California Ballot Propositions - November 8th 2016

Proposition 58

English Proficiency. Multilingual Education. Initiative Statute.

Preserves requirement that public schools ensure students obtain English language proficiency. Requires school districts to solicit parent/community input in developing language acquisition programs. Requires instruction to ensure English acquisition as rapidly and effectively as possible. Authorizes school districts to establish dual–language immersion programs for both native and non–native English speakers. Fiscal Impact: No notable fiscal effect on school districts or state government.

Semi-Official Election Results:

Yes votes: 6,225,294 [72.4%]

No votes: 2,368,968 [27.6%]

Pro: 
Supporters of Proposition 58  believe that the requirements of Proposition 227 (1998) limiting bilingual education are outdated in an era of increased globalization, when the native bilingualism of California students will be an asset. They also believe that the reasons given for Proposition 227 for English immersion were largely based on myths regarding student acquisition of an additional language.
 
Poll: 

Visit IGS Poll for ballot measure polling from the Institute of Governmental Studies, UC Berkeley, in partnership with The Field Poll.

Visit Ballotpedia for summary data from recent polls and links to the complete published polls.

Con: 

Opponents of Proposition 58 claim that students who are surrounded by English speakers learn English more quickly than if they are with other foreign language students. They believe that English should be the primary language of the United States. They believe that English proficiency needs to be a priority and that Proposition 227 (1998) has achieved that.

Keep English For Children
Keep English For Children Twitter

Voter Resources: 

Official California Documents

Voter Information Guide 

Campaign Finance Information

Voter's Edge Campaign Contributions
Total money raised, size of contributions, top contributors.

Power Search
Access and download data from the Secretary of State's CAL-ACCESS system.

Nonpartisan Analysis

Ballotpedia

Voter's Edge

KCET Props in a Minute videos

Video Voter - A Guide to California’s Ballot Measures. Rose Institute of State and Local Government at Claremont McKenna College

Project for an Informed Electorate Initiative Explainer videos, California State University, Sacramento

 

Share |

Proposition 64

Marijuana Legalization. Initiative Statute.

Legalizes marijuana under state law, for use by adults 21 or older. Imposes state taxes on sales and cultivation. Provides for industry licensing and establishes standards for marijuana products. Allows local regulation and taxation. Fiscal Impact: Additional tax revenues ranging from high hundreds of millions of dollars to over $1 billion annually, mostly dedicated to specific purposes. Reduced criminal justice costs of tens of millions of dollars annually.

Semi-Official Election Results:

Yes votes: 4,940,869 [56.0%]

No votes: 3,876,649 [44.0%]

Pro: 

Proponents of Proposition 64 believe that the measure creates a safe and legal system for adult use of marijuana. They claim that marijuana is already widely used in California, but without the regulations and taxes that Proposition 64 would provide. Supporters say that the measure will reduce law enforcement costs and increase tax revenue, benefitting the state by over $11 billion in the next decade.

Support the Adult Use of Marijuana Act
Y
es on 64 Facebook
Yes on 64 Twitter

Poll: 

Visit IGS Poll for ballot measure polling from the Institute of Governmental Studies, UC Berkeley, in partnership with The Field Poll.

Visit Ballotpedia for summary data from recent polls and links to the complete published polls.

 

Con: 

Opponents of Proposition 64 believe the measure will increase drug problems in the inner cities, highway fatalities, and the number of young people exposed to the drug. They claim black market drug activity will not be affected by marijuana legalization. They point to the provisions in the measure to allow marijuana advertising on television as a move backwards since smoking ads are no longer allowed on television.

No on 64
No on 64 Twitter

Voter Resources: 

Official CA Documents

Voter Information Guide

Campaign Finance Information

Voter's Edge Campaign Contributions
Total money raised, size of contributions, top contributors.

Power Search
Access and download data from the Secretary of State's CAL-ACCESS system.

Nonpartisan Analyses

Ballotpedia

Voter's Edge

KCET Props in a Minute videos

Video Voter - A Guide to California’s Ballot Measures. Rose Institute of State and Local Government at Claremont McKenna College

Project for an Informed Electorate Initiative Explainer videos, California State University, Sacramento

Share |

Proposition 67

Ban on Single–use Plastic Bags. Referendum.

A "Yes" vote approves, and a "No" vote rejects, a statute that prohibits grocery and other stores from providing customers single–use plastic or paper carryout bags but permits sale of recycled paper bags and reusable bags. Fiscal Impact: Relatively small fiscal effects on state and local governments, including a minor increase in state administrative costs and possible minor local government savings from reduced litter and waste management costs.

Semi-Official Election Results:

Yes votes: 4,457,222 [51.9%]

No votes: 4,125,702 [48.1%]

Pro: 

Supporters of Proposition 67 argue that plastic bags are dangerous to the environment, and that the measure will reduce litter, protect our ocean and wildlife, and reduce clean-up costs. They claim that opponents of the measure are funded by plastic bag companies outside California who are trying to protect their profits.

Yes on 67
Yes on 67 Facebook
Yes on 67 Twitter

Poll: 

Visit Ballotpedia for summary data from recent polls and links to the complete published polls.

Con: 

Opponents of Proposition 67 claim the measure is a hidden tax increase that will force California consumers to pay more for grocery bags. They say that large grocery store chains will keep tax revenue and no money will go to help the environment.

No official opponent website

Voter Resources: 

Official California Documents

Voter Information Guide

Campaign Finance

Voter's Edge Campaign Contributions
Total money raised, size of contributions, top contributors.

Power Search
Access and download data from the Secretary of State's CAL-ACCESS system.

Nonpartisan Analysis

Ballotpedia

Voter's Edge

KCET Props in a Minute videos

Video Voter - A Guide to California’s Ballot Measures. Rose Institute of State and Local Government at Claremont McKenna College

Project for an Informed Electorate Initiative Explainer videos, California State University, Sacramento

Share |

Proposition 66

Death Penalty. Procedures. Initiative Statute.

Changes procedures governing state court challenges to death sentences. Designates superior court for initial petitions and limits successive petitions. Requires appointed attorneys who take noncapital appeals to accept death penalty appeals. Exempts prison officials from existing regulation process for developing execution methods. Fiscal Impact: Unknown ongoing impact on state court costs for processing legal challenges to death sentences. Potential prison savings in the tens of millions of dollars annually.

Proposition 66 and Proposition 62 are competing initiatives on the same topic. If both should receive a majority of the vote, the initiative receiving the most votes would prevail.

Semi-Official Election Results:

Yes votes: 4,197,708 [50.9%]

No votes: 4,044,864 [49.1%]

Pro: 

Proponents of Proposition 66 advocate reforming the death penalty procedures, rather than ending it as proposed by Proposition 62. They claim Proposition 66 will speed up the death penalty appeals process while ensuring that no innocent person is ever executed.

No on Prop. 62, Yes on Prop. 66
No on Prop. 62, Yes on Prop. 66 Facebook
No on Prop. 62, Yes on Prop. 66 Twitter

Poll: 

Visit IGS Poll for ballot measure polling from the Institute of Governmental Studies, UC Berkeley, in partnership with The Field Poll.

Visit Ballotpedia for summary data from recent polls and links to the complete published polls.

Con: 

Opponents of Proposition 66 believe that the measure would increase the risk of executing an innocent person. They claim the measure will increase prison spending, and add government bureaucracy and taxpayer costs to the appeals system. They also say the measure is poorly written, and would expose the state to expensive litigation.  

No on Prop. 66
No on Prop. 66 Facebook
No on Prop. 66 Twitter

Voter Resources: 

Official California Documents

Voter Information Guide

Campaign Finance

Voter's Edge Campaign Contributions
Total money raised, size of contributions, top contributors.

Power Search
Access and download data from the Secretary of State's CAL-ACCESS system.

Nonpartisan Analysis

Ballotpedia

Voter's Edge

KCET Props in a Minute videos

Video Voter - A Guide to California’s Ballot Measures. Rose Institute of State and Local Government at Claremont McKenna College

Project for an Informed Electorate Initiative Explainer videos, California State University, Sacramento

 

Share |

Proposition 65

Carryout Bags. Charges. Initiative Statute.

Redirects money collected by grocery and certain other retail stores through mandated sale of carryout bags. Requires stores to deposit bag sale proceeds into a special fund to support specified environmental projects. Fiscal Impact: Potential state revenue of several tens of millions of dollars annually under certain circumstances, with the monies used to support certain environmental programs.

Semi-Official Election Results:

Yes votes: 3,810,691 [44.6%]

No votes: 4,726,007 [55.4%]

Pro: 

Supporters of Proposition 65 believe the measure is needed to stop grocery stores from keeping the revenue collected from carryout bag taxes. They believe this money should be used for environmental projects instead. 

No official supporter website

Con: 

Opponents claim that Proposition 65 is an effort by out-of-state plastic bag companies to confuse voters and distract them from the issue of eliminating plastic shopping bags all together. They claim that Proposition 65 is without significance, that the funds generated would be very small and that voters should support Proposition 67 instead.

No official opponent website

Voter Resources: 

Official California Documents

Voter Information Guide

Campaign Finance

Voter's Edge Campaign Contributions
Total money raised, size of contributions, top contributors.

Power Search
Access and download data from the Secretary of State's CAL-ACCESS system.

Nonpartisan Analysis

Ballotpedia

Voter's Edge

KCET Props in a Minute videos

Video Voter - A Guide to California’s Ballot Measures. Rose Institute of State and Local Government at Claremont McKenna College

Project for an Informed Electorate Initiative Explainer videos, California State University, Sacramento

Share |

Proposition 63

Firearms. Ammunition Sales. Initiative Statute.

Requires background check and Department of Justice authorization to purchase ammunition. Prohibits possession of large–capacity ammunition magazines. Establishes procedures for enforcing laws prohibiting firearm possession by specified persons. Requires Department of Justice's participation in federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Fiscal Impact: Increased state and local court and law enforcement costs, potentially in the tens of millions of dollars annually, related to a new court process for removing firearms from prohibited persons after they are convicted.

Semi-Official Election Results:

Yes votes: 5,432,566 [62.6%]

No votes: 3,244,344 [37.4%]

Pro: 

Proponents of Proposition 63 believe the measure will close loopholes to prevent mentally ill and dangerous criminals from obtaining guns. They claim the measure will strengthen background checks, introduce important new regulations and reporting requirements, and ensure that felons are not able to obtain guns. Supporters believe the measure will save lives that could be lost to gun violence.

Yes on Prop. 63
Yes on Prop. 63 Facebook
Yes on Prop. 63 Twitter

Poll: 

Visit IGS Poll for ballot measure polling from the Institute of Governmental Studies, UC Berkeley, in partnership with The Field Poll.

Visit Ballotpedia for summary data from recent polls and links to the complete published polls.

Con: 

Opponents of Proposition 63 believe the measure will burden law abiding citizens without keeping violent criminals and terrorists from obtaining firearms. They claim that other methods that are more effective in stemming gun violence will suffer because Proposition 63 will divert law enforcement resources. Opponents believe that resources should be used to hire more officers and to target, investigate, and prosecute dangerous individuals and terrorists.

No on Prop 63
No on Prop 63 Facebook
No on Prop 63 Twitter

Voter Resources: 

Official California Documents

Voter Information Guide

Campaign Finance

Voter's Edge Campaign Contributions
Total money raised, size of contributions, top contributors.

Power Search 
Access and download data from the Secretary of State's CAL-ACCESS system.

Nonpartisan Analysis

Ballotpedia

Voter's Edge

KCET Props in a Minute videos

Video Voter - A Guide to California’s Ballot Measures. Rose Institute of State and Local Government at Claremont McKenna College

Project for an Informed Electorate Initiative Explainer videos, California State University, Sacramento

 

 

Share |

Proposition 62

Death Penalty. Initiative Statute.

Repeals death penalty and replaces it with life imprisonment without possibility of parole. Applies retroactively to existing death sentences. Increases the portion of life inmates' wages that may be applied to victim restitution. Fiscal Impact: Net ongoing reduction in state and county criminal justice costs of around $150 million annually within a few years, although the impact could vary by tens of millions of dollars depending on various factors.

Proposition 62 and Proposition 66 are competing initiatives on the same topic. If both should receive a majority of the vote, the initiative receiving the most votes would prevail.

Semi-Official Election Results:

Yes votes: 3,958,001 [46.1%]

No votes: 4,636,796 [53.9%]

Pro: 

Proponents of Proposition 62 believe the death penalty system is a failure with huge costs for California taxpayers. They claim that victims' families are not served by executions. They also claim the risk of executing an innocent person is real. Supporters claim that Proposition 62 would require death row felons to work and pay restitution to their victims' families.

Yes on 62
Yes on 62 Facebook
Yes on 62 Twitter

Poll: 

Visit IGS Poll for ballot measure polling from the Institute of Governmental Studies, UC Berkeley, in partnership with The Field Poll.

Visit Ballotpedia for summary data from recent polls and links to the complete published polls.

Con: 

Opponents of Proposition 62 assert that death row inmates deserve execution, and that their victims deserve the justice and closure that it brings. They claim that the death penalty system needs to be re-worked due to the number of felon appeals which bog down the system.

No on 62, Yes on 66
No on 62, Yes on 66 Facebook
No on 62, Yes on 66 Twitter

Voter Resources: 

Official California Documents

Voter Information Guide

Campaign Finance

Voter's Edge Campaign Contributions
Total money raised, size of contributions, top contributors.

Power Search
Access and download data from the Secretary of State's CAL-ACCESS system.

Nonpartisan Analysis

Ballotpedia

Voter's Edge

KCET Props in a Minute videos

Video Voter - A Guide to California’s Ballot Measures. Rose Institute of State and Local Government at Claremont McKenna College

Project for an Informed Electorate Initiative Explainer videos, California State University, Sacramento

 

Share |

Proposition 61

State Prescription Drug Purchases. Pricing Standards. Initiative Statute.

Prohibits state from buying any prescription drug from a drug manufacturer at price over lowest price paid for the drug by United States Department of Veterans Affairs. Exempts managed care programs funded through Medi–Cal. Fiscal Impact: Potential for state savings of an unknown amount depending on (1) how the measure's implementation challenges are addressed and (2) the responses of drug manufacturers regarding the provision and pricing of their drugs.

Semi-Official Election Results:

Yes votes: 3,919,770 [46.2%]

No votes: 4,556,775 [53.8%]

Pro: 

Proponents say that Proposition 61 fights back against drug company price-gouging. They believe that the measure will make drugs far more affordable for consumers who pay unreasonable costs for necessary medication.

Yes on 61
Yes on 61 Facebook
Yes on 61 Twitter

Poll: 

Visit IGS Poll for ballot measure polling from the Institute of Governmental Studies, UC Berkeley, in partnership with The Field Poll.

Visit Ballotpedia for summary data from recent polls and links to the complete published polls.

Con: 

Opponents claim that Proposition 61 does not cover many needy Californians and could jeopardize the special pricing that the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs receives. They also say that the measure will result in a costly bureacracy that will interfere or delay patient access to medication.

No on Prop. 61
No on Prop. 61 Facebook
No on Prop. 61 Twitter

Voter Resources: 

Official California Documents

Voter Information Guide

Campaign Finance

Voter's Edge Campaign Contributions
Total money raised, size of contributions, top contributors.

Power Search
Access and download data from the Secretary of State's CAL-ACCESS system.

Nonpartisan Analysis

Ballotpedia

Voter's Edge

KCET Props in a Minute videos

Video Voter - A Guide to California’s Ballot Measures. Rose Institute of State and Local Government at Claremont McKenna College

Project for an Informed Electorate Initiative Explainer videos, California State University, Sacramento

 

Share |

Proposition 60

Adult Films. Condoms. Health Requirements. Initiative Statute.

Requires adult film performers to use condoms during filming of sexual intercourse. Requires producers to pay for performer vaccinations, testing, and medical examinations. Requires producers to post condom requirement at film sites. Fiscal Impact: Likely reduction of state and local tax revenues of several million dollars annually. Increased state spending that could exceed $1 million annually on regulation, partially offset by new fees.

Semi-Official Election Results:

Yes votes: 3,877,381 [46.1%]

No votes: 4,538,814 [53.9%]

Pro: 

Proponents of Proposition 60 believe the measure will help protect adult film workers from sexually transmitted diseases. They claim that the producers of many adult films do not provide appropriate protection during filming and this measure will hold them accountable. 

Vote Yes on Prop. 60
Vote Yes on Prop. 60 Twitter

Poll: 

Visit Ballotpedia for summary data from recent polls and links to the complete published polls.

Con: 
Opponents of Proposition 60 claim the measure is poorly written and would lead to many lawsuits. They claim the measure will cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars a year.
 
Voter Resources: 

Official California Documents

Voter Information Guide

Campaign Finance

Voter's Edge Campaign Contributions
Total money raised, size of contributions, top contributors.

Power Search
Access and download data from the Secretary of State's CAL-ACCESS system.

Nonpartisan Analysis

Ballotpedia

Voter's Edge

KCET Props in a Minute videos

Video Voter - A Guide to California’s Ballot Measures. Rose Institute of State and Local Government at Claremont McKenna College

Project for an Informed Electorate Initiative Explainer videos, California State University, Sacramento

 

Share |

Proposition 59

Corporations. Political Spending. Federal Constitutional Protections. Legislative Advisory Question.

Asks whether California's elected officials should use their authority to propose and ratify an amendment to the federal Constitution overturning the United States Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Citizens United ruled that laws placing certain limits on political spending by corporations and unions are unconstitutional. Fiscal Impact: No direct fiscal effect on state or local governments.

Semi-Official Election Results:

Yes votes: 4,278,239 [52.3%]

No votes: 3,900,758 [47.7%]

Pro: 

Proponents of Proposition 59 believe the Citizens United v FEC ruling giving corporations the same rights as people has led to disasterous results. They believe that it has allowed corporations and the wealthy to control politics. They believe that Proposition 59 would be a step towards reversing the decision.

Yes on 59
Yes on 59 Facebook
Yes on 59 Twitter

Poll: 

Visit Ballotpedia for summary data from recent polls and links to the complete published polls.

Con: 

Opponents of Proposition 59 claim that reversing the  Citizens United v FEC ruling would make it impossible for small businesses, churches, and many other organizations to express their viewpoints with political donations. They believe people would lose their Constitutional rights by becoming involved in a company or organization that is incorporated if the measure passes.

No opposition website.

Voter Resources: 

Official California Documents

Voter Information Guide 

Campaign Finance Information

Voter's Edge Campaign Contributions
Total money raised, size of contributions, top contributors.

Power Search
Access and download data from the Secretary of State's CAL-ACCESS system.

Nonpartisan Analysis

Ballotpedia

Voter's Edge

KCET Props in a Minute videos

Video Voter - A Guide to California’s Ballot Measures. Rose Institute of State and Local Government at Claremont McKenna College

Project for an Informed Electorate Initiative Explainer videos, California State University, Sacramento

 

Share |