
to stem cell treatments. The proposition
allows CIRM to hire up to 15 full-time
employees specifically for developing policies
and programs relating to improving access to
and affordability of treatments for patients.
(The institute would be allowed up to
70 full-time employees for other operational
purposes.) A new advisory working group
of experts would support CIRM’s governing
board in these matters. Further, any
PROPOSITIONAUTHORIZES BONDS CONTINUING
STEM CELL RESEARCH.
INITIATIVE STATUTE. 14 14
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
invention-related revenue that is deposited
into the General Fund would be used to
help pay for patients’ regenerative medicine
treatments. Among various other changes,
the proposition also increases the number of
members on CIRM’s governing board from
29 to 35.
FISCAL EFFECTS
Total Estimated State Costs of $7.8 Billion. The
cost to repay the bonds authorized by this
proposition depends on various factors, such
as the interest rates on the bonds and the
time period over which they are repaid. We
estimate the total cost to pay off the bonds
would be $7.8 billion—$5.5 billion for the
principal and $2.3 billion for the interest.
State costs would average about $260 million
per year for about 30 years. This amount is
less than 1 percent of the state’s current
General Fund budget.
Difficult to Estimate Invention-Related Income
Available for Patients’ Treatment Costs. The
amount of revenue from new inventions that
would be available to the state for helping
to cover costs for patients’ regenerative
medicine treatments is uncertain. Many
times, research does not lead to an
invention. Also, a significant amount of time
CONTINUED
typically passes from starting a research
project to licensing or selling an associated
invention. To date, the state has collected a
few hundred thousand dollars in invention-
related income. Past revenue collections,
however, might not accurately predict future
revenue.
Other Possible Fiscal Effects. The proposition
could result in numerous indirect effects on
state and local governments. For example,
if the proposition were to result in new
treatments, state and local government costs
for some programs such as Medi-Cal, the
state’s subsidized health care program for
low-income people, could be affected. The
net fiscal impact of the indirect effects of
this proposition is unknown.
Visit http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/campaign/
measures/ for a list of committees primarily
formed to support or oppose this measure.
Visit http://www.fppc.ca.gov/
transparency/top-contributors.html
to access the committee’s top 10 contributors.
A copy of the full text of this state measure
can be found on page 89 of this guide.
For the full text of Proposition 14, see page 89. Analysis | 19
PROPOSITION
14 AUTHORIZES BONDS CONTINUING
STEM CELL RESEARCH.
INITIATIVE STATUTE.
14 + ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 14 +
PROPOSITION 14: STEM CELL TREATMENTS, CURES, AND
SAVING LIVES. Nearly half of all California families include a
child or adult with medical conditions who could benefit from
Stem Cell research, treatments, and cures.
Prop. 14 provides continued funding to develop treatments,
advance clinical trials and achieve new scientific breakthroughs
for California’s patients with Cancer, Diabetes, Heart Disease,
Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, HIV/AIDS, ALS, MS, Sickle Cell
Disease, Lung Diseases, Kidney Disease, Bubble Baby Disease,
Age-Related Blindness and Genetic Blindness, Epilepsy,
Stroke, Schizophrenia, Autism, other Mental Health and Brain
Conditions, and Infectious Diseases like COVID-19.
BUILDING ON CONTINUING SUCCESS: 92 FDA-APPROVED
CLINICAL TRIALS / 2,900 MEDICAL DISCOVERIES TO
DATE. California’s original Stem Cell funding, which runs
out this year, has already led to significant progress in the
development of treatments and cures, including 92 FDA-
approved clinical trials for chronic disease and injuries, over
2,900 medical discoveries, and demonstrated benefits for
patients and research on chronic diseases including: Cancer,
Diabetes, Heart Conditions, Blindness, HIV/AIDS, ALS,
Children with Immune Deficiencies, Paralysis, and Kidney
Disease.
SUCCESS STORIES OF CALIFORNIA PATIENTS TREATED
INCLUDE: • A high school student paralyzed in a diving
accident has regained upper body function. • A mother blinded
by a genetic disease is regaining her eyesight. • A cure was
discovered for a fatal disease that causes children to be
born without functioning immune systems. • FDA-approved
treatments for two types of fatal blood cancers. Hear from more
patients at www.YESon14.com/successes
SUPPORTED BY OVER 70 PATIENT ADVOCATE
ORGANIZATIONS. A YES vote on Prop. 14 is endorsed by
the University of California, NOBEL PRIZE WINNERS, leading
patient and medical science advocates, and more than 70
PATIENT ADVOCATE ORGANIZATIONS, including: American
Association for Cancer Research • American Diabetes
Association • Leukemia & Lymphoma Society • Juvenile
Diabetes Research Foundation • The Michael J. Fox Foundation
for Parkinson’s Research • ALS Association, Golden West
Chapter • CURE—Citizens United for Research in Epilepsy
• One Mind • Immune Deficiency Foundation • Women’s
Alzheimer’s Movement • Alzheimer’s Los Angeles • Christopher
& Dana Reeve Foundation for Paralysis • Cystic Fibrosis
Research, Inc. • Arthritis Foundation • Sickle Cell Disease
Foundation of California • Foundation for Fighting Blindness
• San Francisco AIDS Foundation
“Prop. 14 builds on California’s progress to date, helping
to accelerate medical breakthroughs out of the lab and into
clinical trials, where they can help improve and save patient
lives.”—Dr. Adriana Padilla, Fresno
INCREASES PATIENT ACCESS & AFFORDABILITY. Dedicates
“The Treatment and Cures Accessibility and Affordability
Working Group” experts to dramatically expand access to
clinical trials and new therapies, make treatments and cures
more affordable for Californians, and provide patients, their
families, and caregivers with financial assistance.
ECONOMIC AND JOBS RECOVERY STIMULUS. New
revenues, economic activity and jobs are generated by this
funding that will contribute to California’s economic recovery.
There are no State bond payments during the first five years;
and, supporting California’s Stem Cell program will only cost
the State an average of less than $5 per person annually.
ENSURES STRICT ACCOUNTABILITY &
TRANSPARENCY. California’s Controller chairs The Citizens
Financial Accountability Oversight Committee, which reviews
independent, financial, and performance audits, of the funding
Institute. The Institute complies with California’s Open Meeting
Act, Public Records Act, and Political Reform Act.
Chronic diseases, conditions and injuries are cutting lives
short, and costing Californians billions in healthcare costs. We
must continue our investment, developing Stem Cell treatments
to improve the health and reduce the suffering of millions of
Californians.
VOTE YES ON 14. IT COULD SAVE YOUR LIFE OR THE LIFE
OF SOMEONE YOU LOVE. www.YESon14.com
ANTONI RIBAS, M.D., Ph.D., President
American Association for Cancer Research
CYNTHIA E. MUÑOZ, Ph.D., MPH, President
American Diabetes Association-Los Angeles
ROBERT A. HARRINGTON, M.D., Chairman
Department of Medicine, Stanford University
+ REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 14 +
VOTE NO ON PROP. 14
HUGE COSTS
As you can see from reading the ballot argument above,
proponents are attempting to minimize the cost of this
initiative.
The total cost is actually $7.3 billion—a huge sum during this
moment of economic crisis, with soaring unemployment and
budget shortfalls.
FAILED PROMISES
Proponents are making empty promises about revenues and
jobs.
The San Francisco Chronicle examined similar promises made
to California voters years ago—and concluded the “predicted
windfall has not materialized.”
Independent experts and news outlets have questioned the
management and transparency record of the state bureaucracy
that would spend the billions authorized by Prop. 14.
Only a few federally approved therapies have resulted from the
$3 billion this state bureaucracy has spent to date.
NOT THE ANSWER
Medical research is important. We all agree there is a need to
find cures and treatments for diseases afflicting so many.
But Prop. 14 is not the answer.
The federal government and private investors are spending
billions to find cures.
The State of California taxpayer has done enough.
Vote NO on Prop. 14.
VINCENT FORTANASCE, M.D.
PATRICK JAMES BAGGOT, M.D.
20 | Arguments Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors, and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
PROPOSITIONAUTHORIZES BONDS CONTINUING
STEM CELL RESEARCH.
INITIATIVE STATUTE. 14
+ ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 14 + 14
WE CAN’T AFFORD TO WASTE BILLIONS
In the middle of an economic crisis, with soaring
unemployment and budget shortfalls in the tens of billions of
dollars, we don’t have money to burn.
We simply cannot afford the $5 billion that proponents of
Prop. 14 are asking for.
And that’s on top of the nearly $3 billion this troubled state
agency has spent over the past 15 years—with poor results.
After “an extensive analysis” of spending by the State
agency handing out billions in grants, the San Francisco
Chronicle concluded: “The predicted financial windfall has not
materialized.” Only a few federally approved therapies have
resulted.
Don’t believe the “economic impact” numbers from the
proponents of Prop. 14.
That “impact” includes:
More than $100 million in grants to private companies
headquartered in other states.
More than $2.4 million in salary over the past decade to the
part-time vice chairman of the board, a former California
legislator who is neither a doctor nor a medical scientist.
Outrageous.
PROP. 14 FUNDS A BUREAUCRACY WITH SERIOUS
PROBLEMS
Some have questioned “the integrity and independence” of the
state agency overseeing these funds.
The Little Hoover Commission branded Robert Klein, the former
chairman of the agency’s board, “a lightning rod for calls for
more accountability.”
The Center for Society and Genetics in Berkeley has concluded
that none of the flaws in the original stem cell initiative have
been addressed in Prop. 14. In fact, they conclude, the
problems are even worse.
OTHERS CAN DO THIS JOB BETTER
The National Institute of Health provides $1.5 billion a year in
grants to fund the same type of research.
Private investors and companies, including many in California,
have made great strides in using stem cells to cure diseases—
using private funds, not tax dollars.
And don’t be misled by the handful of grants this agency has
made in recent months to researchers working on COVID-19.
It’s an obvious attempt—after spending billions on other
priorities—to mislead voters in the middle of this pandemic.
PROP. 14 MEANS HIGHER TAXES, LAYOFFS—OR BOTH
Read the nearby summary, which quotes the estimate by the
nonpartisan Legislative Analyst: “State costs of $7.8 billion to
pay off principal ($5.5 billion) and interest ($2.3 billion) on
the bonds.”
Paying back Prop.14’s costs of $7.8 billion could mean huge
tax increases—at a time when our economy is on its knees.
Or laying off thousands of nurses and other heroes who do the
real work of keeping California healthy.
VOTE NO ON PROP. 14.
WE CAN’T AFFORD TO WASTE BILLIONS
VINCENT FORTANASCE, M.D.
PATRICK JAMES BAGGOT, M.D.
+ REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 14 +
Nobel Prize winning medical researchers, doctors, and
70 patient advocate organizations have studied Prop. 14 and
urge A YES VOTE.
• Stem Cell Research is a critical area of medical advancement
that is discovering therapy breakthroughs and cures for
currently incurable diseases and injuries.
• The United States National Institutes of Health (NIH)
has partnered with California’s Stem Cell Funding Institute
to advance therapies because of California’s track record of
success.
• Funding research for new therapies and cures is from bonds,
not a tax. Average cost to State equals less than $5 per person
annually, with no state payments until 2026, the 6th year of
California’s economic recovery.
• These new treatments and cures could restore health and
reduce healthcare costs for Californians.
• California funding is essential; funding from Washington, DC
is unpredictable and unreliable.
Opponents ignore years of the funding institute’s progress,
including over 2,900 medical discoveries and 92 FDA-
Approved Clinical Trials, and high marks from the Citizen’s
Financial Accountability Oversight Committee, Chaired by
California’s Controller.
ECONOMIC JOB RECOVERY STIMULUS—PROVEN HISTORY
The University of Southern California Schaeffer Center for
Health Policy & Economics issued a 2019 report validating
hundreds of millions of dollars in new revenue, $10.7 billion in
economic stimulus, and tens of thousands of new jobs, created
by California’s Stem Cell funding. This history demonstrates
Prop. 14 will provide an Economic Job Recovery Stimulus.
SUPPORTED BY 70 PATIENT ADVOCATE ORGANIZATIONS,
THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, AND SCIENTISTS,
INCLUDING: American Association for Cancer Research
• American Diabetes Association • Leukemia & Lymphoma
Society • Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation • ALS
Association, Golden West Chapter • CURE—Citizens United
for Research in Epilepsy • One Mind • Immune Deficiency
Foundation • Beyond Type I • Women’s Alzheimer’s Movement
• Alzheimer’s Los Angeles • Christopher & Dana Reeve
Foundation for Paralysis • Cystic Fibrosis Research, Inc.
• Arthritis Foundation • Sickle Cell Disease Foundation of
California • Foundation for Fighting Blindness • San Francisco
AIDS Foundation.
VOTE YES ON 14. IT COULD SAVE YOUR LIFE OR THE LIFE
OF SOMEONE YOU LOVE.
TODD SHERER, Ph.D., CEO
The Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research
LAWRENCE GOLDSTEIN, Ph.D., Distinguished Professor
Shiley—Marcos Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center,
University of California, San Diego
TRACY GRIKSCHEIT, M.D., Chief of Pediatric Surgery
Children’s Hospital Los Angeles
Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors, and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Arguments | 21
PROPOSITION INCREASES FUNDING SOURCES FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS, COMMUNITY COLLEGES, AND15 AND INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES BY CHANGING TAX ASSESSMENT OF COMMERCIAL
OFFICIAL TITLE AND SUMMARY PREPARED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
The text of this measure can be found on the Secretary of State’s website at
voterguide.sos.ca.gov.
15
• Increases funding sources for K–12 public
schools, community colleges, and local
governments by requiring commercial and
industrial real property be taxed based on
current market value, instead of purchase
price.
• Exempts from taxation changes: residential
properties; agricultural land; and owners of
commercial and industrial properties with
combined value of $3 million or less.
• Any additional education funding will
supplement existing school funding
guarantees.
• Exempts small businesses from personal
property tax; for other businesses, provides
$500,000 exemption.
SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S ESTIMATE
OF NET STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
FISCAL IMPACT:
• Increased property taxes on commercial
properties worth more than $3 million
providing $6.5 billion to $11.5 billion in new
funding to local governments and schools.
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
BACKGROUND
Local Governments Tax Property. California cities,
counties, schools, and special districts (such as
a fire protection district) collect property taxes
from property owners based on the value of their
property. Property taxes raise around $65 billion
each year for these local governments. Overall,
about 60 percent of property taxes go to cities,
counties, and special districts. The other
40 percent goes to schools and community
colleges. These shares are different in different
counties.
Property Includes Land, Buildings, Machinery,
and Equipment. Property taxes apply to many
kinds of property. Land and buildings are taxed.
Businesses also pay property taxes on most
other things they own. This includes equipment,
machinery, computers, and furniture. We call
these things “business equipment.”
How Is a Property Tax Bill Calculated? Each
property owner’s annual property tax bill is equal
to the taxable value of their property multiplied
by their property tax rate. The typical property
owner’s property tax rate is 1.1 percent.
Taxable Value of Land and Buildings Is Based on
Original Purchase Price. In the year a piece of
land or a building is purchased, its taxable value
typically is its purchase price. Each year after
that, the property’s taxable value is adjusted for
inflation by up to 2 percent. When a property
is sold again, its taxable value is reset to its
new purchase price. The taxable value of most
land and buildings is less than what they could
be sold for. This is because the price most
properties could be sold for grows faster than
2 percent per year.
Taxable Value of Business Equipment Is Based on
How Much It Could Be Sold for. Unlike land and
buildings, business equipment is taxed based on
how much it could be sold for today.
Counties Manage the Property Tax. County
assessors determine the taxable value of
property. County tax collectors bill property
owners. County auditors distribute tax revenue
to local governments. Statewide, counties spend
about $800 million each year on these activities.
PROPOSAL
Tax Commercial and Industrial Land and Buildings
Based on How Much They Could Be Sold for. The
measure requires commercial and industrial
(after this referred to simply as “commercial”)
22 | Title and Summary / Analysis
PROPOSITIONINCREASES FUNDING SOURCES FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS, COMMUNITY COLLEGES, AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES BY CHANGING TAX ASSESSMENT OF COMMERCIAL
AND INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. 15
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
land and buildings to be taxed based on how
much they could be sold for instead of their
original purchase price. This change is put in
place over time starting in 2022. The change
does not start before 2025 for properties used
by California businesses that meet certain rules
and have 50 or fewer employees. Housing and
agricultural land continues to be taxed based on
its original purchase price.
Some Lower Value Properties Not Included.
This change does not apply if the owner has
$3 million or less worth of commercial land and
buildings in California (adjusted for inflation
every two years). These properties continue to be
taxed based on original purchase price.
Reduce Taxes on Business Equipment. The
measure reduces the taxable value of each
business’s equipment by $500,000 starting
in 2024. Businesses with less than $500,000
of equipment pay no taxes on those items.
All property taxes on business equipment are
eliminated for California businesses that meet
certain rules and have 50 or fewer employees.
FISCAL EFFECTS
Increased Taxes on Commercial Land and Buildings.
Most owners of commercial land and buildings
worth more than $3 million would pay higher
property taxes. Only some of these property
owners would start to pay higher taxes in
2022. By 2025, most of these property owners
would pay higher taxes. Beginning in 2025,
total property taxes from commercial land
and buildings probably would be $8 billion to
$12.5 billion higher in most years. The value of
commercial property can change a lot from year
to year. This means the amount of increased
property taxes also could change a lot from year
to year.
Decreased Taxes on Business Equipment. Property
taxes on business equipment probably would be
several hundred million dollars lower each year.
Money Set Aside to Pay Costs of the Measure.
The measure sets aside money for various
CONTINUED
costs created by the measure. This includes
giving several hundred million dollars per year to
counties to pay for their costs of carrying out
the measure. The measure would increase the
amount of work county assessors do and could
require changes in how they do their work.
Counties could have costs from the measure
before new money is available to cover these
costs. The state would loan money to counties
to cover these initial costs until new property tax
revenue is available.
New Funding for Local Governments and Schools.
Overall, $6.5 billion to $11.5 billion per
year in new property taxes would go to local
governments. 60 percent would go to cities,
counties, and special districts. Each city,
county, or special district’s share of the money
depends on several things including the amount
of new taxes paid by commercial properties in
that community. Not all governments would be
guaranteed new money. Some in rural areas may
end up losing money because of lower taxes on
business equipment. The other 40 percent would
increase funding for schools and community
colleges. Each school or community college’s
share of the money is mostly based on how many
students they have.
Visit http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/campaign/
measures/ for a list of committees primarily
formed to support or oppose this measure.
Visit http://www.fppc.ca.gov/
transparency/top-contributors.html
to access the committee’s top 10 contributors.
If you desire a copy of the full text of this state
measure, please call the Secretary of State
at (800) 345-VOTE (8683) or you can email
vigfeedback@sos.ca.gov and a copy will
be mailed at no cost to you.
15
Analysis | 23
PROPOSITION INCREASES FUNDING SOURCES FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS, COMMUNITY COLLEGES, AND15 AND INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES BY CHANGING TAX ASSESSMENT OF COMMERCIAL
+ ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 15 +
15
We are all better off when everyone pays their fair share. But
California is giving away billions of dollars in property tax
breaks to wealthy corporations. These billions could be used
instead to deal with increasing inequality, persistent poverty,
unemployment, unaffordable housing, homelessness and
underfunded schools.
While the wealthiest corporations avoid paying their fair share,
our schools have the most crowded classrooms in the nation
and our local communities are struggling to respond to the
impact of COVID-19.
Prop. 15 is a fair and balanced reform which:
• closes property tax loopholes benefiting wealthy corporations
• cuts small business taxes
• reclaims billions of dollars to invest in our schools and local
communities.
Prop. 15 will:
Close corporate loopholes: Wealthy corporations avoid
reassessment by employing highly paid tax lawyers and
accountants to exploit loopholes in the law. Prop. 15 closes
these loopholes by requiring nonresidential commercial
properties to be assessed based on their actual fair market
value.
• The top 10% of California’s most valuable nonresidential
commercial properties account for 92% of Prop. 15’s new
revenues.
Does not impact homeowners and renters: Prop. 15 exempts
all residential properties, maintaining FULL PROP. 13
PROTECTIONS for homeowners and renters.
Cut taxes for small businesses: Prop. 15 protects small
businesses and cuts their taxes by:
• Exempting businesses operated out of a home and
businesses owning $3,000,000 or less of nonresidential
commercial property
• Cutting business personal property taxes on equipment,
computers and fixtures.
Restore balance to the property tax: Since Prop. 13 passed,
the residential share of property taxes has skyrocketed from
55% to 72% and the nonresidential commercial share has
fallen. Meanwhile we’re paying more in fees, fines and other
taxes.
Prop. 15 rebalances the scales.
Increase funding for schools and community colleges: Every
school district and community college will receive additional
funding over and above existing funding guarantees. Prop. 15
funds go directly to education and state politicians can’t take
it away.
Invest in essential workers and local services: Prop. 15
gives local communities desperately needed resources so
essential services and frontline workers can respond to current
challenges and prepare for future crises, whether from a
wildfire, pandemic, or earthquake.
Support economic and racial equity: Prop. 15 makes sure
schools with the greatest needs get the most help and gives
local communities critically needed resources to deal with the
unequal impacts of COVID-19, unemployment, and housing
costs on communities of color.
Prioritize full transparency and accountability by requiring
schools and local governments to publicly disclose all new
revenues they receive and how they are spent.
Protect agricultural land: Prop. 15 makes no change to
existing laws affecting the taxation or preservation of
agricultural land.
We can’t afford business as usual. Prop. 15 rebalances the
scales by closing loopholes and supporting our schools, local
communities and small businesses.
Prop. 15 takes a big step forward toward a better future for all
Californians. It was placed on the ballot by the signatures of
over 1,700,000 voters who want wealthy corporations to pay
their fair share.
Please add your voice to theirs: Vote Yes on Prop. 15.
TONY THURMOND, California Superintendent of Public
Instruction
JACQUELINE MARTINEZ, CEO
Latino Community Foundation
SASHA CUTTLER, Public Health Nurse
San Francisco Department of Public Health
+ REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 15 +
PROP. 15: ALL CALIFORNIANS WILL PAY FOR THE LARGEST
PROPERTY TAX INCREASE IN STATE HISTORY!
REPEALS PROP. 13 PROTECTIONS
Prop 13 limits property tax increases to 2% annually, providing
certainty to homeowners and small businesses that they can
afford their taxes in the future. Supporters of Prop 15 admit
they’ll go after Prop 13 protections for homes next - meaning
skyrocketing taxes for all homeowners!
PROP. 15: RAISES OUR COST OF LIVING AND MAKES
INCOME INEQUALITY WORSE
Billions in higher taxes will be passed on to California’s small
businesses in the form of higher rents, forcing businesses that
are barely surviving now to lay off employees and raise prices.
Higher costs for food and everyday necessities will hit all of us
and low-income families hardest. We can’t afford to raise our
cost of living.
PROP. 15: DOESN’T SOLVE OUR CURRENT BUDGET CRISIS
Prop. 15 will not solve today’s budget deficits. The nonpartisan
Legislative Analyst says most funding won’t arrive until
2025. Additionally, the California Assessors’ Association says
Prop. 15 will cost more than $1 billion to implement, meaning
deeper cuts to already stretched local government budgets.
PROP. 15: MISLEADING AND LACKS ACCOUNTABILITY
Prop. 15’s supporters say it’s about more money for education,
but nearly 70% of the tax money doesn’t even go to schools.
Politicians can even divert the local government tax money for
other purposes, just like they’re doing with the gas tax.
NO ON PROP. 15. www.NOonProp15.org
JON COUPAL, President
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
ALICE HUFFMAN, President
California State Conference of the NAACP
BETTY JO TOCCOLI, President
California Small Business Association
24 | Arguments Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors, and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
PROPOSITIONINCREASES FUNDING SOURCES FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS, COMMUNITY COLLEGES, AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES BY CHANGING TAX ASSESSMENT OF COMMERCIAL
AND INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. 15
+ ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 15 +
PROP. 15 WILL BE THE LARGEST ANNUAL PROPERTY TAX
INCREASE IN CALIFORNIA HISTORY—UP TO $12.5 BILLION
PER YEAR!
Prop. 15’s massive increase in annual property taxes will have
disastrous economic impacts for every Californian—from small
businesses and consumers to farmers and homeowners.
PROP. 15 REPEALS TAXPAYER PROTECTIONS IN PROP. 13
Prop. 13’s taxpayer protections have kept property taxes
affordable by capping property taxes and limiting increases
annually, providing taxpayers certainty they can afford their
property taxes now and into the future. Prop. 15 eliminates
that certainty for millions of taxpayers.
• “Prop. 15 is a direct threat to homeowners. Supporters of
the tax hike openly admitted that this is merely the first step in
completely dismantling Prop. 13 which voters approved to stop
skyrocketing property taxes.”—Jon Coupal, President, Howard
Jarvis Taxpayers Association
PROP. 15 RAISES OUR COST OF LIVING
Prop. 15’s tax hike will increase costs on everything people
buy, including groceries, fuel, utilities, day care and health
care.
• “Too many families have been priced out of their
neighborhoods because of the rising cost of living. Prop. 15
will raise the cost of living for California families by up to
$960 and will especially hurt lower-income communities.”
—Alice Huffman, President, California State Conference of
the NAACP
PROP. 15 DESTROYS JOBS AND SMALL BUSINESSES
Seven million Californians work for a small business. Millions
of Californians are filing for unemployment and are at risk of
losing everything. NOTHING in Prop. 15 stops the tax from
being passed on to small business tenants. Prop. 15 will make
the economic crisis worse by devastating small businesses—
including our neighborhood restaurants, barbershops, and dry
cleaners.
• “Most small businesses rent the property on which
they operate. Prop. 15’s higher property taxes will mean
skyrocketing rents at a time we can least afford it.”
—Jot Condie, President, California Restaurant Association
PROP. 15 RAISES TAXES FOR FAMILY FARMERS,
RESULTING IN HIGHER COSTS FOR FOOD
Prop. 15 will raise property taxes on farming—including barns,
dairies, processing plants and even fruit and nut trees.
• “Prop. 15 hurts family farmers and we all will end up
paying higher costs for groceries including milk, eggs and
meat.”—Jamie Johansson, President, California Farm Bureau
Federation
PROP. 15 LACKS ACCOUNTABILITY
Prop. 15 will cost taxpayers $1 billion each year in
bureaucratic expenses, and politicians can spend the higher
property tax revenue on anything they want, including
administrative costs, outside consultants and pay raises.
• “Prop. 15 allows politicians to divert its tax hike revenue to
anything the special interests want, just like they’re doing with
the gas tax.”—Marilyn Markham, Board Member, California
Senior Advocates League
INDEPENDENTS, DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS
AGREE—NO ON PROP. 15.
NOW IS NOT THE TIME TO RAISE PROPERTY TAXES IN
CALIFORNIA.
ROBERT GUTIERREZ, President
California Taxpayers Association
ALICE HUFFMAN, President
California State Conference of the NAACP
BETTY JO TOCCOLI, President
California Small Business Association
15
+ REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 15 +
Prop. 15 is a fair and balanced reform which: - Closes
property tax loopholes benefiting wealthy corporations - Cuts
small business taxes - Does not impact homeowners and
renters - Reclaims billions of dollars for schools and local
communities
California must take these steps right now to secure a better
future for us all.
Wealthy owners of the MOST EXPENSIVE 10% OF BUSINESS
PROPERTIES account for 92% of Prop. 15’s revenues.
Prop. 15 supporters: teachers, nurses, small business
owners, clergy, affordable housing advocates, and community
organizations who want to close corporate tax loopholes and
rebalance the scales.
Prop. 15 opponents: wealthy corporations and out-of-state
investors trying to keep their tax breaks by using scare tactics
to confuse the issue.
Read the measure for yourself and remember, Prop. 15:
• Maintains FULL PROP. 13 PROTECTIONS for homeowners
and renters. • CUTS small business taxes AND specifically
exempts all home-based businesses AND exempts small
businesses owning $3,000,000 or less in business property.
• Guarantees transparency and accountability by requiring full
public disclosure of all new revenues and how they’re spent.
• Keeps Prop. 13’s low 1% limit, so California’s business
property taxes will still be below most states.
Learn more at scaretactics15.org.
As we rebuild from the COVID-19 shut down and prepare for
challenges ahead, business as usual won’t do. It’s time we
invest in small businesses, students, healthy families, and safe
neighborhoods.
Prop. 15 is a balanced reform that closes corporate loopholes
benefiting the top 10% and restores billions to our schools and
communities—Vote Yes on Prop. 15.
E. TOBY BOYD, President
California Teachers Association
CAROL MOON GOLDBERG, President
League of Women Voters
TARA LYNN GRAY, CEO
Fresno Metro Black Chamber of Commerce
Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors, and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Arguments | 25
PROPOSITION
16 ALLOWS DIVERSITY AS A FACTOR IN PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT,
EDUCATION, AND CONTRACTING DECISIONS.
LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
OFFICIAL TITLE AND SUMMARY PREPARED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
The text of this measure can be found on the Secretary of State’s website at
voterguide.sos.ca.gov.
16
• Permits government decision-making policies to
consider race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national
origin to address diversity by repealing article I,
section 31, of the California Constitution, which
was added by Proposition 209 in 1996.
• Proposition 209 generally prohibits state and
local governments from discriminating against, or
granting preferential treatment to, individuals or
groups on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity,
or national origin in the operation of public
employment, education, or contracting.
• Does not alter other state and federal laws
guaranteeing equal protection and prohibiting
unlawful discrimination.
SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S ESTIMATE OF NET
STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FISCAL IMPACT:
• No direct fiscal effect on state and local entities
because the measure does not require any change
to current policies or programs.
• Possible fiscal effects would depend on future
choices by state and local entities to implement
policies or programs that consider race, sex, color,
ethnicity, or national origin in public education,
public employment, and public contracting. These
fiscal effects are highly uncertain.
FINAL VOTES CAST BY THE LEGISLATURE ON ACA 5 (PROPOSITION 16)
(RESOLUTION CHAPTER 23, STATUTES OF 2020)
Senate: Ayes 30 Noes 10
Assembly: Ayes 60 Noes 14
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
BACKGROUND
State and Federal Constitutions Require Equal Protection.
The state and federal constitutions provide all people
equal protection, which generally means that people
in similar situations are treated similarly under
the law.
In 1996, California Voters Banned Consideration of
Race, Sex, Color, Ethnicity, or National Origin in Public
Programs. In 1996, California voters approved
Proposition 209, adding a new section to the State
Constitution—Section 31 of Article I. The new section
generally banned the consideration of race, sex, color,
ethnicity, or national origin in public employment,
public education, and public contracting in California.
There Are Some Exceptions to Proposition 209. State
and local entities can consider sex when it is
necessary as part of normal operations. For example,
the state can consider the sex of an employee when
staffing specific jobs at state prisons where it is
necessary for staff and inmates be the same sex.
Additionally, state and local entities may consider
specified characteristics when it is required to receive
federal funding. For example, the state is required
to set goals for the portion of contracts awarded to
certain groups for federally funded transportation
projects, like businesses owned by women and people
of color.
Proposition 209 Affected Certain Public Policies and
Programs. Before Proposition 209, state and local
entities had policies and programs intended to
increase opportunities and representation for people
who faced inequalities as a result of their race,
sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin. These types
of programs often are called “affirmative action”
programs. For example, some of the state’s public
universities considered race and ethnicity as factors
when making admissions decisions and offered
programs to support the academic achievement
of those students. State and local entities had
26 | Title and Summary / Analysis
PROPOSITIONALLOWS DIVERSITY AS A FACTOR IN PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT,
EDUCATION, AND CONTRACTING DECISIONS.
LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. 16
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
employment and recruitment policies intended to
increase the hiring of people of color and women.
The state also established programs to increase the
participation of women-owned and minority-owned
businesses in public contracts. The state set goals
for the portion of state contracts that were awarded
to those types of businesses. After voters approved
Proposition 209, these policies and programs were
discontinued or modified unless they qualified for one
of the exceptions.
Federal Law Allows Policies and Programs That
Consider Certain Characteristics, Within Limits. Before
Proposition 209, state and local policies and
programs that considered race, sex, color, ethnicity,
or national origin still had to comply with federal law.
Federal law establishes a right to equal protection and
as a result limits the use of these considerations. For
example, under federal law, universities may consider
these characteristics as one of several factors when
making admission decisions in an effort to make their
campuses more diverse. To ensure compliance with
federal law, these policies and programs must meet
certain conditions that limit the consideration of these
characteristics. These conditions are intended to
prevent discrimination that violates equal protection.
State law also has a number of antidiscrimination
provisions that are similar to those in federal law.
Policies and Programs Created or Modified
After Proposition 209. After voters approved
Proposition 209, some public entities in California
created or modified policies and programs to
instead consider characteristics not banned by
Proposition 209. For example, many of the state’s
universities provide outreach and support programs
for students who are first in their family to attend
college. Many university campuses also consider
where students attended high school and where
they live when making admissions decisions. The
universities view these policies and programs
as ways to increase diversity without violating
Proposition 209.
PROPOSAL
Eliminates Ban on the Consideration of Certain
Characteristics in Public Education, Public Employment,
and Public Contracting. If approved, the measure would
repeal Proposition 209—Section 31 of Article I of
CONTINUED
the California Constitution. This would eliminate the
ban on the consideration of race, sex, color, ethnicity,
or national origin in public education, public
employment, and public contracting. As a result, state
and local entities could establish a wider range of
policies and programs so long as they are consistent
with federal and state law related to equal protection.
FISCAL EFFECTS
No Direct Fiscal Effects on Public Entities. The measure
would have no direct fiscal effect on state and local
entities because the measure would not require any
change to current policies or programs. Instead, any
fiscal effects would depend on future choices by state
and local entities to implement policies or programs
that consider race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national
origin in public education, public employment, and
public contracting.
Potential Fiscal Effects of Implementing Programs Highly
Uncertain. State and local entities could make any
number of decisions about policies and programs
that consider race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national
origin. Because the specific choices state and local
entities would make if voters approved this measure
are unknown, the potential fiscal effects are highly
uncertain.
Visit http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/campaign/
measures/ for a list of committees primarily
formed to support or oppose this measure.
Visit http://www.fppc.ca.gov/
transparency/top-contributors.html
to access the committee’s top 10 contributors.
If you desire a copy of the full text of this state
measure, please call the Secretary of State
at (800) 345-VOTE (8683) or you can email
vigfeedback@sos.ca.gov and a copy will
be mailed at no cost to you.
16
Analysis | 27
PROPOSITION
16 ALLOWS DIVERSITY AS A FACTOR IN PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT,
EDUCATION, AND CONTRACTING DECISIONS.
LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
+ ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 16 +
16
YES on Prop. 16 means EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL
CALIFORNIANS.
All of us deserve equal opportunities to thrive with fair
wages, good jobs, and quality schools.
Despite living in the most diverse state in the nation,
white men are still overrepresented in positions of wealth
and power in California. Although women, and especially
women of color, are on the front lines of the COVID-19
response, they are not rewarded for their sacrifices.
Women should have the same chance of success as men.
Today, nearly all public contracts, and the jobs that go
with them, go to large companies run by older white
men. White women make 80¢ on the dollar. The wage
disparity is even worse for women of color and single
moms. As a result, an elite few are able to hoard wealth
instead of investing it back into communities. Prop. 16
opens up contracting opportunities for women and
people of color.
We know that small businesses are the backbone of
our economy. Yet, Main Street businesses owned by
women and people of color lose over $1,100,000,000
in government contracts every year because of the
current law. We need to support those small businesses,
especially as we rebuild from COVID-19. Wealth will be
invested back into our communities.
YES on Prop. 16 helps rebuild California stronger with
fair opportunities for all.
YES on Prop. 16 means:
• Supporting women and women of color who serve
disproportionately as essential caregivers/frontline
workers during COVID-19
• Expanding access to solid wages, good jobs, and
quality schools for all Californians, regardless of gender,
race, or ethnicity
• Creating opportunities for women and people of color
to receive public contracts that should be available to all
of us
• Improving access to quality education, both K–12
schools and higher education, for all of California’s kids
• Taking action to prevent discrimination and ensure
equal opportunity for all
• Rebuilding an economy that treats everyone equally
• Investing wealth back into our communities as
opposed to continuing to allow the rich to get richer
• Strong anti-discrimination laws remain in effect
• Quotas are still prohibited
We live in the middle of an incredible historic moment.
In 2020, we have seen an unprecedented number of
Californians take action against systemic racism and
voice their support for real change.
At the same time, our shared values are under attack by
the Trump administration’s policies. We are seeing the
rise of overt racism: white supremacists on the march,
the daily demonization of Latino immigrants, Black
people gunned-down in our streets, anti-Asian hate
crimes on the rise, women’s rights under attack, and
COVID-19 ravaging Native communities.
By voting YES on Prop. 16, Californians can take action
to push back against the Trump administration’s racist
agenda.
By voting YES on Prop. 16, Californians can take action
to push back against racism and sexism and create a
more just and fair state for all.
Equal opportunity matters. Yes on Prop. 16.
VoteYesOnProp16.org
CAROL MOON GOLDBERG, President
League of Women Voters of California
THOMAS A. SAENZ, President
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
EVA PATERSON, President
Equal Justice Society
+ REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 16 +
TOM CAMPBELL: “This proposition will allow California’s
public universities to keep students out because of their
race, in order to help students of another race get in.
That’s currently illegal. Berkeley’s business school was
rated among the best for recruiting minority graduates,
and we did it without using race. We also gave no
favoritism to children of donors, alums, or politicians. We
were strictly merit-based. That’s how it should stay. (I’m
neither a Democrat nor a Republican.)”
LEO TERRELL: “I’m a black man, civil rights attorney
for 30 years, lifelong Democrat, now independent.
Proposition 16 is a scam to use government money to
benefit politically connected HIGH-BID contractors
who are supposedly ‘minority’ or who hire a so-called
‘minority’ as window dressing. Taxpayers get shafted.
Also, we certainly don’t need to favor one race over
another in government jobs, promotions, or layoffs. And
for education, let’s help those who need it, regardless of
race!”
KALI FONTANILLA: “My father was a Jamaican
immigrant, but I was raised in poverty by my single
mother. My husband is Mexican/Puerto Rican: we are
proudly multiracial. An honors multi-degreed University
of California graduate, I tutored black students in
Compton; now I help Latinos enter UC on MERIT (like I
did), NOT quotas! Proposition 16, a giant step backward,
would hurt the very students we want to help. There
is no need to lower standards! I love teaching, but
Proposition 16 would totally disrupt K–12.”
Don’t divide us. Unite us. Vote NO!
TOM CAMPBELL, Former Dean
Haas School of Business, University of California,
Berkeley
LEO TERRELL, Civil Rights Lawyer
KALI FONTANILLA, Public School Teacher
28 | Arguments Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors, and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
PROPOSITIONALLOWS DIVERSITY AS A FACTOR IN PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT,
EDUCATION, AND CONTRACTING DECISIONS.
LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. 16
+ ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 16 +
The California Legislature wants you to strike these
precious words from our state Constitution: “The state
shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential
treatment to, any individual or group, on the basis
of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the
operation of public employment, public education, or
public contracting.”
Don’t do it! Vote NO.
Those words—adopted by California voters in 1996 as
Proposition 209—should remain firmly in place. Only by
treating everyone equally can a state as brilliantly diverse
as California be fair to everyone.
REPEAL WOULD BE A STEP BACKWARD
Discrimination of this kind is poisonous. It will divide
us at a time we desperately need to unite. Politicians
want to give preferential treatment to their favorites.
They think they can “fix” past discrimination against
racial minorities and women by discriminating against
other racial minorities and men who are innocent of any
wrongdoing. Punishing innocent people will only cause a
never-ending cycle of resentment. The only way to stop
discrimination is to stop discriminating.
HELP THOSE WHO REALLY NEED IT
Not every Asian American or white is advantaged. Not
every Latino or black is disadvantaged. Our state has
successful men and women of all races and ethnicities.
Let’s not perpetuate the stereotype that minorities and
women can’t make it unless they get special preferences.
At the same time, our state also has men and women—
of all races and ethnicities—who could use a little
extra break. Current law allows for “affirmative action”
of this kind so long as it doesn’t discriminate or give
preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity
or national origin. For example, state universities can
give a leg-up for students from low-income families or
students who would be the first in their family to attend
college. The state can help small businesses started by
low-income individuals or favor low-income individuals
for job opportunities.
But if these words are stricken from our state
Constitution, the University of California will again
be free to give a wealthy lawyer’s son a preference for
admission over a farmworker’s daughter simply because
he’s from an “under-represented” group. That’s unjust.
GIVE TAXPAYERS A BREAK
Prior to the passage of Proposition 209, California and
many local governments maintained costly bureaucracies
that required preferential treatment in public contracting
based on a business owner’s race, sex or ethnicity. The
lowest qualified bidder could be rejected. A careful,
peer-reviewed study by a University of California
economist found that CalTrans contracts governed by
Proposition 209 saved 5.6% over non-209 contracts
in the two-year period after it took effect. If the savings
for other government contracts are anywhere near
that, repealing this constitutional provision could cost
taxpayers many BILLIONS of dollars.
EQUAL RIGHTS ARE FUNDAMENTAL
Prohibiting preferential treatment based on race, sex,
color, ethnicity or national origin is a fundamental part of
the American creed. It’s there in our Constitution for all
of us . . . now and for future generations. Don’t throw
it away.
VOTE NO.
WARD CONNERLY, President
Californians for Equal Rights
GAIL HERIOT, Professor of Law
BETTY TOM CHU, Former California Constitution Revision
Commissioner
16
+ REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 16 +
Stand for Our California Values. Stand Against
Discrimination.
Californians agree everyone deserves equal opportunity to
succeed—regardless of their gender, what they look like,
or where they were born. We agree that women should
be paid the same as men; that all children, regardless of
their background or skin color, deserve access to a great
school.
The opposition uses deceptive language to claim
that they care about California’s future. In fact, their
approach would take us backwards.
Businesses owned by women and people of color lose
$1.1 billion each year because lucrative contracts are
given to a wealthy few. Women make 80 cents on the
dollar, and women of color make even less.
The only way to move California forward is to pass
Proposition 16—extending equal opportunity for all and
actively combating systemic racism.
By passing Proposition 16, Californians can:
• Tackle all forms of discrimination, removing barriers to
equal opportunity
• Fight gender wage discrimination
• Give women of color an equal shot at job promotions
and leadership positions
• Expand career and educational opportunities in
science and technology for girls
California can join 42 other states in taking action
towards equal opportunity for all by voting Yes on
Proposition 16.
As Californians, we value diversity and fairness, we know
that ending discrimination and promoting equality is the
right thing to do.
During this uncertain time of COVID-19, we can build a
future California that reflects our values by voting YES on
Proposition 16.
Get the facts at VoteYes0nProp16.org
E. TOBY BOYD, President
California Teachers Association
NORMA CHAVEZ-PETERSON, Executive Director
ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties
DR. BERNICE A. KING, CEO
The Martin Luther King, Jr. Center
Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors, and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Arguments | 29
PROPOSITION
17 RESTORES RIGHT TO VOTE AFTER COMPLETION OF PRISON TERM.
LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
OFFICIAL TITLE AND SUMMARY PREPARED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
The text of this measure can be found on the Secretary of State’s website at
voterguide.sos.ca.gov.
17
• Amends state constitution to restore • Increased one-time state costs, likely in
voting rights to persons who have been the hundreds of thousands of dollars,
disqualified from voting while serving to update voter registration cards and
a prison term as soon as they complete systems.
their prison term.
SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S ESTIMATE
OF NET STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
FISCAL IMPACT:
• Increased annual county costs, likely
in the hundreds of thousands of dollars
statewide, for voter registration and
ballot materials.
FINAL VOTES CAST BY THE LEGISLATURE ON ACA 6 (PROPOSITION 17)
(RESOLUTION CHAPTER 24, STATUTES OF 2020)
Senate: Ayes 28 Noes 9
Assembly: Ayes 54 Noes 19
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
BACKGROUND
People in Prison or on Parole Are Not
Allowed to Vote. The State Constitution
allows most U.S. citizens who are
residents of California and at least
18 years of age to vote, if they register
to vote. (Under current state law, people
who are registered to vote are also
allowed to run for elective offices they
are qualified for.) People eligible to
register to vote include those who are
in county jail or supervised by county
probation in the community. However,
the State Constitution prevents some
people from registering to vote, including
those in state prison or on state parole.
(People are generally supervised in the
community on state parole for a period of
time after they serve a state prison term
for a serious or violent crime. Currently,
there are roughly 50,000 people on state
parole.)
County and State Agencies Have Voting-
Related Workload. County election
officials manage most elections in
California. As part of this work, these
officials keep lists of registered voters
and cancel the registration of anyone
30 | Title and Summary / Analysis
PROPOSITIONRESTORES RIGHT TO VOTE AFTER COMPLETION OF PRISON TERM.
LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. 17
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
not allowed to vote—including anyone
in state prison or on state parole. In
addition, these officials provide ballot
materials to registered voters. Some
state agencies also have voting-related
workload. For example, the Secretary
of State provides voter registration
cards and operates an electronic voter
registration system.
PROPOSAL
Allows People on State Parole to Register
to Vote. Proposition 17 changes the State
Constitution to allow people on state
parole to register to vote, thereby allowing
them to vote. (Because current state law
allows registered voters to run for elective
offices, this measure would result in
people on state parole being able to
do so as well, if they meet existing
qualifications such as not having been
convicted of perjury or bribery.)
FISCAL EFFECTS
Increased Ongoing County Costs.
Proposition 17 would increase the
number of people who can register to
vote and vote in elections. This would
increase ongoing workload for county
election officials in two main ways. First,
election officials would have to process
the voter registrations of people on state
parole who register to vote. Second,
election officials would have to send
CONTINUED
ballot materials to people on state parole
who register to vote. We estimate that the
annual county costs for this workload would
likely be in the hundreds of thousands of
dollars statewide. The actual cost would
depend on the number of people on state
parole who choose to register to vote
and the specific costs of providing them
ballot materials during an election.
Increased One-Time State Costs.
Proposition 17 would create one-time
workload for the state to update voter
registration cards and systems to reflect
that people on state parole could register
to vote. We estimate that this workload
would result in one-time state costs likely
in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
This amount is less than 1 percent of the
state’s current General Fund budget.
Visit http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/campaign/
measures/ for a list of committees primarily
formed to support or oppose this measure.
Visit http://www.fppc.ca.gov/
transparency/top-contributors.html
to access the committee’s top 10 contributors.
If you desire a copy of the full text of this state
measure, please call the Secretary of State
at (800) 345-VOTE (8683) or you can email
vigfeedback@sos.ca.gov and a copy will
be mailed at no cost to you.
17
Analysis | 31
PROPOSITION
17 RESTORES RIGHT TO VOTE AFTER COMPLETION OF PRISON TERM.
LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
+ ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 17 +
17
VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 17
Proposition 17 is simple—it restores a person’s right to
vote upon completion of their prison term.
• When a person completes their prison sentence, they
should be encouraged to reenter society and have a
stake in their community. Restoring their voting rights
does that. Civic engagement is connected to lower rates
of recidivism. When people feel that they are valued
members of their community, they are less likely to
return to prison.
• 19 other states allow people to vote once they have
successfully completed their prison sentence. It’s time
for California to do the same.
• A Florida study found that people who have completed
their prison sentences and had their voting rights
restored were less likely to commit crimes in the future.
• Nearly 50,000 Californians who have completed their
prison sentences pay taxes at the local, state, and federal
levels. However, they are not able to vote at any level of
government.
PROP. 17 WILL HAVE REAL LIFE IMPACTS—STORIES
FROM CALIFORNIANS WHO HAVE COMPLETED THEIR
SENTENCES
After a parole board granted Richard his freedom, he
was shocked to learn that he still could not cast a vote in
California. Over the last 20 years, Richard has become
what he describes as “a man built for others”—helping
develop a drug and alcohol counseling program while
still in prison and advocating for better criminal justice
policies. “I work hard, serve my community, pay taxes,
give back, and I am still a citizen of this country,”
Richard said. “I believe that qualifies me to have the
right to vote again.”
Andrew is a Navy veteran who served his country but
developed a drinking problem and made big mistakes
that led to prison. He earned parole by working toward
his rehabilitation, and now that his prison sentence is
completed, he’s building a new life as a veteran learning
to contribute to his community. Andrew says, “I believe
in working hard for what you get in life, and I believe that
I’ve earned the right to vote so I can be a full member of
my community.”
YES ON PROPOSITION 17
Parole is intended to be a period of reintegration into the
community. People on parole who have completed their
prison sentences raise families, hold jobs, pay taxes,
and contribute to society in every other way. Restoring
a person’s voting eligibility removes stigma and helps
strengthen their connection to the community.
Yeson17.vote #FreetheVote
CAROL MOON GOLDBERG, President
League of Women Voters of California
JAY JORDAN, Executive Director
Californians for Safety and Justice
KEVIN MCCARTY, Assemblymember
Prop. 17 Author
+ REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 17 +
Proponents claim that Proposition 17 will restore a
convicted felon’s voting rights “upon completion of their
prison sentence.” THIS IS FALSE.
THE TRUTH: In California, parole is a legally part of the
prison sentence, and a convicted felon must successfully
complete parole upon release from incarceration in
order to have served their sentence and have their voting
rights restored. Proposition 17 will eliminate this critical
requirement.
Proponents do not tell you that 30 states require more
than the completion of prison incarceration, before
a felon’s voting rights are restored. Most require the
completion of parole while some require the addition of
executive action.
While proponents highlight two stories about released
criminals, “Richard” and “Andrew,” they don’t share
with you their criminal histories—as if burglars, armed
robbers, murderers and child molesters are all the same.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
THE TRUTH: For every “Richard” or “Andrew” there is a
“Robert” or “Scott” who commits a violent felony while
on parole. Proposition 17 restores voting rights before
felons complete this critical parole sentence.
Parole is the adjustment period when violent felons prove
they are no longer a violent threat to innocent citizens
living in a civil society. Their every move is monitored
and supervised by a trained state officer.
BOTTOM LINE: PROPOSITION 17 WILL ALLOW
CRIMINALS CONVICTED OF MURDER, RAPE, CHILD
MOLESTATION, AND OTHER SERIOUS AND VIOLENT
CRIMES TO VOTE BEFORE COMPLETING THEIR
SENTENCE INCLUDING PAROLE.
Proposition 17 is not justice. VOTE NO ON
PROPOSITION 17
HARRIET SALARNO, Founder
Crime Victims United of California
JIM NIELSEN, California State Senator
RUTH WEISS, Vice President
Election Integrity Project California
32 | Arguments Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors, and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
PROPOSITIONRESTORES RIGHT TO VOTE AFTER COMPLETION OF PRISON TERM.
LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. 17
+ ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 17 +
PROPOSITION 17 WILL ALLOW CRIMINALS
CONVICTED OF MURDER, RAPE, SEXUAL ABUSE
AGAINST CHILDREN, KIDNAPPING, ASSAULT, GANG
GUN CRIMES AND HUMAN TRAFFICKING TO VOTE
BEFORE COMPLETING THEIR SENTENCE INCLUDING
PAROLE.
In 1974, California voters approved restoring the right to
vote to convicted felons once they have completed their
sentences (including parole). More recently, California’s
prison reform measures have moved all but the most
vicious criminals out of prisons and into local jails.
People convicted of nonviolent felonies like car theft or
drug dealing are incarcerated in county jails and have
the right to vote while serving their sentence. For them
there is no parole.
PAROLE IN CALIFORNIA IS FOR SERIOUS AND
VIOLENT CRIMINALS.
Criminals in prison have been convicted of murder
or manslaughter, robbery, rape, child molestation or
other serious and violent crimes and sex offenses.
They have victimized innocent, law-abiding citizens
who are condemned for life to revisit those crimes in
every nightmare. Certain sounds, smells and everyday
experiences will always return them mentally and
emotionally to the scene of the crime, and for them
there is no end to their sentence. Knowing that their
victimizers would have social equality with them before
they have been fully rehabilitated simply adds to their
lifelong pain and misery.
PAROLE IS TO PROVE REHABILITATION BEFORE FULL
LIBERTY, INCLUDING VOTING RIGHTS, IS RESTORED.
Offenders released from PRISON after serving a term
for a serious or violent felony are required to complete
parole (usually three years) as part of their sentences.
Parole is an adjustment period when violent felons prove
their desire to adjust to behaving properly in a free
society. Their every move is monitored and supervised by
a trained state officer. If the state does not trust them
to choose where to live or travel, with whom to associate
and what jobs to do, it MUST NOT trust them with
decisions that will impact the lives and finances of all
other members of society.
MOST PAROLEES STUMBLE AND 50% ARE
CONVICTED OF NEW CRIMES.
Unfortunately, about half of parolees commit new
crimes within three years of release. Clearly, they are
not ready to join the society of law-abiding citizens.
Rewards and privileges in life must be earned and
deserved. Giving violent criminals the right to vote before
they have successfully completed their full sentence,
which INCLUDES A PERIOD OF PAROLE, is like giving
students a high school diploma at the end of tenth grade.
It makes no sense, and hurts their future and all of
society.
JUSTICE DEMANDS A NO VOTE ON PROPOSITION 17.
Crime victims deserve justice. Granting violent criminals
the right to vote before the completion of their sentence
is not justice. Offenders deserve justice as well. Their
self-respect depends upon knowing that they have made
full restitution for their crimes and have earned a second
chance. Californians deserve a justice system where
offenders pay for their crimes, prove their rehabilitation,
and only then are welcomed back into civil society.
Proposition 17 is NOT justice.
VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 17
HARRIET SALARNO, Founder
Crime Victims United of California
JIM NIELSEN, Chairman
California Board of Prison Terms (Ret.)
RUTH WEISS, Vice President
Election Integrity Project California
17
+ REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 17 +
VOTE YES ON PROP. 17
PROP. 17 opponents are using scare tactics to try and
stop you from fixing a nearly 5O-year-old, out-of-date
voting policy.
THE FACTS:
• Prop. 17 will simply restore a citizen’s right to vote
upon completion of their prison term aligning California
with 19 other states that already do the same.
• After a similar law was changed in Florida, a parole
commission study found that citizens who have
completed their prison sentences and had their voting
rights restored were less likely to commit crimes in the
future.
• Parole is intended to be a period of reintegration into
the community. Citizens on parole who have completed
their prison sentences raise families, hold jobs, pay
taxes, and contribute to society in every other way.
• Nearly 50,000 Californians who have completed
their prison sentences pay taxes at the local, state and
federal levels and yet, are not able to vote at any level of
government.
DON’T BELIEVE OPPONENTS AND THEIR SCARE
TACTICS. DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS SUPPORT
PROP. 17
• More than two thirds of the state legislature—
Democrats and Republicans, supported asking California
voters to consider Prop. 17.
• Prop. 17 does nothing to change anyone’s prison term
including those convicted of serious and violent crimes.
VOTE YES ON PROP. 17!
CAROL MOON GOLDBERG, President
League of Women Voters of California
JAY JORDAN, Executive Director
Californians for Safety and Justice
ABDI SOLTANI, Executive Director
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)—Northern
California
Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors, and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Arguments | 33
PROPOSITION
18 AMENDS CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION TO PERMIT 17-YEAR-OLDS TO VOTE IN PRIMARY
AND SPECIAL ELECTIONS IF THEY WILL TURN 18 BY THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION
AND BE OTHERWISE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
OFFICIAL TITLE AND SUMMARY PREPARED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
The text of this measure can be found on the Secretary of State’s website at
voterguide.sos.ca.gov.
• The California Constitution currently
permits individuals who are at least
18 years old on the date of an election to
vote in that election.
• Amends constitution to permit
17-year-olds who will be at least 18 years
old and otherwise eligible to vote at the
time of the next general election to vote in
any primary or special election that occurs
before the next general election.
SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S ESTIMATE
OF NET STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
FISCAL IMPACT:
• Increased costs for counties, likely
between several hundreds of thousands
of dollars and $1 million every two years,
to send and process voting materials to
eligible registered 17-year-olds.
• Increased one-time costs to the state in
the hundreds of thousands of dollars to
update existing voter registration systems.
18
FINAL VOTES CAST BY THE LEGISLATURE ON ACA 4 (PROPOSITION 18)
(RESOLUTION CHAPTER 30, STATUTES OF 2020)
Senate: Ayes 31 Noes 7
Assembly: Ayes 56 Noes 13
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
BACKGROUND
Elections in California. In even-numbered
years, California holds two statewide
elections—the primary and the general
elections. At each of these elections voters
(1) either nominate or elect candidates to
state and federal offices and (2) consider
statewide ballot measures. At the primary
election, which is held in the spring, voters
determine which candidates will compete
for elective office at the general election.
At the general election in November,
voters determine who wins elective offices.
Statewide ballot measures can be considered
in both the primary and general elections.
Outside of this two-year cycle, the Governor
may call a special election to fill vacancies
in state elective offices or vacancies in the
U.S. House of Representatives. In addition
to state elections, local governments
hold elections for voters to elect local
office holders and to consider local ballot
measures. Typically, local elections occur at
the same time as state elections.
Election Administration in California. County
election officials administer the vast majority
of elections in California. As part of this
work, these officials keep lists of registered
voters and provide voting materials to
registered voters, such as ballots and other
voter information. Some state agencies also
have voting-related responsibilities.
34 | Title and Summary / Analysis
PROPOSITIONAMENDS CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION TO PERMIT 17-YEAR-OLDS TO VOTE IN PRIMARY
AND SPECIAL ELECTIONS IF THEY WILL TURN 18 BY THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION
AND BE OTHERWISE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. 18
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
For example, the Secretary of State oversees
elections, which includes providing voter
registration cards and operating an electronic
voter registration system.
Right to Vote in California. A person generally
may register and vote in California if the
person is a U.S. citizen who is at least
18 years old and a resident of the state.
State law prohibits some people from
voting, including those who are in prison or
on parole. (Under current law, people who
are registered to vote can run for elective
offices so long as they meet all other existing
eligibility requirements.)
Pre-Registration to Vote in California. A
person generally may pre-register to vote
in California if the person is a U.S. citizen
and is either 16 or 17 years old. (State law
prohibits some people from pre-registering to
vote, including those who are in prison or on
parole.) When a person is pre-registered to
vote, they automatically become registered
to vote when they turn 18 years old. As of
June 29, 2020, there are about 108,000
17-year-olds pre-registered to vote in
California.
PROPOSAL
Allows Some 17 Year Old Citizens to Vote. The
measure would allow eligible 17-year-olds
who will be 18 years old by the November
date of the next general election to vote. This
means that these 17-year-olds could vote
in any special election or primary election
that occurs before the next general election.
(Because current state law allows registered
voters to run for elective office, this measure
would result in 17-year-olds who turn 18 by
the next general election to do so as well,
if they meet all other existing eligibility
requirements for elective office.)
CONTINUED
FISCAL EFFECTS
Minor Costs for County Election Officials.
This measure would increase the number
of people eligible to vote in primary and
special elections. This would increase work
for county election officials. Election officials
would send and process voting materials
to eligible registered 17-year-olds in the
primary and any special elections preceding
the general election. The cost of this
increased work would depend on the number
of eligible 17-year-olds who register to vote
before the primary and special elections.
This increased work could increase statewide
county costs in each two-year election cycle
likely between several hundreds of thousands
of dollars and $1 million.
Minor One-Time State Costs. This measure
would create one-time work for the state to
update existing voter registration systems.
The one-time state costs for this work likely
would be in the hundreds of thousands of
dollars. This is less than 1 percent of current
state General Fund spending.
Visit http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/campaign/
measures/ for a list of committees primarily
formed to support or oppose this measure.
Visit http://www.fppc.ca.gov/
transparency/top-contributors.html
to access the committee’s top 10 contributors.
If you desire a copy of the full text of this state
measure, please call the Secretary of State
at (800) 345-VOTE (8683) or you can email
vigfeedback@sos.ca.gov and a copy will
be mailed at no cost to you.
18
Analysis | 35
PROPOSITION
18 AMENDS CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION TO PERMIT 17-YEAR-OLDS TO VOTE IN PRIMARY
AND SPECIAL ELECTIONS IF THEY WILL TURN 18 BY THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION
AND BE OTHERWISE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
+ ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 18 +
18
Proposition 18 will allow those who will be 18 years of
age by the time of the general election to participate
in the primary election of that year if they are 17 at
the time of the primary. This important election reform
will not only allow first-time voters to participate in the
full election cycle, but also has the potential to boost
youth participation in our elections.
We need youth voices to be represented at the ballot
box. Allowing some 17-year-olds to vote in primary
elections if, and only if, they will be 18 by the time
of the general election is a simple way to amplify the
voices of young voters throughout California and will
lead to a more inclusive election process for our state
overall.
California is behind the curve when it comes to this
issue. Nearly half of states in the U.S. already allow
17-year-olds to participate in primaries and caucuses.
If an individual plans to participate in the general
election as a first-time voter, it is only reasonable
that they be afforded the opportunity to shape the
choices that appear on the general election ballot by
participating in the primary. Proposition 18 links this
17-year-old participation to the age of majority by
requiring that the individual be 18 by the time of the
general election.
According to research conducted by the California
Civic Engagement Project, in the 2020 primary
election in California, youth voters (those aged
between 18 and 24) made up 14.5% of the
population eligible to vote, however only about 6%
of those who actually voted in the election. Youth are
extremely underrepresented in our electoral process
despite the fact that they are heavily impacted by the
policies created by those elected.
Not only does research indicate that the youth
population has the lowest turnout levels out of any
age demographic, but studies also show that voting
is habit-forming—once an individual votes in an
election, they are more likely to do so again. Early
involvement in the electoral process for first-time
voters should be a high priority for this reason.
Proposition 18 is an opportunity to empower
California’s youngest voters and encourage them to
become life-long participants in the most fundamental
act of democracy. Please support Proposition 18.
KEVIN MULLIN, Assemblymember
CA Assembly District 22
EVAN LOW, Assemblymember
CA Assembly District 28
+ REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 18 +
The statement that “nearly half” of the states allow
17-year-olds to vote in the primary is dishonest. ONLY
18 ALLOW IT, and their primaries are different from
California’s. Because of Propositions 13 and 218,
Californians have the right to vote on tax proposals,
which are often on the primary ballot. 17-year-olds
have virtually no experience with earning a living
and paying taxes. Real life experience is vital for
voting. The suggestion that it is “only logical” that
17-year-olds should vote in the Primary if they are
going to vote in the General is bad reasoning.
Since California’s primary has been moved to early
March, Proposition 18 would give high-school minors
JUST BARELY 17 the right to vote simply because
they will turn 18 EIGHT MONTHS LATER.
17-year-olds are minors, for several reasons:
• Science affirms that the reasoning and logic
portion of their brains is NOT BIOLOGICALLY FULLY
DEVELOPED.
• They are a captive audience (5+ hours per day,
5 days per week) to teachers on whom they depend
for present and future success, making them very
VULNERABLE TO ONE-SIDED INFLUENCE.
• They have NO REAL-WORLD EXPERIENCE. Most
have not had to work to support themselves, nor make
their own way to pay for taxes, rent, food, etc. They
have no frame of reference to make the vital decisions
voters make for themselves and all other members of
society when they vote.
17-year-olds may be eager to vote, but they are not yet
ready. VOTE NO on PROPOSITION 18.
RUTH WEISS, Vice President
Election Integrity Project of California
JON COUPAL, President
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
LARRY SAND, Retired Teacher
36 | Arguments Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors, and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
PROPOSITIONAMENDS CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION TO PERMIT 17-YEAR-OLDS TO VOTE IN PRIMARY
AND SPECIAL ELECTIONS IF THEY WILL TURN 18 BY THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION
AND BE OTHERWISE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. 18
+ ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 18 +
Vote NO on Proposition 18
“Many tax increases and bond debt measures are
decided on primary and special election ballots. That’s
why only adults should vote.”—Jon Coupal, President,
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
17-YEAR-OLDS ARE NOT LEGALLY ADULTS
Both the federal and California governments have set
the age of legal responsibility at 18. In California,
an individual even one day younger than 18 may
not enter into a legal contract, or even use a tanning
salon. Seventeen-year-olds cannot even participate in
a school field trip without a permission slip signed by
a parent or guardian.
California law puts extra rules and restrictions on
driver licenses of l6- and 17-year-olds because of
concerns about maturity and judgment. The license
restrictions disappear exactly on the 18th birthday,
not before.
California law reflects the scientific evidence that age-
related brain development is connected to the ability
to reason, analyze and comprehend cause-and-effect.
The agreed-upon age of reason, both statewide and
nationally, is 18.
17-YEAR-OLDS ARE CAPTIVE AUDIENCES IN
SCHOOL
Voters deserve to hear all sides of an issue to make
an informed choice. Most 17-year-olds are still in
high school, dependent on teachers for grades and
important recommendation letters vital to their
future. They are a captive audience five days a week,
with a strong incentive to do whatever teachers and
counselors recommend.
California’s primary ballot often includes school tax
and bond measures for voter approval. Unlike adult
voters, 17-year-olds who are still in high school
are likely to hear only one side of these issues. For
example, in 2019, the Los Angeles Unified School
District engaged in an “informational” campaign
to pass a proposed tax increase, Measure EE, in a
special election. Schools posted huge banners on
campus, handed out flyers and literature for students
to take home, and even distributed sample social
media posts in an effort to influence students and
their families.
If 17-year-olds are allowed to vote in primary and
special elections, perhaps even filling out a mail-in
ballot right in the classroom, these students could
provide the margin to approve new debt and taxes that
will greatly burden their parents and all taxpayers.
POLITICAL PARTICIPATION IS OPEN TO ALL;
VOTING IS DIFFERENT
Everyone has the right to express an opinion, advocate
on issues, organize like-minded people and volunteer
on campaigns. The right to vote, however, is reserved
for citizens who are state residents, who are not felons
in prison, and who are at least 18 years of age on
Election Day.
Voting is a serious responsibility. In California
elections, voters decide who will hold the power to
make and enforce laws, whether to approve new debt
that taxpayers will have to pay, whether to raise taxes,
and many other complex issues.
Important decisions must be made by voters who are
legally adults, not by high school minors.
VOTE NO on Proposition 18.
RUTH WEISS, Co-founder
Election Integrity Project California
JON COUPAL, President
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
LARRY SAND, Retired Teacher
18
+ REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 18 +
17-year-olds already work and pay taxes, and they
can enlist in the military. If young people at this age
are volunteering to put their lives on the line for our
country and contributing financially to society, they
should be able to participate in a full election cycle
the year they turn 18. Prop. 18 allows 17-year-olds to
vote in primary elections if they are 18 by the general
election.
Figuring out how to vote, where to vote, and what is on
the ballot is a difficult first-time process. Giving young
people time to learn this the year they turn 18 ensures
a successful first voting experience. Expanding young
people’s opportunity to become civically engaged
ensures that our future generations will adopt voting
habits early on and take them as they go to college,
join the military, or join the workforce.
In the March 2020 primary, which saw the most
votes in a California presidential primary ever, only
38% of eligible voters cast a ballot. We have a civic
engagement problem, and we need to establish a
culture of voting for future generations sooner rather
than later. Voting in one election can increase the
probability of voting in the next election by over
25%. Issues like the climate crisis, student debt,
healthcare, and our economic future will impact young
people the most, and it is our responsibility to provide
them adequate opportunities to create lifelong voting
habits. A vote for Prop. 18 is a vote for our democracy.
MARY CREASMAN, Chief Executive Officer
California League of Conservation Voters (CLCV)
SENATOR RICHARD D. ROTH, Major General
USAF (Retired)
SENATOR THOMAS J. UMBERG, Colonel
U.S. Army (Retired)
Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors, and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Arguments | 37
PROPOSITION
19
CHANGES CERTAIN PROPERTY TAX RULES.
LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
OFFICIAL TITLE AND SUMMARY PREPARED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
The text of this measure can be found on the Secretary of State’s website at
voterguide.sos.ca.gov.
• Permits homeowners who are over
55, severely disabled, or whose
homes were destroyed by wildfire
or disaster, to transfer their primary
residence’s property tax base value to
a replacement residence of any value,
anywhere in the state.
• Limits tax benefits for certain transfers
of real property between family
members.
• Expands tax benefits for transfers of
family farms.
• Allocates most resulting state
revenues and savings (if any) to fire
protection services and reimbursing
local governments for taxation-related
changes.
SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S ESTIMATE
OF NET STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
FISCAL IMPACT:
• Local governments could gain tens
of millions of dollars of property tax
revenue per year. These gains could
grow over time to a few hundred million
dollars per year.
• Schools could gain tens of millions of
dollars of property tax revenue per year.
These gains could grow over time to a
few hundred million dollars per year.
• Revenue from other taxes could
increase by tens of millions of dollars
per year for both the state and local
governments. Most of this new state
revenue would be spent on fire
protection.
19
FINAL VOTES CAST BY THE LEGISLATURE ON ACA 11 (PROPOSITION 19)
(RESOLUTION CHAPTER 31, STATUTES OF 2020)
Senate: Ayes 29 Noes 5
Assembly: Ayes 56 Noes 5
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
BACKGROUND
Local Governments Tax Property. California
cities, counties, schools, and special
districts (such as a fire protection
district) collect property taxes from
property owners based on the value of
their property. Property taxes raise around
$65 billion each year for these local
governments.
How Is a Property Tax Bill Calculated? Each
property owner’s annual property tax
bill is equal to the taxable value of their
property multiplied by their property
tax rate. The typical property owner’s
property tax rate is 1.1 percent. In the
year a new owner takes over a property,
its taxable value typically is its purchase
price. Each year after that, the property’s
38 | Title and Summary / Analysis
PROPOSITIONCHANGES CERTAIN PROPERTY TAX RULES.
LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. 19
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
taxable value is adjusted for inflation
by up to 2 percent. When a property
changes ownership again, its taxable
value is reset to its new purchase price.
Property Taxes Increase When a Property
Changes Ownership. The taxable value
of most properties is less than what
they could be sold for. This is because
the price most properties could sell for
grows faster than 2 percent per year.
Because of this, when a property changes
ownership its taxable value often resets
to a higher amount. This leads to a higher
property tax bill for that property. This
means people who move usually end up
paying higher property taxes for their new
home than they paid for their old home.
Special Rules for Some Homeowners. In
some cases, special rules allow existing
homeowners to move to a different home
without paying higher property taxes.
These special rules apply to homeowners
who are over 55 or severely disabled
or whose property has been impacted
by a natural disaster or contamination.
We refer to these people as “eligible
homeowners.” An eligible homeowner can
move within the same county and keep
paying the same amount of property taxes
if their new home is not more expensive
than their existing home. Also, certain
counties allow these rules to apply when
an eligible homeowner moves to their
county from another county. Homeowners
who are over 55 or severely disabled
generally can use these special rules only
once in their lifetime. This limit does
apply to properties impacted by a natural
disaster or contamination.
CONTINUED
Special Rules for Inherited Properties.
Special rules also allow properties to pass
between parents and children without
an increase in the property tax bill.
These rules also apply to grandparents
and grandchildren if the grandchildren’s
parents are deceased. We call properties
passed between parents and children
or grandparents and grandchildren
“inherited property.” The rules apply to
a parent’s or grandparent’s home and a
limited amount of other types of property.
Counties Manage the Property Tax.
County assessors determine the
taxable value of property. County tax
collectors bill property owners. County
auditors distribute tax revenue to local
governments. Statewide, counties spend
about $800 million each year on these
activities.
19
Schools Funding Comes From Both Local
Property Taxes and State Taxes. Schools
receive funding from both local property
taxes and state taxes. State law says that
schools must receive a minimum amount
of total funding from these two sources.
PROPOSAL
The measure makes changes to the
special rules for eligible homeowners and
inherited properties.
Expanded Special Rules for Eligible
Homeowners. Starting April 1, 2021, the
measure expands the special rules for
eligible homeowners. Specifically, the
measure:
• Allows Moves Anywhere in the State.
Eligible homeowners could keep their
Analysis | 39
PROPOSITION
19
CHANGES CERTAIN PROPERTY TAX RULES.
LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
19
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
lower property tax bill when moving
to another home anywhere in the
state.
• Allows the Purchase of a More
Expensive Home. Eligible homeowners
could use the special rules to move
to a more expensive home. Their
property tax bill would still go up but
not by as much as it would be for
other homebuyers.
• Increases Number of Times a
Homeowner Can Use the Special
Rules. Homeowners who are over 55
or severely disabled could use the
special rules three times in their
lifetime.
Narrows the Special Rules for Inherited
Properties. Starting February 16, 2021,
the measure narrows the special rules
for inherited properties. Specifically, the
measure:
• Ends Special Rules for Properties Not
Used as a Home or for Farming. The
special rules would apply only to two
kinds of inherited property. First, the
rules would apply to properties used
as a primary home by the child or
grandchild. Second, the rules would
apply to farms. Properties used for
other purposes could no longer use
the special rules.
• Requires Tax Bill to Go Up for High
Value Inherited Homes and Farms.
The property tax bill for an inherited
home or farm would go up if the
price the property could be sold for
exceeds the property’s taxable value
by more than $1 million (adjusted
CONTINUED
for inflation every two years). In this
case, the tax bill would go up but not
as much as it would if the property
were sold to someone else.
Dedicates Certain Money for Fire
Protection. The measure could make new
funding available to the state. We discuss
this new funding in the next section.
The measure requires that most of the
new funds be spent on fire protection.
In addition, the measure requires that a
smaller part of the new funds be given to
certain local governments.
FISCAL EFFECTS
Increased Property Taxes From Narrowed
Rules for Inherited Properties. Narrowing
the special rules for inherited properties
would lead to higher property taxes
for some inherited properties. This
would increase property taxes for local
governments and schools.
Reduced Property Taxes From Expanded
Rules for Eligible Homeowners. Expanding
the special rules for eligible homeowners
could change property tax collections
in a few ways. Most importantly, more
homeowners could get property tax
savings when moving from one home to
another. This would reduce property taxes
for local governments and schools.
Overall, More Property Taxes for Local
Governments and Schools. Some parts
of the measure would increase property
taxes. Other parts would decrease
them. Overall, property taxes for local
governments and schools probably
would increase. In the first few years,
40 | Analysis
PROPOSITIONCHANGES CERTAIN PROPERTY TAX RULES.
LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. 19
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
local governments could gain tens of
millions of dollars per year. Over time,
these revenue gains could grow to a few
hundred million dollars per year. Schools
could receive similar property tax gains.
Possible Reduction in State Costs for
Schools in Some Years. In limited
situations, total school funding from
property taxes and state taxes could be
about the same in some years despite
schools’ property tax gains. This is
because existing state law could cause
state funding for schools to decrease by
about the same amount as their property
tax gains. If this happens, the state
would get cost savings in those years.
These savings would be a similar amount
to school property tax gains. The measure
says most of these savings would have to
be spent on fire protection.
Other Smaller Changes in Tax Collections.
The measure allows more people to
buy and sell homes without facing an
increased property tax bill. Because
of this, the measure probably would
increase the number of homes sold each
year. This would increase money going
CONTINUED
to the state and local governments from
a number of other taxes collected on the
sale of a home. These increases could be
in the tens of millions of dollars per year.
The measure says most of this increase in
state tax revenue would have to be spent
on fire protection.
Higher Costs for Counties. Counties
probably would need to hire new staff
and make computer upgrades to carry out
the measure. This would increase costs
for counties by tens of millions of dollars
per year.
Visit http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/campaign/
measures/ for a list of committees primarily
formed to support or oppose this measure.
Visit http://www.fppc.ca.gov/
transparency/top-contributors.html
to access the committee’s top 10 contributors.
If you desire a copy of the full text of this state
measure, please call the Secretary of State
at (800) 345-VOTE (8683) or you can email
vigfeedback@sos.ca.gov and a copy will
be mailed at no cost to you.
19
Analysis | 41
PROPOSITION
19
CHANGES CERTAIN PROPERTY TAX RULES.
LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
+ ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 19 +
19
YES on 19. Tax Savings and Housing Relief for SENIORS,
WILDFIRE VICTIMS, and PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES.
Proposition 19 protects vulnerable Californians, closes
unfair tax loopholes, and generates needed revenue for
fire protection and emergency medical response.
1) LIMITS PROPERTY TAXES FOR SENIORS, WILDFIRE
VICTIMS, AND DISABLED HOMEOWNERS. PROP. 19:
• Removes unfair, ever-changing location restrictions in
current law so homeowners who are seniors, disabled, or
victims of wildfire can transfer their home’s Prop. 13 tax
savings to a replacement home anywhere in California.
• Provides housing relief for millions of seniors, many
feeling trapped in homes they can’t maintain, with
too many stairs, located too far from family or medical
care—made worse by coronavirus health risks. • Creates
record home ownership opportunities for renters and new
homeowners statewide as tens of thousands of homes will
become available for the first time in decades. • “After
two wildfires destroyed 15,155 homes, victims faced
massive tax hikes simply for relocating a few miles away.
Prop. 19 removes unfair location restrictions to eliminate
sudden tax increases so wildfire victims can move to a
replacement home anywhere in California.”
—Kristy Militello, Tubbs Wildfire Survivor
2) CLOSES UNFAIR TAX LOOPHOLES USED BY EAST
COAST INVESTORS, CELEBRITIES, AND WEALTHY
TRUST FUND HEIRS ON VACATION HOMES AND
RENTALS: • News reports and property records have
revealed rules meant to limit taxes on family primary
residences are exploited by out-of-state professionals,
celebrities, and wealthy heirs to avoid paying their
fair share of taxes on vacation homes and rentals.
[Los Angeles Times, 8/17/18] • Exploiting loopholes
resulted in billions in lost revenue for schools and
counties, forcing California homeowners to pay tax
bills 10 times higher than rental homes in the same
neighborhood owned by heirs, many living as far as
Florida or New York.
PROP. 19 PROTECTS FAMILY HOMES—and low tax
rates—for children inheriting and living in primary
residences as intended under law; ELIMINATES TAX
LOOPHOLES on homes converted into rentals . . . since
rental income would easily cover any bump in property
taxes.
3) INCREASES FIRE PROTECTION, EMERGENCY
RESPONSE & SCHOOL FUNDING BY: • Establishing Fire
Protection and Emergency Medical Response Funding:
dedicated revenue for fire districts in rural and urban
communities to fix inequities that threaten life-saving
response times to wildfires and medical emergencies.
• Providing an economic boost for schools and counties
struggling to balance budgets due to coronavirus, with
long-term revenue for emergency response, affordable
housing, homeless programs, healthcare, and other local
services. • Generating hundreds of millions in revenue for
schools and local governments resulting from senior home
sales and closing loopholes on inherited properties not
used as a primary residence.
4) DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS SUPPORT
PROP. 19: “Prop. 19 protects tax savings and benefits
for vulnerable Californians, including seniors, disabled
homeowners, and wildfire victims.”—Jim Brulte, CA
Republican Party Former Chair
“Vote with state and local Democrats to close unfair
loopholes and provide needed housing relief for seniors
and working families.”—Alexandra Rooker, CA Democratic
Party Former Chair
PLEASE JOIN FIREFIGHTERS, EMERGENCY
RESPONDERS, SENIORS AND DISABILITY RIGHTS
GROUPS, CALIFORNIA BLACK CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE, CALASIAN CHAMBER, HISPANIC
CHAMBER, LOCAL DEMOCRATS & REPUBLICANS.
YESon19.vote
BRIAN RICE, President
California Professional Firefighters
KATHLEEN BARAJAS, President
Californians for Disability Rights
GEORGE MOZINGO, Boardmember
California Senior Advocates League
+ REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 19 +
Prop. 19 eliminates one of the best tools parents have to
help their children.
That’s the right, enshrined in California’s Constitution
since 1986, to pass their home and up to $1 million
of other property on without changing the Prop. 13 tax
assessment. Reassessment can mean a crushing tax
increase. So parent-child transfers of a home and limited
other property, like a small business, are protected from
reassessment by Proposition 58, which passed with 76%
of the vote in 1986.
PROPOSITION 19 ELIMINATES PROPOSITION 58.
Transfers of family homes will be automatically reassessed
unless a child moves in within one year.
Prop. 19 will collect new taxes when California families
are FORCED BY HIGHER TAXES TO SELL THEIR
PROPERTY. Its backers promise money for all kinds of
programs. Everything the backers of Prop. 19 say it will
pay for is paid for by RAISING TAXES on parent-child
transfers of family property.
Prop.19 backers say “tens of thousands of homes” will
become available to create home ownership opportunities.
Prop. 19’s backers expect it to trigger the sale of lots of
family homes. That’s shocking!
Parents today have very few tools in the toolkit to help
their children financially. Even in good times, it is hard
for the next generation to afford to stay in California, the
place that has always been their home.
Proposition 19 isn’t necessary. It’s a major hit on the
ability of any parent in California to take care of their kids.
VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 19.
ASSEMBLYMAN KEN COOLEY, District 8
SENATOR PATRICIA BATES, District 36
JON COUPAL, President
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
42 | Arguments Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors, and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
PROPOSITIONCHANGES CERTAIN PROPERTY TAX RULES.
LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. 19
+ ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 19 +
VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 19.
“Proposition 19 is an attempt by Sacramento politicians
to raise property taxes by removing two voter-approved
taxpayer protections from the State Constitution. This
measure would require reassessment to market value of
property transferred from parents to children, and from
grandparents to grandchildren.”—Jon Coupal, President,
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Proposition 19 TAKES AWAY PROPOSITION 13-related
protections that California families have under the State
Constitution and replaces them with a tax increase. VOTE
NO on Proposition 19.
Under current law, transfers of certain property between
parents and children are excluded from reassessment,
meaning the property tax bill stays the same after the
property is transferred. The same is true for certain
transfers between grandparents and grandchildren.
Voters added these overwhelmingly popular provisions to
the State Constitution with Proposition 58 in 1986 and
Proposition 193 in 1996.
Under Prop. 58, parents may transfer a home of any value
and up to $1 million of assessed value of other property
to their children without an increase in property taxes. IF
WE LOSE PROPOSITION 58, children could be forced
by higher taxes to sell their family’s property, such as a
small business that has provided the family with financial
security, and their longtime family home if they can’t
move into it fast enough.
PROPOSITION 19 TAKES AWAY PROPOSITION 58, EVEN
THOUGH IT WAS APPROVED BY 75.7% OF VOTERS!
Proposition 19 was put on the ballot through a last-minute
backroom deal in the Legislature, despite opposition from
both Democrats and Republicans.
Proposition 19 would force the reassessment to market
value of property transferred within families unless used
as the new owner’s principal residence.
PROPOSITION 19 IS A MASSIVE, BILLION-DOLLAR TAX
INCREASE ON CALIFORNIA FAMILIES.
The non-partisan Legislative Analyst’s Office projects that
Proposition 19 could eventually cost California families
about two billion dollars annually in higher property taxes.
THE TRANSFER PROVISIONS IN PROPOSITION 19
WERE ALREADY REJECTED BY VOTERS.
Current law (Propositions 60 and 90) allows homeowners
age 55 and older to move to a replacement home and
transfer their base-year property tax assessment from their
previous home to the new property. Current law allows this
transfer one time, within the same county or to a county
that accepts the transfers, and only if the replacement
property is of equal or lesser value. In 2018, voters were
presented with Proposition 5, which would have allowed
more transfer opportunities, but voters decided the
current system was fair and they overwhelmingly rejected
Proposition 5.
Now Sacramento politicians are offering this proposal
again, but this time they’ve added a massive tax increase
on inherited property. It’s a bad deal for California
families.
California voters have said clearly that they do not want
property reassessed to market value when transferred
between parents and children, or, if the children’s parents
are deceased, between grandparents and grandchildren.
Now Sacramento politicians are trying to take these
protections away from California families so they can raise
taxes again. Don’t let it happen.
VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 19.
JON COUPAL, President
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
SENATOR PATRICIA BATES, District 36
ASSEMBLYMAN KEN COOLEY, District 8
19
+ REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 19 +
Don’t Believe Self-Serving Fictions Printed Above
GET THE FACTS:
FACT: Prop. 19 provides tax limits/housing relief for
seniors. FACT: Prop. 19 closes tax loopholes used
by out-of-state investors. FACT: Prop. 19 safeguards
Prop. 13 for homeowners. FACT: Prop. 19 protects
lives/homes from wildfires.
Read the initiative yourself: • “Property Tax Fairness for
Seniors, the Severely Disabled, and Victims of Wildfire
and Natural Disasters” [Prop. 19, Section 2.1(b)].
• “Protecting the right of parents and grandparents to
pass on their family home to their children” [Prop. 19,
Section 2.1(a)(2)]. • “Eliminating unfair tax loopholes
used by East Coast investors, celebrities, wealthy non-
Californian residents, and trust fund heirs to avoid
paying a fair share of property taxes” [Prop. 19, Section
2.1(a)(2)]. • “Limit damage from wildfires on homes
through dedicated funding for fire protection and
emergency response” [Prop. 19, Section 2.1(a)(1)].
Read more here: www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot
measures/qualified-ballot-measures
What facts did opponents conveniently fail to disclose?
• One politician owns three homes—and recently admitted
taking advantage of the same tax loophole Prop. 19
eliminates. [State Capitol Floor Speech, 6/26/20]
• Another politician using the tax loophole paid $2,034
in taxes on a MILLION DOLLAR rental home—$10,000
LESS than what’s paid on similar neighborhood homes.
[Public Records, San Diego County] • Special-interest
lawyer, Jon Coupal admitted voters didn’t intend to grant
tax breaks for out-of-state heirs on multimillion-dollar
rentals. [Los Angeles Times] • “Jarvis group evolves
into money machine . . . Coupal is in the business
of promoting initiatives and causes.” [Sacramento Bee
Columnist]
STAND WITH MILLIONS OF SENIORS, DISABLED
HOMEOWNERS, WILDFIRE VICTIMS, FIREFIGHTERS,
EMERGENCY RESPONDERS, FAMILY FARMERS, AND
HARD-WORKING CALIFORNIANS.
www.YESon19.vote
KRISTY MILITELLO, Tubbs Wildfire Survivor
DAVID WOLFE, Former Legislative Director,
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
SALENA PRYOR, President
Black Small Business Association of California
Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors, and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Arguments | 43
PROPOSITION RESTRICTS PAROLE FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES CURRENTLY CONSIDERED TO 20 CURRENTLY TREATED ONLY AS MISDEMEANORS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
BE NON-VIOLENT. AUTHORIZES FELONY SENTENCES FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES
OFFICIAL TITLE AND SUMMARY PREPARED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
The text of this measure can be found on the Secretary of State’s website at
voterguide.sos.ca.gov.
20
•Limits access to parole program
established for non-violent offenders
who have completed the full term of
their primary offense by eliminating
eligibility for certain offenses.
•Changes standards and requirements
governing parole decisions under this
program.
•Authorizes felony charges for specified
theft crimes currently chargeable
only as misdemeanors, including
some theft crimes where the value is
between $250 and $950.
•Requires persons convicted of
specified misdemeanors to submit to
collection of DNA samples for state
database.
SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S ESTIMATE
OF NET STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
FISCAL IMPACT:
•Increased state and local correctional
costs likely in the tens of millions
of dollars annually, primarily due to
increases in county jail populations
and levels of community supervision.
•Increased state and local court-related
costs that could be more than several
million dollars annually.
•Increased state and local law
enforcement costs not likely to be
more than a few million dollars
annually related to collecting and
processing DNA samples.
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
OVERVIEW
Proposition 20 has four major
provisions. It:
•Changes state law to increase
criminal penalties for some theft-
related crimes.
•Changes how people released from
state prison are supervised in the
community.
•Makes various changes to the
process created by Proposition 57
(2016) for considering the release of
inmates from prison.
•Requires state and local law
enforcement to collect DNA from
adults convicted of certain crimes.
Below, we discuss each of these major
provisions and describe the fiscal effects
of the proposition.
CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN
THEFT-RELATED CRIMES
BACKGROUND
A felony is the most severe type
of crime. State law defines some
felonies as “violent” or “serious,” or
both. Examples of felonies defined as
violent and serious include murder,
robbery, and rape. Felonies that are not
defined as violent or serious include
human trafficking and selling drugs.
A misdemeanor is a less severe crime.
44 | Title and Summary / Analysis
PROPOSITION RESTRICTS PAROLE FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES CURRENTLY CONSIDERED TO
BE NON-VIOLENT. AUTHORIZES FELONY SENTENCES FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES
CURRENTLY TREATED ONLY AS MISDEMEANORS. INITIATIVE STATUTE. 20
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
Misdemeanors include crimes such as
assault and public drunkenness.
Felony Sentencing. People convicted of
felonies can be sentenced as follows:
• State Prison. People whose current
or past convictions include serious,
violent, or sex crimes can be
sentenced to state prison.
• County Jail and/or Community
Supervision. People who have no
current or past convictions for
serious, violent, or sex crimes are
typically sentenced to county jail or
are supervised by county probation
officers in the community, or both.
Misdemeanor Sentencing. People
convicted of misdemeanors can be
sentenced to county jail, county
community supervision, a fine, or some
combination of the three. They are
generally punished less than people
convicted of felonies. For example, a
misdemeanor sentence cannot exceed
one year in jail while a felony sentence
can require a much longer time in jail or
prison. In addition, people convicted of
misdemeanors are usually supervised in
the community for fewer years and may
not be supervised as closely by probation
officers.
Wobbler Sentencing. Currently, some
crimes—such as identity theft—can
be punished as either a felony or a
misdemeanor. These crimes are known
as “wobblers.” The decision is generally
based on the specifics of the crime and
a person’s criminal history.
Proposition 47 Reduced Penalties for
Certain Crimes. In November 2014,
CONTINUED
voters approved Proposition 47, which
resulted in certain theft-related crimes
being punished as misdemeanors
instead of felonies. For example,
under Proposition 47, theft involving
property worth $950 or less is generally
considered petty theft and punished as
a misdemeanor—rather than as a felony
as was sometimes possible before (such
as if a car was stolen). Proposition 47
also generally requires that shoplifting
involving $950 or less be punished as
a misdemeanor—rather than a felony as
was possible before.
PROPOSAL
Increases Penalties for Certain Theft-
Related Crimes. Proposition 20 creates
two new theft-related crimes:
• Serial Theft. Any person with two or
more past convictions for certain
theft-related crimes (such as
burglary, forgery, or carjacking) who
is found guilty of shoplifting or petty
theft involving property worth more
than $250 could be charged with
serial theft.
• Organized Retail Theft. Any person
acting with others who commits
petty theft or shoplifting two or
more times where the total value
of property stolen within 180 days
exceeds $250 could be charged
with organized retail theft.
Both of these new crimes would
be wobblers, punishable by up to
three years in county jail, even if the
person has a past conviction for a
serious, violent, or sex crime.
20
Analysis | 45
PROPOSITION RESTRICTS PAROLE FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES CURRENTLY CONSIDERED TO 20 CURRENTLY TREATED ONLY AS MISDEMEANORS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
BE NON-VIOLENT. AUTHORIZES FELONY SENTENCES FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES
20
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
In addition, Proposition 20 allows some
existing theft-related crimes that are
generally punished as misdemeanors
under Proposition 47 to be punished
as felonies. For example, under current
law, theft of all property worth less than
$950 from a store is generally required
to be punished as a misdemeanor.
Under Proposition 20, people who
steal property worth less than $950
that is not for sale (such as a cash
register) from a store could receive
felony sentences. This could increase
the amount of time people convicted of
these crimes serve. For example, rather
than serving up to six months in county
jail, they could serve up to three years in
county jail or state prison.
We estimate that a few thousand people
could be affected by the above changes
each year. However, this estimate is
based on the limited data available, and
the actual number of people affected
would depend on choices made by
prosecutors and judges. As a result, the
actual number could be significantly
higher or lower.
COMMUNITY SUPERVISION
PRACTICES
BACKGROUND
People who are released from state
prison after serving a sentence for a
serious or violent crime are supervised
for a period of time in the community
by state parole agents. People who are
released from prison after serving a
sentence for other crimes are usually
supervised in the community by county
CONTINUED
probation officers—commonly referred to
as Post-Release Community Supervision
(PRCS). When people on state parole
or PRCS break the rules that they are
required to follow while supervised—
referred to as breaking the “terms of
their supervision”—state parole agents
or county probation officers can choose
to ask a judge to change the terms of
their supervision. This can result in
harsher terms or placement in county
jail.
PROPOSAL
Changes Community Supervision Practices.
This proposition makes various changes
to state parole and PRCS practices. For
example, it requires probation officers
to ask a judge to change the terms of
supervision for people on PRCS if they
have violated them for a third time. In
addition, the proposition requires state
parole and county probation departments
to exchange more information about the
people they supervise.
PROPOSITION 57 RELEASE
CONSIDERATION PROCESS
BACKGROUND
People in prison have been convicted
of a primary crime. This is generally
the crime for which they receive the
longest amount of time in prison. They
often serve additional time due to the
facts of their cases (such as if they used
a gun) or for other, lesser crimes they
were convicted of at the same time. For
example, people previously convicted of
a serious or violent crime generally must
46 | Analysis
PROPOSITION RESTRICTS PAROLE FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES CURRENTLY CONSIDERED TO
BE NON-VIOLENT. AUTHORIZES FELONY SENTENCES FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES
CURRENTLY TREATED ONLY AS MISDEMEANORS. INITIATIVE STATUTE. 20
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
serve twice the term for any new felony
they commit.
In November 2016, voters approved
Proposition 57, which changed the State
Constitution to make prison inmates
convicted of nonviolent felonies eligible
to be considered for release after serving
the term for their primary crimes.
Inmates are considered for release
by the state Board of Parole Hearings
(BPH). Specifically, a BPH staff member
reviews various information in the
inmate’s files, such as criminal history
and behavior in prison, to determine
if the inmate will be released. BPH
also considers any letters submitted by
prosecutors, law enforcement agencies,
and victims about the inmate. The
California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR) contacts victims
registered with the state to notify them
that they can submit such letters. The
inmate is released unless BPH decides
that the inmate poses an unreasonable
risk of violence. If not released, the
inmate can request a review of the
decision. Inmates who are denied
release are reconsidered the following
year, though they often complete their
sentences and are released before
then. In 2019, BPH considered nearly
4,600 inmates and approved about 860
(19 percent) for release.
PROPOSAL
Changes Proposition 57 Release
Consideration Process. Proposition 20
makes various changes to the
Proposition 57 release consideration
process. The major changes are:
CONTINUED
• Excluding some inmates from the
process—such as those convicted of
some types of assault and domestic
violence.
• Requiring BPH to deny release to
inmates who pose an unreasonable
risk of committing felonies that
result in victims, rather than only
those who pose an unreasonable risk
of violence.
• Requiring BPH to consider
additional issues, such as the
inmates’ attitudes about their
crimes, when deciding whether to
release them.
• Requiring inmates denied release
to wait two years (rather than one)
before being reconsidered by BPH.
• Allowing prosecutors to request
that BPH perform another review of
release decisions.
• Requiring CDCR to try to locate
victims to notify them of the review
even if they are not registered with
the state.
DNA COLLECTION
BACKGROUND
In California, DNA samples must be
provided by (1) adults arrested for,
charged with, or convicted of a felony;
(2) youth who have committed a felony;
and (3) people required to register
as sex offenders or arsonists. These
samples are collected by state and
local law enforcement agencies and
submitted to the California Department
of Justice (DOJ) for processing. DOJ
20
Analysis | 47
PROPOSITION RESTRICTS PAROLE FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES CURRENTLY CONSIDERED TO 20 CURRENTLY TREATED ONLY AS MISDEMEANORS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
BE NON-VIOLENT. AUTHORIZES FELONY SENTENCES FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES
20
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
currently receives roughly 100,000
DNA samples each year. DOJ stores
the DNA profiles in a statewide DNA
database and submits them to a national
database. These databases are used by
law enforcement to investigate crimes.
PROPOSAL
Expands DNA Collection. This proposition
requires state and local law enforcement
to also collect DNA samples from adults
convicted of certain misdemeanors.
These crimes include shoplifting, forging
checks, and certain domestic violence
crimes.
FISCAL EFFECTS
The proposition would have various fiscal
effects on state and local government.
However, the exact size of the effects
discussed below would depend on
several factors. One key factor would
be decisions made by the courts and
others (such as county probation
departments and prosecutors) about how
the proposition would be implemented.
For example, the proposition seeks to
change certain inmates’ constitutional
eligibility to be considered for release
under Proposition 57 without changing
the State Constitution. If the proposition
were challenged in court, a judge might
rule that certain provisions cannot be
put into effect. Our estimates below
of the fiscal effects on state and local
government assume that the proposition
is fully implemented. In total, the
estimated increase in state costs
reflects less than one percent of the
state’s current General Fund budget.
CONTINUED
(The General Fund is the state’s main
operating account, which it uses to pay
for education, prisons, health care, and
other services.)
State and Local Correctional Costs. The
proposition would increase state and
local correctional costs in three ways.
• First, the increase in penalties
for theft-related crimes would
increase correctional costs mostly
by increasing county jail populations
and the level of community
supervision for some people.
• Second, the changes to community
supervision practices would increase
state and local costs in various
ways. For example, the requirement
that county probation officers seek
to change the terms of supervision
for people on PRCS who violate
them for a third time could increase
county jail populations if this causes
more people to be placed in jail.
• Third, the changes made to the
Proposition 57 release consideration
process would increase state costs
by reducing the number of inmates
released from prison and generally
increasing the cost of the process.
We estimate that more than several
thousand people would be affected by
the proposition each year. As a result, we
estimate that the increase in state and
local correctional costs would likely be
in the tens of millions of dollars annually.
The actual increase would depend on
several uncertain factors, such as the
specific number of people affected by
the proposition.
48 | Analysis
PROPOSITION RESTRICTS PAROLE FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES CURRENTLY CONSIDERED TO
BE NON-VIOLENT. AUTHORIZES FELONY SENTENCES FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES
CURRENTLY TREATED ONLY AS MISDEMEANORS. INITIATIVE STATUTE. 20
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
State and Local Court-Related Costs. The
proposition would increase state and
local court-related costs. This is because
it would result in some people being
convicted of felonies for certain theft-
related crimes instead of misdemeanors.
Because felonies take more time for
courts to handle than misdemeanors,
workload for the courts, county
prosecutors and public defenders,
and county sheriffs (who provide court
security) would increase. In addition,
requiring probation officers to ask judges
to change the terms of supervision
for people on PRCS after their third
violation would result in additional court
workload. We estimate that these court-
related costs could be more than several
million dollars annually, depending on
the actual number of people affected by
the proposition.
State and Local Law Enforcement Costs.
The proposition would increase state
and local law enforcement costs by
expanding the number of people who
are required to provide DNA samples,
possibly by tens of thousands annually.
CONTINUED
We estimate that the increase in state
and local law enforcement costs would
likely not be more than a few million
dollars annually.
Other Fiscal Effects. There could be other
unknown fiscal effects on state and local
governments due to the proposition. For
example, if the increase in penalties
reduces crime, some criminal justice
system costs could be avoided. The
extent to which this or other effects
would occur is unknown.
Visit http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/campaign/
measures/ for a list of committees primarily
formed to support or oppose this measure.
Visit http://www.fppc.ca.gov/
transparency/top-contributors.html
to access the committee’s top 10 contributors.
If you desire a copy of the full text of this state
measure, please call the Secretary of State
at (800) 345-VOTE (8683) or you can email
vigfeedback@sos.ca.gov and a copy will
be mailed at no cost to you.
20
Analysis | 49
PROPOSITION RESTRICTS PAROLE FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES CURRENTLY CONSIDERED TO 20 CURRENTLY TREATED ONLY AS MISDEMEANORS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
BE NON-VIOLENT. AUTHORIZES FELONY SENTENCES FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES
+ ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 20 +
20
“He slashed at me with a knife and tried to kill me,” says Terra
Newell, who survived a knife attack by the sociopath Dirty
John. “It was brutal and terrifying—but in California, his attack
wasn’t a violent crime.”
Under California law, assault with a deadly weapon is classified
a “nonviolent” offense—along with date rape, selling children
for sex, and 19 other clearly violent crimes.
All are “nonviolent” under the law.
Proposition 20 fixes this.
“Nonviolent” crimes in California include domestic violence,
exploding a bomb, shooting into a house with the intent to kill
or injure people, raping an unconscious person and beating a
child so savagely it could result in coma or death.
Sex traffickers typically beat, rape and drug their victims
before selling them for sex. But in California, trafficking is
a “nonviolent” offense. Even hate crimes are considered
“nonviolent.”
As a result, thousands of offenders convicted of these
22 violent crimes, including sex offenders and child molesters,
are eligible for early prison release, WITHOUT serving their full
sentences, and WITHOUT their victims being warned.
Proposition 20 PREVENTS the early release of violent offenders
and sexual predators by making these 22 violent crimes
“violent” under the law, and requires that victims be notified
when their assailants are set free.
Proposition 20’s “full sentence” provision applies ONLY to
violent inmates who pose a risk to public safety, regardless of
race or ethnicity. It does NOT apply to drug offenders and petty
criminals, and does NOT send more people to prison.
“Claims that Proposition 20 will fill our prisons with thousands
of new inmates are false,” says Michele Hanisee, president of
the Association of Deputy District Attorneys.
“It doesn’t send one new person to prison. It simply requires
violent offenders and sexual predators to complete their full
sentences.”
This protects victims and gives offenders longer access to
counseling, anger management and other rehabilitation
programs.
“Proposition 20 protects children against physical abuse and
sexual exploitation,” says Klaas Kids Foundation founder Marc
Klaas. “Trafficking children will finally be recognized as the
violent crime it is.”
Proposition 20 provides additional protection against violent
crime by allowing DNA collection from persons convicted of
theft or drug offenses, which multiple studies show helps solve
more serious and violent crimes like rape, robbery and murder.
California reduced penalties for theft in 2014. Since then,
major theft has increased 25%, costing grocers, small business
owners, retailers, homeowners and consumers billions of
dollars. Shoplifting has become so common it’s seldom
reported.
Proposition 20 strengthens sanctions against serial theft by
habitual criminals—to help stop car break-ins, shoplifting,
home burglaries and other major theft.
California’s drug addiction crisis is fueling much of this theft.
By strengthening sanctions against theft, Proposition 20 helps
get addicts (who are 75% of California’s homeless population)
off the streets and into the substance abuse and mental health
programs they desperately need.
Voting “YES” on Proposition 20 is a vote against hate and
violence.
It’s a vote for children, victims and survivors.
It’s a vote for equal justice and a safer California.
PATRICIA WENSKUNAS, Founder
Crime Survivors, Inc.
NINA SALARNO BESSELMAN, President
Crime Victims United of California
CHRISTINE WARD, Director
Crime Victims Alliance
+ REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 20 +
NO ON PROP. 20—IT’S A PRISON SPENDING SCAM
We are prosecutors and survivors of violent crimes. Prop. 20
backers are wrong, here’s the truth:
SENTENCING LAWS FOR VIOLENT CRIMES ARE CLEAR AND
STRONG
People who commit violent crimes receive severe and lengthy
sentences, often life in prison. That’s NOT what Prop. 20 is
about.
PROP. 20 WASTES TENS OF MILLIONS OF YOUR TAXPAYER
DOLLARS ON PRISONS
The non-partisan Legislative Analyst says Prop. 20 will cost,
“tens of millions of dollars” every year which could force
draconian cuts to:
• Rehabilitation in prison for people getting out
• Mental health programs proven to reduce repeat crime
• Schools, housing, and homelessness
• Support for victims
PROP. 20 IS EXTREME
Prop 20 means petty theft—stealing a bike—could be charged
as a felony. That’s out of line with other states and means more
teenagers and Black, Latino and low-income people could be
incarcerated for years for a low-level, non-violent crime.
PROP. 20 TAKES US BACKWARDS
Californians have overwhelmingly voted to reduce wasteful
prison spending. Prop. 20 reverses that progress. Rehabilitating
people before prison release is the most effective way to
improve public safety. Prop. 20 could eliminate funding for
what works, and waste money on more prisons we don’t need.
Law enforcement leaders, budget experts, criminal justice
reformers, prosecutors, and crime victims all oppose this prison
spending scam.
NoProp20.Vote
DIANA BECTON, District Attorney
Contra Costa County
RENEE WILLIAMS, Executive Director
National Center for Victims of Crime
TINISCH HOLLINS, California Director
Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice
50 | Arguments Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors, and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
PROPOSITION RESTRICTS PAROLE FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES CURRENTLY CONSIDERED TO
BE NON-VIOLENT. AUTHORIZES FELONY SENTENCES FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES
CURRENTLY TREATED ONLY AS MISDEMEANORS. INITIATIVE STATUTE. 20
+ ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 20 +
STOP THE PRISON SPENDING SCAM—VOTE NO ON
PROP. 20!
California already has lengthy sentences and strict punishment
for serious and violent crime. Backers of Prop. 20 are trying to
scare you into rolling back effective criminal justice reforms
you just passed, to spend tens of millions of your taxpayer
dollars on prisons.
Don’t be fooled. Every year, thousands are convicted of felonies
with long sentences. The problem isn’t sentencing, it’s what
happens in prison to prepare people for release. Prop 20 could
slash mental health treatment and rehabilitation programs—
proven strategies to reduce repeat crime. That will make us all
less safe.
Crime victims, law enforcement leaders as well as budget and
rehabilitation experts oppose Prop. 20 because it wastes tens
of millions on prisons while cutting rehabilitation programs and
support for crime victims. Prop. 20 is a prison spending scam
that takes us backwards.
PROP. 20 WASTES YOUR MONEY ON PRISONS.
Prop. 20 will spend tens of millions of taxpayer dollars—
your money—on prisons. California is facing massive cuts to
schools, health care, and other critical services. Spending tens
of millions more on prisons right now is a wasteful scam.
PROP. 20 IGNORES HOMELESSNESS, SCHOOLS, MENTAL
HEALTH, AND HOUSING.
We must always do more to address crime, but Prop. 20
will make things worse. Prop. 20 wastes tens of millions of
your taxpayer dollars on prisons that would be better spent
on schools, homelessness, mental health treatment, and
affordable housing.
PROP. 20 IS EXTREME.
Prop 20 means that theft over $250 could be charged as a
felony. That’s extreme, out of line with other states, and means
more teenagers and Black, Latino and low income people could
be locked up for years for low-level, non-violent crimes.
PROP 20 CUTS THE USE OF REHABILITATION—MAKING US
LESS SAFE.
Rehabilitation is a proven strategy to reduce repeat crime, so
people become law-abiding, productive, taxpaying citizens.
Prop 20 could cut rehabilitation—meaning fewer people would
be ready to re-enter society when they are released, which
would harm public safety.
PROP. 20 REDUCES NECESSARY SUPPORT FOR CRIME
VICTIMS.
While overspending on prisons, Prop. 20 will slash financial
support available to help victims of crime recover from trauma.
PROP. 20 TAKES US BACKWARDS.
California has made progress, carefully enacting modest
reforms to reduce wasteful prison spending, and expand
rehabilitation and other alternatives that have proven to cost-
effectively reduce and prevent crime. People are demanding
more changes to fix unjust policies that disproportionately harm
poor people and people of color. Prop. 20 would repeal the
progress we’ve made and take us backwards toward the failed,
wasteful, and unjust policies of the past.
EXPERTS ON CRIME, SPENDING, AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE
AGREE.
Prop. 20 will NOT make our communities safer. Prop. 20 WILL
waste tens of millions of YOUR taxpayer dollars on prisons—
causing CUTS to critical services people need.
STOP the Prison Spending Scam. VOTE NO on Prop. 20!
NoProp20.vote
#StopthePrisonSpendingScam
TINISCH HOLLINS, California Director
Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice
WILLIAM LANDSDOWNE, Police Chief (ret.)
City of San Diego
MICHAEL COHEN, Director of Finance (fmr.)
State of California
20
+ REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 20 +
Opponents ignore what Proposition 20 really does—it
PREVENTS convicted child molesters, sexual predators and
other violent inmates from being released from prison early.
Under current law, these inmates now qualify for early release
because their violent crimes are classified as “nonviolent.”
Proposition 20 closes this loophole, making crimes like date
rape, child trafficking, spouse beating, and assault with a
deadly weapon “violent” under the law.
“Proposition 20 does NOT send one new person to prison,”
says Michael Rushford, President of the Criminal Justice Legal
Foundation. “It does NOT allocate funds for new prisons, nor
slash funding for mental health and rehabilitation programs.
These are FALSE arguments.”
Opponents claim Proposition 20 makes petty theft a “serious
felony,” and say offenders “could be locked up in state prison
for years.”
Both claims are untrue.
Read the initiative. Proposition 20 specifically targets
HABITUAL thieves who REPEATEDLY steal. And it specifically
FORBIDS convicted offenders from being sent to state prison.
Instead, they’ll be directed to local jail or rehabilitation
programs.
By targeting only violent offenders and habitual criminals,
Proposition 20 protects ALL Californians, including people of
color, who studies show suffer disproportionately from violent
crime.
We all want to reform our justice system. But allowing violent
offenders to leave prison early isn’t reform. It’s a threat to
public safety.
Proposition 20 is REAL reform that protects victims and
ensures equal justice.
Vote YES on Proposition 20.
FRANK LEE, President
Organization for Justice and Equality
ERIC R. NUÑEZ, President
California Police Chiefs Association
PATRICIA WENSKUNAS, Founder
Crime Survivors Inc.
Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors, and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Arguments | 51
PROPOSITION EXPANDS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS’ AUTHORITY TO 21 INITIATIVE STATUTE.
ENACT RENT CONTROL ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.
OFFICIAL TITLE AND SUMMARY PREPARED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
The text of this measure can be found on the Secretary of State’s website at
voterguide.sos.ca.gov.
• Amends state law to allow local governments to • In accordance with California law, prohibits rent
establish rent control on residential properties over control from violating landlords’ right to fair
15 years old. Allows local limits on annual rent financial return.
increases to differ from current statewide limit.
SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S ESTIMATE OF • Allows rent increases in rent-controlled properties
of up to 15 percent over three years at start of NET STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FISCAL IMPACT:
new tenancy (above any increase allowed by local • Overall, a potential reduction in state and local ordinance). revenues in the high tens of millions of dollars
• Exempts individuals who own no more than two per year over time. Depending on actions by local
homes from new rent-control policies. communities, revenue losses could be less or more.
21
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
BACKGROUND
Rental Housing Is Expensive in California. Renters in
California typically pay 50 percent more for housing
than renters in other states. In some parts of the
state, rent costs are more than double the national
average. Rent is high in California because the state
does not have enough housing for everyone who
wants to live here. People who want to live here must
compete for housing, which increases rents.
Several Cities Have Rent Control Laws. Several
California cities—including Los Angeles,
San Francisco, and San Jose—have laws that limit
how much landlords can increase rents for housing
from one year to the next. These laws often are called
rent control. About one-fifth of Californians live in
cities with rent control. Local rent boards carry out
rent control. These boards are paid for with fees on
landlords.
Court Rulings Limit Local Rent Control. Courts have
ruled that rent control laws must allow landlords
to receive a “fair rate of return.” This means that
landlords must be allowed to increase rents enough
to receive some profit each year.
State Law Limits Local Rent Control. A state law,
known as the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act
(Costa-Hawkins), limits local rent control laws.
Costa-Hawkins creates three main limitations. First,
rent control cannot apply to any single-family homes.
Second, rent control can never apply to any newly
built housing completed on or after February 1, 1995.
Third, rent control laws cannot tell landlords what
they can charge a new renter when first moving in.
State Law Limits Rent Increases. In addition to local
rent control allowed by Costa-Hawkins, a new state
law limits rent increases for most rental housing in
California. Landlords cannot increase rent by more
than 5 percent plus inflation in a year, or 10 percent,
whichever is lower. This applies to most housing
that is more than 15 years old. This law lasts until
January 1, 2030.
State and Local Government Tax Revenues. Three taxes
are the largest sources of tax revenue for the state
and local governments in California—personal income
tax, property tax, and sales tax. The state collects
a personal income tax on income—including rent
received by landlords—earned within the state. Local
governments levy property taxes on property owners
based on the value of their property. The state and
local governments collect sales taxes on the retail sale
of goods.
PROPOSAL
Allows for Expansion of Rent Control. The measure
modifies the three main limitations of Costa-Hawkins,
allowing cities and counties to apply rent control to
more properties than under current law. Specifically,
cities and counties can apply rent control to most
housing that is more than 15 years old. This does
not include single-family homes owned by people
with two or fewer properties. In addition, cities and
52 | Title and Summary / Analysis
PROPOSITION EXPANDS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS’ AUTHORITY TO
ENACT RENT CONTROL ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.
INITIATIVE STATUTE. 21
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
counties can limit how much a landlord can increase
rents when a new renter moves in. Communities that
do so must allow a landlord to increase rents by up
to 15 percent during the first three years after a new
renter moves in.
Requires Fair Rate of Return. The measure requires that
rent control laws allow landlords a fair rate of return.
This puts the results of past court rulings into state
law.
FISCAL EFFECTS
Economic Effects. If communities respond to this
measure by expanding their rent control laws beyond
the existing protections for renters, it could lead to
several economic effects. The most likely effects are:
• To avoid rent regulation, some landlords would
sell their rental housing to new owners who
would live there.
• The value of rental housing would decline
because potential landlords would not want to
pay as much for these properties.
• Some renters would spend less on rent and
some landlords would receive less rental
income.
• Some renters would move less often. For
example, fewer renters would move because
their rents increase.
The size of these effects would depend on how many
communities pass new laws, how many properties are
covered, and how much rents are limited.
Changes in State and Local Revenues. The measure’s
economic effects would affect property tax, sales tax,
and income tax revenues. The largest and most likely
impacts are:
• Less Property Taxes Paid by Landlords. A decline
in the value of rental properties would lead to
a decrease in property tax payments made by
owners of those properties over time. These
property tax losses would be partially offset by
higher property tax payments resulting from the
sales of rental housing. This is because property
sales often cause property tax bills to reset at a
higher level. Revenue losses from lower property
values would be larger than revenue gains from
increased sales. Because of this, the measure
would reduce overall property tax payments.
CONTINUED
• More Sales Taxes Paid by Renters. Renters who
pay less in rent would use some of their savings
to buy taxable goods.
• Change in Income Taxes Paid by Landlords.
Landlords’ income tax payments would change
in several ways, both up and down. The overall
effect on state income tax revenue is not clear.
Overall, the measure likely would reduce state and
local revenues over time. The largest effect would
be on property taxes. The amount of revenue loss
would depend on many factors, most importantly how
communities respond to this measure. For example,
if communities that already have rent control expand
their rules to include newer homes and single-family
homes, revenue losses could be in the high tens of
millions of dollars per year. If many communities
create new rent control rules, revenue losses could
be larger. If few communities make changes, revenue
losses would be minor.
Increased Local Government Costs. If cities or counties
create new rent control laws or expand existing
ones, local rent boards would have increased costs.
Depending on local government choices, these costs
could range from very little to tens of millions of dollars
per year. These costs likely would be paid by fees on
owners of rental housing.
Visit http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/campaign/
measures/ for a list of committees primarily
formed to support or oppose this measure.
Visit http://www.fppc.ca.gov/
transparency/top-contributors.html
to access the committee’s top 10 contributors.
If you desire a copy of the full text of this state
measure, please call the Secretary of State
at (800) 345-VOTE (8683) or you can email
vigfeedback@sos.ca.gov and a copy will
be mailed at no cost to you.
21
Analysis | 53
PROPOSITION
21 EXPANDS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS’ AUTHORITY TO
ENACT RENT CONTROL ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.
INITIATIVE STATUTE.
+ ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 21 +
21
VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 21! KEEP FAMILIES IN
THEIR HOMES, PRESERVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING,
STOP HOMELESSNESS, AND SAVE TAXPAYERS MONEY.
Where are people supposed to live in California? The
housing crisis rages on as rising rents and stagnant
wages leave many behind. The consequences are felt by
everyone. Neighbors are forced from communities, renters
face uncertainty, and the most vulnerable people end up
on the streets. Small businesses are squeezed as renters
spend less in their communities and workers face longer
commutes.
Living paycheck to paycheck makes it difficult for teachers,
grocery clerks, and nurses to afford housing in the
communities they serve, while still having enough money for
basics like groceries, gas, and childcare. And skyrocketing
rents have led to over 150,000 homeless people living on
the streets.
The crisis is only getting worse. The coronavirus pandemic
has left millions of workers unemployed and at risk of losing
their homes. According to a UCLA study, we are facing a
surge in homelessness.
By tackling one of the root causes of the crisis, Prop. 21:
• SAVES TAXPAYERS MONEY
A 2017 study found that just a 5 percent increase in rent
pushes 2,000 Los Angeles residents into homelessness. The
burden of rising homelessness in California is paid for by
taxpayers. The cost of homelessness, estimated at $35,000
to $45,000 annually per homeless person, is unsustainable.
Prop. 21 ensures that fewer people lose their homes, saving
taxpayers money.
• KEEPS FAMILIES IN THEIR HOMES
Prop. 21 will help children, parents, seniors, and essential
workers stay in their homes. Right now, children are pushed
out of their schools, parents are forced into long commutes,
and seniors are faced with unaffordable rents. More and
more people are being pushed out onto the streets.
Proposition 21 provides reasonable and predictable rent
increases for members of our community.
• BRINGS STABILITY TO SENIORS AND VETERANS
Seniors and veterans are struggling with devastatingly
high rents, leaving little for food, medical care, and other
necessities. Prop. 21 allows local communities to limit their
rent increases and preserve affordable housing. It helps
seniors and veterans stay in their homes.
• PROTECTS SINGLE-FAMILY HOMEOWNERS
Prop. 21 exempts single-family homeowners. If you are not
in the rental home business, you will NOT be affected by
Prop. 21.
• KEEPS HOUSING COSTS DOWN
Families, teachers, and nurses are struggling to find
housing due to skyrocketing rents. Prop. 21 allows our
communities to preserve affordable housing and encourages
the construction of new homes. This will make housing
affordable for all.
• GUARANTEES LANDLORDS A PROFIT
Prop. 21 GUARANTEES landlords a profit. It is fair to
mom-and-pop landlords and renters alike.
YES on Prop. 21 is supported by a broad coalition of
elected officials, labor unions, civic organizations, national
social justice groups, local tenants unions, and legal aid
organizations. Proposition 21 helps families, children,
senior citizens, and veterans stay in their homes. Learn
more at yeson21ca.org.
DOLORES HUERTA, President
The Dolores Huerta Foundation
KEVIN DE LEÓN, President pro Tempore Emeritus
California State Senate
CYNTHIA DAVIS, Chair of the Board of Directors
AIDS Healthcare Foundation
+ REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 21 +
PROP. 21 WILL MAKE THE HOUSING CRISIS WORSE
With millions of people out of work and struggling just to
stay in their homes, the last thing we should do is repeal
California’s rental housing protections with no solution.
It’s why civil rights leaders, affordable housing advocates,
seniors, veterans and a broad coalition of business and labor
organizations oppose Prop. 21.
“Prop. 21 encourages landlords to evict tenants, and would
result in less rental housing supply, higher housing costs
and more homelessness.”—Alice Huffman, President,
California State Conference of the NAACP
REASONS TO VOTE NO ON PROP. 21
Californians should reject this scheme that makes the
housing crisis worse. Prop. 21: • Undermines the strongest
statewide rent control law in the nation • Costs jobs and
stops affordable housing construction • Takes away basic
homeowner protections • Would reduce home values up to
20 percent • Offers no protections for seniors, veterans or
the disabled. • Contains no provisions to reduce rents or
stop homelessness • Allows unelected boards to impose
extreme price controls • Reduces state and local funds by
tens of millions of dollars annually for priorities like local
schools and fire safety
PROP. 21 IS OPPOSED BY BIPARTISAN LEADERS AND
ORGANIZATIONS
Opponents include: • California State Conference of
the NAACP • California Council for Affordable Housing
• Coalition of Small Rental Property Owners • American
Legion, Department of California • California Chamber
of Commerce • Women Veterans Alliance • Nearly 50
local unions • United Latinos Vote • California Taxpayers
Association.
DEMAND REAL SOLUTIONS
Voters overwhelmingly rejected the same failed scheme
two years ago. Vote NO on 21 and demand real solutions
to our housing crisis, like putting people back to work by
creating affordable and middle-class housing. Get the facts
at NoOnProp21.vote
ALICE HUFFMAN, President
California State Conference of the NAACP
MARILYN MARKHAM, Board Member
California Senior Advocates League
ROBERT GUTIERREZ, President
California Taxpayers Association
54 | Arguments Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors, and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
PROPOSITION EXPANDS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS’ AUTHORITY TO
ENACT RENT CONTROL ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.
INITIATIVE STATUTE. 21
+ ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 21 +
PROP. 21 IS A DEEPLY FLAWED SCHEME THAT WILL
INCREASE HOUSING COSTS AND HURT CALIFORNIA’S
ECONOMIC RECOVERY
If Prop. 21 seems familiar, it’s because nearly 60% of
California voters rejected the same flawed scheme in 2018.
Seniors, veterans and affordable housing experts all oppose
Prop. 21 because it will make housing less available and
less affordable at a time when millions of Californians are
struggling to get back to work and keep a roof over their
heads.
The California Council for Affordable Housing calls Prop. 21
a “flawed idea.” Here’s how Prop. 21 will make things
worse:
REPEALS HOUSING LAW WITH NO SOLUTION
Prop. 21 does nothing to address California’s housing
shortage. Instead, it undermines the strongest statewide
rent control law in the nation signed by Gov. Newsom and
enacted just last year with no plan to build affordable and
middle-class housing or deal with the increasing problem of
homelessness on our streets.
ELIMINATES HOMEOWNERS PROTECTIONS
Prop. 21 takes away basic protections for homeowners
and allows regulators to tell single-family homeowners how
much they can charge to rent out a single room. Millions
of homeowners will be treated just like corporate landlords
and subject to regulations and price controls enacted by
unelected boards.
REDUCES HOME VALUES UP TO 20%
Non-partisan researchers at MIT estimate extreme rent
control measures like this result in an average reduction
in home values up to 20%. That’s up to $115,000 in lost
value for the average homeowner. Californians can’t afford
to take another hit with the economic collapse threatening
their home values and life savings.
OFFERS NO PROTECTIONS FOR SENIORS, VETERANS OR
THE DISABLED
Prop 21 has no protections for seniors, veterans or the
disabled, and it has no provision to reduce rents. Veterans,
seniors, social justice organizations and the American
Legion, Dept. of California, agree it’s the last thing we need
right now.
ALLOWS EXTREME REGULATIONS
Prop. 21 allows local governments to establish extreme and
permanent regulations on nearly all aspects of housing. For
example, even after a tenant moves out, property owners
won’t be able to establish rents at market rates or pay for
investments in repairs or upgrades. It simply goes too far.
MAKES THE HOUSING CRISIS WORSE
Californians are experiencing a severe housing affordability
crisis in the most devastating economic and public health
emergency of our lifetimes. The last thing we should do
is pass an initiative that will stop new housing from being
built, cost jobs, and hurt the economic recovery.
OPPOSED BY A BROAD BIPARTISAN COALITION
Democrats and Republicans agree Prop. 21 will make the
crisis worse. Opponents include: California Council for
Affordable Housing • Disabled American Veterans, Dept.
of California • California Housing Consortium • Vietnam
Veterans of America, California State Council • California
Chamber of Commerce
DEMAND REAL SOLUTIONS
We should vote “NO” on Prop. 21 and demand real
solutions.
VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 21
Learn more at NoOnProp21.vote
EDWARD J. GRIMSLEY, State Commander
American Legion, Dept. of California
LORRAINE J. PLASS, 3rd Vice Commander
AMVETS, Dept. of California
PATRICK SABELHAUS, Executive Director
California Council for Affordable Housing
21 + REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 21 +
PROP. 21—THE CHANGE WE NEED TO TACKLE
HOMELESSNESS
A YES Vote on Proposition 21 is a vote to keep families
together. A strong coalition of elected leaders; affordable
housing providers; and senior, veteran, and homeless
advocates agree that Proposition 21 will help keep families
in their homes. Prop. 21:
• Protects millions of seniors, veterans, and working
families • Saves taxpayers money by preventing
homelessness • Preserves affordable housing • Protects
single-family homeowners
“Proposition 21 helps seniors stay in their homes. It
protects them from becoming homeless and lets them
live their lives in dignity, near family and friends.”—Ernie
Powell, Social Security Works California
“Prop. 21 gives our communities additional tools to keep
vulnerable families in their homes. Proposition 21 will help
seniors, veterans and workers.”—Ben Allen, California State
Senator
“More veterans become homeless every year due to the high
cost of housing. Proposition 21 will help keep veterans from
becoming homeless.”—Jillynn Molina-Williams, Veterans
Caucus Chair of the California Democratic Party
“The single most important thing you can do to help nurses,
teachers, firefighters, grocery workers and hotel workers stay
in their homes is to VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 21.”
—Ada Briceño, Co-President, UNITE HERE Local 11
“Homelessness costs the state billions of dollars. This
cost is passed down to taxpayers. Prop. 21 saves taxpayers
money by keeping families in their homes.”—Jamie Court,
President, Consumer Watchdog
CALIFORNIA NEEDS PROP. 21
Vote YES on Proposition 21 to keep families in their homes!
Learn more at Yeson21CA.org.
DAVID CAMPOS, Chair
San Francisco Democratic Party
ERNIE POWELL
Social Security Works
JAMIE COURT, President
Consumer Watchdog
Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors, and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Arguments | 55
PROPOSITION
22 EXEMPTS APP-BASED TRANSPORTATION AND DELIVERY COMPANIES
FROM PROVIDING EMPLOYEE BENEFITS TO CERTAIN DRIVERS.
INITIATIVE STATUTE.
OFFICIAL TITLE AND SUMMARY PREPARED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
The text of this measure can be found on the Secretary of State’s website at
voterguide.sos.ca.gov.
• Classifies drivers for app-based transportation
(rideshare) and delivery companies as
“independent contractors,” not “employees,”
unless company: sets drivers’ hours, requires
acceptance of specific ride or delivery requests,
or restricts working for other companies.
• Independent contractors are not covered by
various state employment laws—including
minimum wage, overtime, unemployment
insurance, and workers’ compensation.
• Instead, independent-contractor drivers would
be entitled to other compensation—including
minimum earnings, healthcare subsidies, and
vehicle insurance.
• Restricts certain local regulation of app-based
drivers.
• Criminalizes impersonation of drivers.
SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S ESTIMATE OF
NET STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FISCAL IMPACT:
• Minor increase in state income taxes paid by
rideshare and delivery company drivers and
investors.
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
BACKGROUND
App-Based Rides and Delivery. Some companies
allow customers to hire rides or order food for
delivery on a phone app. These companies are
often called rideshare and delivery companies.
Most large rideshare and delivery companies
are headquartered in California. In total, these
companies are worth about as much as Ford,
General Motors, and Fiat Chrysler combined.
Rideshare and Delivery Companies Hire Drivers as
Independent Contractors. An independent contractor
is someone who does work for a business but is not
an employee of the business. Drivers for rideshare
and delivery companies choose when, where, and
how much to work. Drivers use their own cars and
pay their own expenses.
Most Drivers Work Part Time. Most drivers work
part time and many drivers only work for a short
time or only drive occasionally. Rideshare and
delivery companies pay drivers a share of the fare
or delivery charge customers pay for app-based
services. Drivers spend about one-third of their
time waiting for rides and deliveries and are not
paid during this time. Most drivers probably make
between $11 and $16 per hour, after accounting
for waiting time and driving expenses.
The State Says Rideshare and Delivery Companies
Must Hire Drivers as Employees. The state recently
passed a law that limits the ability of companies
to hire workers as independent contractors.
The state Attorney General says the law means
rideshare and delivery companies must hire
drivers as employees. The rideshare and delivery
companies do not agree that the new state law
makes their drivers employees. The companies
continue to hire drivers as independent contractors.
The state Attorney General recently sued two
rideshare companies to force them to hire
drivers as employees. If the courts agree with the
Attorney General, the companies will have to hire
drivers as employees.
As Employees, Drivers Would Get Standard Benefits
and Protections. As employees, drivers would
get standard job benefits and protections that
independent contractors do not get. For example,
employees must be paid at least a minimum wage
plus extra pay for overtime. Employees also must
be allowed to take breaks and take paid time off
if they are sick. At the same time, as employees,
drivers would have less choice about when, where,
and how much to work.
22
56 | Title and Summary / Analysis
PROPOSITION EXEMPTS APP-BASED TRANSPORTATION AND DELIVERY COMPANIES
FROM PROVIDING EMPLOYEE BENEFITS TO CERTAIN DRIVERS.
INITIATIVE STATUTE. 22
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST CONTINUED
PROPOSAL
Makes Drivers Independent Contractors. This measure
makes app-based rideshare and delivery drivers
independent contractors. The new state law that
limits the ability of companies to hire independent
contractors would not apply to drivers.
Gives Drivers Certain Benefits. This measure requires
rideshare and delivery companies to provide certain
benefits:
• Earnings Minimum. This measure requires
companies to pay 120 percent of the local
minimum wage for each hour a driver spends
driving, but not time spent waiting.
• Health Insurance Stipend. For drivers who
normally work more than 15 hours per week
(not including waiting time), this measure
requires that companies help pay for health
insurance.
• Pay For Costs When a Driver Gets Hurt on the
Job. This measure requires that companies
pay medical costs and replace some lost
income when a driver is injured while driving
or waiting.
• Rest Policy. This measure prohibits drivers
from working more than 12 hours in a
24-hour period for a single rideshare or
delivery company.
• Other Requirements. This measure prohibits
workplace discrimination and requires that
companies: (1) develop sexual harassment
policies, (2) conduct criminal background
checks, and (3) mandate safety training for
drivers.
Limits Local Government Ability to Set Additional
Rules. This measure limits the ability of cities and
counties to place additional rules on rideshare and
delivery companies.
FISCAL EFFECTS
Whether rideshare and delivery drivers are
employees or independent contractors is still being
decided in the courts. The fiscal effects below
assume that the courts agree with the state that
drivers are employees under the new state law.
Lower Costs and Higher Profits for Rideshare
and Delivery Companies. This measure allows
rideshare and delivery companies to hire drivers
as independent contractors instead of employees.
The companies would not have to pay the costs
of providing standard employee benefits and
protections, which usually make up 20 percent of
employee costs. This would allow the companies
to charge lower fares and delivery fees. With
lower prices, customers would take more rides
and place more orders. This could increase the
companies’ profits. Higher profits would increase
the companies’ stock prices.
Drivers and Stockholders Would Pay More Income
Taxes. Because people would take more rides and
place more orders, drivers as a group would earn
more income. This means state income taxes paid
by drivers would increase. Californians who own
rideshare and delivery company stock also may
earn more when they sell the stock. They would pay
state income taxes on these increased gains. The
amount of increased state personal income taxes
paid by drivers and stockholders is unknown, but
likely minor.
SUMMARY OF FISCAL EFFECTS
This measure would have the following fiscal effect:
• Minor increase in state income taxes paid by
rideshare and delivery company drivers and
investors.
Visit http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/campaign/
measures/ for a list of committees primarily
formed to support or oppose this measure.
Visit http://www.fppc.ca.gov/
transparency/top-contributors.html
to access the committee’s top 10 contributors.
If you desire a copy of the full text of this state
measure, please call the Secretary of State
at (800) 345-VOTE (8683) or you can email
vigfeedback@sos.ca.gov and a copy will
be mailed at no cost to you.
Analysis | 57
22
PROPOSITION EXEMPTS APP-BASED TRANSPORTATION AND DELIVERY COMPANIES 22 INITIATIVE STATUTE.
FROM PROVIDING EMPLOYEE BENEFITS TO CERTAIN DRIVERS.
+ ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 22 +
PROBLEM: DRASTIC NEW LEGISLATION THREATENS TO
MAKE IT ILLEGAL FOR APP-BASED DRIVERS TO WORK AS
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS
Sacramento politicians recently passed legislation that
threatens to eliminate the ability of Californians to choose
work as independent contractors providing app-based
rideshare, food and grocery delivery services.
By a 4:1 margin, independent surveys show app-based drivers
overwhelmingly prefer to work as independent contractors, not
employees. These drivers have other jobs, family obligations
or health issues and need flexibility to continue this work and
supplemental income to support their families.
PROHIBITING INDEPENDENT CONTRACT WORK FOR
APP-BASED DRIVERS WOULD ELIMINATE HUNDREDS OF
THOUSANDS OF JOBS
“Eliminating drivers’ ability to work as independent
contractors will end the flexibility the vast majority of drivers
need, severely damaging the proven on-demand model that
quickly matches customers with drivers. The result will be
much longer wait times, significantly higher consumer prices,
and the permanent shutdown of services in many areas—
eliminating hundreds of thousands of jobs.”—William Hamm,
former nonpartisan State Legislative Analyst
SOLUTION: YES ON PROP. 22 PROTECTS THE ABILITY OF
DRIVERS TO WORK AS INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS &
PROVIDES NEW BENEFITS
YES ON 22:
1. PROTECTS the choice of app-based drivers to work as
independent contractors—SAVING CALIFORNIA JOBS when
millions are struggling financially.
2. IMPROVES app-based work by requiring companies
to provide new benefits, including: guaranteed minimum
earnings • funding for health benefits • medical and disability
coverage for on-the-job injuries • additional protections
against harassment and discrimination.
3. CREATES EXPANDED PUBLIC SAFETY PROTECTIONS,
including: requiring ongoing background checks and safety
courses • zero tolerance for drug and alcohol offenses
• criminal penalty for impersonating a driver.
YES ON 22: BY A 4:1 MARGIN APP-BASED DRIVERS WANT
TO BE INDEPENDENT
More than 80% of drivers work less than 20 hours a week,
have other jobs or responsibilities and can’t work set shifts
as employees: • Parents who work while kids are in school;
• Family members who work odd hours so they can care for
aging parents or other loved ones; • Working families, retirees
and students who need supplemental income.
“I’m a disabled veteran and am going back to school to
prepare for a new career. I strongly support Prop. 22 because
it protects the flexibility I need to work around my medical
appointments and my education.”—Matthew Emerson, Navy
Veteran & Food Delivery Driver
“I’m a mother of five with a full-time job. I need flexible,
independent work a few hours a week to supplement my
income. Otherwise my family wouldn’t survive financially.”
—Brenda Vela, Mother & Rideshare Driver
YES ON PROP. 22 KEEPS RIDESHARE & FOOD DELIVERY
SERVICES AVAILABLE, AFFORDABLE & SAFE
Prop. 22 preserves delivery services that millions now rely on
to bring groceries, medications and warm meals to homes,
and rideshare that improves mobility and keeps drunk drivers
off our roads.
YES ON 22: SUPPORTED BY DRIVERS, SMALL
BUSINESSES, SOCIAL JUSTICE ADVOCATES, PUBLIC
SAFETY LEADERS & OTHERS
Supported by an overwhelming majority of app-based drivers
• California Small Business Association • California State
NAACP • California Peace Officers’ Association • National
Hispanic Council on Aging • California Senior Advocates
League • 100+ other organizations.
www.VoteYesProp22.com
BETTY JO TOCCOLI, President
California Small Business Association
JIM PYATT, President
Independent Drivers Alliance of California
MINNIE HADLEY-HEMPSTEAD, President
NAACP Los Angeles
22 + REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 22 +
My name is Jerome Gage. I’ve been a Lyft driver for five years.
I like the flexibility. Before COVID-19, I drove 40 hours a
week. I drive less now but understand why.
What I don’t understand is why Uber and Lyft refuse to treat
me as an employee since that’s California law.
Right now, they don’t pay minimum wage or overtime. They
don’t give us paid sick time. They shift the cost of doing
business onto us. That’s wrong.
Vote NO on 22.
They also don’t think I deserve healthcare or protections of
an “essential” employee. When COVID-19 hit, they wouldn’t
even cover my unemployment benefits.
But they paid $5,000,000 to put 22 on the ballot. And they
say they’ll spend another ONE HUNDRED MILLION to pass it.
Drivers like me would’ve used that money for PPE or more
sanitation stations to protect us and keep our customers safe.
If we got sick, we’d even have healthcare.
Uber and Lyft claim I want to be “independent.” What I really
want is to be safe and paid a living wage. That would give me
independence.
Recent studies show 70% of Uber and Lyft drivers work 30
or more hours a week—just like me—and our wages would be
WORSE under Prop. 22. How’s that fair?
Billion-dollar companies shouldn’t get to pick and choose the
laws they follow or write their own, like Prop. 22.
Please join me and driver groups representing over 50,000
drivers: VOTE NO on Prop. 22.
JEROME GAGE, Lyft Driver
58 | Arguments Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors, and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
PROPOSITION EXEMPTS APP-BASED TRANSPORTATION AND DELIVERY COMPANIES
FROM PROVIDING EMPLOYEE BENEFITS TO CERTAIN DRIVERS.
INITIATIVE STATUTE. 22
+ ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 22 +
Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash paid to put Proposition 22 on the
November ballot. They hired lawyers to write this misleading
initiative and paid political operatives millions to collect the
voter signatures needed.
Why?
To create a special exemption for themselves that will legally
deny their driver’s basic rights and protections at work like
paid sick leave; workers’ compensation, or unemployment
benefits.
Prop. 22 ONLY applies to Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, and other
app-based delivery and transportation companies. Their goal
is PROFIT. Only THESE companies would profit from this
special exemption.
Current law requires Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash to provide their
drivers with a minimum wage, healthcare, paid sick leave,
unemployment, and workers’ compensation coverage, just like
every other California business.
The Attorney General recently sued them for breaking the law
and for relentlessly avoiding responsibility to their drivers for
years. With your vote, you can help make them stop! Vote NO
on Prop. 22.
Why vote NO on Proposition 22?
• Prop. 22 creates a special exemption that eliminates basic
workplace benefits and replaces them with a new LOWER
“earnings guarantee” and “healthcare subsidy” payments
designed to save the companies money.
• Prop. 22 contains deceptive wording to cynically try to
convince us they are strengthening driver protections. The
truth is, Uber and Lyft are ALREADY required to perform
background checks, and the new provisions would ELIMINATE
required sexual harassment training and the obligations on
Uber and Lyft to investigate customers’ and drivers’ sexual
harassment claims.
• The bottom line: Prop. 22 is all about money. It’s not about
helping the drivers you meet if you use these apps.
The outbreak of COVID-19 further exposed these companies’
refusal to treat their drivers fairly.
The New York Times editorial board recently wrote that these
companies “have failed to enforce consistent safety measures
during the pandemic, including providing sufficient numbers
of masks or guidance on social distancing, while pushing
workers to fulfill an ever greater number of orders to keep up
with the rising demand for food deliveries.”
These drivers, 78% of whom are people of color, are
ESSENTIAL. They’ve helped California through the pandemic,
and they deserve better.
We believe app drivers, many Latino, Black, or from other
communities of color, SHOULD have sick leave, healthcare,
unemployment benefits, AND flexibility in their scheduling.
So don’t let Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash confuse the issue.
They claim this is about “flexibility” for “part-time” drivers.
However, current law in no way limits driver flexibility.
In fact, a University of California study found that a majority
of drivers are not part-time, and over 70 percent of drivers for
Uber and Lyft work 30 or more hours per week.
Don’t take our word. Read for yourself at
transform.ucsc.edu/on-demand-and-on-the-edge.
Prop. 22 was written by Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash for Uber,
Lyft, and DoorDash, NOT their drivers. That’s why tens of
thousands of drivers have joined us to urge a NO vote.
Don’t let Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash write their own special law.
Vote No on Proposition 22.
NOonCAProp22.com
ALVARO BOLAINEZ, Uber Driver
NOURBESE FLINT, Executive Director
Black Women for Wellness Action Project
ART PULASKI, Executive Secretary-Treasurer
California Labor Federation
+ REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 22 +
APP-BASED DRIVERS OVERWHELMINGLY SUPPORT
PROPOSITION 22
By a 4:1 margin, surveys show app-based drivers want to
work as independent contractors. Eighty percent work under
20 hours per week, and a majority work under 1O hours per
week. Parents who need flexible work around kids’ schedules,
people in need of extra income, families caring for sick or
aging loved ones, and students earning around classes.
But the politicians and special interests behind the opposition
to Prop. 22 cynically claim they know what’s best for drivers.
They passed state legislation that threatens to make it illegal
for drivers to work as independent contractors.
That’s why drivers support Prop. 22—to protect their flexible
earning opportunities and save hundreds of thousands of jobs.
PROP. 22 SAVES APP-BASED JOBS & SERVICES
Prop. 22 protects drivers’ choice to work as independent
contractors. Prop. 22 preserves delivery services that millions
rely on for safe access to food and groceries and rideshare
that improves mobility and keeps drunk drivers off our roads.
PROP. 22 REQUIRES COMPANIES TO PROVIDE DRIVERS
HISTORIC NEW BENEFITS
• Earnings guarantee of at least $21 per hour.
• Health care benefits at 15 hours per week.
• Insurance for injuries on the job.
• Strengthening protections against discrimination and
harassment.
PROP. 22 ADDS STRICT NEW CONSUMER SAFETY
PROTECTIONS
Prop. 22 provides for: strict ongoing driver background checks
• zero tolerance for drug and alcohol offenses • making it a
crime to impersonate a driver.
JOIN APP-BASED DRIVERS, SOCIAL JUSTICE, SMALL
BUSINESS & PUBLlC SAFETY LEADERS: YES ON 22!
VoteYesProp22.com
JIM PYATT, President
Independent Drivers Alliance of California
FREDDYE DAVIS, President
Hayward South Alameda County NAACP
JULIAN CANETE, President
California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce
22
Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors, and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Arguments | 59
PROPOSITION
23 ESTABLISHES STATE REQUIREMENTS FOR KIDNEY DIALYSIS
CLINICS. REQUIRES ON-SITE MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL.
INITIATIVE STATUTE.
OFFICIAL TITLE AND SUMMARY PREPARED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
The text of this measure can be found on the Secretary of State’s website at
voterguide.sos.ca.gov.
• Requires at least one licensed physician
on site during treatment at outpatient
kidney dialysis clinics; authorizes California
Department of Public Health to exempt clinics
from this requirement if there is a shortage of
qualified licensed physicians and the clinic
has at least one nurse practitioner or physician
assistant on site.
• Requires clinics to report dialysis-
related infection data to state and federal
governments.
• Prohibits clinics from closing or reducing
services without state approval.
• Prohibits clinics from refusing to treat patients
based on the source of payment for care.
SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S ESTIMATE OF
NET STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FISCAL IMPACT:
• Increased state and local government costs
likely in the low tens of millions of dollars
annually.
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
BACKGROUND
DIALYSIS TREATMENT
Kidney Failure. Healthy kidneys filter a person’s
blood to remove waste and extra fluid. Kidney
disease refers to when a person’s kidneys do
not function properly. Over time, a person may
develop kidney failure, also known as “end-stage
renal disease.” This means the kidneys no longer
work well enough for the person to live without
a kidney transplant or ongoing treatment called
“dialysis.”
Dialysis Mimics Normal Kidney Functions. Dialysis
artificially mimics what healthy kidneys do. Most
people on dialysis undergo hemodialysis. This
form of dialysis removes blood from the body,
filters it through a machine to remove waste
and extra fluid, and then returns it to the body.
A single treatment lasts about four hours and
happens about three times per week.
Most Dialysis Patients Receive Treatment in Clinics.
Most people with kidney failure receive dialysis
at chronic dialysis clinics (CDCs), although some
may receive dialysis at hospitals or in their own
homes. About 600 licensed CDCs in California
provide dialysis to roughly 80,000 patients each
month. Given how often patients need dialysis
and how long treatments last, clinics often offer
services six days per week and often are open
outside of typical business operating hours.
Patients’ Own Doctors Oversee Treatment. When a
patient has kidney failure, the patient’s doctor
develops a plan of care, which could include
a referral for dialysis. The patient’s doctor
designs the dialysis treatment plan, including
specific aspects such as frequency, duration,
and associated medicines. CDCs carry out the
treatment. The patient’s doctor continues to
oversee the patient’s care. Under federal rules,
the doctor must visit the patient during dialysis
treatment at the CDC at least once per month.
Various Entities Own and Operate CDCs, With Two
Entities Owning/Operating the Vast Majority of
Them. Two private for-profit companies—DaVita,
Inc. and Fresenius Medical Care—are the
“governing entity” of nearly three-quarters of
licensed CDCs in California. (The measure refers
to the governing entity as the entity that owns
or operates the CDC.) The remaining CDCs are
owned and operated by a variety of nonprofit
and for-profit governing entities. Most of these
other governing entities have multiple CDCs in
California, while a small number own or operate
23
60 | Title and Summary / Analysis
PROPOSITION ESTABLISHES STATE REQUIREMENTS FOR KIDNEY DIALYSIS
CLINICS. REQUIRES ON-SITE MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL.
INITIATIVE STATUTE. 23
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
a single CDC. Currently, the majority of CDCs’
earnings exceed costs, while a smaller share of
CDCs operate at a loss. A governing entity that
owns or operates multiple CDCs can use its
higher-earning CDCs to help support its CDCs
that operate at a loss.
PAYING FOR DIALYSIS
Payment for Dialysis Comes From a Few Main
Sources. We estimate that CDCs have total
revenues of more than $3 billion annually from
their operations in California. These revenues
consist of payments for dialysis from a few main
sources, or “payers”:
• Medicare. This federally funded program
provides health coverage to most people
ages 65 and older and certain younger
people who have disabilities. Federal law
generally makes people with kidney failure
eligible for Medicare coverage regardless of
age or disability status. Medicare pays for
dialysis treatment for the majority of people
on dialysis in California.
• Medi-Cal. The federal-state Medicaid
program, known as Medi-Cal in California,
provides health coverage to low-income
people. The state and federal governments
share the costs of Medi-Cal. Some people
qualify for both Medicare and Medi-Cal. For
these people, Medicare covers most of the
payment for dialysis as the primary payer
and Medi-Cal covers the rest. For people
enrolled only in Medi-Cal, the Medi-Cal
program is solely responsible to pay for
dialysis.
• Group and Individual Health Insurance. Many
people in the state have group health
insurance coverage through an employer
or another organization (such as a union).
Other people purchase health insurance
individually. When an insured person
develops kidney failure, that person can
usually transition to Medicare coverage.
Federal law requires that a group insurer
CONTINUED
remain the primary payer for dialysis
treatment for a “coordination period” that
lasts 30 months.
The California state government, the state’s
two public university systems, and many local
governments in California provide group health
insurance coverage for their current workers,
eligible retired workers, and their families.
Group and Individual Health Insurers Typically
Pay Higher Rates for Dialysis Than Government
Programs. The rates that Medicare and Medi-Cal
pay for a dialysis treatment are fairly close to
the average cost for CDCs to provide a dialysis
treatment. These rates are largely determined
by regulation. In contrast, group and individual
health insurers negotiate with CDCs and their
governing entities to set rates. The rate agreed
upon depends in large part on how many people
the insurer covers and how many people the
governing entity’s CDCs treat. On average, group
and individual health insurers pay multiple times
what government programs pay for a dialysis
treatment.
HOW CDCS ARE REGULATED
California Department of Public Health (CDPH)
Licenses and Certifies Dialysis Clinics. CDPH is
responsible for licensing CDCs to operate in
California. CDPH also certifies CDCs on behalf
of the federal government, which allows CDCs to
receive payment from Medicare and Medi-Cal.
Currently, California relies primarily on federal
regulations as the basis for its licensing program.
Federal Regulations Require a Medical Director
at Each CDC. Federal regulations require each
CDC to have a medical director who is a board-
certified physician. The medical director
is responsible for quality assurance, staff
education and training, and development and
implementation of clinic policies and procedures.
Federal regulations do not require medical
directors to spend a specific amount of time at
the CDC; however, federal guidance indicates
that the medical director’s responsibilities reflect
about one-quarter of a full-time position.
23
Analysis | 61
PROPOSITION
23 ESTABLISHES STATE REQUIREMENTS FOR KIDNEY DIALYSIS
CLINICS. REQUIRES ON-SITE MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL.
INITIATIVE STATUTE.
23
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
CDCs Must Report Infection-Related Information
to a National Network. To receive payments from
Medicare, CDCs must report specified dialysis-
related infection information to the National
Healthcare Safety Network at the federal Centers
for Disease Control. For example, CDCs must
report when a patient develops a bloodstream
infection and the suspected cause of the
infection.
PROPOSAL
The measure includes several provisions
affecting CDCs, as discussed below. It gives
duties to CDPH to implement and administer
the measure, including adopting regulations
within one year after the law takes effect. If
CDPH cannot meet that deadline, it can issue
emergency regulations as it completes the
regular process.
Requires Each CDC to Have a Doctor On-site
During All Treatment Hours. The measure requires
each CDC to maintain, at its expense, at least
one doctor on-site during all the hours patients
receive treatments at that CDC. The doctor is
responsible for patient safety and the provision
and quality of medical care. A CDC may request
an exception from CDPH if there is a valid
shortage of doctors in the CDC’s area. If CDPH
approves the exception, the CDC can meet
the requirement with a nurse practitioner or
physician’s assistant, rather than a doctor. The
exception lasts for one year.
Requires CDCs to Report Infection-Related
Information to CDPH. The measure requires
each CDC—or its governing entity—to report
dialysis-related infection information to CDPH
every three months. CDPH must specify which
information CDCs should report, and how and
when to report the information. CDPH must
post each CDC’s infection information on the
CDPH website, including the name of a CDC’s
governing entity.
Charges Penalties if CDCs Fail to Report Infection-
Related Information. If a CDC or its governing
entity does not report infection information or if
the information is inaccurate, CDPH may issue
CONTINUED
a penalty against the CDC. The penalty could be
up to $100,000 depending on how severe the
violation is. The CDC may request a hearing if
it disputes the penalty. Any penalties collected
would be used by CDPH to implement and
enforce laws concerning CDCs.
Requires CDCs to Notify and Obtain Consent From
CDPH Before Closing or Substantially Reducing
Services. If a CDC plans to close or significantly
reduce its services, the measure requires the
CDC or its governing entity to notify CDPH in
writing and obtain CDPH’s written consent. The
measure allows CDPH to determine whether
or not to consent. It allows CDPH to base its
decision on such information as the CDC’s
financial resources and the CDC’s plan for
ensuring patients have uninterrupted dialysis
care. A CDC may dispute CDPH’s decision by
requesting a hearing.
Prohibits CDCs From Refusing Care to a Patient
Based on Who Is Paying for the Patient’s Treatment.
Under the measure, CDCs and their governing
entities must offer the same quality of care to all
patients. They cannot refuse to offer or provide
care to patients based on who pays for patients’
treatments. The payer could be the patient, a
private entity, the patient’s health insurer, Medi-
Cal, Medicaid, or Medicare.
FISCAL EFFECTS
INCREASED COSTS FOR DIALYSIS CLINICS
AFFECT STATE AND LOCAL COSTS
How the Measure Increases Costs for CDCs.
Overall, the measure’s provisions would increase
costs for CDCs. In particular, the measure’s
requirement that each CDC have a doctor on-site
during all treatment hours would increase each
CDC’s costs by several hundred thousand dollars
annually on average. Other requirements of the
measure would not significantly increase CDC
costs.
Clinics Could Respond to Higher Costs in Different
Ways. The cost to have a doctor on-site would
affect individual CDCs differently depending
on their finances. Most CDCs operate under a
62 | Analysis
PROPOSITION ESTABLISHES STATE REQUIREMENTS FOR KIDNEY DIALYSIS
CLINICS. REQUIRES ON-SITE MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL.
INITIATIVE STATUTE. 23
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
governing entity that owns/operates multiple
CDCs so the governing entity could spread costs
across multiple locations. Governing entities
might respond in one or more of the following
ways:
• Negotiate Increased Rates With Payers. First,
governing entities might try to negotiate
higher rates from the entities that pay for
the dialysis treatment to cover some of the
costs imposed by the measure. Specifically,
governing entities may be able to negotiate
higher rates with private commercial
insurance companies and to a lesser extent
with Medi-Cal managed care plans.
• Continue Current Operations, but With Lower
Profits. For some governing entities, the
higher costs due to the measure could
reduce their profits, but they could continue
to operate at current levels without closing
clinics.
• Close Some Clinics. Given the higher costs
due to the measure, some governing
entities, particularly those with fewer
clinics, may decide to close some clinics.
Measure Could Increase Health Care Costs for State
and Local Governments by Low Tens of Millions
of Dollars Annually. Under the measure, state
Medi-Cal costs, and state and local employee
and retiree health insurance costs could increase
due to:
• Governing entities negotiating higher
payment rates.
• Patients requiring treatment in more costly
settings like hospitals (due to fewer CDCs).
Overall, the most likely scenario is that CDCs and
their governing entities generally would: (1) be
able to negotiate with some payers to receive
higher payment rates to cover some of the new
costs imposed by the measure, and (2) continue
CONTINUED
to operate (with reduced income), with relatively
limited individual CDC closures. This scenario
would lead to increased costs for state and local
governments likely in the low tens of millions of
dollars annually. This represents a minor increase
in the state’s total spending on Medi-Cal and
state and local governments’ total spending
on employee and retiree health coverage. This
cost represents less than 1 percent of state
General Fund spending. In the less likely
event that a more significant number of CDCs
closed, state and local governments could
have additional costs in the short run. These
additional costs could be significant, but are
highly uncertain.
INCREASED ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS FOR CDPH
COVERED BY CDC FEES
The measure imposes new regulatory
responsibilities on CDPH. The annual cost of
these new responsibilities likely would not exceed
the low millions of dollars annually. The measure
requires CDPH to adjust the annual licensing fee
paid by CDCs to cover these costs.
Visit http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/campaign/
measures/ for a list of committees primarily
formed to support or oppose this measure.
Visit http://www.fppc.ca.gov/
transparency/top-contributors.html
to access the committee’s top 10 contributors.
If you desire a copy of the full text of this state
measure, please call the Secretary of State
at (800) 345-VOTE (8683) or you can email
vigfeedback@sos.ca.gov and a copy will
be mailed at no cost to you.
23
Analysis | 63
PROPOSITION
23 ESTABLISHES STATE REQUIREMENTS FOR KIDNEY DIALYSIS
CLINICS. REQUIRES ON-SITE MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL.
INITIATIVE STATUTE.
+ ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 23 +
Life-Saving Changes for Dialysis Patients
Three times each and every week, 80,000 Californians
with End Stage Renal Disease go to one of more than
600 commercial dialysis centers in the state where they spend
three to four hours connected to a machine that removes
their blood, cleans it, and returns it to their bodies. Dialysis
literally is what keeps them alive, and they must continue
the treatment for the rest of their lives or until they receive
a kidney transplant.
Because the lives of these fellow Californians are so dependent
on dialysis that is done both safely and effectively, we give our
absolute support to the Protect the Lives of Dialysis Patients
Act, an initiative appearing on the Nov. 3 ballot. This initiative
will make common-sense improvements to dialysis treatment
that will protect some of the most medically vulnerable people
in our society.
The initiative does four major things:
First, it requires a physician or nurse practitioner to be in
the clinic any time patients are being treated, which is not
currently required. Dialysis is a dangerous procedure, and if
something goes wrong, a doctor or highly trained nurse should
be nearby.
Second, dialysis patients are prone to infections from their
treatments that can lead to more serious illnesses or even
death. This initiative requires clinics to report accurate data
on infections to the state and federal governments so problems
can be identified and solved to protect patients.
Third, like all other life-saving health care facilities, the
initiative says the dialysis corporations cannot close clinics or
reduce their services unless approved by the state. This also is
designed to protect patients, particularly in rural communities,
to make sure they have access to dialysis treatment, and to
stop the dialysis corporations from using closures to pad their
bottom line.
Fourth, it prohibits clinics from discriminating against
patients because of the type of insurance they have, and it
protects patients in every clinic. No matter if they are located
in a wealthy neighborhood or a poor, rural, Black or Brown
community, all clinics will be required to have a doctor or
nurse practitioner on site, all clinics will be required to report
their infection rates to the state and federal governments, and
all dialysis corporations will be prohibited from discriminating
against patients because of the type of insurance they have.
Don’t listen when the dialysis industry claims the initiative will
create huge new costs or say patients will be harmed or claim
that it will create a shortage of doctors—those fake arguments
are just designed to use patients and the coronavirus
pandemic as scare tactics in their dishonest public relations
campaign. The fact is, these corporations can easily make
these changes and still make hundreds of millions of dollars a
year without disrupting our healthcare system.
Proposition 23 will make the changes we need to truly protect
dialysis patients. We urge you to vote YES!
MEGALLAN HANDFORD, Dialysis Registered Nurse
PASTOR WILLIAM D. SMART, JR.
Southern Christian Leadership Conference of
Southern California
CARMEN CARTAGENA, Dialysis Patient
+ REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 23 +
23
Proposition 23 is a DANGEROUS, COSTLY MEASURE funded
by one special interest group with no expertise in dialysis.
More than 100 leading organizations strongly urge: NO on 23.
• AMERICAN NURSES ASSOCIATION\CALIFORNIA WARNS
PROP. 23 IS DANGEROUS: “Nearly 80,000 Californians
with kidney failure rely on dialysis to survive. Prop. 23 adds
unnecessary, costly requirements that could shut down
hundreds of dialysis clinics—dangerously reducing access to
care and putting tens of thousands of vulnerable patients at
serious risk.”
• CALIFORNIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION URGES NO ON
PROP. 23: “Proposition 23 would take thousands of doctors
away from hospitals and clinics—where they’re needed—and
place them into bureaucratic jobs at dialysis clinics where they
aren’t. Prop. 23 worsens our physician shortage and would
make us all wait longer to see our doctors.”
• DIALYSIS PATIENT CITIZENS, A PATIENT ADVOCACY
ORGANIZATION REPRESENTING 28,000 PATIENTS:
“Prop. 23 threatens access to care, putting dialysis patients at
greater risk of death for missed treatments.”
• NAACP CALIFORNIA: “Kidney disease disproportionately
affects people of color. Prop. 23 hurts minority patients and
those in disadvantaged communities the most.”
• CALIFORNIA TAXPAYER PROTECTION COMMITTEE:
“Prop. 23 would increase health care costs by $320,000,000
annually. This massive increase would hurt Californians already
struggling financially.”
PROP. 23 MAKES NO SENSE
Each dialysis patient is already under the care of their own
kidney doctor. And dialysis treatments are administered by
specially-trained dialysis nurses and technicians. Furthermore,
the federal and state governments extensively regulate dialysis
clinics and California clinics outperform other states in clinical
quality.
JOIN DOCTORS, NURSES, SOCIAL JUSTICE & PATIENT
ADVOCATES: NO ON 23!
www.NoProposition23.com
MARKETA HOUSKOVA, DNP, RN, Executive Director
American Nurses Association\California
DEWAYNE COX, Kidney Dialysis Patient
PETER N. BRETAN, MD, President
California Medical Association
64 | Arguments Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors, and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
PROPOSITION ESTABLISHES STATE REQUIREMENTS FOR KIDNEY DIALYSIS
CLINICS. REQUIRES ON-SITE MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL.
INITIATIVE STATUTE. 23
+ ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 23 +
NURSES, DOCTORS AND PATIENTS URGE NO ON 23—THE
DANGEROUS AND COSTLY DIALYSIS PROPOSITION
Nearly 80,000 Californians with failed kidneys receive dialysis
treatment three days a week to stay alive. Dialysis treatment
does the job of the kidneys by removing toxins from the body.
Missing a single treatment increases patient risk of death by
30%.
Prop. 23 seriously jeopardizes access to care for tens of
thousands of Californians who need dialysis to stay alive.
That’s why the American Nurses Association\California,
California Medical Association and patient advocates OPPOSE
Prop. 23.
PROP. 23 WOULD FORCE COMMUNITY DIALYSIS CLINICS
TO CUT SERVICES AND CLOSE—PUTTING LIVES AT RISK
Proposition 23 would force dialysis clinics to have a physician
administrator on-site at all times, even though they would not
care for patients. Each dialysis patient is already under the
care of their personal kidney physician and dialysis treatments
are administered by specially trained and experienced dialysis
nurses and technicians.
This useless bureaucratic mandate would increase clinic costs
by hundreds of millions annually, putting half of all clinics at
risk of closure.
“Prop. 23 dangerously reduces access to care, putting
vulnerable dialysis patients at serious risk.”
—Marketa Houskova, Doctor of Nursing Practice, RN,
American Nurses Association\California
PROP. 23 WOULD MAKE OUR PHYSICIAN SHORTAGE
WORSE AND LEAD TO MORE EMERGENCY ROOM
OVERCROWDING
“Proposition 23 would take thousands of doctors away from
hospitals and clinics—where they’re needed—and place them
into bureaucratic jobs at dialysis clinics where they aren’t. This
is not the time to make our physician shortage worse.”
—Dr. Peter N. Bretan, MD, President, California Medical
Association
Emergency room doctors strongly oppose Prop. 23. It would
force dialysis clinics to close—sending tens of thousands of
vulnerable patients to emergency rooms, creating longer ER
waits and reducing capacity to deal with serious emergencies.
PROP. 23 WOULD INCREASE HEALTH CARE COSTS BY
HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS
According to a study by the Berkeley Research Group,
Prop. 23 would increase health care costs by $320 million
annually. This massive increase would be especially damaging
when so many Californians struggle financially.
DIALYSIS CLINICS ARE STRICTLY REGULATED AND
PROVIDE HIGH QUALITY CARE
The federal and state governments extensively regulate dialysis
clinics. According to the federal Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services, California dialysis clinics outperform other
states in clinical quality and patient satisfaction.
“Every dialysis patient is under the care of a physician kidney
specialist, and dialysis treatments are administered by
specially-trained nurses and technicians. It makes no sense to
require physician administrators on-site full-time.”
—Dr. Jeffrey A. Perlmutter, MD, President, Renal Physicians
Association, representing 3,500 kidney doctors
ANOTHER SPECIAL INTEREST ABUSE OF OUR INITIATIVE
SYSTEM
The same group promoting Prop. 23 spent $20,000,000 last
election pushing a similar measure voters rejected. They’re at
it again, pushing another dangerous dialysis proposition.
DOCTORS, NURSES AND PATIENT ADVOCATES: NO ON 23!
• American Nurses Association\California • California Medical
Association • Chronic Disease Coalition • NAACP California
• Latino Diabetes Association • Women Veterans Alliance
• Minority Health Institute
www.NoProposition23.com
MARKETA HOUSKOVA, DNP, RN, Executive Director
American Nurses Association\California
LETICIA PEREZ, Kidney Dialysis Patient
PETER N. BRETAN, MD, President
California Medical Association
+ REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 23 +
DIALYSIS CORPORATIONS WANT TO PROTECT THEIR
PROFITS
In 2018, the California dialysis industry spent a record
$11O million to defeat an initiative to improve conditions in
dialysis clinics and protect patients from inflated billing.
Why did they spend so much? To protect their massive
$468 million in profits in California in 2018.
To patients, dialysis is lifesaving. But to industry executives,
it’s a huge money-maker, so they’re at it again, stoking fear by
threatening to close clinics if Prop. 23 passes and they’re held
accountable to higher standards. Once again they are using
gravely ill dialysis patients to shield their perks and million-
dollar salaries.
They say it will cause doctor shortages and overcrowded
emergency rooms, but kidney doctors do not staff ERs.
They say dialysis clinics are already highly regulated, but they
face far fewer inspections than other health facilities, and
even so deficiencies are often uncovered.
Prop. 23 makes commonsense improvements to protect
patients’ lives, like having a doctor onsite to deal with
emergencies, requiring the centers to report infection data,
ending discrimination against some patients based on the type
of insurance they have, and requiring the state to approve any
clinic closures so patients aren’t left without treatment.
Once and for all, Californians can protect fragile dialysis
patients by voting Yes0nProp23.com.
23
EMANUEL GONZALES, Dialysis Technician They claim, falsely, that the initiative will cost them huge PASTOR WILLIAM D. SMART, JR. sums of money, based on a highly dubious “study” that THEY Southern Christian Leadership Conference of paid for. Southern California They claim doctors are against it, but many of those doctors ROBERT VILLANUEVA, Dialysis Patient are on their payroll.
Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors, and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Arguments | 65
PROPOSITION
24 AMENDS CONSUMER PRIVACY LAWS.
INITIATIVE STATUTE.
OFFICIAL TITLE AND SUMMARY PREPARED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
The text of this measure can be found on the Secretary of State’s website at
voterguide.sos.ca.gov.
• Permits consumers to: (1) prevent businesses
from sharing personal information; (2) correct
inaccurate personal information; and (3)
limit businesses’ use of “sensitive personal
information”—including precise geolocation;
race; ethnicity; religion; genetic data; private
communications; sexual orientation; and
specified health information.
• Establishes California Privacy Protection Agency
to additionally enforce and implement consumer
privacy laws and impose fines.
• Changes criteria for which businesses must
comply with laws.
• Prohibits businesses’ retention of personal
information for longer than reasonably necessary.
• Triples maximum penalties for violations
concerning consumers under age 16.
• Authorizes civil penalties for theft of consumer
login information, as specified.
SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S ESTIMATE OF
NET STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FISCAL IMPACT:
• Increased state costs of at least $10 million
annually for a new state agency to oversee and
enforce consumer privacy laws.
• Increased state costs, not likely to exceed the
low millions of dollars annually, for increased
court and Department of Justice enforcement
workload. Some or all of these costs would be
paid by penalties collected for violations of
consumer privacy laws.
• Unknown impact on state and local tax revenues
due to economic effects resulting from new
requirements on businesses to protect consumer
data.
24
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
BACKGROUND
BUSINESSES COLLECT AND USE CONSUMER DATA
Businesses collect data about consumers from
different sources. These include (1) public
sources, (2) consumers themselves (such as
when consumers create an account), or (3) other
businesses (such as by purchasing data).
Businesses use the data in different ways, such
as to improve their sales or customer service.
Businesses can also use the data to provide
services to other businesses. For example, some
Internet companies provide free services and
collect data from consumers who use them. These
companies then use the data to target ads at
consumers for other businesses. Finally, businesses
sometimes use data to make predictions about
consumers’ views and preferences (such as their
lifestyles).
CERTAIN BUSINESSES MUST MEET CONSUMER DATA
PRIVACY REQUIREMENTS
Under state law, certain businesses that operate
in California and collect personal data must meet
consumer data privacy requirements. (Personal
data include information such as names, Internet
or purchase activity, and predictions about
consumers.) These businesses generally (1) earn
more than $25 million in annual revenue; (2) buy,
sell, or share the personal data of 50,000 or more
consumers, households, or devices annually;
or (3) earn 50 percent or more of their annual
revenues from selling personal data.
Specifically, these businesses must:
• Notify Consumers of Data Collection. Businesses
generally must tell consumers if they collect
or sell personal data. They must also tell
consumers how they will use the data.
66 | Title and Summary / Analysis
PROPOSITION AMENDS CONSUMER PRIVACY LAWS.
INITIATIVE STATUTE. 24
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
• Comply With Personal Data Privacy Rights.
State law provides consumers with certain
rights that businesses must comply with. For
example, consumers can request free reports
on their personal data that are collected or
sold by the business. Consumers can also
generally tell businesses to delete their
personal data (such as names or student
grades and testing results). Finally, consumers
can tell businesses to not sell their personal
data. Businesses must tell consumers of their
personal data rights.
• Not Treat Consumers Who Make Use of Their
Rights Differently. For example, businesses
cannot charge different prices or provide
different levels of service to consumers
who make use of their personal data
rights. However, businesses can encourage
consumers to allow them to collect and
sell personal data, such as by providing
consumers payments or discounts.
Businesses can face penalties of up to $2,500 for
each violation of these requirements. Penalties
increase to up to $7,500 for intentional violations.
Penalties only may be applied if businesses fail to
address the violation within 30 days of being told
of the violation. Only the California Department
of Justice (DOJ) can seek these penalties. Penalty
revenues are generally deposited into the state’s
Consumer Privacy Fund (CPF). CPF revenues must
first be used to pay for state trial court and DOJ
costs related to certain consumer privacy laws. The
Legislature can allocate any remaining funds for
other purposes.
BUSINESSES MUST MEET DATA BREACH
REQUIREMENTS
A data breach occurs when people access
information, such as consumer data, without
permission. State law requires businesses take
reasonable steps to protect consumer data from
breaches. Businesses must also tell people if their
data were accessed in a data breach. Breaches
of certain personal data can result in penalties of
$100 to $750 per consumer per event or actual
damages—whichever is greater. A consumer
CONTINUED
affected by such a breach can seek to collect these
penalties if a business fails to address the breach
within 30 days of being told to do so. DOJ may also
generally seek penalties for data breaches. Some of
these penalties could be deposited into the CPF.
DOJ ENFORCES CONSUMER PRIVACY AND DATA
BREACH LAWS
DOJ enforces the state’s consumer privacy and
data breach laws in two major ways. First, DOJ
develops regulations that provide more details on
how businesses and consumers must obey the
laws. For example, these regulations include rules
for how businesses must handle requests to not
sell personal data. Second, DOJ prosecutes crimes
(such as identity theft) or files lawsuits in state trial
courts against those who break these laws.
PROPOSAL
Proposition 24 (1) changes existing consumer data
privacy laws, (2) provides new consumer privacy
rights, (3) changes existing penalties and limits
the use of penalty revenues, and (4) creates a new
state agency to oversee and enforce consumer data
privacy laws. If approved, most of this proposition
would take effect in January 2023. Some portions
of the proposition, such as the creation of the new
state agency and requirements for developing new
regulations, would go into effect immediately.
CHANGES EXISTING CONSUMER DATA PRIVACY LAWS
Changes Which Businesses Must Meet Data Privacy
Requirements. This proposition changes which
businesses are required to meet state consumer
data privacy requirements. These changes would
generally reduce the number of businesses
required to meet these requirements. For example,
consumer data privacy requirements currently
apply to businesses that buy, sell, or share for
business purposes the personal data of 50,000 or
more consumers, households, or devices annually.
The proposition (1) no longer counts devices and
24
(2) increases the annual threshold to 100,000 or
more consumers or households.
Analysis | 67
PROPOSITION AMENDS CONSUMER PRIVACY LAWS. 24 INITIATIVE STATUTE.
24
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
Changes Existing Consumer Data Privacy
Requirements. This proposition changes the
consumer data privacy requirements that
businesses must meet. In some cases, it adds new
requirements. For example, the proposition requires
businesses to now notify consumers of the length
of time they will keep personal data. In other cases,
it removes requirements. For example, businesses
could refuse to delete student grades or other
information under specific conditions.
PROVIDES NEW CONSUMER PRIVACY RIGHTS
This proposition provides consumers with new data
privacy rights. These include the right to:
• Limit Sharing of Personal Data. Consumers
could direct businesses to not share their
personal data.
• Correct Personal Data. Consumers could direct
businesses to take reasonable efforts to
correct personal data that they possess.
• Limit Use of “Sensitive” Personal Data. The
proposition defines certain pieces of personal
data as sensitive. Examples include social
security numbers, account log-ins with
passwords, and health data. Consumers could
direct businesses to limit use of their sensitive
personal data only to (1) provide requested
services or goods and (2) fulfill key business
purposes (such as providing customer
service).
CHANGES EXISTING PENALTIES AND LIMITS USE OF
PENALTY REVENUES
This proposition permits a new penalty of up to
$7,500 for violations of the consumer privacy
rights of minors. The proposition also eliminates
the ability of businesses to avoid penalties by
addressing violations within 30 days of being
told of the violation. In addition, the proposition
makes data breaches of email addresses along with
information that would permit access to an account
(such as a password) subject to penalties. The
proposition also specifies that businesses which
suffer a data breach because reasonable security
procedures were not in place can no longer avoid
CONTINUED
penalties by putting them in place within 30 days
after the breach.
In addition, the proposition limits the Legislature’s
ability to use CPF revenues for purposes other than
consumer privacy. After paying for state trial court
and DOJ costs each year, the proposition requires
91 percent of the remaining funds be invested by
the state with any interest or earnings sent to the
state General Fund. The remaining 9 percent of
funds would support public education on consumer
privacy and fighting fraud resulting from data
breaches.
CREATES NEW STATE ENFORCEMENT AGENCY
This proposition creates a new state agency, the
California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA), to
oversee and enforce the state’s consumer privacy
laws. CPPA would be governed by a five-member
board and have a wide range of responsibilities. For
example, the agency would investigate violations,
assess penalties, and develop regulations. Any
CPPA decision related to a complaint against
a business or a penalty could be reviewed by
the state trial courts. This proposition provides
$10 million annually (adjusted over time) from
the state General Fund to support the agency’s
operations. Some of DOJ’s current responsibilities
would be shifted to CPPA, such as developing
regulations. The proposition requires the
development of a wide range of new regulations.
For example, this includes rules for correcting
consumer personal data and determining whether
businesses must carry out a review of their ability
to protect data. However, DOJ could still enforce
consumer data privacy laws by prosecuting crimes
and filing lawsuits in the state trial courts. If
DOJ chooses to take such action or pursue an
investigation, DOJ could direct CPPA to stop any
investigations or enforcement activities the agency
might be pursuing at the same time.
FISCAL EFFECTS
Proposition 24 would impact state costs and
state and local tax revenues. The actual size of
these effects, however, is uncertain and would
68 | Analysis
PROPOSITION AMENDS CONSUMER PRIVACY LAWS.
INITIATIVE STATUTE. 24
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
depend largely on how consumers, businesses,
and government respond to the proposition. For
example, it is unclear how businesses would
change their operations and how many violations of
this proposition would be investigated and result in
penalties.
Increased State Costs for New Agency. As discussed
above, this proposition creates a new state agency
to oversee and enforce consumer privacy laws.
While some workload would shift from DOJ, state
costs would also increase because of new or
expanded workload. This proposition provides from
the state General Fund at least $10 million annually
(adjusted over time) to support increased state
costs for CPPA operations. This amount is less
than 1 percent of the state’s current General Fund
budget. Depending on how the agency carries out
its responsibilities, it is possible that CPPA’s actual
workload costs could be higher.
Increased State DOJ and Court Costs. This proposition
would impact both DOJ and state court workload.
DOJ workload could increase if it chooses
to investigate and/or file more cases against
businesses that do not meet state consumer data
privacy laws. However, this workload could be
partially or fully offset by reductions in workload
from shifting responsibilities from DOJ to CPPA.
Additionally, state court workload could increase if
the proposition results in more court cases being
filed. The costs of the increased workload would
depend on the number of investigations started
and the types of cases filed in state courts. In
total, increased state costs to DOJ and trial courts
are not likely to exceed the low millions of dollars
annually. Some or all of these costs would be paid
by increased revenue from penalties collected from
businesses that violate consumer privacy laws.
CONTINUED
Potential Impacts on Tax Revenues. The proposition
would have various impacts on business and
consumers, which could then impact state
and local tax revenues. On the one hand, the
proposition could reduce tax revenues. This would
happen if the cost of meeting the proposition’s
requirements, such as to correct consumer data,
reduces the profit earned by businesses. As a
result, businesses would pay less in taxes to
state and local governments. On the other hand,
the proposition could increase tax revenues. For
example, this proposition could reduce the severity
or number of data breaches. If this results in
businesses and consumers losing less money, tax
revenues would increase if consumers then spend
more on taxable items and/or businesses earn more
revenue. The total net impact on the economy and
state and local revenue is unknown.
Visit http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/campaign/
measures/ for a list of committees primarily
formed to support or oppose this measure.
Visit http://www.fppc.ca.gov/
transparency/top-contributors.html
to access the committee’s top 10 contributors.
If you desire a copy of the full text of this state
measure, please call the Secretary of State
at (800) 345-VOTE (8683) or you can email
vigfeedback@sos.ca.gov and a copy will
be mailed at no cost to you.
24
Analysis | 69
PROPOSITION AMENDS CONSUMER PRIVACY LAWS. 24 INITIATIVE STATUTE.
+ ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 24 +
The world’s biggest corporations are collecting deeply
personal and private information about all of us. Sadly,
our current laws aren’t strong enough to protect us or our
families from those who would abuse our most personal
information.
In 2018, the Legislature enacted the California Consumer
Privacy Act. But since then, industry has repeatedly tried to
weaken and limit enforcement of this law.
Consumers need stronger protections. That’s why we’ve
introduced the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020, to
strengthen current privacy laws.
In addition to monitoring our kids, many corporations track
us constantly, from gym to office to clinic; they know our
friends, jobs, weight, where we eat and how fast we’re
driving, our private searches and what we look at online.
They also track and sell sensitive information like our race,
sexual orientation, and religion.
We believe we should be in control of our own information,
and have the right to stop the use of our most sensitive
personal information.
OUR PERSONAL INFORMATION—AND OUR
CHILDREN’S—IS BEING ABUSED:
Giant corporations make billions buying and selling our
personal information—apps, phones, and cars sell your
location constantly. The California Privacy Rights Act gives
you the power to stop businesses tracking you precisely,
like selling how many times you go to the gym or fast food
restaurants to health insurers—without your knowledge or
permission.
Worse, these corporations don’t keep your information
safe. In 2018, there were a whopping 1,244,000,000
data breaches in the U.S., with over 446,000,000 records
exposed, leading to massive identity theft. This measure
holds big businesses accountable by imposing huge fines
if they’re negligent and don’t keep your or your kids’ health
information, or Social Security numbers safe.
THE CALIFORNIA PRIVACY RIGHTS ACT WOULD:
1. PROTECT YOUR MOST PERSONAL INFORMATION, by
allowing you to prevent businesses from using or sharing
sensitive information about your health, finances, race,
ethnicity, and precise location;
2. Safeguard young people, TRIPLING FINES for violations
involving children’s information;
3. Put new limits on companies’ collection and use of our
personal information;
4. Establish an enforcement arm—the California Privacy
Protection Agency—to defend these rights and hold
companies accountable, and extend enforcement including
IMPOSING PENALTIES FOR NEGLIGENCE resulting in
theft of consumers’ emails and passwords.
5. MAKE IT MUCH HARDER TO WEAKEN PRIVACY in
California in the future, by preventing special interests and
politicians from undermining Californians’ privacy rights,
while allowing the Legislature to amend the law to further
the primary goal of strengthening consumer privacy to better
protect you and your children, such as opt-in for use of
data, further protections for uniquely vulnerable minors, and
greater power for individuals to hold violators accountable.
VOTE YES ON PROP. 24 TO SUPPORT THE CALIFORNIA
PRIVACY RIGHTS ACT:
California led the nation in enacting privacy rights, but
big corporations are spending millions lobbying to weaken
our laws. Instead, we need to make California privacy laws
stronger. We need to safeguard our privacy protections,
and hold corporations accountable when they violate our
fundamental rights.
For more information, visit: www.caprivacy.org.
Please join us and VOTE YES ON PROP. 24.
JAMES P. STEYER, CEO
Common Sense Media
ALICE A. HUFFMAN, President
California NAACP
CELINE MACTAGGART, Director
Californians for Consumer Privacy
+ REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 24 +
24
We work every day to protect the rights of all Californians.
We OPPOSE Proposition 24 because it stacks the deck
in favor of big tech corporations and reduces your privacy
rights.
If Proposition 24 REALLY strengthened privacy protections,
we’d fight for it. But the truth is, its 52 pages are full of
giveaways to social media and tech giants.
Proposition 24’s funder hopes you won’t read its fine print.
If you do, you’ll see it reduces your rights under current law,
giving big tech businesses new ways to collect your private
information, like data from health and financial apps, and
tracking where you go.
Proposition 24 asks you to approve “pay for privacy,”
letting companies charge more to safeguard your personal
information. It’s hard enough for financially strapped
Californians to access high-speed internet for essential
services, healthcare, and school during a pandemic.
Pay for privacy has racially discriminatory impacts,
disproportionately pricing out working people, seniors, and
Black and Latino families. All Californians deserve privacy,
not just the wealthy.
Proposition 24 restricts Californians from enforcing your
own privacy rights in court. It wants you to trust a brand
new state agency, created during a budget crunch, to
protect your rights.
Proposition 24 was written behind closed doors with input
from the same tech companies with histories of profiting off
of your personal information in unfair and discriminatory
ways. It puts more power in the hands of tech companies
like Facebook that already have too much power. It protects
big tech business, not people. Vote NO on Proposition 24.
KEVIN BAKER, Director
Center for Advocacy and Policy, American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU) of California
NAN BRASMER, President
California Alliance for Retired Americans
JOHN MATHIAS, Deputy Senior Campaign Director
Color of Change
70 | Arguments Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors, and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
PROPOSITION AMENDS CONSUMER PRIVACY LAWS.
INITIATIVE STATUTE. 24
+ ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 24 +
Vote NO on Proposition 24 because it was written behind
closed doors with input from giant tech corporations that
collect and misuse our personal information—while the
measure’s sponsor rejected almost every suggestion from
11 privacy and consumer rights groups. Proposition 24
reduces privacy protections by severely weakening your
rights under current California law.
Make no mistake—the privacy of every Californian is at
stake!
The real winners with Proposition 24 are the biggest social
media platforms, giant tech companies and credit reporting
corporations who get more freedom to invade the privacy of
workers and consumers, and to continue sharing your credit
data. Here’s what they won’t tell you about the 52 pages of
fine print:
Proposition 24 asks you to approve an Internet “pay for
privacy” scheme. Those who don’t pay more could get
inferior service—bad connections, slower downloads and
more pop up ads. It’s an electronic version of freeway
express lanes for the wealthy and traffic jams for everyone
else.
Currently, employers can obtain all kinds of personal
information about their workers and even job applicants,
including things like using a pregnancy tracking app,
where you go to worship or if you attend a political protest.
Proposition 24 allows employers to continue secretly
gathering this information for more years to come, overriding
a new law that lets workers know what sensitive private
information their bosses have beginning January 1, 2021.
Under California law, your privacy rights follow you wherever
you go. But with Proposition 24, the minute you travel out
of state with a phone, wearable device, or computer, big
tech companies are allowed to capture the health, financial,
and other confidential information you stored on your
device.
You can set web browsers and cell phones to send a signal
to each website you visit and app you use to stop selling
your personal data, so you don’t have to think about it each
time. Proposition 24 would allow companies to disregard
those instructions and shift the burden to you to notify each
and every website and app individually to protect your data.
Proposition 24’s new enforcement agency sounds good, but
when tech corporations get caught violating your privacy, all
they have to do is cooperate with the agency and their only
penalty could be a slap on the wrist.
California’s new privacy law just took effect this year.
Smaller businesses spent a lot of money to comply with
the new regulations. Before we even know how this new
law is working, Proposition 24 rewrites it, forcing smaller
businesses to absorb even more costs at a time that the
economic slowdown has many businesses on the verge of
closing their doors.
Proposition 24 was written to accommodate big social
media platforms and the Internet and technology companies
that spend tens of millions of dollars a year to lobby
government at all levels to avoid laws that hurt their profits.
Proposition 24 is a bonanza for them—and a big step back
for consumer privacy. Please Vote NO on Proposition 24.
www.CaliforniansForRealPrivacy.org
TRACY ROSENBERG, President
Californians for Privacy Now
RICHARD HOLOBER, President
Consumer Federation of California
DOLORES HUERTA, Labor and Civil Rights Leader
+ REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 24 +
COMMUNITY LEADERS SUPPORT PROP. 24
Prop. 24 allows the Legislature to pass stronger privacy
laws, including stricter prohibitions on companies treating
consumers differently for their privacy choices.
YES ON 24 TO STOP ATTEMPTS TO WEAKEN PRIVACY
“I have witnessed many attempts to weaken California’s
privacy laws by deceptively named groups. Prop. 24
protects sensitive personal information, children’s privacy,
and helps stop identity theft. It’s even stronger than the
California Consumer Privacy Act. Please vote YES on
Prop. 24.”—Senator Robert M. Hertzberg, Joint Author,
California Consumer Privacy Act
YES ON 24 TO SUPPORT ECONOMIC FAIRNESS
“Monopolies like Facebook and Google make enormous
profits by using your private information to manipulate
what you see online. Vote YES on PROP. 24, to take
back control over your most valuable commodity: your
personal information.”—Paul Romer, Nobel Prize Winner in
Economics
YES ON 24 TO STOP RACIAL PROFILING ONLINE
“Prop. 24 allows consumers to stop companies from using
online racial profiling to discriminate against them.”
—Alice Huffman, President, California NAACP
YES ON 24 TO PROTECT HEALTH DATA
“Stop businesses using your most personal health
information without your permission. Vote yes on
Prop. 24.”—Brad Jacobs, MD, Past Chair, Academy of
Integrative Health & Medicine
YES ON 24 TO STRENGTHEN CALIFORNIA PRIVACY LAWS
“We are pleased that the California Privacy Rights Act would
close loopholes, strengthen enforcement, and help prevent
the Legislature from weakening the measure.”
—Maureen Mahoney, PhD, Consumer Reports
YES ON 24 TO PROTECT KIDS ONLINE
“Kids are spending so much time online this year! Protect
them by voting YES on Prop. 24, which triples fines for
violating children’s privacy.”—Alex Traverso, President,
Theodore Judah PTA
JAMES P. STEYER, CEO
Common Sense Media
ALICE A. HUFFMAN, President
California NAACP
CELINE MACTAGGART, Director
Californians for Consumer Privacy
24
Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors, and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Arguments | 71
PROPOSITION
25 REFERENDUM ON LAW THAT REPLACED
MONEY BAIL WITH SYSTEM BASED ON
PUBLIC SAFETY AND FLIGHT RISK.
OFFICIAL TITLE AND SUMMARY PREPARED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
The text of this measure can be found on the Secretary of State’s website at
voterguide.sos.ca.gov.
A “Yes” vote approves, and a “No” vote rejects, a
2018 law that:
•Replaced the money bail system (for obtaining
release from jail before trial) with a system
based on a determination of public safety and
flight risk.
•Limits detention of a person in jail before trial
for most misdemeanors.
SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S ESTIMATE OF
NET STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FISCAL IMPACT:
•Increased state and local costs possibly in the
mid hundreds of millions of dollars annually for
a new process for releasing people from jail prior
to trial. Unclear whether some of the increased
state costs would be offset by local funds
currently spent on this type of workload.
•Decreased county jail costs possibly in the high
tens of millions of dollars annually.
•Unknown net impact on state and local tax
revenues generally related to people spending
money on goods rather than paying for release
from jail prior to trial.
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
BACKGROUND
RELEASE FROM JAIL BEFORE TRIAL CAN OCCUR IN
TWO WAYS
Placement in Jail After Arrest. People charged with a
crime must attend various trial court proceedings
before the actual case can be heard in trial
court. The first court proceeding—also known as
arraignment—involves the court telling people of
the charges filed against them and appointing an
attorney if needed. Some people who are arrested
are taken to county jail before arraignment. County
sheriffs running the jail can choose to release the
person immediately or place the person in the jail.
Release From Jail Before Trial. Under the State
Constitution, people arrested and placed into
county jail—except for certain felony crimes—have
the right to release before trial. The Constitution
specifies that these people shall be released under
conditions that are not excessive. When making
decisions related to releasing a person before trial,
trial courts must consider the (1) seriousness of the
crime the person is accused of, (2) person’s prior
criminal record, and (3) likelihood of the person
appearing in court. The courts may use different
pieces of information, including risk assessment
tools (discussed in more detail below), to help
make these decisions.
Under state law, people generally are released from
jail before trial in one of two ways:
•Own Recognizance. Trial courts can release
people on their “own recognizance” (OR),
which generally refers to a person’s promise to
appear at future required court proceedings.
County sheriffs running jails can also release
people on OR under certain conditions.
•Bail. People can be released on bail. Bail
generally refers to a financial guarantee that a
person will appear in court as required.
Pretrial Risk Assessment Tools. To help with
decisions about whether to release people prior to
trial, most courts and counties use tools to assess
the risk (or likelihood) that a person released will
commit a new crime or fail to appear in court.
These tools were developed based on research that
shows people with certain traits (such as being
younger) are more likely to commit a new crime
or fail to appear in court. The tools assign points
based on people’s traits. For example, one tool
assigns more points to people who are younger
than 22 years of age as they are more likely to
commit crimes than older people. Similarly, people
who failed to appear in court multiple times in
25
72 | Title and Summary / Analysis
PROPOSITIONREFERENDUM ON LAW THAT REPLACED
MONEY BAIL WITH SYSTEM BASED ON
PUBLIC SAFETY AND FLIGHT RISK. 25
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
the past are less likely to appear in the future
and would receive more points. A person’s risk
level is determined by the total number of points
received. This risk level is then used to help decide
if the person should be released and under what
conditions.
RELEASE ON BAIL
Bail Amount Determined by Each Trial Court. State
law requires that the trial court in each county
adopt a bail schedule. This schedule lists the
amount of bail needed for release for each crime.
Bail schedules generally vary by county but require
more bail for more serious crimes. For example, the
current Los Angeles County bail schedule requires
$20,000 for forgery and $250,000 for arson of a
home.
Bail Provided in Two Ways. These ways are:
• Provided by Person to Court. A person can
provide cash, property, or other items to the
trial court that equals the amount of bail
required for release. This is generally returned
if the person appears in court as required.
• Provided by Bail Agent. A person can pay a
nonrefundable fee to a bail agent to buy a bail
bond that is backed by an insurance company.
This fee is typically no more than 10 percent
of the person’s bail amount. By providing the
bond, the bail agent agrees to pay the full bail
amount if the person does not appear in court
as required. If this happens, the bail agent
can seek repayment from the person.
Failure to Appear Rarely Results in Payment of Full
Bail Amount. If a person does not appear in court
as required, the court can decide that bail is owed.
State law defines when the full bail amount must
be paid. For example, bail is not paid if the person
is returned to custody by law enforcement or by
bail recovery staff (sometimes called “bounty
hunters”) within 180 days of the court’s decision.
Bail is also not paid in other cases, such as if the
court fails to properly notify the insurance company
that bail must be paid. As a result, bail is actually
paid in only a small number of cases. Counties and
cities receive this paid bail.
Bail Bond Industry Regulated by State. This includes
licensing about 2,500 bail agents and monitoring
CONTINUED
the fee charged for a bail bond set by about
20 insurance companies that back such bonds.
The state also investigates and can administratively
address complaints against bail agents and
insurance companies. Additionally, the state works
with local governments to prosecute criminal
violations by bail agents and insurance companies
in the courts. The state charges fees to help
support regulation costs.
In 2018, the bail industry issued about $6 billion
in bail bonds and collected about $560 million in
bail bond fees. Insurance companies are required
to pay a 2.4 percent state insurance tax on these
fees—about $13 million in 2018.
RELEASE FROM JAIL CAN OCCUR AT DIFFERENT TIMES
BEFORE TRIAL
Release Process Before Arraignment. People can
generally be released from jail before arraignment
after providing bail as listed in the bail schedule
for certain crimes. In some counties, trial courts
can allow other entities (such as county probation
departments) to release certain people on OR
before arraignment. These people can be required
to obey certain conditions (such as regularly
checking in with county probation staff). Those who
do not provide bail or are not released on OR are
detained until arraignment.
Release Process After Arraignment. At arraignment,
the court decides whether to (1) hold people in jail,
(2) change the amount of bail required for release,
or (3) release the person on OR. People who are not
released on OR and unable to provide the required
bail generally are held in county jail. The court
can require those who are released to obey certain
conditions. In some cases, people are charged
fees related to pretrial release. For example, a
person may be charged for the cost of electronic
monitoring, which may be a condition ordered by
the court. The court can modify these decisions
until trial or until the case is otherwise resolved.
PASSAGE OF NEW BAIL AND PRETRIAL LAW IN 2018
In 2018, the Legislature passed and the Governor
signed a law—Senate Bill (SB) 10—to eliminate
bail and change the processes for getting released
from jail before trial. This law would have gone into
Analysis | 73
25
PROPOSITION
25 REFERENDUM ON LAW THAT REPLACED
MONEY BAIL WITH SYSTEM BASED ON
PUBLIC SAFETY AND FLIGHT RISK.
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
effect on October 1, 2019. However, this did not
happen because a referendum on SB 10 qualified
for this ballot in January 2019. Under the
State Constitution, when a referendum on a new
state law qualifies for the ballot, the law goes on
hold until voters determine whether to put it in
effect.
PROPOSAL
Determines Whether New Bail and Pretrial Law Goes
Into Effect. Proposition 25 is a referendum on
SB 10 and will determine whether the bill will go
into effect. A “yes” vote means SB 10 will go into
effect and a “no” vote rejects SB 10. Specifically,
approval of this proposition would (1) eliminate
release on bail, (2) create a new process for release
before arraignment, and (3) change the existing
process for release at arraignment.
ELIMINATES RELEASE ON BAIL
Proposition 25 eliminates release from county jail
on bail before trial.
CREATES NEW PROCESS FOR RELEASE BEFORE
ARRAIGNMENT
Require Automatic Release for Most Misdemeanor
Crimes. This proposition requires people placed in
county jail for most misdemeanors, which are less
serious crimes than felonies, to be automatically
released within 12 hours of being placed in jail.
Certain people placed in jail for misdemeanors,
such as those placed in jail for domestic violence
or who have failed to appear in court more
than two times in the past year, would not be
automatically released.
Release for Felonies and Some Misdemeanors Require
Assessment. This proposition requires that people
placed in jail for (1) felonies and (2) misdemeanors
that are ineligible for automatic release be assessed
for their risk of committing a new crime or failing
to appear in court if released. Assessment staff
would collect certain information, including each
person’s risk level as determined by a pretrial risk
assessment tool. Staff would generally be required
to release people found to be low risk. Depending
on rules made by each trial court, certain medium-
CONTINUED
risk people would also be released by assessment
staff or by a judge. People who are released could
be required to obey certain conditions. These
conditions could include supervision, such as
regular check-ins with county probation staff or
electronic monitoring. However, the conditions of
low-risk people could not include supervision. The
court could change the conditions for good cause.
Unlike current law, no fees could be charged as a
condition of release. High-risk people, medium-risk
people who are not released, and certain others
(such as those charged with certain severe felonies,
including murder or arson of a home) would remain
in county jail until arraignment. Assessment and
any release would need to be completed no later
than 36 hours from a person being placed in jail.
Trial Courts Responsible for Pretrial Assessment.
Proposition 25 makes state trial courts responsible
for pretrial assessment. This includes various
activities, such as: (1) determining risk levels
using pretrial risk assessment tools, (2) collecting
additional information related to a person’s risk,
(3) releasing certain people based on their risk
level, and (4) suggesting conditions of pretrial
release to the court. The trial court could use court
employees as assessment staff or contract with
certain local public agencies (such as the county
probation department) to perform these activities.
If neither the court nor an existing local public
agency would be willing or able to do so, the court
could contract with a new local public agency
created specifically to perform these activities.
CHANGES PROCESS FOR RELEASE AT ARRAIGNMENT
At arraignment, people in jail would generally
be released on OR. District attorneys could
request a hearing to detain people in jail until
trial regardless of whether they were previously
released. People would only be detained in certain
circumstances—such as if the court decided
there were no conditions that could ensure they
would not commit a crime or fail to appear in
court. Those released could be required to follow
certain conditions but could not be charged fees
as a condition of release. After arraignment, the
district attorney or public defender could request
a detention hearing in certain circumstances,
such as if there was new evidence in the case. The
25
74 | Analysis
PROPOSITIONREFERENDUM ON LAW THAT REPLACED
MONEY BAIL WITH SYSTEM BASED ON
PUBLIC SAFETY AND FLIGHT RISK. 25
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
court could modify OR decisions and conditions of
release in certain circumstances, such as if new
information was provided by pretrial assessment
staff.
FISCAL EFFECTS
Proposition 25 would impact both state and local
costs. The actual size of these effects is uncertain
and would depend on how the proposition is
interpreted and implemented. For example, it is
unclear how many people the courts would release
pretrial and the conditions they would be required
to follow. As such, the effects could be higher or
lower than the estimates below.
Increased State and Local Pretrial Release Costs.
The new pretrial release process would increase
workload for state trial courts, as well as county
district attorneys and public defenders. For
example, there would be workload related to the
new detention hearings. This increase in workload
could be offset by reductions in other workload. For
example, workload from hearings about the amount
of bail required would be eliminated.
Additionally, state costs would increase as the
state trial courts would be responsible for pretrial
assessment. The state would also likely have
increased supervision costs, such as due to an
increase in the number of people being supervised
after being released pretrial.
In total, increased state and local pretrial costs could
be in the mid hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
This amount is less than 1 percent of the state’s
current General Fund budget. The actual size of
the increase in costs would depend on various
factors. Major factors include the number of people
released pretrial, their conditions of release (such
as how much supervision is required), and the
costs of these conditions. It is unclear whether
some of the increased state costs would be offset
by existing local government spending on pretrial
workload.
Decreased County Jail Costs. This proposition would
reduce county jail populations. This is largely
because more people would likely be released
CONTINUED
pretrial on OR rather than remain in jail. For
example, some people who would have been
unable to pay bail would be released under the new
pretrial process. However, some of this decline in
the jail population could be offset by other factors.
For example, some people—who otherwise would
have been released on bail—could end up being
detained until trial. On net, we estimate that the
reduction in the jail population would reduce costs
to local county jails, possibly in the high tens of
millions of dollars annually. The actual decrease
would depend on the number of people placed into
jail as well as release decisions made by the courts.
These resources would likely be redirected to other
county activities.
Impact on State and Local Tax Revenues. This
proposition would impact both state and local tax
revenues. On the one hand, it would reduce state
and local tax revenues. For example, insurance
companies would no longer pay taxes on bail
bond fees. On the other hand, state and local tax
revenues could increase. For example, people could
buy goods with money that would have otherwise
been spent on bail bond fees. If these goods were
subject to sales taxes, this would increase both
state and local tax revenues. The total net impact
on state and local tax revenues is unknown.
Visit http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/campaign/
measures/ for a list of committees primarily
formed to support or oppose this measure.
Visit http://www.fppc.ca.gov/
transparency/top-contributors.html
to access the committee’s top 10 contributors.
If you desire a copy of the full text of this state
measure, please call the Secretary of State
at (800) 345-VOTE (8683) or you can email
vigfeedback@sos.ca.gov and a copy will
be mailed at no cost to you.
25
Analysis | 75
PROPOSITION
25 REFERENDUM ON LAW THAT REPLACED
MONEY BAIL WITH SYSTEM BASED ON
PUBLIC SAFETY AND FLIGHT RISK.
+ ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 25 +
Now is the time to replace California’s money bail system
with one based on safety and fairness.
End money bail. Vote YES on Proposition 25 for a safer,
fairer and less costly system.
MONEY BAIL IS UNFAIR:
Under the current money bail system, if you can afford
to pay bail, you go free until your trial. If you can’t afford
bail, you must stay in jail. So, the rich can go free, even
when accused of serious violent crimes, while the poor
stay in jail even when innocent or accused of low-level
nonviolent offenses. Money bail doesn’t make us safer, and
it results in gross injustice.
Just one example, senior citizen Kenneth Humphrey was
accused of stealing $5 and a bottle of cologne. He was
forced to wait in jail nearly a year before his court date,
not because he was dangerous, but because he couldn’t
pay bail. A California appellate court ruled Mr. Humphrey
was “imprisoned solely due to poverty.” Unfortunately,
there are thousands of these stories.
MONEY BAIL IS UNSAFE:
Proposition 25 means decisions will be based on risk
to our safety, not a person’s ability to pay. Judges will
determine whether a person poses a risk of committing
new crimes or fleeing when deciding who is held pretrial—
decisions won’t be made based on the size of the person’s
wallet.
Proposition 25 makes our communities safer by ensuring
jail space is reserved for those who are actually dangerous
and shouldn’t be released, instead of the poor.
MONEY BAIL IS COSTLY:
Proposition 25 will save taxpayers tens of millions of
dollars a year. Under the current system, approximately
46,000 Californians await trial or sentencing in local jails
because they can’t afford money bail, costing taxpayers
$5 million every day.
Let’s end money bail. Vote YES on Proposition 25 for a
SAFER, FAIRER, LESS COSTLY system.
INNOCENT PEOPLE SUFFER:
The money bail system can force innocent people to plead
guilty to crimes they didn’t commit.
When the innocent can’t afford a nonrefundable fee of
$5,000 or more to a bail bond company, but also can’t
afford to stay in jail, risking their jobs or homes while
they await their trial, some will plead guilty, resulting in a
permanent criminal record. In jail, most will receive little
or no mental healthcare, and for many, incarceration will
make their existing conditions worse.
A YES vote helps ensure innocent people will no longer
be forced to languish in jail or plead guilty to crimes they
didn’t commit.
Vote YES on Proposition 25.
THE PREDATORY MONEY BAIL INDUSTRY DOESN’T
CARE ABOUT OUR COMMUNITIES:
But don’t expect the money bail industry to go quietly.
It’s a $2 billion for-profit industry, led by predatory bail
bond insurance corporations that get rich off the poor.
Proposition 25 ends an unjust system that profiteers off
working people, which is why the money bail industry is
spending millions to fight this measure.
Safety should be our guiding principle, not the size of
anyone’s wallet.
Vote YES on Proposition 25.
www.YesOnCAProp25.com
LENORE ANDERSON, President
Californians for Safety and Justice
DIANA BECTON, Contra Costa County District Attorney
HEIDI L. STRUNK, President
Mental Health America of California
+ REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 25 +
PROP. 25: UNFAIR, UNSAFE AND COSTLY
Written by Sacramento politicians, Prop. 25 eliminates the
option to post bail for every Californian and replaces this
right with a county-administered system of COMPUTER-
BASED PROFILING to determine who goes free and who
stays behind bars pending trial. Read why civil rights
groups, crime victims’ advocates, law enforcement and
local officials all say NO on Prop. 25.
PROP. 25 IS UNFAIR
Prop. 25’s computer profiling has been shown to
discriminate against minorities and people from
neighborhoods with higher concentrations of immigrants
and low-income residents, which is why civil rights groups
like the NAACP and United Latinos Vote say NO on
Prop. 25.
PROP. 25 IS UNSAFE
Bail is an important constitutional right and ensures
defendants satisfy the terms of their jail release and
appear for trial and holds them accountable if they
don’t. California’s recent experiment with “zero bail”
during the coronavirus pandemic was disastrous, with
many defendants arrested, released, and rearrested
multiple times in one day. Prop. 25 would make zero bail
permanent, which is why law enforcement and victims’
rights groups say NO on Prop. 25.
PROP. 25 IS COSTLY
Prop. 25 will require additional court hearings to overrule
a computer’s decision, causing more delays in our already
backlogged courts. As cities and counties face historic
budget deficits and devastating cuts to essential services,
Prop. 25 will cost local governments and California
hundreds of millions of dollars more each year to build and
administer a new bureaucracy—which is why local officials
and taxpayer advocates say NO on Prop. 25.
VOTE NO ON PROP. 25!
ALICE HUFFMAN, President
California State Conference of the NAACP
CHRISTINE WARD, Executive Director
Crime Victims Alliance
JOE COTO, President
United Latinos Vote
25
76 | Arguments Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors, and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
PROPOSITIONREFERENDUM ON LAW THAT REPLACED
MONEY BAIL WITH SYSTEM BASED ON
PUBLIC SAFETY AND FLIGHT RISK. 25
+ ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 25 +
PROP. 25 ELIMINATES THE RIGHT TO BAIL FOR EVERY
CALIFORNIAN
California’s justice system guarantees that people accused
of a non-violent crime have the CHOICE of securing their
release by posting bail or by order of a judge. But Prop. 25
replaces this right with an automated system of computer-
generated predictive modeling based on mathematical
algorithms administered by 58 different counties. Read
why civil rights leaders, law enforcement, victims’ rights
groups and county officials all say NO on Prop. 25.
CIVIL RIGHTS GROUPS WARN: PROP. 25 IS MORE
BIASED AGAINST MINORITIES AND THE POOR
Prop. 25 imposes a computer-based system of algorithms
to make important criminal justice decisions. Civil rights
groups like the NAACP oppose Prop. 25 because it will
create more biased outcomes against people of color and
those from economically disadvantaged areas.
• “Prop. 25 will be even more-discriminatory against
African-Americans, Latinos and other minorities. Computer
models may be good for recommending songs and movies,
but using these profiling methods to decide who gets
released from jail or who gets a loan has been proven to
hurt communities of color.”—Alice Huffman, President,
California State Conference of the NAACP
PROP. 25: MAKES COMMUNITIES LESS SAFE
California’s experiment with “zero bail” during the
coronavirus pandemic had disastrous results as many
defendants were arrested—released back on the streets
and committed new crimes within hours—and then
rearrested the same day. Prop. 25 will make “zero bail”
permanent, which is why law enforcement throughout the
state oppose it.
• “Prop. 25 will endanger public safety and makes it
harder for police and sheriff’s departments to do our
jobs.”—Chad Bianco, Riverside County Sheriff
PROP. 25: DENIES JUSTICE
California’s current system provides justice by ensuring
people accused of a crime appear for trial and holds
defendants accountable for their actions if they don’t.
• “Prop. 25 destroys one of the best tools our
communities have to make sure defendants appear and
face their day in court.”—Christine Ward, Executive
Director, Crime Victims Alliance
PROP. 25: COSTS TAXPAYERS HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS
OF DOLLARS EACH YEAR
Prop. 25 forces counties to create a new bureaucracy
to determine who will and will not get released from jail
pending trial. This new state mandate will cost taxpayers
hundreds of millions of dollars to implement at a time
when state and county budgets are facing historic budget
cuts due to the coronavirus.
• “Prop. 25 will cost state and local governments several
hundred million dollars each year. This will force us to
cut vital public services or raise taxes, something our
local communities can’t afford right now.”—Sue Frost,
Sacramento County Supervisor
PROP. 25: OVERBURDENS ALREADY OVER-CROWDED
COURTS
Prop. 25 replaces a bail system that works well at almost
no cost to taxpayers with a new system that requires
additional court hearings to overrule the computer’s
decision, leading to even longer delays in our backlogged
justice system.
• “Imagine a spouse, son, daughter or close friend stuck
in jail at the mercy of computers and the bureaucracy,
instead of having the immediate choice of getting out on
bail or the ability to speak directly to a judge.”—
Quentin L. Kopp, Retired California Superior Court Judge
VOTE NO ON PROP. 25!
ALICE HUFFMAN, President
California State Conference of the NAACP
CHRISTINE WARD, Executive Director
Crime Victims Alliance
QUENTIN L. KOPP, Retired California Superior Court Judge
+ REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 25 +
Money bail is a discriminatory and discredited system.
Help us end it. Vote YES on Prop. 25.
Today, the rich can pay their bail and get out of jail, no
matter how violent the crime charged. Money bail is unjust
and unfair.
Why should poor people charged with nonviolent
misdemeanors sit in jail while the rich get out, simply
because they can’t afford to pay bail? They shouldn’t.
Money bail is only a “right” for those who can afford it.
People don’t even get their bail money back if they’re
innocent or charges get dropped.
The massive bail industry, including Bankers Insurance
Company and Lexington National Insurance Corporation,
are spending their billions to protect their profits and
preserve a broken, discriminatory system. They oppose
Prop. 25 out of greed. You can see how they’re funding
their NO campaign at http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/
Campaign/Measures.
Prop. 25 replaces money bail with a system where judges
make determinations based on safety. Computer algorithms
don’t make the decisions, judges do.
According to the Judicial Council of California,
Proposition 25 “will gather information and provide reports
to aid judges in the decision about whether a defendant is
a risk to the public or likely to return to court if released
before trial.”
Prop. 25 also adds transparency and public review to
eliminate bias and racial disparities.
Prop. 25 has NOTHING to do with “zero bail,” a temporary
public health response to COVID-19.
For real social justice reform—finally—help change the
system by voting YES on Prop. 25.
Let’s end money bail once and for all!
STEVEN BRADFORD, Vice-Chair
California Legislative Black Caucus
LESLI CALDWELL, County Chief Public Defender, Retired
JESSICA BARTHOLOW, Policy Advocate
Western Center on Law & Poverty
25
Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors, and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Arguments | 77
PREPARED BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST OVERVIEW OF STATE BOND DEBT
This section describes the state’s bond
debt. It also discusses how the bond
measure on the ballot, if approved by
voters, would affect state costs to repay
bonds.
State Bonds and Their Costs
What Are Bonds? Bonds are a way that
governments and companies borrow
money. The state sells bonds to
investors to receive “up-front” funding
for these projects and then repays the
investors, with interest, over a period
of time. The state government uses
bonds primarily to pay for the planning,
construction, and renovation of
infrastructure projects such as bridges,
dams, prisons, parks, schools, and
office buildings.
Why Are Bonds Used? A main reason
for issuing bonds is that infrastructure
typically provides services over many
years. Therefore, it is reasonable for
people, both currently and in the future,
to help pay for the projects. Also, the
large costs of these projects can be
difficult to pay for all at once.
What Are the Main Types of Bonds? The
two main types of bonds used by the
state are general obligation bonds and
revenue bonds. One difference between
general obligation bonds and revenue
bonds is how they are repaid. The state
repays general obligation bonds using
the state General Fund (the state’s main
operating account, which it uses to pay
for education, prisons, health care, and
other services). The General Fund is
supported primarily by income tax and
sales tax revenues. The state repays
revenue bonds from the General Fund
but also from other sources, such as
fees paid by users of the funded project
(such as from bridge tolls). Another
difference between state general
obligation and revenue bonds is how
they are approved. General obligation
bonds issued by the state have to be
approved by voters, while revenue
bonds generally do not.
What Are the Costs of Bond Financing?
After selling bonds, the state makes
regular payments over the next few
decades until the bonds are paid off.
(This is very similar to the way a family
pays off a mortgage.) The state pays
somewhat more for projects it funds
through bonds than for projects it
funds up-front because of interest.
The amount of additional cost depends
primarily on the interest rate and the
time period over which the bonds have
to be repaid.
Bonds and State Spending
Amount of General Fund Debt. The state
has about $80 billion of General
Fund-supported bonds on which it is
making annual principal and interest
payments. In addition, the voters and
the Legislature have approved about
$38 billion of General Fund-supported
bonds that have not yet been sold.
Most of these bonds are expected to be
sold in the coming years as additional
projects need funding. Currently, we
estimate that the state is paying about
$7 billion per year from the General
Fund to repay bonds.
Proposition on This Ballot. There is one
general obligation bond measure on this
ballot. Proposition 14 would allow the
state to borrow $5.5 billion primarily for
78 | Overview of State Bond Debt
CONTINUEDOVERVIEW OF STATE BOND DEBT
stem cell research and the development
of new medical treatments in California.
This Election’s Impact on Debt Payments.
We estimate that the total cost
(including interest) to pay off the
general obligation bond measure on
this ballot would be about $7.8 billion.
This total would equal an average of
about $260 million per year for about
30 years, which is about 4 percent
more than the state currently spends
from the General Fund on its bond
debt. The exact costs would depend on
the specific details of the bond sales.
This Election’s Impact on the Share of
State Revenues Used to Repay Debt. One
indicator of the state’s debt situation is
the portion of the state’s annual General
Fund revenues that must be set aside
to pay for bond debt. This is known as
the state’s debt-service ratio (DSR).
Figure 1
General Fund Debt-Service Ratio
Because these revenues must be used
to repay debt, they are not available to
spend on other state programs, such as
operating colleges or paying for health
care.
As shown in Figure 1, the DSR is now
around 4 percent. If voters do not
approve the proposed bond on this
ballot, we project that the state’s DSR
on already approved bonds will grow
over the next couple of years—peaking
at about 4.7 percent in 2021–22—
and then begin decreasing. If voters
approve the proposed general obligation
bond on this ballot, we project it would
increase the DSR by about one-fifth of
one percentage point compared to what
it would otherwise have been over the
next couple of years. The state’s future
DSR would be higher than shown in the
figure if the state and voters approve
additional bonds in the future.
Percent of General Fund Revenues Spent on Debt Service
7%
6
5
4
3
2
1
Bond on
November 2020 Ballot
Authorized, but Unsold
Bonds Already Sold
95–96 00–01 05–06 10–11 15–16 20–21 25–26
Projected
Overview of State Bond Debt | 79
Elections in California
The Top Two Candidates Open Primary Act requires that all candidates for
a voter-nominated office be listed on the same ballot. Previously known as
partisan offices, voter-nominated offices include state legislative offices,
U.S. congressional offices, and state constitutional offices.
In both the open primary and general elections, you can vote for any candidate
regardless of what party preference you indicated on your voter registration
form. In the primary election, the two candidates receiving the most votes—
regardless of party preference—move on to the general election. If a candidate
receives a majority of the vote (at least 50 percent +1), a general election still
must be held.
California’s open primary system does not apply to candidates running for
U.S. President, county central committees, or local offices.
Write-in candidates for voter-nominated offices can still run in the primary
election. However, a write-in candidate can only move on to the general
election if the candidate is one of the top two vote-getters in the primary
election. Additionally, there is no independent nomination process for a
general election.
California law requires the following information to be printed in this guide.
Party-Nominated/Partisan Offices
Political parties may formally nominate candidates for party-nominated/partisan
offices at the primary election. A nominated candidate will represent that party
as its official candidate for the specific office at the general election, and the
ballot will reflect an official designation. The top vote-getter for each party at
the primary election moves on to the general election. Parties also elect officers
of county central committees at the primary election.
A voter can only vote in the primary election of the political party he or she has
disclosed a preference for upon registering to vote. However, a political party
may allow a person who has declined to disclose a party preference to vote in
that party’s primary election.
U.S. presidential candidate statements can
be found online at voterguide.sos.ca.gov
80
ELECTIONS IN CALIFORNIA CONTINUED
Voter-Nominated Offices
Political parties are not entitled to formally nominate candidates for voter-
nominated offices at the primary election. A candidate nominated for a voter-
nominated office at the primary election is the nominee of the people and
not the official nominee of any party at the general election. A candidate for
nomination to a voter-nominated office shall have his or her qualified party
preference, or lack of qualified party preference, stated on the ballot, but
the party preference designation is selected solely by the candidate and is
shown for the information of the voters only. It does not mean the candidate is
nominated or endorsed by the party designated, or that there is an affiliation
between the party and candidate, and no candidate nominated by the voters
shall be deemed to be the officially nominated candidate of any political party.
In the county Voter Information Guide, parties may list the candidates for voter-
nominated offices who have received the party’s official endorsement.
Any voter may vote for any candidate for a voter-nominated office, if they meet
the other qualifications required to vote for that office. The top two vote-getters
at the primary election move on to the general election for the voter-nominated
office even if both candidates have specified the same party preference
designation. No party is entitled to have a candidate with its party preference
designation move on to the general election, unless the candidate is one of the
two highest vote-getters at the primary election.
Nonpartisan Offices
Political parties are not entitled to nominate candidates for nonpartisan offices
at the primary election, and a candidate at the primary election is not the
official nominee of any party for the specific office at the general election.
A candidate for nomination to a nonpartisan office may not designate his or
her party preference, or lack of party preference, on the ballot. The top two
vote-getters at the primary election move on to the general election for the
nonpartisan office.
Top Contributors to State Candidates and Ballot Measures
When a committee (a person or group of people who receive or spend money for the purpose of
influencing voters to support or oppose candidates or ballot measures) supports or opposes a ballot
measure or candidate and raises at least $1 million, the committee must report its
top 10 contributors to the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). The
committee must update the top 10 list when there is any change.
These lists are available on the FPPC website at
http://www.fppc.ca.gov/transparency/top-contributors.html
81
Voter Registration
If you have already registered to vote, you do not need to re-register unless you change your name, home
address, mailing address, or if you want to change or select a political party.
You can register to vote online at registertovote.ca.gov or call the Secretary of State’s toll-free Voter Hotline
at (800) 345-VOTE (8683) to get a form mailed to you.
Voter registration forms can be found at most post offices, libraries, city and county government offices,
county elections offices, and the California Secretary of State’s Office.
Conditional Voter Registration
During the period of 14 days prior to Election Day and including Election Day, you can go to the
office of your county elections official, a vote center, or polling place to conditionally register to vote and
vote. To learn more visit sos.ca.gov/elections/voter-registration/same-day-reg/.
Voter Registration Privacy Information
Safe at Home Confidential Voter Registration Program: Certain voters facing life-threatening situations
(i.e. victims and survivors of domestic violence, stalking, sexual assault, human trafficking,
elder/dependent adult abuse) may qualify for confidential voter status if they are active members of the
Safe at Home program. For more information, contact the Secretary of State’s Safe at Home program
toll-free at (877) 322-5227 or visit sos.ca.gov/registries/safe-home/.
Voter Information Privacy: Information on your voter registration affidavit will be used by elections officials
to send you official information on the voting process, such as the location of your polling place and the
issues and candidates that will appear on the ballot. Commercial use of voter registration information is
prohibited by law and is a misdemeanor. Voter information may be provided to a candidate for office, a
ballot measure committee, or other person for election, scholarly, journalistic, political, or governmental
purposes, as determined by the Secretary of State. Driver license and social security numbers, or your
signature as shown on your voter registration card, cannot be released for these purposes. If you have
any questions about the use of voter information or wish to report suspected misuse of such information,
please call the Secretary of State’s toll-free Voter Hotline at (800) 345-VOTE (8683).
Pre-register at sixteen. Vote at eighteen.
Pre-registration is available online for eligible 16- and 17-year-olds at registertovote.ca.gov or via the paper
registration form. California youth who pre-register to vote will have their registration become active once
they turn 18 years old.
Pre-register in 4 easy steps:
1. Visit registertovote.ca.gov.
2. Click the “Pre-register to Vote” button.
3. Become automatically registered on your 18th birthday.
4. Cast your ballot on Election Day!
What is Pre-registration?
If you are 16 or 17 years old and meet all other voter eligibility requirements, you can pre-register to vote
at registertovote.ca.gov.
Simply complete the online pre-registration application and on your 18th birthday, you will automatically be
registered to vote.
82
How to vote by mail
Who can vote by mail?
Every registered voter will receive a vote-by-mail ballot for the November 3, 2020, General Election.
County elections officials will begin mailing ballots to voters by October 5, 2020. If you do not
receive your vote-by-mail ballot or need to request a replacement, please contact your county
elections office. County elections office contact information can be found on page 110 of this guide.
How to return your vote-by-mail ballot
After marking your choices on your vote-by-mail ballot, place it in the official envelope provided by
your county elections office and seal it. Sign the envelope where directed. You have multiple options
for returning your ballot.
To ensure your ballot arrives by the deadline, return it either:
By mail—must be postmarked on or before November 3 and received by your county elections
office no later than November 20. No postage is required!
In person—drop off at your county elections office or any vote center, polling place, or ballot
drop-off location in California before the polls close at 8:00 p.m. on November 3.
State law gives voters the freedom to designate anyone they choose to return their vote-by-mail
ballots. However, we recommend that you only sign your completed ballot over to someone you trust.
And never hand over your vote-by-mail ballot if you have not sealed and signed the back of the return
envelope provided by your county elections office.
Even if you receive your vote-by-mail ballot and envelope, you can still vote in person at your polling
place on Election Day. Bring your vote-by-mail ballot to the polling place and give it to a poll worker
to exchange for a polling place ballot. If you do not have your vote-by-mail ballot and envelope, you
may have to vote using a provisional ballot. This ensures that you have not already cast a ballot.
All counties offer an accessible option called remote accessible vote-by-mail (RAVBM). RAVBM
allows voters with disabilities to receive their ballots at home and mark them independently and
privately before sending them back to elections officials. Contact your county elections official for
more information.
Want to see the November 3, 2020, General Election results
after the polls close at 8:00 p.m.? Visit the California Secretary
of State’s Election Results website at electionresults.sos.ca.gov.
The Election Results website is updated every five minutes on
Election Night as counties report results to the Secretary of State. County elections officials send
semi-official election results to the Secretary of State’s website after the polls close at 8:00 p.m. and
continue to send updates at least every two hours until all election day ballots are counted.
Beginning on November 5 through December 3, 2020, the Election Results website will update
every day at 5:00 p.m. as counties count the remaining ballots.
The official results of the election will be posted by December 11, 2020, at sos.ca.gov/elections/.
83
Assistance for Voters with Disabilities
California is committed to ensuring every voter can cast their ballot privately and
independently.
For more detailed information about what assistance your county offers to voters
with disabilities, please check your county Voter Information Guide or contact your
county. County contact information is available on page 110 of this guide.
Voting at a Polling Place or Vote Center
If you need help marking your ballot, you may choose up to two people to help you.
This person cannot be:
• Your employer or anyone who works for your employer
• Your labor union leader or anyone who works for your labor union
Curbside voting allows you to park as close as possible to the voting area. Elections
officials will bring you a roster to sign, a ballot, and any other voting materials
you may need, whether you are actually at a curb or in a car. Contact your county
elections office to see if curbside voting is available at your polling place or vote
center.
All polling places and vote centers are required to be accessible to voters with
disabilities and will have accessible voting machines.
Voting at Home
Remote accessible vote-by-mail (RAVBM) systems provide an accessible option for
voters with disabilities to receive their ballots at home and mark them independently
and privately before sending them back to elections officials. Contact your county
elections official for more information.
Audio & Large Print Voter Information Guides
This guide is available in audio and large print versions. The guide is also available
at no cost in English, Chinese, Hindi, Japanese, Khmer, Korean, Spanish, Tagalog,
Thai, and Vietnamese.
To order:
Call the Secretary of State’s toll-free Voter Hotline at (800) 345-VOTE (8683)
Visit voterguide.sos.ca.gov
Download an audio MP3 version at voterguide.sos.ca.gov/en/audio
84
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Am I registered to vote?
To be eligible to register to vote in California, you must be:
• A United States citizen and a resident of California,
• 18 years old or older on Election Day,
• Not currently in state or federal prison or on parole for the conviction of a felony, and
• Not currently found mentally incompetent to vote by a court.
To check the status of your voter registration, visit voterstatus.sos.ca.gov.
What if I forgot to register to vote or update my registration?
No problem! If you missed the October 19, 2020, voter registration deadline, California law allows
you to register to vote and vote until 8:00 p.m. on Election Day at your county elections office or
at any voting location in your county. This process is called Conditional Voter Registration and is
commonly referred to as Same Day Voter Registration.
Here’s how it works:
1. Visit your county elections office, a vote center, or polling place in your county—locations can be
found in your county Voter Information Guide or at vote.ca.gov.
2. Complete a voter registration card.
3. Vote your ballot at your county elections office, vote center, or polling place.
4. Once the county elections official processes your registration and determines you are eligible, you
will be registered to vote and your ballot will be counted.
5. Check if your ballot was counted by visiting voterstatus.sos.ca.gov. County elections offices have
up until 60 days after Election Day to provide this information.
Where can I learn about candidates and propositions?
Check your county Voter Information Guide for information about local candidates and measures.
Starting on page 16 of this guide you will find information about statewide propositions.
To find statements from presidential candidates, visit the Secretary of State’s website at vote.ca.gov.
To research campaign contributions for state and local candidates, visit the Secretary of State’s
website at powersearch.sos.ca.gov.
To research campaign contributions for presidential and congressional candidates, visit the Federal
Election Commission website at www.fec.gov.
What tools are available on the Secretary of State’s website?
Visit vote.ca.gov for tools to help you:
• Check your voter registration information
• Register or re-register to vote
• Sign up for vote-by-mail ballot tracking
• Find your polling place or vote center
• Contact your county elections office
85
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS CONTINUED
Where do I vote?
Every county has polling places or vote centers open on Election Day. All counties will also have one
or more in-person, early voting locations. To find your county’s early voting locations, visit vote.ca.gov
or check your county Voter Information Guide.
You may also call the Secretary of State’s toll-free Voter Hotline at (800) 345-VOTE (8683).
You can also text “Vote” to GOVOTE (468683) to find the location of your polling place.
If you live in one of these counties: Amador, Butte, Calaveras, El Dorado, Fresno, Los Angeles,
Madera, Mariposa, Napa, Nevada, Orange, Sacramento, San Mateo, Santa Clara, or Tuolumne, you
can vote in any vote center in your county. Visit voterschoice.sos.ca.gov.
How do I vote by mail?
For this election, every registered voter in California will automatically receive a vote-by-mail ballot.
Your county elections office will mail ballots beginning October 5, 2020. For more information
please see page 83 of this guide.
How much postage is needed to return my vote-by-mail ballot?
No stamp, no problem! Postage for vote-by-mail envelopes is prepaid by the county and free for all
voters in California.
How can I return my vote-by-mail ballot?
After marking your choices on your vote-by-mail ballot, place it in the official envelope provided by
your county elections office and seal it. Sign the envelope where directed. You have multiple options
for returning your ballot.
To ensure your ballot arrives by the deadline, return it either:
• By mail—must be postmarked on or before November 3 and received by your county elections
office no later than November 20. No postage is required!
• In person—drop off at your county elections office, any vote center or polling place in California,
or any ballot drop-off location or drop box before the polls close at 8:00 p.m. on November 3.
• State law gives voters the freedom to designate anyone they choose to return their vote-by-mail
ballots. However, we recommend that you only sign your completed ballot over to someone you
trust. Never hand over your vote-by-mail ballot if you have not sealed and signed the back of the
return envelope provided by your county elections office.
Can I still vote in person this election?
While we recommend that you vote using your vote-by-mail ballot, there will still be in-person voting
options in every county. Bring your vote-by-mail ballot to your county elections office or voting
location and give it to a poll worker to exchange for a polling place ballot. If you do not have your
vote-by-mail ballot and envelope, you may have to vote using a provisional ballot. This ensures that
you have not already cast a ballot.
86
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS CONTINUED
Can voters with disabilities vote by mail?
All county elections offices are required to offer an accessible option called remote accessible
vote-by-mail (RAVBM). RAVBM allows voters with disabilities to receive their ballot at home and
mark it independently and privately before sending it back to elections officials. For the November 3,
2020, General Election, all registered voters may use the RAVBM option. To sign up for RAVBM, visit
voterstatus.sos.ca.gov.
How do I know the county received my vote-by-mail ballot?
Voters can receive notifications on the status of their vote-by-mail ballot by signing up for the
“Where’s My Ballot?” tool. Sign up at wheresmyballot.sos.ca.gov to receive automatic updates on the
status of your vote-by-mail ballot by text message (SMS), email, or voice call.
When you sign up for “Where’s My Ballot?” you will receive automatic updates when your county
elections office:
• Mails your ballot,
• Receives your ballot,
• Counts your ballot, or
• Identifies an issue with your ballot.
Can I get time off from work to vote?
All employees are eligible for paid time off for the purpose of voting if they do not have enough time
outside of working hours to vote.
Employees can be given as much time as they need in order to vote, but only a maximum of
two hours is paid. Employers may require employees to give advance notice that they will need
additional time off for voting. Employers may require time off to be taken only at the beginning or
end of the employee’s shift.
If you have questions, call the Secretary of State’s toll-free Voter Hotline at (800) 345-VOTE (8683).
Do I need to show ID to vote?
In most cases, California voters do not have to show identification before they vote.
You may have to show one form of identification at the polling place if you are voting for the first
time after registering by mail or online and you did NOT provide the following on your application (or
any other identification):
• State-issued driver license or identification number, or
• The last four digits of your social security number.
The following are some of the acceptable types of identification according to state and federal laws:
• Driver license or state-issued identification • Student identification
• Passport • Health club identification
• Employee identification • Insurance plan identification
• Military identification • Credit card or debit card
For the full list, see “Polling Place ID Requirements” at sos.ca.gov/elections/hava-id-standards.
87
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS CONTINUED
How can I help?
Participate as a poll worker! Gain hands-on experience and take part in the single most important
part of our democracy—voting!
To serve as a poll worker, you must be:
• A U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident, or
• An eligible high school student.
Poll workers:
• Set up and close a polling place
• Help voters understand their rights
• Protect ballots and voting equipment
• Earn extra money (amount varies by county)
• Contribute to their community and meet their neighbors
To serve as a high school poll worker, a student must:
• Be a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident
• Be at least 16 years old on Election Day
• Attend a public or private high school
• Have at least a 2.5 grade point average
• Get permission from their parents and school
• Attend a training session
For more information about being a poll worker, contact your county elections office or visit
vote.ca.gov.
Check Your Voter Status Online
Visit the Secretary of State’s My Voter Status page at
voterstatus.sos.ca.gov, where you can check your voter status,
find your polling place or a vote center, and much more.
Use My Voter Status to:
• See if you are registered to vote and, if so, in what county
• Check your political party preference
• Find your polling place or vote center
• Find upcoming elections in your area
• Receive your state Voter Information Guide (VIG) by email before each statewide election (See
below for more information on opting out of the VIG.)
• Find contact information for your county elections office
• Check the status of your vote-by-mail ballot or provisional ballot
To check your voter status, you will need to enter your first name, last name, California driver license or
identification card number, the last four digits of your social security number, and date of birth.
You can use the My Voter Status tool to opt out of receiving the state VIG. However, if another
registered voter in your household requests to get it by mail, a state VIG will still be mailed to your
address. If you have opted out and do not receive the state VIG in the mail, information on statewide
candidates and ballot measures will still be available on the VIG website (voterguide.sos.ca.gov) before
each statewide election.
Go to voterstatus.sos.ca.gov to get started.
88
TEXT OF PROPOSED BOND
PROPOSITION 14
This initiative measure is submitted to the people in
accordance with the provisions of Section 8 of Article
II of the California Constitution.
This initiative measure amends and adds sections to
the Health and Safety Code; therefore, existing
provisions proposed to be deleted are printed in
strikeout type and new provisions proposed to be
added are printed in italic type to indicate that they
are new.
PROPOSED LAW
The California Stem Cell Research,
Treatments, and Cures Initiative of 2020
SECTION 1. Title.
This measure shall be known, and may be cited, as
the “California Stem Cell Research, Treatments, and
Cures Initiative of 2020.”
SEC. 2. Findings and Declarations.
The people of the State of California hereby find and
declare all the following:
(a)In 2004, California voters rejected efforts by the
federal government to limit stem cell research by
establishing California’s own stem cell research and
therapy development funding institute, catapulting
California into a worldwide leadership position in the
cutting-edge field of stem cell research.
(b) Since then, the California Institute for
Regenerative Medicine (California’s stem cell research
institute), which was established by California voters,
has funded more than 1,000 research projects at 70
institutions and businesses across the state, which
have led to more than 2,500 peer-reviewed medical
research discoveries, including discoveries that have
contributed to more than 70 human clinical trials
aimed at finding treatments and cures for chronic
injuries and diseases. Many other discoveries are in
the translational pipeline awaiting additional funds to
move them towards clinical trials. To date,
approximately 2,000 patients have been or are
expected to be treated in institute-funded clinical
trials or at the institute’s centers of excellence, and
more than 4,000 patients have been or are expected
to be enrolled in human clinical trials in which the
California stem cell research institute has funded
research or therapy development or at the institute’s
centers of excellence.
(c)Researchers funded by California’s stem cell
research institute are working to develop therapies
and cures for devastating diseases and injuries,
including, without limitation, cancer, diabetes, heart
disease, lower respiratory diseases, kidney disease,
Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, spinal cord injuries,
blindness, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), HIV/
AIDS, multiple sclerosis, and mental health disorders,
such as schizophrenia, depression, and autism.
(d) Institute-funded researchers are making
significant progress in developing therapies for many
devastating diseases, ranging from cancer treatments
to helping to find a cure for “bubble baby” disease,
which has already saved the lives of many children,
but many of these projects require additional funds to
move from the research stage to the clinic.
14
(e) Treatments developed with support from
California’s stem cell research institute are changing
lives. Thanks to this research, a high school student
who was paralyzed in a diving accident was able to
regain function in his upper body and go on to college;
a mother who went blind from a genetic disease
recovered her sight; and a cure has been found for a
disease that causes fetal death.
(f)Through 2018, institute-funded research projects
are estimated to have generated more than $3 billion
in matching funds, created more than 55,000 full-
time equivalent jobs in California, resulted in
approximately $641 million in state and local tax
revenues, and generated an increase of $10.7 billion
in California’s economic activity. California’s stem cell
research institute has drawn hundreds of out-of-state
researchers and many companies to California, making
California a worldwide leader in the field. The more
than $3 billion in matching funds generated by these
projects validate the value of the voters’ decision to
invest in research and therapies to treat and cure
chronic disease and injury.
(g)Although California’s stem cell research funding
institute has made great gains, much work remains to
be done. With new federal restrictions on important
research, an anti-science agenda on the rise, and
threats to reduce federal research and development
funding, California once again must take the lead to
ensure that this promising area of research continues
and to advance projects from the research stage to the
clinic.
(h) Without additional funding, many of these
promising research and development projects will be
forced to stop work on potentially life-changing
medical therapies. California’s stem cell research
institute needs additional funding to help bring
promising discoveries through the development
process, including clinical trials, with the goal of
making treatments available to California patients
with chronic diseases and injuries.
SEC. 3. Purpose and Intent.
In enacting this initiative, it is the purpose and intent
of the people of the State of California to continue to
support stem cell research to mitigate or cure chronic
disease and injury and thereby reduce or mitigate
human suffering and the cost of care and improve the
health and productivity of Californians by:
Text of Proposed Bond | 89
TEXT OF PROPOSED BOND PROPOSITION 14 CONTINUED
1414
(a) Providing $5.5 billion in bond funding to allow
California’s stem cell research institute to continue
funding stem cell and other vital research to develop
treatments and cures for serious diseases and
conditions like diabetes, cancer, HIV/AIDS, heart
disease, paralysis, blindness, kidney disease,
respiratory illnesses, and many more.
(b) Dedicating $1.5 billion for the support of research
and the development of treatments for diseases and
conditions of the brain and central nervous system,
such as Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease,
stroke, dementia, epilepsy, depression, brain cancer,
schizophrenia, autism, and other diseases and
conditions of the brain.
(c) Promoting the accessibility and affordability of
treatments and cures by ensuring that more
Californians have the opportunity to participate in
clinical trials for promising new treatments for chronic
disease and injury, expanding the number and
geographic reach of clinics where specialized
treatments and cures can be provided, including
centers of excellence like Alpha Stem Cell Clinics and
Community Care Centers of Excellence, which support
clinical trials and will serve as the foundation for the
delivery of future treatments, and by helping California
patients obtain treatments and cures that arise from
institute-funded research and development.
(d) Requiring strict accountability and transparency,
including rigorous conflict of interest rules that are
updated every four years, a limit on the number of
employees the institute may hire, and a cap on
administrative funding for the institute to ensure that
at least 92.5 percent of the bond proceeds are spent
on research and the development and delivery of
treatments and cures.
(e) Creating the workforce jobs necessary to ensure
that promising research developments are advanced to
the clinic and that resulting treatments are made
available to California patients.
(f) Reinforcing California’s position as a world leader
in the development of stem cell treatments and cures
for patients.
(g) Promoting private investment in institute-funded
projects to leverage institute funding so that this
critical research can advance new treatments faster
towards the goal of making them available to
California patients.
(h) Protecting the General Fund by postponing
General Fund payments on the bonds for the first five
years, restricting the issuance of bonds in any one
year to no more than one half of one percent of the
total amount of the state’s outstanding and authorized
general obligation bonds, in the aggregate total, as of
January 1, 2020, requiring that bonds be sold over a
period of no less than 10 years, and spreading the
cost of the bonds over a period of up to 40 years, so
that the repayment is aligned with the period of time
90 | Text of Proposed Bond
over which California patients are expected to benefit
from institute-funded research.
SEC. 4. Section 125290.72 is added to the Health
and Safety Code, to read:
125290.72. Expand Alpha Stem Cell Clinic Program
and Establish Community Care Centers of Excellence
Program
(a) The institute shall expand the Alpha Stem Cell
Clinic Program and establish the Community Care
Centers of Excellence Program to fund the
establishment of centers of excellence where clinical
trials are conducted and treatments and cures are
made available for all patients. The goal of the
Community Care Centers of Excellence Program is to
expand the capacity of the Alpha Stem Cell Clinic
Program to promote access to human clinical trials
and the accessibility of treatments and cures arising
from institute-funded research for patients in
California by establishing geographically diverse
centers of excellence to conduct clinical trials and to
seek to make the resulting treatments and cures
broadly available to California patients.
(b) The institute shall prioritize the funding of
applications for Community Care Centers of Excellence
that enhance the geographic distribution of
Community Care Centers of Excellence across the
state, considering the location of the Alpha Stem Cell
Clinics, to promote patient access. The institute shall
prioritize applications for Alpha Stem Cell Clinics and
Community Care Centers of Excellence that offer
matching funds or verified in-kind support, consistent
with the highest medical standards, as established by
the governing board of the institute.
(c) Applications for Alpha Stem Cell Clinic and
Community Care Centers of Excellence grants shall be
required to include a plan for enhancing access to
clinical trials for California patients and making
treatments and cures that arise from institute-funded
research more widely available to California patients,
including addressing how the applicant will support
the ancillary hospital and access costs of patients
participating in clinical trials to enhance access to
trials for California patients, regardless of their
economic means and geographical location.
(d) Alpha Stem Cell Clinic and Community Care
Centers of Excellence awards shall be made pursuant
to the procedures set forth in Article 1 (commencing
with Section 125290.10) of Chapter 3 of Part 5 of
Division 106.
SEC. 5. Section 125290.73 is added to the Health
and Safety Code, to read:
125290.73. Scientific and Medical Training and
Fellowship Programs
(a) The institute shall establish training and
fellowship programs. The goal of the training and
fellowship programs shall be to:
TEXT OF PROPOSED BOND PROPOSITION 14 CONTINUED
(1) Ensure that California has the workforce necessary
to move new discoveries from the research stage to
the clinic.
(2) Accelerate the accessibility of treatments and
cures, and make treatments and cures arising from
institute-funded research available to California
patients.
(3) Prepare California undergraduates and master’s
students for careers in stem cell research and other
vital research opportunities and in the development
and delivery of treatments and cures.
(4) Support graduate students, postdoctoral students,
and medical students, including, but not limited to,
interns, residents, and graduate fellows who work in
the fields of stem cell and other vital research
opportunities and in the development and delivery of
treatments and cures, with fellowships.
(b) (1) (A) The program shall provide awards to
California Community Colleges and California State
University campuses to establish training programs to
prepare undergraduates and provide fellowships for
master’s graduate students for advanced degrees and
technical careers in stem cell research and other vital
research opportunities and the development and
delivery of treatments and cures, including hands-on
training and education in stem cell research and other
vital research opportunities and in the development
and delivery of treatments and cures. Direct patient
engagement and outreach activities that engage
California’s diverse communities to ensure that all
communities are aware of, and have access to,
institute-funded treatments and cures shall be a
priority outcome of this program. The institute shall
prioritize the funding of applications from institutions
that enhance the geographic distribution of training
across the state and socio-economic diversity and
applications that offer matching funds or verified in-
kind support.
(B) The institute may establish coinvestment,
sponsored apprenticeships as part of the training
program in order to leverage the institute’s funding
and create employment opportunities for students in
technical positions that advance the fields of stem
cell and other vital research opportunities and the
development and delivery of treatments and cures.
(2) (A) The fellowship program shall provide awards
to academic and nonprofit research institutions in
California to administer fellowship awards to graduate
and postdoctoral students and medical school
students, including, but not limited to, interns,
residents, and graduate fellows, engaged in stem cell
research and other vital research opportunities and
the development and delivery of treatments and cures.
Fellowship awards may be freestanding or
supplemental of other sources of funding.
(B) The institute may establish a program to empower
fellows to work in Alpha Stem Cell Clinics and
Community Care Centers of Excellence as part of their
participation in the fellowship program.
(c) Training and fellowship program awards shall be
made pursuant to the procedures set forth in Article 1
(commencing with Section 125290.10) of Chapter 3
of Part 5 of Division 106.
14
SEC. 6. Section 125290.74 is added to the Health
and Safety Code, to read:
125290.74. Shared Research Laboratory Program
(a) The institute shall reestablish a Shared Research
Laboratory Program to provide funding to academic
and nonprofit research institutions in California for
specialized instrumentation, a supply of cell lines,
culture materials, and instruction and training in
research methods and techniques. Awardees of
Shared Research Laboratory grants shall be required
to offer use of the research laboratory to investigators
conducting research at the awardee institution and
provide a reasonable access plan for neighboring
research institutions, and to offer instruction and
training opportunities to students and investigators at
the awardee institution and provide a reasonable
access plan for neighboring research institutions.
(b) The institute shall prioritize the funding of
applications that enhance the geographic distribution
of Shared Research Laboratories across the state and
applications that offer matching funds or verified in-
kind support.
(c) Shared Research Laboratory Program awards shall
be made pursuant to the procedures set forth in
Article 1 (commencing with Section 125290.10) of
Chapter 3 of Part 5 of Division 106.
SEC. 7. Section 125290.75 is added to the Health
and Safety Code, to read:
125290.75. Treatments and Cures Accessibility and
Affordability Working Group
(a) Membership
The Treatments and Cures Accessibility and
Affordability Working Group shall have 17 members,
nominated by the chairperson or vice chairperson and
approved by the board, as follows:
(1) Five members of the ICOC (the governing board),
with at least two of those members drawn from the
appointments made pursuant to paragraph (3), (4),
(5), or (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 125290.20.
(2) An individual who has private sector experience in
innovative therapy medical coverage terms,
qualifications, and the process for reimbursement,
including, if possible, experience with coverage
negotiations with private insurers, health management
organizations, or corporate self-insurance health
plans.
(3) An expert or a highly knowledgeable individual
with experience in federal therapy coverage,
qualifications, and process for reimbursement,
Text of Proposed Bond | 91
TEXT OF PROPOSED BOND PROPOSITION 14 CONTINUED
14
including, if possible, experience with the federal
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
(4) An expert or a highly knowledgeable individual
with experience in California’s public insurance
program (Covered California), coverage, qualifications,
and the process for reimbursement of innovative
therapies.
(5) Two representatives from hospitals in California
that are participating in stem cell clinical trials or that
are treating patients with federal Food and Drug
Administration approved stem cell or genetic
therapies.
(6) A representative from a philanthropic organization
who has experience assisting patients with clinical
trial access and affordability or with access to, and
the affordability of, innovative therapies.
(7) Two representatives from patient advocacy
organizations who have technical expertise or
experience in coverage, qualifications, and the process
for reimbursement of innovative therapies.
(8) A health care economist with experience in
advising or negotiating with private insurers,
government insurers, or corporate self-insurance
programs on coverage for innovative therapies or
human trials, including experience in assisting
hospitals and clinics in covering financial gaps in
coverage of the direct and indirect costs of innovative
therapies.
(9) A patient navigator with training and experience
helping patients obtain financial support from private
insurers, public support, or nonprofit support, and
helping patients obtain social service support to
facilitate their participation in federal Food and Drug
Administration approved human trials or their
qualification for access and financial assistance for
innovative therapies.
(10) The chairperson and vice chairperson of the
governing board.
(b) Functions
The Treatments and Cures Accessibility and
Affordability Working Group shall have the following
functions:
(1) Examine, develop, and assist with the
implementation of financial models to enhance the
accessibility and affordability of treatments and cures
arising from institute-funded research for Californians
and to enhance access to clinical trials, including
reimbursement alternatives for patient-qualified costs
to help achieve the objective that reimbursement
covers patient expenses, including, but not limited to,
medical expenses, lodging, meals, and travel for
research participants and their caregivers.
(2) Recommend to the governing board policies and
programs to help Californians obtain access to human
clinical trials and to make treatments and cures
92 | Text of Proposed Bond
arising from institute-funded research available to
California patients throughout California.
(3) Recommend to the governing board policies and
programs to help Californians afford to participate in
human clinical trials and to make treatments and
cures arising from institute-funded research affordable
to California patients, regardless of their financial
means.
(4) Work with the Alpha Stem Cell Clinics and
Community Care Centers of Excellence and other
California health care institutions, and health care
payors, including private insurers, government
programs, and foundations, to develop model
programs and coverage models to promote the access
and affordability of treatments and cures arising from
institute-funded research for California patients,
regardless of their financial means, or the disease,
injury, or health condition from which they suffer.
(5) Advise the governing board regarding the coverage
criteria and the process for reimbursement of
innovative therapies and cures arising from institute-
funded research and made available to patients
through publicly or privately funded programs in
California with the goal of expanding access and
affordability.
SEC. 8. Section 125290.76 is added to the Health
and Safety Code, to read:
125290.76. Advisory Task Forces
(a) Membership
The chairperson and the president may appoint one or
more advisory task forces to provide expert guidance
to address specific objectives in areas under the
institute’s jurisdiction, including scientific, policy,
ethical, financial, and technical matters. The
chairperson and president shall each appoint an equal
number of members with expertise in the area or areas
for which advice is sought, including at least one
member who has a patient advocate perspective.
(b) Functions
The advisory task forces shall advise the board through
the chairperson and the president, regarding
scientific, policy, financial, ethical, and technical
matters under the institute’s jurisdiction.
(c) Operations
(1) The advisory task forces shall be advisory only and
their operations shall be subject to the requirements
applicable to working groups pursuant to Section
125290.50, provided that the advisory task forces
shall meet in public when they vote on policy
recommendations.
(2) Members of the advisory task forces shall be
subject to the conflict of interest requirements
applicable to members of the working groups,
provided that the advisory task forces shall not review,
TEXT OF PROPOSED BOND PROPOSITION 14 CONTINUED
comment upon, or have jurisdiction over, any
individual grant or loan approval.
SEC. 9. Section 125290.20 of the Health and
Safety Code is amended to read:
125290.20. ICOC Membership; Appointments;
Terms of Office
(a) ICOC Membership
The ICOC shall have 29 35 members, appointed as
follows:
(1) The Chancellors of the University of California at
San Francisco, Davis, San Diego, Los Angeles, and
Irvine, and Riverside shall each appoint an executive
officer from his or her campus. In addition, the
Chancellor of the University of California at San
Francisco (UCSF) shall also appoint a faculty
member, physician/scientist, researcher, or executive
officer from the UCSF Fresno/Clovis campus to
promote geographic diversity and access.
(2) The Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, the
Treasurer, and the Controller shall each appoint an
executive officer from the following three categories:
(A) A California university, excluding the five seven
campuses of the University of California described in
paragraph (1), that has demonstrated success and
leadership in stem cell research, other vital research
opportunities, therapy development, or therapy
delivery, and that has:
(i) A nationally ranked research hospital and medical
school; this criteria will apply to only two of the four
appointments.
(ii) A recent proven history of administering scientific
and/or medical research grants and contracts in an
average annual range exceeding one hundred million
dollars ($100,000,000).
(iii) A ranking, within the past five years, in the top
10 United States universities with the highest number
of life science patents or that has research or clinical
faculty who are members of the National Academy of
Sciences.
(iv) For purposes of this category, the Governor may
appoint an executive officer from the California State
University system who has an advanced degree in
biological sciences.
(B) A California nonprofit academic and research
institution that is not a part of the University of
California, that has demonstrated success and
leadership in stem cell research, other vital research
opportunities, therapy development, or therapy
delivery and that has:
(i) A nationally ranked research hospital or that has
research or clinical faculty who are members of the
National Academy of Sciences.
(ii) A proven history in the last five years of managing
a research budget in the life sciences exceeding
twenty million dollars ($20,000,000) annually.
(C) A California life science commercial entity that is
not actively engaged in researching or developing
therapies or therapy delivery with pluripotent or
progenitor stem cells or genetic medical treatments,
that has a background in implementing successful or
developing experimental medical therapies, including
conducting human clinical trials, and that has not
been awarded, or applied for, funding by the institute
at the time of appointment. A board member of that
entity who generally meets the same qualifications
with a successful history of developing innovative
medical therapies may be appointed in lieu of an
executive officer.
14
(D) Only one member shall be appointed from a single
university, institution, or entity for the purposes of
paragraph (2). The executive officer of a California
university, a nonprofit research institution or life
science commercial entity who is appointed as a
member, may from time to time delegate those duties
to an executive officer of the entity or to the dean of
the medical school, if applicable.
(3) The Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, the
Treasurer, and the Controller shall appoint members
from among California representatives of California
regional, state, or national disease advocacy groups,
as follows:
(A) The Governor shall appoint two three members,
one from each of the following disease advocacy
groups: spinal cord injury; and Alzheimer’s disease;
and mental health conditions.
(B) The Lieutenant Governor shall appoint two three
members, one from each of the following disease
advocacy groups: type II diabetes; and multiple
sclerosis or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; and mental
health conditions.
(C) The Treasurer shall appoint two members, one
from each of the following disease groups: type I
diabetes and heart disease.
(D) The Controller shall appoint two members, one
from each of the following disease groups: cancer and
Parkinson’s disease.
(4) The Speaker of the Assembly shall appoint a
member from among California representatives of a
California regional, state, or national mental health
disease or mental health conditions advocacy group.
(5) The President pro Tempore of the Senate shall
appoint a member from among California
representatives of a California regional, state, or
national HIV/AIDS disease advocacy group.
(6) The Treasurer and Controller shall each appoint a
nurse with experience in clinical trial management or
stem cell or genetic therapy delivery.
(6) (7) A chairperson and vice chairperson who shall
be elected by the ICOC members. Each constitutional
officer shall nominate a candidate for chairperson and
another candidate for vice chairperson. The
Text of Proposed Bond | 93
TEXT OF PROPOSED BOND PROPOSITION 14 CONTINUED
14
chairperson and vice chairperson shall each be
elected for a term of six years. The chairperson and
vice chairperson of ICOC shall be full- or part-time
employees of the institute and shall meet the following
criteria:
(A) Mandatory Chairperson Criteria
(i) Documented history in successful stem cell
research or other vital research opportunity in therapy
development or therapy delivery advocacy.
(ii) Experience with state and federal legislative
processes that must include some experience with
medical legislative approvals of standards and/or
funding.
(iii) Qualified for appointment pursuant to paragraph
(3), (4), or (5) of subdivision (a).
(iv) Cannot be concurrently employed by or on leave
from any prospective grant or loan recipient
institutions in California.
(B) Additional Criteria for Consideration:
(i) Experience with governmental agencies or
institutions (either executive or board position).
(ii) Experience with the process of establishing
government standards and procedures.
(iii) Legal experience with the legal review of proper
governmental authority for the exercise of government
agency or government institutional powers.
(iv) Direct knowledge and experience in bond
financing.
The vice chairperson shall satisfy clauses (i), (iii), and
(iv) of subparagraph (A). The vice chairperson shall be
selected from among individuals who have attributes
and experience complementary to those of the
chairperson, preferably covering the criteria not
represented by the chairperson’s credentials and
experience.
(b) Appointment of ICOC Members
(1) All appointments shall be made within 40 days of
the effective date of this act. In the event that any of
the appointments are not completed within the
permitted timeframe, the ICOC shall proceed to
operate with the appointments that are in place,
provided that at least 60 percent of the appointments
have been made.
(2) Forty-five days after the effective date of the
measure adding this chapter this act, the Controller
and the Treasurer, or if only one is available within 45
days, the other shall convene a meeting of the
appointed members of the ICOC to elect a chairperson
and vice chairperson from among the individuals
nominated by the constitutional officers pursuant to
paragraph (6) (7) of subdivision (a).
(c) ICOC Member Terms of Office
(1) The members appointed pursuant to paragraphs
(1), (3), (4), and (5), and (6) of subdivision (a) shall
94 | Text of Proposed Bond
serve eight-year terms, and all other members shall
serve six-year terms. Members shall serve a maximum
of two terms, unless earlier removed pursuant to
paragraph (5).
(2) If a vacancy occurs within a term, the appointing
authority shall appoint a replacement member within
30 90 days to serve the remainder of the term.
(3) When a term expires, the appointing authority
shall appoint a member within 30 90 days. ICOC
members shall continue to serve until their
replacements are appointed.
(4) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the appointing
authority may replace a member, other than the
chairperson or vice chairperson, who has served, as of
the effective date of the act adding this paragraph, at
least half of the member’s current term, by appointing
a new member, who shall be eligible to serve a
full term. These appointments shall be made within
90 days of the effective date of the initiative adding
this paragraph.
(5) The ICOC may, by a vote of 60 percent of a
quorum, recommend the removal of a member by the
member’s appointing authority, or in the case of the
chairperson and the vice chairperson, the nominating
authority or nominating authorities, if more than one
constitutional officer nominated the chairperson or
vice chairperson. The appointing authority or
nominating authority or authorities in the case of the
chairperson and vice chairperson, shall have the
authority to remove the member, chairperson, or vice
chairperson, respectively, upon receipt of the ICOC’s
recommendation. If more than one constitutional
officer nominated the chairperson or vice chairperson,
each of them must agree in order to remove the
chairperson or vice chairperson.
SEC. 10. Section 125290.30 of the Health and
Safety Code is amended to read:
125290.30. Public and Financial Accountability
Standards
(a) Annual Public Report
The institute shall issue an annual report to the public
which sets forth its activities, grants awarded, grants
in progress, research accomplishments, and future
program directions. Each annual report shall include,
but not be limited to, the following: the number and
dollar amounts of research and facilities grants; the
grantees for the prior year; the institute’s
administrative expenses; an assessment of the
availability of funding for stem cell research from
sources other than the institute; a summary of
research findings, including promising new research
areas; an assessment of the relationship between the
institute’s grants and the overall strategy of its
research program; and a report of the institute’s
strategic research and financial plans.
TEXT OF PROPOSED BOND PROPOSITION 14 CONTINUED
(b) Independent Financial Audit for Review by
Controller
The institute shall annually commission an
independent financial audit of its activities from a
certified public accounting firm, which shall be
provided to the Controller, who shall review the audit
and annually issue a public report of that review.
(c) A performance audit shall be commissioned by the
institute every three years beginning with the audit for
the 2010–11 fiscal year. The performance audit,
which may be performed by the Bureau of State
Audits, shall examine the functions, operations,
management systems, and policies and procedures of
the institute to assess whether the institute is
achieving economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in
the employment of available resources. The
performance audit shall be conducted in accordance
with government auditing standards, and shall include
a review of whether the institute is complying with
ICOC policies and procedures. The performance audit
shall not be required to include a review of scientific
performance. The first performance audit shall
include, but not be limited to, all of the following:
(1) Policies and procedures for the issuance of
contracts and grants and a review of a representative
sample of contracts, grants, and loans executed by
the institute.
(2) Policies and procedures relating to the protection
or treatment of intellectual property rights associated
with research funded or commissioned by the
institute.
(d) All administrative costs of the audits required by
subdivisions (b) and (c) shall be paid by the institute.
(e) Citizen’s Financial Accountability Oversight
Committee
There shall be a Citizen’s Financial Accountability
Oversight Committee chaired by the Controller. This
committee shall review the annual financial audit, the
Controller’s report and evaluation of that audit, and
the financial practices of the institute. The Controller,
the Treasurer, the President pro Tempore of the
Senate, the Speaker of the Assembly, and the
Chairperson of the ICOC shall each appoint a public
member of the committee. Committee members shall
have medical or patient advocacy backgrounds and
knowledge of relevant financial matters. The
committee shall provide recommendations on the
institute’s financial practices and performance. The
Controller shall provide staff support. The committee
shall hold a public meeting, with appropriate notice,
and with a formal public comment period. The
committee shall evaluate public comments and
include appropriate summaries in its annual report.
The ICOC shall provide funds for all costs associated
with the per diem expenses of the committee
members and for publication of the annual report.
(f) Public Meeting Laws
(1) The ICOC shall hold at least two four public
meetings per year, one of which will be designated as
the institute’s annual meeting. The ICOC may hold
additional meetings as it determines are necessary or
appropriate.
14
(2) The Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, Article 9
(commencing with Section 11120) of Chapter 1 of
Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code,
shall apply to all meetings of the ICOC, except as
otherwise provided in this section. The ICOC shall
award all grants, loans, and contracts in public
meetings and shall adopt all governance, scientific,
medical, and regulatory standards in public meetings.
(3) The ICOC may conduct closed sessions as
permitted by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act,
under Section 11126 of the Government Code. In
addition, the ICOC may conduct closed sessions when
it meets to consider or discuss:
(A) Matters involving information relating to patients
or medical subjects, the disclosure of which would
constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal
privacy.
(B) Matters involving confidential intellectual property
or work product, whether patentable or not, including,
but not limited to, any formula, plan, pattern, process,
tool, mechanism, compound, procedure, production
data, or compilation of information, which is not
patented, which is known only to certain individuals
who are using it to fabricate, produce, or compound
an article of trade or a service having commercial
value and which gives its user an opportunity to obtain
a business advantage over competitors who do not
know it or use it.
(C) Matters involving prepublication, confidential
scientific research or data.
(D) Matters concerning the appointment,
employment, performance, compensation, or
dismissal of institute officers and employees. Action
on compensation of the institute’s officers and
employees shall only be taken in open session.
(4) The meeting required by paragraph (2) of
subdivision (b) of Section 125290.20 shall be
deemed to be a special meeting for the purposes of
Section 11125.4 of the Government Code.
(g) Public Records
(1) The California Public Records Act, Article 1
(commencing with Section 6250) of Chapter 3.5 of
Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, shall
apply to all records of the institute, except as
otherwise provided in this section.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed to
require disclosure of any records that are any of the
following:
(A) Personnel, medical, or similar files, the disclosure
of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy.
Text of Proposed Bond | 95
TEXT OF PROPOSED BOND PROPOSITION 14 CONTINUED
14
(B) Records containing or reflecting confidential
intellectual property or work product, whether
patentable or not, including, but not limited to, any
formula, plan, pattern, process, tool, mechanism,
compound, procedure, production data, or compilation
of information, which is not patented, which is known
only to certain individuals who are using it to
fabricate, produce, or compound an article of trade or
a service having commercial value and which gives its
user an opportunity to obtain a business advantage
over competitors who do not know it or use it.
(C) Prepublication scientific working papers or
research data, including, but not limited to,
applications and progress reports.
(3) The institute shall include, in all meeting minutes,
a summary of vote tallies and disclosure of each board
member’s votes and recusals on all action items.
(h) Competitive Bidding
(1) The institute shall, except as otherwise provided
in this section, be governed by the competitive
bidding requirements applicable to the University of
California, as set forth in Chapter 2.1 (commencing
with Section 10500) of Part 2 of Division 2 of the
Public Contract Code.
(2) For all institute contracts, the ICOC shall follow
the procedures required of the Regents by Chapter
2.1 (commencing with Section 10500) of Part 2 of
Division 2 of the Public Contract Code with respect to
contracts let by the University of California.
(3) The requirements of this section shall not be
applicable to grants or loans approved by the ICOC.
(4) Except as provided in this section, the Public
Contract Code shall not apply to contracts let by the
institute.
(i) Conflicts of Interest
(1) The Political Reform Act, Title 9 (commencing
with Section 81000) of the Government Code, shall
apply to the institute and to the ICOC, except as
provided in this section and in subdivision (e) of
Section 125290.50.
(A) No member of the ICOC shall make, participate in
making, or in any way attempt to use his or her official
position to influence a decision to approve or award a
grant, loan, or contract to his or her employer, but a
member may participate in a decision to approve or
award a grant, loan, or contract to a nonprofit an entity
in the same field as his or her employer.
(B) A member of the ICOC may participate in a
decision to approve or award a grant, loan, or contract
to an entity for the purpose of research involving a
disease from which a member or his or her immediate
family suffers or in which the member has an interest
as a representative of a disease advocacy organization.
(C) The adoption of standards, including, but not
limited to, strategic plans, concept plans, and
96 | Text of Proposed Bond
research budgets, is not a decision subject to this
section.
(2) Service as a member of the ICOC by a member of
the faculty or administration of any system of the
University of California shall not, by itself, be deemed
to be inconsistent, incompatible, in conflict with, or
inimical to the duties of the ICOC member as a
member of the faculty or administration of any system
of the University of California and shall not result in
the automatic vacation of either such office. Service
as a member of the ICOC by a representative or
employee of a disease advocacy organization, a
nonprofit academic and research institution, or a life
science commercial entity shall not be deemed to be
inconsistent, incompatible, in conflict with, or
inimical to the duties of the ICOC member as a
representative or employee of that organization,
institution, or entity.
(3) Section 1090 of the Government Code shall not
apply to any grant, loan, or contract made by the ICOC
except where both of the following conditions are met:
(A) The grant, loan, or contract directly relates to
services to be provided by any member of the ICOC or
the entity the member represents or financially
benefits the member or the entity he or she represents.
(B) The member fails to recuse himself or herself
from making, participating in making, or in any way
attempting to use his or her official position to
influence a decision on the grant, loan, or contract.
(j) Patent Royalties and License Revenues Paid to the
State of California
(1) The ICOC shall establish standards that require
that all grants and loan awards be subject to
intellectual property agreements that balance the
opportunity of the State of California to benefit from
the patents, royalties, and licenses that result from
basic research, therapy development, and clinical
trials with the need to ensure that essential medical
research is not unreasonably hindered by the
intellectual property agreements. All royalty revenues
received through the intellectual property agreements
established pursuant to this subdivision shall be
deposited into an interest-bearing account in the
General Fund, and to the extent permitted by law, the
amount so deposited and interest thereon shall be
appropriated for the purpose of offsetting the costs of
providing treatments and cures arising from institute-
funded research to California patients who have
insufficient means to purchase such treatment or
cure, including the reimbursement of patient-qualified
costs for research participants.
(2) These standards shall include, at a minimum, a
requirement that CIRM grantees, other than loan
recipients and facilities grant recipients, share a
fraction of the revenue they receive from licensing or
self-commercializing an invention or technology that
arises from research funded by CIRM, as set forth
TEXT OF PROPOSED BOND PROPOSITION 14 CONTINUED
below. AII revenues received pursuant to this
paragraph or regulations adopted to implement this
paragraph shall be deposited in the General Fund for
use consistent with Section 202(c)(7) of Title 35 of
the United States Code, if applicable.
(A) (i) A grantee that licenses an invention or
technology that arises from a research program funded
by CIRM, regardless of the number of grants awarded
to that research program, shall pay 25 percent of the
revenues it receives in excess of five hundred
thousand dollars ($500,000), in the aggregate, to the
General Fund. The threshold amount of five hundred
thousand dollars ($500,000) shall be adjusted
annually by a multiple of a fraction, the denominator
of which is the Consumer Price Index, All Urban
Consumers, All Items (San Francisco-Oakland-San
Jose; 1982–84=100) as prepared by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics of the United States Department of
Labor and published for the month of October 2009,
and the numerator of which is that index published for
the month in which the grantee accepts the grant. For
awards made on or after November 5, 2020, the
threshold amount of five hundred thousand dollars
($500,000) shall be adjusted annually by a multiple
of a fraction, the denominator of which is the
Consumer Price Index, All Urban Consumers, All
Items (San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose;
1982–84=100) as prepared by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics of the United States Department of Labor
and published for the month of October 2020, and
the numerator of which is that index published for the
month in which the grantee accepts the grant.
(ii) If funding sources other than CIRM directly
contributed to the development of the invention or
technology, then the return to the General Fund shall
be calculated as follows: The amount of CIRM funding
for the invention or technology shall be divided by the
total of funding provided by all sources, and that
fraction shall be multiplied by 25. That numeral is the
percentage due to the General Fund.
(B) (i) A grantee that self-commercializes a product
that results from an invention or technology that arises
from research funded by CIRM shall pay an amount to
the General Fund equal to three times the total
amount of the CIRM grant or grants received by the
grantee in support of the research that contributed to
the creation of the product. The rate of payback of the
royalty shall be at a rate of 3 percent of the annual net
revenue received by the grantee from the product.
(ii) In addition to the payment required by clause (i),
the first time that net commercial revenues earned by
the grantee from the product exceed two hundred fifty
million dollars ($250,000,000) in a calendar year,
the grantee shall make a one-time payment to the
General Fund equal to three times the total amount of
the grant or grants awarded by CIRM to the grantee in
support of the research that contributed to the
creation of the product.
(iii) In addition to the payments required by clauses
(i) and (ii), the first time that net commercial revenues
earned by the grantee from the product exceed five
hundred million dollars ($500,000,000) in a calendar
year, the grantee shall make an additional one-time
payment to the General Fund equal to three times the
total amount of the grant or grants awarded by ClRM
to the grantee in support of the research that
contributed to the creation of the product.
14
(iv) In addition to the payments required by clauses
(i), (ii), and (iii), the first time that net commercial
revenues earned by the grantee from the product
equal or exceed five hundred million dollars
($500,000,000) in a calendar year, the grantee shall
pay the General Fund 1 percent annually of net
commercial revenue in excess of five hundred million
dollars ($500,000,000) for the life of any patent
covering the invention or technology, if the grantee
patented its invention or technology and received a
CIRM grant or grants amounting to more than five
million dollars ($5,000,000) in support of the
research that contributed to the creation of the
product.
(3) The ICOC shall have the authority to adopt
regulations to implement this subdivision. The ICOC
shall also have the authority to modify the formulas
specified in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph
(2) through regulations if the ICOC determines
pursuant to paragraph (1) that a modification is
required either in order to ensure that essential
medical research, including, but not limited to,
therapy development and the broad delivery of
therapies to patients, is not unreasonably hindered, or
to ensure that the State of California has an
opportunity to benefit from the patents, royalties, and
licenses that result from basic research, therapy
development, and clinical trials. The ICOC shall notify
the appropriate fiscal and policy committees of the
Legislature 10 calendar days before exercising its
authority to vote on the modification of the formulas
specified in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph
(2). The amendments made to this subdivision are not
intended to affect the institute’s authority to modify
the provisions set forth in this subdivision pursuant to
this paragraph, including, but not limited to, any
modifications that occurred prior to the effective date
of the initiative amending this subdivision.
(k) Preference for California Suppliers
The ICOC shall establish standards to ensure that
grantees purchase goods and services from California
suppliers to the extent reasonably possible, in a good
faith effort to achieve a goal of more than 50 percent
of such purchases from California suppliers.
(l) Additional Accountability Requirements
To assure strict accountability and transparency,
including rigorous conflict of interest rules, ethical
research and treatment standards, and independent
Text of Proposed Bond | 97
TEXT OF PROPOSED BOND PROPOSITION 14 CONTINUED
14
financial audits, every four years the ICOC shall
update, at its discretion, the standards relating to
conflict of interest rules, ethical research and
treatment, and independent financial audits, to be
generally aligned with standards adopted by the
National Academy of Sciences to the extent that those
standards are consistent with constitutional and
statutory requirements applicable to the institute.
SEC. 11. Section 125290.35 of the Health and
Safety Code is amended to read:
125290.35. Medical and Scientific Accountability
Standards
(a) Medical Standards
In order to avoid duplication or conflicts in technical
standards for scientific and medical research, with
alternative state programs, the institute will develop
its own scientific and medical standards to carry out
the specific controls and intent of the act,
notwithstanding subdivision (b) of Section Sections
125300, Sections 125320, 125118, 125118.5,
125119, 125119.3, and 125119.5, or any other
current or future state laws or regulations dealing with
the study and research of pluripotent stem cells and/
or progenitor cells, or other vital research
opportunities, except Section 125315. The ICOC, its
working committees, and its grantees shall be
governed solely by the provisions of this act in the
establishment of standards, the award of grants, and
the conduct of grants awarded pursuant to this act.
(b) The ICOC shall establish standards as follows:
(1) Informed Consent
Standards for obtaining the informed consent of
research donors, patients, or participants, which
initially shall be generally based on the standards in
place on January 1, 2003, for all research funded by
the National Institutes of Health, with modifications
to adapt to the mission and objectives of the institute.
(2) Controls on Research Involving Humans
Standards for the review of research involving human
subjects which initially shall be generally based on
the Institutional Review Board standards promulgated
by the National Institutes of Health and in effect on
January 1, 2003, with modifications to adapt to the
mission and objectives of the institute.
(3) Prohibition on Compensation
Standards prohibiting compensation to research
donors or participants, while permitting
reimbursement of expenses.
(4) Permitted Reimbursement
Standards permitting reimbursement for expenses,
including, but not limited to, medical expenses and
lodging, meals, and travel expenses, for research
participants and caregivers in order to ensure
functional access to clinical trials. For purposes of
this paragraph, “caregivers” includes family members,
98 | Text of Proposed Bond
friends, and professional caregivers providing
supportive care.
(4) (5) Patient Privacy Laws
Standards to assure compliance with state and federal
patient privacy laws.
(5) (6) Limitations on Payments for Cells
Standards limiting payments for the purchase of stem
cells or stem cell lines to reasonable payment for the
removal, processing, disposal, preservation, quality
control, storage, transplantation, or implantation or
legal transaction costs or other administrative costs
associated with these medical procedures and
specifically including any required payments for
medical or scientific technologies, products, or
processes for royalties, patent, or licensing fees or
other costs for intellectual property.
(6) (7) Time Limits for Obtaining Cells
Standards setting a limit on the time during which
cells may be extracted from blastocysts, which shall
initially be 8 up to 12 days after cell division begins,
not counting any time during which the blastocysts
and/or cells have been stored frozen.
(8) Standards for Genetic Medical Treatments and
Research
Standards for research involving genetic medical
treatments that shall, in the ICOC’s discretion,
generaIly be based on the standards adopted by the
National Academy of Sciences.
SEC. 12. Section 125290.40 of the Health and
Safety Code is amended to read:
125290.40. ICOC Functions
The ICOC shall perform the following functions:
(a) Oversee the operations of the institute.
(b) Develop annual and long-term strategic research
and financial plans for the institute.
(c) Make final decisions on research standards and
grant awards in California across the research and
therapy development and delivery spectrum, from
stem cell discovery research and early development to
clinical trials and therapy delivery.
(d) Ensure the completion of an annual financial
audit of the institute’s operations.
(e) Issue public reports on the activities of the
institute.
(f) Establish Develop and implement programs to
enhance patient access to affordable stem cell and
related treatments and cures through public hospitals
and clinics and establish policies regarding
intellectual property rights arising from research
funded by the institute.
(g) Establish and oversee the institute’s research,
therapy development, and therapy delivery programs,
including, but not limited to, the Alpha Stem Cell
TEXT OF PROPOSED BOND PROPOSITION 14 CONTINUED
Clinics and Community Care Centers of Excellence,
training and fellowship, and shared research laboratory
programs.
(h) Establish and oversee the development of policies
and programs to help make treatments and cures
arising from institute-funded research available and
affordable for California patients, through engagement
with health care providers, research and therapy
development institutions, businesses, governmental
agencies, philanthropists, foundations, and patient
advocacy groups, and based on recommendations
made by the Treatments and Cures Accessibility and
Affordability Working Group.
(g) (i) Establish rules and guidelines for the operation
of the ICOC and its working groups.
(h) (j) Perform all other acts necessary or appropriate
in the exercise of its power, authority, and jurisdiction
over the institute.
(i) (k) Select members of the working groups.
(j) (l) Adopt, amend, and rescind rules and
regulations to carry out the purposes and provisions of
this chapter, and to govern the procedures of the
ICOC. Except as provided in subdivision (k) (m), these
rules and regulations shall be adopted in accordance
with the Administrative Procedure Act (Government
Code, Title 2, Division 3, Part 1, Chapter 4.5 3.5,
Sections 11371 11340 et seq.).
(k) (m) Notwithstanding the Administrative Procedure
Act (APA), and in order to facilitate the immediate
commencement of research covered by this chapter,
the ICOC may adopt interim regulations without
compliance with the procedures set forth in the APA.
The interim regulations shall remain in effect for
270 days unless earlier superseded by regulations
adopted pursuant to the APA. For purposes of
subdivision (l), requests for applications, program
announcements, and notices of award shall not be
considered regulations.
(l) (n) Request the issuance of bonds from the
California Stem Cell Research and Cures Finance
Committee and loans from the Pooled Money
Investment Board.
(m) (o) May annually modify its funding and finance
programs to optimize the institute’s ability to achieve
the objective that its activities be revenue-positive for
the State of California during its first five years of
operation without jeopardizing the progress of its core
medical and scientific research program.
(n) (p) Notwithstanding Section 11005 of the
Government Code, accept additional revenue and real
and personal property, including, but not limited to,
gifts, royalties, interest, and appropriations that may
be used to supplement annual research grant funding
and the operations of the institute.
(o) Under the guidance of the ICOC, the institute
shall create a succession plan addressing changes in
leadership of both the institute and the ICOC designed
to minimize disruption and adverse impacts to the
activities of the institute. A copy of the succession
plan shall be transmitted to the Governor, Controller,
and the Legislature within 30 days of its completion.
The succession plan should include, but is not limited
to:
14
(1) An assessment of leadership needs before
beginning a search.
(2) An outline of succession procedures.
(3) Strategies to ensure successful knowledge
transfer.
(q) Subject to the restrictions set forth in this article,
develop conflict of interest standards, and at its
discretion, consult with the National Academy of
Sciences and the Scientific and Medical
Accountability Standards Working Group, for the
consideration of funding awards based on best
practices established by the National Academy of
Sciences to prevent conflicts of interest in the award
of research funding and update those standards no
less than every four years to be, at the ICOC’s
discretion, generally aligned with standards adopted
by the National Academy of Sciences, subject to the
constitutional and statutory requirements applicable
to the institute.
SEC. 13. Section 125290.45 of the Health and
Safety Code is amended to read:
125290.45. ICOC Operations
(a) Legal Actions and Liability
(1) The institute may sue and be sued.
(2) Based upon ICOC standards, institute grantees
shall indemnify or insure and hold the institute
harmless against any and all losses, claims, damages,
expenses, or liabilities, including attorneys’ fees,
arising from research conducted by the grantee
pursuant to the grant, and/or, in the alternative,
grantees shall name the institute as an additional
insured and submit proof of such insurance.
(3) Given the scientific, medical, and technical nature
of the issues facing the ICOC, and notwithstanding
Section 11042 of the Government Code, the institute
is authorized to retain outside counsel when the ICOC
determines that the institute requires specialized
services not provided by the Attorney General’s office.
(4) The institute may enter into any contracts or
obligations which are authorized or permitted by law.
(b) Personnel
(1) The ICOC shall from time to time determine the
total number of authorized employees for the institute,
which number shall not exceed 70 employees (full-
time equivalent), excluding members of the working
groups and members of the ICOC, who shall not be
considered institute employees, and excluding up to
15 additional institute employees (full-time
Text of Proposed Bond | 99
TEXT OF PROPOSED BOND PROPOSITION 14 CONTINUED
14
equivalent) to support the development of policies and
programs to help make treatments and cures arising
from institute-funded research available and
affordable for Californians. The cap on employees
shall not apply to employees funded through sources
other than bond proceeds or the General Fund. The
ICOC shall select a chairperson, vice chairperson, and
president who shall exercise all of the powers
delegated to them by the ICOC. The following
functions apply to the chairperson, vice chairperson,
and president:
(A) The chairperson’s primary responsibilities are to
manage the ICOC agenda and workflow including all
evaluations and approvals of scientific and medical
working group grants, loans, facilities, and standards
evaluations, and to supervise all annual reports and
public accountability requirements; to manage and
optimize the institute’s bond financing plans and
funding cashflow plan; to interface with the California
Legislature, the United States Congress, the California
health care system, and the California public; to
optimize all financial leverage opportunities for the
institute, including, without limitation, generating
matching or supplemental funds through
collaborations with other states, nations, territories, or
institutions; and to lead negotiations for intellectual
property agreements, policies, and contract terms.
The chairperson shall also serve as a member of the
Treatments and Cures Accessibility and Affordability
Working Group, the Scientific and Medical
Accountability Standards Working Group, and the
Scientific and Medical Research Facilities Working
Group and as an ex officio member of the Scientific
and Medical Research Funding Working Group. The
vice chairperson’s primary responsibilities are to
support the chairperson in all duties and to carry out
those duties in the chairperson’s absence.
(B) The president’s primary responsibilities are to
serve as the chief executive of the institute; to recruit
the highest scientific and medical talent in the United
States to serve the institute on its working groups; to
serve the institute on its working groups; to direct
ICOC staff and participate in the process of supporting
all working group requirements to develop
recommendations on grants, loans, facilities, and
standards as well as to direct and support the ICOC
process of evaluating and acting on those
recommendations, the implementation of all decisions
on these and general matters of the ICOC; to hire,
direct, and manage the staff of the institute; to
develop the budgets and cost control programs of the
institute; to manage compliance with all rules and
regulations of the ICOC, including the performance of
all grant recipients; and to manage and execute all
intellectual property agreements and any other
contracts pertaining to the institute or research it
funds.
(2) Each member of the ICOC except, the chairperson,
vice chairperson, and president the members
100 | Text of Proposed Bond
appointed pursuant to paragraphs (3), (4), (5), and
(6) of subdivision (a) of Section 125290.20, who
shall be compensated pursuant to paragraph (3), shall
receive a per diem of one hundred dollars ($100) per
day (adjusted annually for cost of living) for each day
actually spent in the discharge of the member’s
duties, plus reasonable and necessary travel and other
expenses incurred in the performance of the member’s
duties.
(3) The ICOC shall establish daily consulting rates
and expense reimbursement standards for the
members of all of its working groups, including the
members of the ICOC appointed pursuant to
paragraphs (3), (4), (5), and (6) of subdivision (a) of
Section 125290.20. The daily consulting rate shall
include time spent in preparation for, and participation
in, institute, working group, and ICOC meetings and
shall include compensation and expense
reimbursement for caregivers when necessary to
facilitate a member’s participation in a meeting as a
result of the member’s medical condition.
(4) Notwithstanding Section 19825 of the
Government Code, the ICOC shall set compensation
for the chairperson, vice chairperson, and president
and other officers, and for the scientific, medical,
technical, and administrative staff of the institute
within the range of compensation levels for executive
officers and scientific, medical, technical, and
administrative staff of medical schools within the
University of California system and the nonprofit
academic and research institutions described in
paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section
125290.20, and travel expense reimbursement rates
and moving and relocation expense limits.
SEC. 14. Section 125290.50 of the Health and
Safety Code is amended to read:
125290.50. Scientific and Medical Working
Groups—General
(a) The institute shall have, and there is hereby
established, three four separate scientific and medical
working groups as follows:
(1) Scientific and Medical Research Funding Working
Group.
(2) Scientific and Medical Accountability Standards
Working Group.
(3) Scientific and Medical Research Facilities
Working Group.
(4) Treatments and Cures Accessibility and
Affordability Working Group.
(b) Working Group Members
(1) Appointments of scientific and medical working
group members shall be made by a majority vote of a
quorum of the ICOC, within 30 days of the election
and appointment of the initial ICOC members. The
working group members’ terms shall be six years
except that, after the first six-year terms, the
TEXT OF PROPOSED BOND PROPOSITION 14 CONTINUED
members’ terms will be staggered so that one-third of
the members shall be elected for a term that expires
two years later, one-third of the members shall be
elected for a term that expires four years later, and
one-third of the members shall be elected for a term
that expires six years later. Subsequent terms are for
six years. Working group members may serve a
maximum of two consecutive terms, provided that the
ICOC may, by a two-thirds vote of a quorum, reappoint
non-ICOC working group members to serve more than
two consecutive terms.
(2) Appointments of members of the Treatments and
Cures Accessibility and Affordability Working Group
shall be made by a majority vote of a quorum of the
ICOC, within 90 days of the effective date of the
initiative adding this paragraph. The working group
members’ terms shall be six years, and members may
serve a maximum of two consecutive terms, provided
that the ICOC may, by a two-thirds vote of a quorum,
reappoint non-ICOC working group members to serve
more than two consecutive terms.
(3) The ICOC may appoint ad hoc voting members to
each working group as necessary to obtain expertise
for a particular expert review session, not to exceed
three members for any one expert review session.
(c) Working Group Meetings
Each scientific and medical working group shall hold
at least four meetings per year, one of which shall be
designated as its annual meeting, except as otherwise
determined by the institute.
(d) Working Group Recommendations to the ICOC
Recommendations of each panel of the working
groups may be forwarded to the ICOC only by a vote of
a majority of a quorum of the members of each panel
for that working group. If 35 percent of the members
of any working group join together in a minority
position panel award scores in the funding range, a
minority recommendation report, including a summary
of the strengths and weaknesses of the application
and a rebuttal to the majority recommendation, shall
may be submitted to the ICOC. The ICOC shall
consider the recommendations of the working groups
in making its decisions on applications for research
and facility grants and loan awards and in adopting
regulatory standards, policies, and programs. Each
working group shall recommend to ICOC rules,
procedures, and practices for that working group.
(e) Conflict of Interest
(1) The ICOC shall adopt conflict of interest rules,
based on standards applicable to members of
scientific review committees of the National Institutes
of Health, to govern the participation of non-lCOC
working group members.
(2) The ICOC shall appoint an ethics officer from
among the staff of the institute.
(3) Because the working groups are purely advisory
and have no final decisionmaking authority, members
of the working groups shall not be considered public
officials, employees, or consultants for purposes of the
Political Reform Act (Title 9 (commencing with
Section 81000) of the Government Code), Sections
1090 and 19990 of the Government Code, and
Sections 10516 and 10517 of the Public Contract
Code.
14
(f) Working Group Records
All records of the working groups submitted as part of
the working groups’ recommendations to the ICOC for
approval shall be subject to the Public Records Act.
Except as provided in this subdivision, the working
groups shall not be subject to the provisions of Article
9 (commencing with Section 11120) of Chapter 1 of
Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code,
or Article 1 (commencing with Section 6250) of
Chapter 3.5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government
Code.
SEC. 15. Section 125290.55 of the Health and
Safety Code is amended to read:
125290.55. Scientific and Medical Accountability
Standards Working Group
(a) Membership
The Scientific and Medical Accountability Standards
Working Group shall have 19 members as follows:
(1) Five ICOC members from the 10 groups that focus
on disease-specific areas described in paragraphs (3),
(4), and (5) of subdivision (a) of Section 125290.20
or from the members appointed pursuant to paragraph
(6) of subdivision (a) of Section 125290.20.
(2) Nine scientists and clinicians nationally
recognized in the field of pluripotent and progenitor
cell research.
(3) Four medical ethicists.
(4) The Chairperson of the ICOC.
(b) Functions
The Scientific and Medical Accountability Standards
Working Group shall have the following functions:
(1) To recommend to the ICOC scientific, medical,
and ethical standards.
(2) To recommend to the ICOC standards for all
medical, socioeconomic, and financial aspects of
clinical trials and therapy delivery to patients,
including, among others, standards for safe and
ethical procedures for obtaining materials and cells
for research and clinical efforts for the appropriate
treatment of human subjects in medical research
consistent with paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of
Section 125290.35, and to ensure compliance with
patient privacy laws.
Text of Proposed Bond | 101
TEXT OF PROPOSED BOND PROPOSITION 14 CONTINUED
14
(3) To recommend to the ICOC modification of the
standards described in paragraphs (1) and (2) as
needed.
(4) To make recommendations to the ICOC on the
oversight of funded research to ensure compliance
with the standards described in paragraphs (1) and
(2).
(5) To advise the ICOC, the Scientific and Medical
Research Funding Working Group, and the Scientific
and Medical Research Facilities Working Group, on an
ongoing basis, on relevant ethical and regulatory
issues.
SEC. 16. Section 125290.60 of the Health and
Safety Code is amended to read:
125290.60. Scientific and Medical Research
Funding Working Group
(a) Membership
The Scientific and Medical Research Funding Working
Group shall have at least 23 members as follows:
(1) Seven ICOC members from the 10 12 disease
advocacy group members described in paragraphs (3),
(4), and (5) of subdivision (a) of Section 125290.20
or from the members described in paragraph (6) of
subdivision (a) of Section 125290.20.
(2) At least 15 scientists nationally recognized in the
field of stem cell research or other vital research
opportunities, 15 of whom shall be designated to
serve on each expert review panel.
(3) The Chairperson of the ICOC.
(b) Functions
The Scientific and Medical Research Funding Working
Group shall perform the following functions:
(1) Recommend to the ICOC interim and final criteria,
standards, and requirements for considering funding
applications and for awarding research grants and
loans.
(2) Recommend to the ICOC standards for the
scientific and medical oversight of awards.
(3) Recommend to the ICOC any modifications of the
criteria, standards, and requirements described in
paragraphs (1) and (2) above as needed.
(4) Review grant and loan applications based on the
criteria, requirements, and standards adopted by the
ICOC and make recommendations to the ICOC for the
award of research, therapy development, and clinical
trial, and therapy delivery grants and loans.
(5) Conduct peer group expert peer review and
progress oversight reviews of grantees to ensure
compliance with the terms of the award, and report to
the ICOC any recommendations for subsequent action.
(6) Recommend to the ICOC standards for the
evaluation of grantees to ensure that they comply with
all applicable requirements. Such standards shall
mandate periodic reporting by grantees and shall
102 | Text of Proposed Bond
authorize the Scientific and Medical Research
Funding Working Group to audit a grantee and forward
any recommendations for action to the ICOC.
(7) Recommend its first grant awards within 60 days
of the issuance of the interim standards.
(c) Recommendations for Awards
Award recommendations shall be based upon a
competitive evaluation as follows:
A peer An expert peer review panel shall consist of
both scientists and patient advocates. There shall be
15 scientists on a peer each expert peer review panel.
Only the scientist members of the Scientific and
Medical Research Funding Working Group shall score
grant and loan award applications for scientific merit.
Such scoring shall be based on scientific merit in
three separate classifications—research, therapy
development, and clinical trials, on criteria including
the following:
(1) A demonstrated record of achievement in the
areas of pluripotent stem cell and progenitor cell
biology and medicine, unless the research is
determined to be a vital research opportunity or in
other vital research opportunities.
(2) The quality of the research proposal, the potential
for achieving significant research, or clinical results,
the timetable for realizing such significant results, the
importance of the research objectives, and the
innovativeness of the proposed research.
(3) In order to ensure that institute funding does not
duplicate or supplant existing funding, a high priority
shall be placed on funding pluripotent stem cell and
progenitor cell research that cannot, or is unlikely to,
receive timely or sufficient federal funding,
unencumbered by limitations that would impede the
research. In this regard, other research categories
funded by the National Institutes of Health shall not
be funded by the institute, unless such research
funding is not timely or sufficient.
(4) Notwithstanding paragraph (3), other scientific
and medical research and technologies and/or any
stem cell research proposal not actually funded by the
institute under paragraph (3) may be funded by the
institute if at least two-thirds of a quorum of the
members of the Scientific and Medical Research
Funding Working Group recommend to the ICOC, or if
a majority of a quorum of the members of the ICOC
determine, that such a research proposal is a vital
research opportunity.
SEC. 17. Section 125290.70.5 is added to the
Health and Safety Code, to read:
125290.70.5. Appropriation and Allocation of
Funding
(a) Moneys in the California Stem Cell Research and
Cures Fund shall be allocated as follows:
TEXT OF PROPOSED BOND PROPOSITION 14 CONTINUED
(1) (A) No less than 95.5 percent of the proceeds of
the bonds authorized pursuant to Section
125291.110, net of bond proceeds allocated to
purposes described in paragraphs (4) and (5) of
subdivision (a) of Section 125291.100, shall be used
for grants and grant oversight as provided in this
chapter.
(B) Not less than 98 percent of the proceeds of bonds
used for grants shall be used for research, therapy
development, and therapy delivery grants, with no
more than the following amounts, as stipulated below,
to be committed during the first 10 years following
the effective date of the initiative adding this
subparagraph, with each year’s funding commitments
to be advanced over a period of one to seven years,
except that any such funds that are not committed
may be carried over to one or more following years.
The maximum amount of research funding to be
allocated annually is as follows: year 1, 11 percent;
year 2, 11 percent; years 3 through 10, 9 percent;
and year 11 and each year thereafter, 6 percent
cumulatively. To accomplish the goals of Section
125290.75, up to 2 percent of the amount available
for grants may be used for research consulting in
support of access to, and the affordability of,
treatments and cures arising from institute-funded
research and therapy development and delivery, as
determined by the governing board of the institute
based on the recommendations of the Treatments and
Cures Accessibility and Affordability Working Group
and the president.
(C) Not more than 3 percent of the proceeds of bonds
authorized by Section 125291.110 may be used by
the institute for research and research facilities
implementation costs, including the development,
administration, and oversight of the grant-making
process.
(2) (A) Not more than 3.5 percent of the proceeds of
the bonds authorized pursuant to Section
125291.110 shall be used for the costs of general
administration of the institute.
(B) Not more than 1 percent of the proceeds of the
bonds authorized pursuant to Section 125291.110
may be used by the institute to pay for the costs of up
to 15 full-time employees over 10 to 15 or more
years, including, but not limited to, administrative
support, facilities costs, salary, benefits, travel
reimbursement, and meeting costs, to support the
work of the institute to develop policies and programs
to help Californians obtain access to human clinical
trials, therapies, mitigating treatments, and cures
arising from institute-funded research and to promote
the accessibility and affordability of human clinical
trials, treatments, and cures for Californians.
(3) In any single year, any new research funding to
any single grantee for any program year is limited to
no more than 1 percent of the total bonds authorized
pursuant to Section 125291.110. This limitation
shall be considered separately for each new proposal
without aggregating any prior year approvals that may
fund research activities. This requirement shall be
determinative, unless 65 percent of a quorum of the
ICOC approves a higher limit for that grantee.
14
(4) Up to 1.5 percent of the proceeds of the bonds
authorized pursuant to Section 125291.110, net of
costs described in paragraphs (2), (4), and (5) of
subdivision (a) of Section 125291.100, shall be
allocated for grants to build, equip, or fund operations
of Community Care Centers of Excellence and up to
one-half of 1 percent shall be allocated to build or
equip shared labs, which are intended to be
operational in the first five years following the effective
date of the initiative adding this section. Funding
received by a grantee from an institute award for
construction shall be subject to prevailing wage laws.
(5) The institute shall limit indirect costs to no more
than 25 percent of a research award, excluding
amounts included in a facilities award, except that the
indirect cost limitation may be increased by that
amount by which the grantee provides matching funds
in excess of 20 percent of the grant amount.
(b) The institute’s funding schedule is designed to
create a positive tax revenue stream for the State of
California during the first five calendar years following
the voters’ approval of the initiative adding this
section, without drawing funds from the state General
Fund for principal and interest payments for those
first five calendar years.
(c) The institute shall allocate at least one billion five
hundred million dollars ($1,500,000,000) of the
proceeds of the bonds authorized pursuant to Section
125291.110 to make grants for research, therapy
development, and therapy delivery involving diseases
and conditions of the brain and central nervous
system, including, but not limited to, Alzheimer’s
disease, Parkinson’s disease, stroke, dementia,
epilepsy, schizophrenia, depression, traumatic brain
injury, brain cancer, and autism, and for grant
oversight and general administration costs associated
with these grants and loans, subject to the limits in
subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) and subparagraph
(A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a).
(d) The allocation of the proceeds of bonds authorized
pursuant to Section 125291.30 shall continue to be
governed by Section 125290.70.
SEC. 18. Section 125291.15 of the Health and
Safety Code is amended to read:
125291.15. As used in this article, the California
Stem Cell Research and Cures Bond Act of 2004, the
following terms have the following meaning:
(a) “Act” means the California Stem Cell Research
and Cures Bond Act constituting Chapter 3
(commencing with Section 125290.10) of Part 5 of
Division 106.
Text of Proposed Bond | 103
TEXT OF PROPOSED BOND PROPOSITION 14 CONTINUED
14
(b) “Board” or “institute” means the California
Institute for Regenerative Medicine designated in
accordance with subdivision (b) of Section
125291.40.
(c) “Committee” means the California Stem Cell
Research and Cures Finance Committee created
pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 125291.40.
(d) “Fund” means the California Stem Cell Research
and Cures Fund created pursuant to Section
125291.25.
(e) “Interim debt” means any interim loans pursuant
to subdivision (b) of Section 125290.70, and
Sections 125291.60 and 125291.65, bond
anticipation notes or commercial paper notes issued
to make deposits into the fund and which will be paid
from the proceeds of bonds issued pursuant to this
article.
SEC. 19. Section 125291.35 of the Health and
Safety Code is amended to read:
125291.35. The bonds authorized by this article
shall be prepared, executed, issued, sold, paid, and
redeemed as provided in the State General Obligation
Bond Law (Chapter 4 (commencing with Section
16720) of Part 3 of Division 4 of Title 2 of the
Government Code), and all of the provisions of that
law, as amended from time to time, except
subdivisions (a) and (b) of Section 16727 of the
Government Code apply to the bonds and to this
article and are hereby incorporated in this article as
though set forth in full in this article.
SEC. 20. Section 125291.60 of the Health and
Safety Code is amended to read:
125291.60. The For the purpose of carrying out this
article, the Director of Finance may authorize the
withdrawal from the General Fund of an amount or
amounts, not to exceed the amount of the unsold
bonds that have been authorized by the committee, to
be sold for the purpose of carrying out this article,
excluding any refunding bonds authorized pursuant to
Section 125291.75, less any amount loaned pursuant
to Section 125291.65 and not yet repaid, and any
amount withdrawn from the General Fund pursuant to
this section and not yet returned to the General Fund.
Any amount withdrawn shall be deposited in the fund.
Any money made available under this section shall be
returned to the General Fund, plus an amount equal
to the interest that the money would have earned in
the Pooled Money Investment Account, from money
received from the sale of bonds for the purpose of
carrying out this article.
SEC. 21. Section 125291.65 of the Health and
Safety Code is amended to read:
125291.65. The institute may request the Pooled
Money Investment Board to make a loan from the
Pooled Money Investment Account in accordance with
Section 16312 of the Government Code for the
104 | Text of Proposed Bond
purposes of carrying out this article, excluding any
refunding bonds authorized pursuant to Section
125291.75, less any amount loaned pursuant to this
section and not yet repaid, and any amount withdrawn
from the General Fund pursuant to Section
125291.60 and not yet returned to the General Fund.
The amount of the request shall not exceed the
amount of the unsold bonds that the committee, by
resolution, has authorized to be sold for the purpose
of carrying out this article. The institute shall execute
any documents required by the Pooled Money
Investment Board to obtain and repay the loan. Any
amounts loaned shall be deposited in the fund to be
allocated by the institute in accordance with this
article.
SEC. 22. Section 125291.70 of the Health and
Safety Code is amended to read:
125291.70. All money deposited in the fund that is
derived from premium and accrued interest on bonds
sold shall be reserved in the fund and shall be
available for transfer to the General Fund as a credit
to expenditures for bond interest, except that amounts
derived from premium may be reserved and used to
pay costs of issuance prior to any transfer to the
General Fund.
SEC. 23. Section 125291.75 of the Health and
Safety Code is amended to read:
125291.75. The bonds issued and sold pursuant to
this article may be refunded in accordance with
Article 6 (commencing with Section 16780) of
Chapter 4 of Part 3 of Division 4 of Title 2 of the
Government Code, which is a part of the State General
Obligation Bond Law. Approval by the voters of the
state for the issuance of the bonds described in this
article includes the approval of the issuance of any
bonds issued to refund any bonds originally issued
under this article or any previously issued refunding
bonds. Any bond refunded with the proceeds of
refunding bonds as authorized by this section may be
legally defeased to the extent permitted by law in the
manner and to the extent set forth in the resolution,
as amended from time to time, authorizing that
refunded bond.
SEC. 24. Article 2.5 (commencing with Section
125291.90) is added to Chapter 3 of Part 5 of
Division 106 of the Health and Safety Code, to read:
Article 2.5. California Stem Cell Research,
Treatments, and Cures Bond Act of 2020
125291.90. This article shall be known, and may
be cited, as the California Stem Cell Research,
Treatments, and Cures Bond Act of 2020.
125291.95. As used in this article, the following
terms have the following meanings:
(a) “Act” means the California Stem Cell Research
and Cures Act constituting this chapter, as amended
TEXT OF PROPOSED BOND PROPOSITION 14 CONTINUED
by the California Stem Cell Research, Treatments, and
Cures Initiative of 2020.
(b) “Board” or “institute” means the California
Institute for Regenerative Medicine designated in
accordance with subdivision (b) of Section
125291.120.
(c) “Committee” means the California Stem Cell
Research and Cures Finance Committee created
pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 125291.40 and
designated in accordance with subdivision (a) of
Section 125291.120.
(d) “Fund” means the California Stem Cell Research,
Treatments, and Cures Fund of 2020 created pursuant
to Section 125291.105.
(e) “Interim debt” means any interim loans pursuant
to Sections 125291.140 and 125291.145, bond
anticipation notes, or commercial paper notes issued
to make deposits into the fund and that will be paid
from the proceeds of bonds issued pursuant to this
article.
125291.100. (a) Notwithstanding Section 13340
of the Government Code or any other provision of law,
moneys in the fund are appropriated without regard to
fiscal years to the institute for the following purposes:
(1) Making grants or loans to fund research and
construct facilities for research, all as described in
and pursuant to Section 125290.70.5.
(2) Paying general administrative costs of the institute
(not to exceed 3.5 percent in accordance with
subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of
Section 125290.70.5).
(3) Paying the annual administration costs of any
interim debt or bonds after December 31 of the fifth
full calendar year after this section takes effect.
(4) Paying the costs of issuing interim debt, paying
the annual administration costs of the interim debt
until and including December 31 of the fifth full
calendar year after this section takes effect, and
paying interest on interim debt, if such interim debt is
incurred or issued on or prior to December 31 of the
fifth full calendar year after this section takes effect.
(5) Paying the costs of issuing bonds, paying the
annual administration costs of the bonds until and
including December 31 of the fifth full calendar year
after this section takes effect, and paying interest on
bonds that accrues on or prior to December 31 of the
fifth full calendar year after this section takes effect,
except that such limitation does not apply to premium
and accrued interest as provided in Section
125291.150.
(b) Moneys in the fund or other proceeds of the sale
of bonds authorized by this article may be used to pay
principal of, redemption price, including accrued
interest, or premium on any interim debt issued prior
to the initial issuance of bonds authorized by this
article. Moneys deposited in the fund from the
proceeds of interim debt may be used to pay general
administrative costs of the institute without regard to
the 3.5 percent limit set forth in paragraph (2) of
subdivision (a), so long as such 3.5 percent limit is
satisfied for each issue of bonds.
14
(c) Repayment of principal and interest on any loans
made by the institute pursuant to this article shall be
deposited in the fund and used for the purposes of
Section 125290.70.5, including the institute’s
administrative costs, or for paying continuing costs of
the annual administration of outstanding bonds.
125291.105. The proceeds of interim debt and
bonds issued and sold pursuant to this article shall be
deposited in the State Treasury to the credit of the
California Stem Cell Research and Cures Fund of
2020, which is hereby created in the State Treasury,
except to the extent that proceeds of the issuance of
bonds are used directly to repay interim debt.
125291.110. Bonds in the total amount of five
billion five hundred million dollars ($5,500,000,000),
not including the amount of any refunding bonds
issued in accordance with Section 125291.155, or as
much thereof as is necessary, may be issued and sold
to provide a fund to be used for carrying out the
purposes expressed in this article, to be used and sold
for carrying out the purposes of Section 125291.100,
and to reimburse the General Obligation Bond
Expense Revolving Fund pursuant to Section 16724.5
of the Government Code. The bonds, when sold, shall
be and shall constitute a valid and binding obligation
of the state, and the full faith and credit of the state
is hereby pledged for the punctual payment of both
the principal of, and interest on, the bonds as the
principal and interest become due and payable.
125291.115. The bonds authorized by this article
shall be prepared, executed, issued, sold, paid, and
redeemed as provided in the State General Obligation
Bond Law (Chapter 4 (commencing with Section
16720) of Part 3 of Division 4 of Title 2 of the
Government Code) and all of the provisions of that
law, as amended from time to time, except
subdivisions (a) and (b) of Section 16727 apply to the
bonds and to this article and are hereby incorporated
in this article as though set forth in full in this article.
125291.120. (a) Solely for the purpose of
authorizing the issuance and sale, pursuant to the
State General Obligation Bond Law (Chapter 4
(commencing with Section 16720) of Part 3 of
Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code), of the
bonds and interim debt authorized by this article, the
California Stem Cell Research and Cures Finance
Committee, established pursuant to Section
125291.40, is hereby designated as “the committee”
as that term is used in the State General Obligation
Bond Law.
Text of Proposed Bond | 105
TEXT OF PROPOSED BOND PROPOSITION 14 CONTINUED
14
(b) For purposes of the State General Obligation Bond
Law, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine
Governing Board is designated the “board.”
125291.125. (a) The committee shall determine
whether or not it is necessary or desirable to issue
bonds authorized pursuant to this article in order to
carry out the actions specified in this article and, if
so, the amount of bonds to be issued and sold. The
Treasurer shall use reasonable efforts to sell bonds
with pricing at par or better and to pay the issuance
costs out of premium if reasonably achievable and in
the best interests of the state, at the Treasurer’s
discretion. Successive issues of bonds may be
authorized and sold to carry out those actions
progressively, and it is not necessary that all of the
bonds authorized to be issued be sold at any one time.
The bonds may bear interest, which is includable in
gross income for federal income tax purposes if the
committee determines that such treatment is
necessary in order to provide funds for the purposes of
the act. The costs of each bond issue sold on or after
the 61st month after this article takes effect shall be
at the discretion of the Treasurer and may be
amortized over or up to a 40-year period.
(b) The total amount of the bonds authorized by
Section 125291.110 that may be issued in any
calendar year, commencing in 2021, shall not exceed
a cumulative average of five hundred forty million
dollars ($540,000,000). If less than this amount of
bonds is issued in any year, the remaining permitted
amount may be carried over to one or more subsequent
years. Pursuant to Section 125291.140, the Director
of Finance may, in the director’s discretion, authorize
a loan from the General Fund to the institute on or
after the effective date of this article.
(c) Until December 31 of the fifth full calendar year
after this section becomes effective, all interest on
any interim debt or bonds issued under this article
will be paid from proceeds from the sale of that
interim debt or bonds in accordance with the objective
of this initiative of avoiding any debt service payments
by the General Fund, both principal and interest,
during the initial period of basic research and therapy
development following the effective date of this
section.
125291.130. There shall be collected each year
and in the same manner and at the same time as
other state revenue is collected, in addition to the
ordinary revenues of the state, a sum in an amount
required to pay the principal of, and interest on, the
bonds becoming due each year. It is the duty of all
officers charged by law with any duty in regard to the
collection of the revenue to do and perform each and
every act that is necessary to collect that additional
sum.
125291.135. Notwithstanding Section 13340 of
the Government Code, there is hereby appropriated
from the General Fund in the State Treasury, for the
106 | Text of Proposed Bond
purposes of this article, an amount that will equal the
total of the following:
(a) The sum annually necessary to pay the principal
of, and interest on, bonds issued and sold pursuant to
this article, as the principal and interest become due
and payable.
(b) The sum necessary to carry out Section
125291.140, appropriated without regard to fiscal
years.
125291.140. For purposes of carrying out this
article, the Director of Finance may authorize the
withdrawal from the General Fund of an amount or
amounts, not to exceed the amount of the unsold
bonds that have been authorized by the committee, to
be sold for the purpose of carrying out this article,
excluding any refunding bonds authorized pursuant to
Section 125291.155, less any amount loaned
pursuant to Section 125291.145 and not yet repaid,
and any amount withdrawn from the General Fund
pursuant to this section and not yet returned to the
General Fund. Any amount withdrawn shall be
deposited in the fund. Any money made available
under this section shall be returned to the General
Fund, plus an amount equal to the interest that the
money would have earned in the Pooled Money
Investment Account, from money received from the
sale of bonds for the purpose of carrying out this
article.
125291.145. The institute may request the Pooled
Money Investment Board to make a loan from the
Pooled Money Investment Account in accordance with
Section 16312 of the Government Code for the
purposes of carrying out this article. The amount of
the loan shall not exceed the amount of the unsold
bonds that the committee, by resolution, has
authorized to be sold for the purpose of carrying out
this article excluding any refunding bonds authorized
pursuant to Section 125291.155, less any amount
loaned pursuant to this section and not yet repaid,
and any amount withdrawn from the General Fund
pursuant to Section 125291.140 and not yet returned
to the General Fund. The institute shall execute any
documents required by the Pooled Money Investment
Board to obtain and repay the loan. Any amounts
loaned shall be deposited in the fund to be allocated
by the institute in accordance with this article.
125291.150. All money deposited in the fund that
is derived from premium and accrued interest on
bonds sold shall be reserved in the fund and shall be
available for transfer to the General Fund as a credit
to expenditures for bond interest, except the amounts
derived from premium may be reserved and used to
pay costs of issuance prior to any transfer to the
General Fund.
125291.155. The bonds issued and sold pursuant
to this article may be refunded in accordance with
Article 6 (commencing with Section 16780) of
TEXT OF PROPOSED BOND PROPOSITION 14 CONTINUED
Chapter 4 of Part 3 of Division 4 of Title 2 of the
Government Code, which is a part of the State General
Obligation Bond Law. Approval by the voters of the
state for the issuance of the bonds described in this
article includes the approval of the issuance of any
bonds issued to refund any bonds originally issued
under this article or any previously issued refunding
bonds. Any bond refunded with the proceeds of
refunding bonds as authorized by this section may be
legally defeased to the extent permitted by law in the
manner and to the extent set forth in the resolution,
as amended from time to time, authorizing that
refunded bond.
125291.160. Notwithstanding any provision of this
article or the State General Obligation Bond Law
(Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 16720) of Part
3 of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code), if
the Treasurer sells bonds pursuant to this article that
include a bond counsel opinion to the effect that the
interest on the bonds is excluded from gross income
for federal tax purposes, under designated conditions,
the Treasurer may maintain separate accounts for the
investment of bond proceeds and the investment
earnings on those proceeds. The Treasurer may use or
direct the use of those proceeds or earnings to pay any
rebate, penalty, or other payment required under
federal law or to take any other action with respect to
the investment and use of bond proceeds required or
desirable under federal law to maintain the tax-exempt
status of those bonds and to obtain any other
advantage under federal law on behalf of the funds of
this state.
125291.165. The proceeds from the sale of bonds
authorized by this article are not “proceeds of taxes”
as that term is used in Article XIIIB of the California
Constitution, and the disbursement of these proceeds
is not subject to the limitations imposed by that
article.
SEC. 25. Section 125292.10 of the Health and
Safety Code is amended to read:
125292.10. Definitions
As used in this chapter and in Article XXXV of the
California Constitution, the following terms have the
following meanings:
(a) “Act” means the California Stem Cell Research
and Cures Bond Act constituting Chapter 3
(commencing with Section 125290.10) of Part 5 of
Division 106 of the Health and Safety Code.
(b) “Adult stem cell” means an undifferentiated cell
found in a differentiated tissue in an adult organism
that can renew itself and may, with certain limitations,
differentiate to yield all the specialized cell types of
the tissue from which it originated, including a cell
that is committed to make all of the functional cells of
the tissue or organ where it resides and regenerates
but that is itself undifferentiated.
(c) “Basic research” means the investigation of basic
mechanisms underlying stem cell biology, cellular
plasticity, cellular differentiation, and other vital
research opportunities.
14
(c) (d) “Capitalized interest” means interest funded
by bond proceeds.
(d) (e) “Committee” means the California Stem Cell
Research and Cures Finance Committee created
pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 125291.40.
(e) (f) “Constitutional officers” means the Governor,
Lieutenant Governor, Treasurer, and Controller of
California.
(g) “Early development” means discovery of promising
new stem cell-based technologies that could be
translated to enable broad use and ultimately improve
patient care.
(f) (h) “Facilities” means buildings, building leases,
or capital equipment.
(g) (i) “Floating-rate bonds” means bonds which do
not bear a fixed rate of interest until their final
maturity date, including commercial paper notes.
(h) (j) “Fund” means the California Stem Cell
Research and Disease Cures Fund created pursuant to
Section 125291.25.
(i) (k) “Grant” means a grant, loan, or guarantee.
(j) (l) “Grantee” means a recipient of a grant from
the institute. All University of California grantee
institutions shall be considered as separate and
individual grantee institutions.
(k) (m) “Human reproductive cloning” means the
practice of creating or attempting to create a human
being by transferring the nucleus from a human cell
into an egg cell from which the nucleus has been
removed for the purpose of implanting the resulting
product in a uterus to initiate a pregnancy.
(l) (n) “Indirect costs” mean the recipient’s costs in
the administration, accounting, general overhead, and
general support costs for implementing a grant or loan
of the institute. NIH definitions of indirect costs will
be utilized as one of the bases by the Scientific and
Medical Research Standards Working Group to create
a guideline for recipients on this definition, with
modifications to reflect guidance by the ICOC and this
act.
(m) (o) “Institute” means the California Institute for
Regenerative Medicine.
(n) (p) “Interim standards” means temporary
standards that perform the same function as
“emergency regulations” under the Administrative
Procedure Act (Government Code, Title 2, Division 3,
Part 1, Chapter 4.5 3.5, Sections 11340 et seq.)
except that in order to provide greater opportunity for
public comment on the permanent regulations, remain
in force for 270 days rather than 180 days.
Text of Proposed Bond | 107
14
TEXT OF PROPOSED BOND PROPOSITION 14 CONTINUED
(o) (q) “Life science commercial entity” means a firm
or organization, headquartered in California, whose
business model includes biomedical or biotechnology
product development and commercialization.
(p) (r) “Medical ethicist” means an individual with
advanced training in ethics who holds a Ph.D., MA, or
equivalent training in the biological sciences or the
field of clinical medicine or clinical ethics and who
spends or has spent substantial time (1) researching
and writing on ethical issues related to medicine, and
(2) administering ethical safeguards during the
clinical trial process, particularly through service on
institutional review boards.
(q) (s) “Pluripotent cells” means cells that are
capable of self-renewal, and have broad potential to
differentiate into multiple adult cell types. Pluripotent
stem cells may be derived from somatic cell nuclear
transfer or from surplus products of in vitro
fertilization treatments when such products are
donated under appropriate informed consent
procedures. These excess cells from in vitro
fertilization treatments would otherwise be intended
to be discarded if not utilized for medical research.
(r) (t) “Progenitor cells” means multipotent or
precursor cells that are partially differentiated but
retain the ability to divide and give rise to
differentiated cells.
(s) (u) “Quorum” means at least 65 percent of the
members who are eligible to vote.
(t) (v) “Research donor” means a human who donates
biological materials for research purposes after full
disclosure and consent.
(u) (w) “Research funding” includes interdisciplinary
scientific and medical funding for basic research, all
stages of research, including, but not limited to, stem
cell discovery research, early development,
translational research, therapy development, and the
development of pharmacologies and treatments
through clinical trials, including, without limitation,
the reimbursement of patient-qualified costs for
research participants and their caregivers pursuant to
paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section
125290.35; the operations of the working groups,
including the costs associated with the expert review
of applications; the costs of advisory groups and
consultants established or retained to evaluate and
advise the governing board, the working groups, and
awardees; and research conferences. When a facility’s
grant or loan has not been provided to house all
elements of the research, therapy development, and/or
clinical trials, research funding shall include an
allowance for a market lease rate of reimbursement
for the facility. In all cases, operating costs of the
facility, including, but not limited to, library and
communication services, utilities, maintenance,
janitorial, and security, shall be included as direct
research funding costs. Legal costs of the institute
incurred in order to negotiate standards with federal
and state governments and research institutions; to
implement standards or regulations; to resolve
disputes; and/or to carry out all other actions
necessary to defend and/or advance the institute’s
mission shall be considered direct research funding
costs.
(v) (x) “Research participant” means a human
enrolled with full disclosure and consent, and
participating in clinical trials.
(y) “Research program” means research projects that
are designed to advance the same ultimate goal along
the research continuum and that are conducted by the
same or overlapping investigators.
(w) (z) “Revenue positive” means all state tax
revenues generated directly and indirectly by the
research and facilities of the institute are greater than
the debt service on the state bonds actually paid by
the General Fund in the same year.
(x) (aa) “Stem cells” mean nonspecialized cells that
have the capacity to divide in culture and to
differentiate into more mature cells with specialized
functions.
(ab) “Stem cell discovery research” means basic
research, early development, and the discovery,
evaluation, or improvement of tools and technologies
in the fields of stem cell and genetic research and
other vital research opportunities.
(y) (ac) “Vital research opportunity” means scientific
and medical research and technologies, including, but
not limited to, genetics, personalized medicine, and
aging as a pathology, and/or any stem cell research
not actually funded by the institute under
subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) paragraph (3) of
subdivision (c) of Section 125290.60 which provides
a substantially superior research opportunity, vital to
advance medical science as determined by at least a
two-thirds vote of a quorum of the members of the
Scientific and Medical Research Funding Working
Group and recommended as such by that working
group to the ICOC, or as determined by the vote of a
majority of a quorum of members of the ICOC. Human
reproductive cloning shall not be a vital research
opportunity.
SEC. 26. Amendment.
The provisions of this initiative, except the bond
provisions, may not be amended before the measure is
approved by the voters. The provisions of this initiative
may be amended after its approval by the voters by a
statute that is passed by a vote of 70 percent of the
members of each house of the Legislature and signed
by the Governor, provided that such amendments are
consistent with and further the intent of the grant and
loan programs created by this initiative.
108 | Text of Proposed Bond
TEXT OF PROPOSED BOND PROPOSITION 14 CONTINUED
14
SEC. 27. Severability.
If any provision of this initiative, or part of this
initiative, or the application of any provision or part to
any person or circumstances, is for any reason held to
be invalid, the remaining provisions, or applications of
provisions, shall not be affected, but shall remain in
full force and effect, and to this end the provisions of
this initiative are severable. If a court were to find in a
final, unreviewable judgment that the exclusion of one
or more entities or activities from the applicability of
the initiative renders the initiative unconstitutional,
those exceptions should be severed and the initiative
should be made applicable to the entities or activities
formerly exempt from the initiative. It is the intent of
the voters that this initiative would have been enacted
regardless of whether any invalid provision had been
included or any invalid application had been made.
SEC. 28. Conflicting Initiatives.
(a) In the event that this initiative and another
measure addressing medical research or therapy
development shall appear on the same statewide
ballot, the provisions of the other measure or measures
shall be deemed to conflict with this measure. In the
event that this initiative receives a greater number of
affirmative votes than a measure deemed to conflict
with it, the provisions of this initiative shall prevail in
their entirety, and the other measure or measures shall
be null and void.
(b) If this initiative is approved by the voters but
superseded by law by any other conflicting measure
approved by voters by a greater number of votes at the
same election, and the conflicting ballot measure is
later held invalid, this initiative shall be self-executing
and given full force and effect.
SEC. 29. Standing.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if the
state, or any of its officials fail to defend the
constitutionality of this initiative, following its
approval by the voters, any other state governmental
agency of this state shall have the authority to
intervene in any court action challenging the
constitutionality of this initiative for the purpose of
defending its constitutionality, whether such action is
in state or federal trial court, on appeal, or on
discretionary review by the Supreme Court of
California and/or the Supreme Court of the United
States. The reasonable fees and costs of defending
the action shall be a charge on funds appropriated to
the Department of Justice, which shall be satisfied
promptly.
SEC. 30. Liberal Construction.
This initiative shall be liberally construed to effectuate
its purposes.
Text of Proposed Laws
As required by law, the text of Proposition 14
is included in this guide because it is a
bond measure. The text of proposed laws for
all other propositions is available online at
voterguide.sos.ca.gov.
If you would like a printed copy of the text for Propositions 15–25:
Email the Secretary of State at vigfeedback@sos.ca.gov
Contact the Secretary of State’s toll-free Voter Hotline at
(800) 345-VOTE (8683)
Text of Proposed Bond | 109
County Elections Offices
Alameda County
(510) 272-6933
www.acvote.org
Alpine County
(530) 694-2281
www.alpinecountyca.gov
Amador County
(209) 223-6465
www.amadorgov.org/government/elections
Butte County
(530) 538-7761 or (800) 894-7761
www.buttevotes.net
Calaveras County
(209) 754-6376
www.calaverasgov.us
Colusa County
(530) 458-0500 or (877) 458-0501
www.countyofcolusa.org/elections
Contra Costa County
(925) 335-7800
www.contracostacore.us
Del Norte County
(707) 464-7216
www.co.del-norte.ca.us
El Dorado County
(530) 621-7480 or (800) 730-4322
www.edcgov.us/Elections
Fresno County
(559) 600-8683
www.fresnovote.com
Glenn County
(530) 934-6414
www.countyofglenn.net/dept/elections/
welcome
Humboldt County
(707) 445-7481
www.humboldtgov.org/890/Elections-Voter-
Registration
Imperial County
(442) 265-1074
www.co.imperial.ca.us/regvoters
Inyo County
(760) 878-0224
elections.inyocounty.us
Kern County
(661) 868-3590
www.kernvote.com
Kings County
(559) 852-4401
www.countyofkings.com
Lake County
(707) 263-2372
www.lakecountyca.gov/Government/
Directory/ROV.htm
Lassen County
(530) 251-8217
http://www.lassencounty.org/dept/county-
clerk-recorder/elections
Los Angeles County
(800) 815-2666
www.lavote.net
Madera County
(559) 675-7720 or (800) 435-0509
www.votemadera.com
Marin County
(415) 473-6456
marinvotes.org
Mariposa County
(209) 966-2007
www.mariposacounty.org/87/Elections
Mendocino County
(707) 234-6819
www.mendocinocounty.org/government/
assessor-county-clerk-recorder-elections/
elections
Merced County
(209) 385-7541 or (800) 561-0619
www.mercedelections.org
Modoc County
(530) 233-6205
www.co.modoc.ca.us/departments/elections
Mono County
(760) 932-5537 or (760) 932-5530
monocounty.ca.gov/elections
Monterey County
(831) 796-1499 or (866) 887-9274
www.montereycountyelections.us
Napa County
(707) 253-4321
www.countyofnapa.org
Nevada County
(530) 265-1298
http://www.mynevadacounty.com/1847/
Elections-Voting
Orange County
(714) 567-7600
www.ocvote.com
Placer County
(530) 886-5650
www.placerelections.com
Plumas County
(530) 283-6256 or (844) 676-VOTE
https://www.plumascounty.us/142/
Elections-Division-Home
Riverside County
(951) 486-7200
www.voteinfo.net
Sacramento County
(916) 875-6451
www.elections.saccounty.net
San Benito County
(831) 636-4016
sbcvote.us
San Bernardino County
(909) 387-8300
www.sbcountyelections.com
San Diego County
(858) 565-5800 or (800) 696-0136
www.sdvote.com
San Francisco County
(415) 554-4375
sfelections.org
San Joaquin County
(209) 468-2890 or (209) 468-2885
www.sjcrov.org
San Luis Obispo County
(805) 781-5228 or (805) 781-5080
www.slovote.com
San Mateo County
(650) 312-5222
www.smcacre.org
Santa Barbara County
(805) 568-2200
www.sbcvote.com
Santa Clara County
(408) 299-8683 or (866) 430-8683
www.sccvote.org
Santa Cruz County
(831) 454-2060
www.votescount.com
Shasta County
(530) 225-5730 or (888) 560-8683
www.elections.co.shasta.ca.us
Sierra County
(530) 289-3295
http://www.sierracounty.ca.gov/214/
Elections
Siskiyou County
(530) 842-8084 or
(888) 854-2000 ext. 8084
www.sisqvotes.org
Solano County
(707) 784-6675
www.solanocounty.com/elections
Sonoma County
(707) 565-6800
vote.sonoma-county.org
Stanislaus County
(209) 525-5200
http://www.stanvote.com
Sutter County
(530) 822-7122
www.suttercounty.org/elections
Tehama County
(530) 527-8190
http://www.co.tehama.ca.us/gov-
departments/elections
Trinity County
(530) 623-1220
https://www.trinitycounty.org/Elections
Tulare County
(559) 624-7300
http://www.tularecoelections.org/elections
Tuolumne County
(209) 533-5570
www.co.tuolumne.ca.us/elections
Ventura County
(805) 654-2664
https://recorder.countyofventura.org/
elections
Yolo County
(530) 666-8133
yoloelections.org
Yuba County
(530) 749-7855
www.yubaelections.org
110 | County Elections Offices
DATES TO REMEMBER!
REMEMBER TO VOTE!
Polls are open from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Election Day!
OCTOBER
S M T W T F S
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
October 5, 2020
Counties will begin mailing
vote-by-mail ballots.
October 19, 2020
Last day to register to vote. You
can “conditionally” register and
vote at your county elections
office or voting location after
the 15-day voter registration
deadline.
NOVEMBER
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30
November 3, 2020
Election Day!
111
California Secretary of State
Elections Division
1500 11th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
bb
All California voters will receive a vote-by-mail ballot for the
November 3, 2020, election. Learn more inside.
English: (800) 345-VOTE (8683) TTY/TDD: (800) 833-8683
Todos los votantes de California recibirán una boleta electoral
de voto por correo para la elección del 3 de noviembre de
2020. Para preguntas o asistencia al votante, llame al número
a continuación.
Español /Spanish: (800) 232-VOTA (8682)
෮Ⴕࡆᇜ⇢ᾞ൬֞Ⴈᧄ2020୍11ᄅ3ರ⇢Ή֥∳
࠷ௐ⇢ௐbೂႵၐ↜ࠇླေิ܂⇢⇐ᇹđ⃪ᇁể
༯ਙὂb
ᇏ໓ /Chinese: (800) 339-2857
b b
b
b
//Hindi: (888) 345-2692Hindi: (888) 345-2692
żƜƉƑǁȀǫƿȁǡƸᇜႵ㜶ᆀƎƒ2020୍11 ᄅ3 ರ⇢㌀Ƒ
∳ьௐႨ⊍ůෂƬƯơżbŭ↜ŧކƲžơƂƒႵ㜶ᆀƑᆦ
ჱƎ倔źƉƒaၛ༯ƑىݼơƊŭểὐŲƃŸŧb
/Japanese: (800) 339-2865
NONPROFIT
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
CALIFORNIA
SECRETARY
OF STATE
/Khmer: (888) 345-4917
ꑝ麕b 롍ꍡ붡鱽껹b 냕靁녅鱉 2020 ֙ 11 ਘ 3 ੌ 阥ꌱb 낹뼑b
끥뵭b 믡븑덵b ꗐ陁b鷞 鱽鲙b ꓭ넍 ꩡ뼢b 鿅鱉b 냕靁녅b 덵낅냹b
낅뼍겑ꐩb껹 ꅍb 놹쀉뿭ꈑb꾥ꄲ뼩늱겢겑꿙
/Korean: (866) 575-1558
Tatanggap ang lahat ng botante ng California ng balota para
sa pagboto sa pamamagitan ng koreo para sa halalan sa
Nobyembre 3, 2020. Para sa mga katanungan o tulong sa
botante, mangyaring tawagan ang numero sa ibaba.
Tagalog: (800) 339-2957
3 2020
/Thai: (855) 345-3933
/Vietnamese: (800) 339-8163
OSP 20 150102