California 2020 ballot propositions

Ty
pe
November 3,
2020
California 2020 Ballot Propositions
Vote recommendations by the Southwest California Legislative Council
NP*
Proposition
14
Issues $5.5 billion in bonds for state stem cell research institute
NO
Proposition
15
Requires commercial and industrial properties to be taxed based on
market value and dedicates revenue – SPLIT ROLL TAX
NP*
Proposition
16
Repeals Proposition 209 (1996), which prohibited the state from
considering race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public
employment, education, or contracting
NP*
Proposition
17
Restores the right to vote to people convicted of felonies who are on
parole
NP*
Proposition
18
Allows 17-year-olds who will be 18 at the time of the next general election
to vote in primaries and special elections
NO
Proposition
19
Changes tax assessment transfers and inheritance rules – allows seniors
to transfer Prop 13 tax base but taxes some family inheritance
YES
Proposition
20
Makes changes to policies related to criminal sentencing charges, prison
release, and DNA collection
NO
Proposition
21
Expands local governments' power to use rent control
YES
Proposition
22
Considers app-based drivers to be independent contractors and enacts
several labor policies related to app-based companies
NO
Proposition
23
Requires physician on-site at dialysis clinics and consent from the state
for a clinic to close
NO
Proposition
24
Expands the provisions of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA)
and creates the California Privacy Protection Agency to implement and
enforce the CCPA
NO
Proposition
25
Replaces cash bail with risk assessments for suspects awaiting trial
NP recommendation means the initiative does not fall within the
strategic initiatives of the Southwest California Legislative Council
Summary of campaign contributions
Ballot Measure Support Contributions Oppose Contributions Outcome
California Proposition 13,
School and College
Facilities Bond (March
2020)
$9,669,417.16 $0.00

Stem Cell Research
Institute Bond Initiative
(2020)
$6,573,974.51 $0.00
Tax on Commercial and
Industrial Properties for
Education and Local
Government Funding
Initiative (2020)
$19,736,008.78 $3,226,412.70
Repeal Proposition 209
Affirmative Action
Amendment (2020)
$114,000.00 $0.00
Voting Rights Restoration
for Persons on Parole
Amendment (2020)
$0.00 $0.00
Primary Voting for 17-Year-
Olds Amendment (2020)
$0.00 $0.00
Property Tax Transfers,
Exemptions, and Revenue
for Wildfire Agencies and
Counties Amendment
(2020)
$0.00 $0.00
Criminal Sentencing,
Parole, and DNA Collection
Initiative (2020)
$3,993,793.90 $809,978.31
Local Rent Control Initiative
(2020)
$5,114,579.27 $6,185,224.98
App-Based Drivers as
Contractors and Labor
Policies Initiative (2020)
$110,693,520.08 $690,000.00
Dialysis Clinic
Requirements Initiative
(2020)
$5,914,158.48 $2,021,121.00
Consumer Personal
Information Law and
Agency Initiative (2020)
$4,746,162.03 $0.00
Replace Cash Bail with
$1,348,004.09 $3,961,947.00

Risk Assessments
Referendum (2020)
Referral of 2020 ballot measures
The following table illustrates the vote requirements for the legislative referrals certified for the
ballot, the votes that the referrals received, and how Democrats and Republicans voted on the
referrals in each legislative chamber:
California Proposition 13, School and College Facilities Bond Democrats Republicans
Senate: Required: 27
Yes votes: 35
(87.50%)
No votes: 4
(10.00%)
Yes: 29;
No: 0
Yes: 6; No: 4
House: Required: 53
Yes votes: 78
(98.73%)
No votes: 1
(1.27%)
Yes: 61;
No: 0
Yes: 17; No:
1
California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action
Amendment
Democrats Republicans
Yes votes: 30
(75.00%)
No votes: 10
(25.00%)
Yes: 29;
No: 0
Yes: 1; No:
10
House: Required: 53
Yes votes: 60
(75.95%)
No votes: 14
(17.72%)
Yes: 58;
No: 0
Yes: 1; No:
14
California Proposition 17, Voting Rights Restoration for Persons on
Parole Amendment
Yes votes: 28
(70.00%)
No votes: 9
(22.50%)
Yes: 27;
No: 0
Yes: 1; No: 9
House: Required: 54
Yes votes: 54
(68.35%)
No votes: 19
(24.05%)
Yes: 52;
No: 5
Yes: 2; No:
14
California Proposition 18, Primary Voting for 17-Year-Olds
Amendment
Yes votes: 31
(77.50%)
No votes: 7
(17.50%)
Yes: 29;
No: 0
Yes: 2; No: 7
House: Required: 53
Yes votes: 56
(70.89%)
No votes: 13
(16.46%)
Yes: 55;
No: 1
Yes: 1; No:
12
California Proposition 19, Property Tax Transfers, Exemptions, and
Revenue for Wildfire Agencies and Counties Amendment
Yes votes: 29
(72.50%)
No votes: 5
(12.50%)
Yes: 27;
No: 0
Yes: 2; No: 5
House: Required: 53
Yes votes: 56
(70.89%)
No votes: 5
(6.33%)
Yes: 46;
No: 2
Yes: 9; No: 3

California Proposition 14, Stem Cell Research Institute Bond
Initiative (2020)
A "yes" vote supports issuing $5.5 billion general obligation bonds for the
state's stem cell research institute and making changes to the institute's
governance structure and programs.
A "no" vote opposes issuing $5.5 billion general obligation bonds for the
state's stem cell research institute, which ran out funds derived from
Proposition 71 (2004) for new projects in 2019.
What would the ballot measure issue bonds for?
The ballot initiative would issue $5.5 billion in general obligation bonds for the California
Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), which was created to fund stem
cell research. In 2004, voters approved Proposition 71, which created CIRM, issued
$3.00 billion in bonds to finance CIRM, and established a state constitutional right to
conduct stem cell research.[1]
As of October 2019, CIRM had $132 million in funds remaining.[2]
On July 1, 2019, CIRM
suspended applications for new projects due to depleted funds.[3]
The ballot initiative would require CIRM to spend no more than 7.5 percent of the bond
funds on operation costs. The remaining bond funds would be spent on grants to
entities that conduct research, trials, and programs related to stem cells, as well as
start-up costs for facilities. Some of the bond funds would be dedicated, including $1.5
billion for research on therapies and treatments for brain and nervous system diseases,
such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and dementia. Upwards of 1.5 percent of the total
funds would be spent on Community Care Centers of Excellence (CCCE), which would
be sites that conduct human clinical trials, treatments, and cures. Upwards of 0.5
percent of the total funds would be spent on the Shared Labs Program (SLP), which are
state-funded facilities dedicated to research on human embryonic stem cells.[1]
Support

Californians for Stem Cell Research, Treatments & Cures is leading the campaign in
support of the ballot initiative. Robert N. Klein II, a real estate investor who funded the
campaign behind Proposition 71, is chairperson of the campaign.[6]
Supporters
The campaign provided a list of supports on its website, which is available here.[7]
Organizations
 University of California Board of Regents[7]
Arguments
 Robert Klein said, "This medical revolution holds the promise of restoring health and quality
of life for many of California’s individuals and families suffering from chronic disease and
injury. However, the last tactical mile to bring this broad spectrum of therapies to patients
will require more funding and the thoughtful support of California’s public as the human trials
and discoveries are refined and tested, overcome numerous obstacles or complications,
and ultimately serve to improve the life and reduce the suffering of every one of us."[8]
Opposition
Ballotpedia has not identified individuals and entities opposing the ballot initiative. If you
are aware of published opposition to the ballot initiative, you may send a reference link
to editor@ballotpedia.org.
Cash
Contributions
In-Kind
Contributions
Total
Contributions
Cash
Expenditures
Total
Expenditures
Support $2,070,050.00 $4,503,924.51 $6,573,974.51 $4,221,059.59 $8,724,984.10
Oppose $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

California Proposition 15, Tax on Commercial and Industrial
Properties for Education and Local Government Funding
Initiative (2020) (Split Roll Initiative)
A "yes" vote supports this constitutional amendment to require
commercial and industrial properties, except those zoned as commercial
agriculture, to be taxed based on their market value, rather than their
purchase price.
A "no" vote opposes this constitutional amendment, thus continuing to tax
commercial and industrial properties based on a property's purchase
price, with annual increases equal to the rate of inflation or 2 percent,
whichever is lower.
Overview
What would this initiative change about how properties are taxed in California?
The ballot initiative would amend the California State Constitution to require commercial
and industrial properties, except those zoned as commercial agriculture, to be taxed
based on their market value. In California, the proposal to assess taxes on commercial
and industrial properties at market value, while continuing to assess taxes on residential
properties based on the purchase price, is known as split roll. The change from the
purchase price to market value would be phased-in beginning in fiscal year 2022-2023.
Properties, such as retail centers, whose occupants are 50 percent or more small
businesses would be taxed based on market value beginning in fiscal year 2025-2026
(or at a later date that the legislature decides on).
The ballot initiative would make an exception for properties whose business owners
have $3.00 million or less in holdings in California; these properties would continue to
be taxed based on their purchase price. The ballot initiative would exempt a small
business’s tangible personal property from taxes and $500,000 in value for a non-small
business’s tangible personal property.[1]
The state fiscal analyst estimated that, upon full implementation, the ballot initiative
would generate between $8 billion and $12.5 billion in revenue per year.[2]
Where did the current tax assessment formula, based on purchase price, come from?
See also: California Proposition 13 (1978)
In 1978, Californians approved Proposition 13, which required that residential,
commercial, and industrial properties are taxed based on their purchase price. The
tax is limited to no more than 1 percent of the purchase price (at the time of
purchase), with an annual adjustment equal to the rate of inflation or 2 percent,
whichever is lower. According to the state Legislative Analyst's Office, market values

in California tend to increase faster than 2 percent per year, meaning the taxable
value of commercial and industrial properties is often lower than the market value.[2]
How would revenue from the change in taxation be distributed?
The ballot initiative would create a process in the state constitution for distributing
revenue from the revised tax on commercial and industrial properties. The ballot
initiative would distribute the revenue to specific areas, rather than the General
Fund. First, the revenue would be distributed to (a) the state to supplement
decreases in revenue from the state's personal income tax and corporation tax due
to increased tax deductions and (b) counties to cover the costs of implementing the
measure. Second, 60 percent of the remaining funds would be distributed to local
governments and special districts, and 40 percent would be distributed to school
districts and community colleges (via a new Local School and Community College
Property Tax Fund). Revenue appropriated for education would be divided as
follows: 11% for community colleges and 89% for public schools, charter schools,
and county education offices. There would also be a requirement that schools and
colleges receive an annual minimum of $100 (adjusted each year) per full-time
student.[1][2]
Fiscal impact statement
The fiscal impact statement is as follows:[3]
“
Net increase in annual property tax revenues of $7.5 billion to $12 billion in
most years, depending on the strength of real estate markets. After backfilling
state income tax losses related to the measure and paying for county
administrative costs, the remaining $6.5 billion to $11.5 billion would be
allocated to schools (40 percent) and other local governments (60 percent).[4]
”
Support
Schools and Communities First is leading the campaign in support of the ballot
initiative.[5]
The campaign named the ballot initiative the Schools and Local
Communities Funding Act.[1]
Committee
The executive committee of Schools and Communities First was composed of the
following organizations:[6]
 Advancement Project California
 Alliance San Diego
 California Calls
 California Federation of Teachers
 Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of California

 Common Sense Kids Action
 Evolve California
 League of Women Voters of California
 PICO California
Supporters
The following is a selection of individuals and organizations, excluding executive
committee members, that endorsed the ballot initiative:[7]
Officials
 Former Vice President Joe Biden (D),
2020 presidential candidate[8]
 U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont),
2020 presidential candidate[9]
 U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-
Massachusetts)[10]
 U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris (D-
California)[11]
 U.S. Sen. Cory Booker (D-New
Jersey)[12]
 U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-17)
 U.S. Rep. Karen Bass (D-37)
 State Superintendent of Education Tony
Thurmond (D)[13]
 Sen. Nancy Skinner (D-9)
 Sen. Bob Wieckowski (D-10)
 Sen. Scott Wiener (D-11)
 Sen. Connie Leyva (D-20)
 Sen. Holly Mitchell (D-30)
 Asm. Kevin McCarty (D-7)
 Asm. Buffy Wicks (D-15)
 Asm. Rob Bonta (D-18)
 Asm. Kevin Mullin (D-22)
 Asm. Kansen Chu (D-25)
 Asm. Lorena Gonzalez (D-80)
 Mayor Eric Garcetti (D), Los Angeles[14]
 Mayor London Breed (D), San
Francisco[15]
 Mayor Libby Schaaf, Oakland
Former officials
 U.S. Rep. Beto O'Rourke (D-Texas)[16]
 HUD Secretary Julian Castro (D-Texas)[17]
 Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D-Indiana)[18]
Parties
 California Democratic Party[19]
Municipalities
 San Francisco Board of Supervisors
 Oakland City Council
School districts
 Los Angeles Unified School District
 Oakland Unified School District
 San Francisco Unified School District
Organizations
 ACLU of Southern California
 Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment
 California Alliance for Retired Americans
 Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative
 Equality California[20]
 Indivisible CA
 Mi Familia Vota
 Parent Teachers Association of California
 New Approach PAC

Unions
 American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)
 American Federation of Teachers
 California Teachers Association
 California Federation of Teachers
 SEIU California State Council[21]
 United Teachers of Los Angeles
Individuals
 Nicholas Pritzker[21]
Arguments
 Ben Grieff, campaign director of Evolve California, said, “Chevron is getting the same deal
as Grandma. That doesn’t make any sense.”[22]
 Josh Pechthalt, president of the California Federation of Teachers, said, "We’re asking for
companies like Disneyland or Universal Studios that make huge amounts of money to pay
property taxes based on fair market value—the same thing that homeowners and, frankly,
most businesses have to do."[23]
 Alex Stack, communications director for the campaign Schools and Communities First,
said, "We're really talking about a fraction of top corporations in the state that have
benefited for decades from egregiously low property tax rates, assessments from the
1970s."[24]
 Fred Blackwell, CEO of the San Francisco Foundation, stated, "Closing the commercial
property tax loophole is important to our state and to our Bay Area region. It is our
opportunity to effect positive change by restoring more than $11 billion a year to our schools
and vital community services without raising taxes on homeowners, renters and small
businesses."[22]
 San Francisco Mayor London Breed (D) stated, "When I look at our dire budget deficits
over the next couple of years, and then I see these revenue estimates showing how much
we can invest in our community without having to raise any taxes on residents, it makes it
more important for me to give my full support on this initiative."[25]
Opposition
Californians to Stop Higher Property Taxes is leading the campaign in opposition to
the ballot initiative.[26]
Opponents
 California Business Roundtable[27]
 California Business Properties Association[27]
 California Chamber of Commerce[27]
 California Farm Bureau Federation[28]
 California Taxpayers Association[27]
 Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association[27]
 Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association[21]
Arguments
 Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, said, "This is yet
another attack on the longstanding taxpayer protections in Prop. 13. Special interests
continue to push for new and higher taxes to pay for their out-of-control pensions, which
have already directed existing tax revenue away from classrooms and other state

priorities."[27]
Coupal also said, "If the business community loses its Prop. 13 protection,
we’re [homeowners] next on the menu."[22]
 Tom Campbell, state Director of Finance from 2005 to 2006, said, "From the point of view
of attracting and retaining businesses and jobs, the power of Prop. 13, rather, was in
allowing California to tell a business: go ahead and sink that concrete into Texas if you
want, but you’re taking a big risk that Texas won’t revisit that building a few years later and
double your tax assessment. With California, you’re safe. ... In repealing Proposition 13 for
businesses, California will be forfeiting our best argument to attract new jobs – a long-term
sacrifice that will hollow-out California’s economy, costing us far more $10 billion in a very
short time."[29]
 Rob Lapsley, president of the California Business Roundtable, stated, "We are going to
have the largest tax increase in California history at exactly the wrong time in our economy
to be able to afford it."[30]
 Rex Hime, president of the California Business Properties Association, stated, "California
already has the worst climate for business and job creation in the country. A split-roll
property tax will just increase pressure on many businesses that are already finding it hard
to make ends meet."[27]
Committees in support of Proposition 15
Committee
Cash
Contributions
In-Kind
Contributions
Total
Contributions
Cash
Expenditures
Total
Expenditures
Schools and
Communities
First
$17,255,194.80 $371,556.92 $17,626,751.72 $12,613,015.90 $12,984,572.82
Million Voter
Project
Action Fund
$2,093,257.06 $0.00 $2,093,257.06 $1,587,464.42 $1,587,464.42
PICO
California
Action
Supporting
Schools and
Communities
First
$16,000.00 $0.00 $16,000.00 $17,419.88 $17,419.88
Total $19,364,451.86 $371,556.92 $19,736,008.78 $14,217,900.20 $14,589,457.12
Donors
The following were the top five donors who contributed to the support committees.[21]
Donors
Donor
Cash
Contributions
In-Kind
Contributions
Total
Contributions

California Teachers
Association Issues PAC
$6,000,000.00 $1,552.50 $6,001,552.50
SEIU California State
Council
$3,500,000.00 $19,467.00 $3,519,467.00
Chan Zuckerberg
Advocacy
$1,600,000.00 $0.00 $1,600,000.00
The San Francisco
Foundation
$1,006,300.00 $0.00 $1,006,300.00
California Federation of
Teachers COPE
PROP/Ballot Committee
$625,000.00 $12,190.00 $637,190.00
Opposition
The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in
opposition to the initiative.[21]
Committees in opposition to Proposition 15
Committe
e
Cash
Contribution
s
In-Kind
Contribution
s
Total
Contribution
s
Cash
Expenditure
s
Total
Expenditure
s
Californians
to Stop
Higher
Property
Taxes
$1,542,096.00 $163,990.19 $1,706,086.19 $948,646.27 $1,112,636.46
Protect
Prop. 13
$1,520,326.51 $0.00 $1,520,326.51 $504,757.25 $504,757.25
Total $3,062,422.51 $163,990.19 $3,226,412.70 $1,453,403.52 $1,617,393.71
Donors
The following were the top five donors who contributed to the opposition committees.[21]
Donor
Cash
Contributions
In-Kind
Contributions
Total
Contributions
California Business
Roundtable Issues PAC
$102,500.00 $163,990.19 $266,490.19

California Taxpayers
Association - Protect
Taxpayer Rights
$139,000.00 $0.00 $139,000.00
BNSF Railroad $100,000.00 $0.00 $100,000.00
California Beer & Beverage
Distributors State Issues
PAC
$100,000.00 $0.00 $100,000.00
Western Manufactured
Housing Communities
Association Issues PAC
$100,000.00 $0.00 $100,000.00
Michael Koss $10,000.00 $0.00 $10,000.00
Polls
[hide]California Proposition 15, Tax on Commercial and Industrial Properties for
Education and Local Government Funding Initiative (2020)
Poll Support Oppose Undecided
Margin
of error
Sample
size
PPIC (likely voters)
4/1/2020 - 4/9/2020
53.0% 47.0% 1.0% +/-3.7 1,091
11/3/2019 -
11/12/2019
46.0% 45.0% 9.0% +/-4.3 1,008
9/16/2019 -
9/25/2019
47.0% 45.0% 8.0% +/-4.2 1,031
4/5/2019 - 4/15/2019
54.0% 45.0% 1.0% +/-4.0 1,035
1/20/2019 -
1/29/2019
49.0% 43.0% 8.0% +/-4.0 1,154

10/27/2018 -
11/5/2018
56.0% 40.0% 4.0% +/-4.4 1,095
USC Dornsife/Los
Angeles
Times (eligible
voters)
9/17/2018 -
10/14/2018
46.0% 22.0% 31.0% +/-4.0 794
3/25/2018 -
4/03/2018
53.0% 42.0% 5.0% +/-4.4 867
AVERAGES 50.5% 41.13% 8.38% +/-4.13 1,009.38
California Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative
Action Amendment (2020)
A "yes" vote supports this constitutional amendment to repeal
Proposition 209 (1996), which prohibited the state from discriminating
against or granting preferential treatment to persons on the basis of
race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public
education, and public contracting.
A "no" vote opposes this constitutional amendment, thereby keeping
Proposition 209 (1996), which prohibited the state from discriminating
against or granting preferential treatment to persons on the basis of
race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public
education, and public contracting.
Overview
The ballot measure would repeal Proposition 209 (1996), which added the following
provision to the California 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."[1]
Support

The Opportunity for All Coalition is leading the campaign in support of the ballot
measure.[3]
Supporters
Officials
 U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D)[4]
 U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris (D)[4]
 U.S. Rep. Karen Bass(D-37)[4]
 U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee (D-13)[4]
 U.S. Rep. Katie Porter (D-45)[4]
 U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-17)[4]
 U.S. Rep. Ted Lieu (D-33)[4]
 U.S. Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-47)[4]
 U.S. Rep. Jackie Speier (D-14)[4]
 U.S. Rep. Jared Huffman (D-2)[4]
 U.S. Rep. Julia Brownley (D-26)[4]
 U.S. Rep. Mark DeSaulnier (D-11)[4]
 U.S. Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-9)[4]
 U.S. Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-40)[4]
 U.S. Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-34)[4]
 U.S. Rep. Grace Napolitano (D-32)[4]
 U.S. Rep. Nanette Barragán (D-44)[4]
 U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-15)[4]
 U.S. Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-18)[4]
 U.S. Rep. Mark Takano (D-41)[4]
 U.S. Rep. Raul Ruiz (D-36)[4]
 U.S. Rep. TJ Cox (D-21)[4]
 U.S. Rep. Ami Bera (D-7)[4]
 U.S. Rep. Brad Sherman (D-30)[4]
 U.S. Rep. Juan Vargas (D-51)[4]
 U.S. Rep. Doris Matsui (D-6)[4]
 U.S. Rep. Linda Sánchez (D-38)[4]
 Sen. Steven Bradford (D-35)[5]
 Sen. Richard Pan (D-6)[5]
 Asm. Shirley Weber (D-79)[6]
 Asm. Lorena Gonzalez (D-80)[7]
 Asm. Buffy Wicks (D-15)[8]
 Former Senate President Kevin de
León (D)[9]
Organizations
 University of California Board of Regents[10]
 Los Angeles County Board of Education[11]
 Asian Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus[12]
Arguments
 Asm. Shirley Weber (D-79), the principal sponsor of the constitutional amendment and
chairwoman of the Legislative Black Caucus, stated the following:
o "Californians have built the fifth largest and strongest economy in the world, but too
many hardworking Californians are not sharing in our state’s prosperity—particularly
women, families of color, and low-wage workers. Assembly Constitutional Amendment 5
will help improve all of our daily lives by repealing Proposition 209 and eliminating
discrimination in state contracts, hiring and education. [ACA 5] is about equal
opportunity for all and investment in our communities."[6]
o "We have all survived and endured Proposition 209, and it has not been a luxury. It has
been a hard journey. And it has caused a lot of losses."[13]
o "Since Proposition 209’s passage, California has become one of only eight states that
do not allow race or gender to be among the many factors considered in hiring, allotting
state contracts or accepting students into the state’s public colleges and universities."[14]
o "As we look around the world, we see there is an urgent cry — an urgent cry for change.
After 25 years of quantitative and qualitative data, we see that race-neutral solutions
cannot fix problems steeped in race."[15]

o "The ongoing pandemic, as well as recent tragedies of police violence, is forcing
Californians to acknowledge the deep-seated inequality and far-reaching institutional
failures that show that your race and gender still matter."[16]
 State Sen. Steven Bradford (D-35) said, "I know about discrimination. I live it every day.
We live it in this building. Quit lying to yourselves and saying race is not a factor... the
bedrock of who we are in this country is based on race."[5]
 U.S. Rep. Karen Bass (D-37) wrote a letter to Gov. Gavin Newsom, Senate President Toni
Atkins, and House Speaker Anthony Rendon, asking them to support the constitutional
amendment. Rep. Bass stated, "Proposition 209, deceptively titled the California Civil Rights
Initiative, passed by referendum in 1996 amidst an orchestrated campaign of dog-whistle
politics attacking all attempts to level the playing field for women and people of color. Before
Prop 209, those efforts at advancing equity had made real progress. But the Wall Street-
backed authors of the initiative saw a threat to their economic stranglehold from an
increasingly diverse and highly educated population in California; a population better
situated to compete in jobs, education, government contracts and other areas of the state’s
economy. In passing Prop 209, those groups limited competition in their industries and
benefited their own businesses by erecting new institutional barriers burdening the ability of
California’s women and people of color achieve positions of economic and business
leadership."[4]
 University of California President Janet Napolitano said, "It makes little sense to exclude
any consideration of race in admissions when the aim of the University’s holistic process is
to fully understand and evaluate each applicant through multiple dimensions. Proposition
209 has forced California public institutions to try to address racial inequality without
factoring in race, even where allowed by federal law. The diversity of our university and
higher education institutions across California, should — and must — represent the rich
diversity of our state."[10]
 Varsha Sarveshwar, president of the University of California Student Association, wrote,
"Today, colleges can consider whether you’re from the suburbs, a city or a rural area. They
can consider what high school you went to. They can consider your family’s economic
background. They can look at virtually everything about you – but not race. It makes no
sense – and is unfair – that schools can’t consider something that is so core to our lived
experience. Repealing Prop. 209 will not create quotas or caps. These are illegal under a
Supreme Court decision and would remain so."[17]
 Otto Lee, former mayor of Sunnyvale, California, and founder of the Intellectual Property
Law Group LLP, stated, "With President Trump’s latest proclamations of Chinese virus, or
“Kung Flu,” many Asian Americans recently have experienced racial discrimination and
have been told to “Go back to China.” As a Chinese American, I recognize the urgent need
for us to build bridges with all people of color, as discrimination against one is discrimination
against all. We must stand tall together to call out these unacceptable behaviors and not
allow ACA 5 to become a wedge that divides us."[18]
Opposition
Opponents
 Sen. Melissa Melendez (R-28)[5]
 Sen. Ling Ling Chang (R-29)[5]
 Former U.S. Rep. Tom Campbell (R)[19]

Arguments
 Ward Connerly, a proponent of Proposition 209, responded to the proposal to repeal the
1996 constitutional amendment, saying, "I believe we would win by a landslide once we let
people know what affirmative action is really about."[20]
 Former U.S. Rep. Tom Campbell (R) said, "Nevertheless, if more spaces are to be made
for the under-represented, they must come from the over-represented. Asian Americans are
15.3 percent of Californians, yet 39.72 percent of UC enrollees. Those numbers are why
bringing this issue forward now would inevitably divide Californians racially: Latino
Americans and African Americans on one side, Asian Americans on the other. The politics
are inescapably racial."[19]
 Wenyuan Wu, director of administration for the Asian American Coalition for Education,
stated, "Built on partial evidence and shallow prescriptions for an unrealistic utopia, ACA-5
is in essence divisive and discriminatory. Its overarching goal to undo Proposition 209, a bill
that won the popular vote in 1996 and has withstood legal scrutiny over time, is misguided
in that ACA-5 proposes instant but wrong solutions to persistent social ills."[21]
 Wen Fa, an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation, said, "We’re definitely going to take
a hard look at that and see whether it complies with the 14th Amendment, or whether it
violates the constitutional principle of equality before the law. Racial preferences are wrong,
no matter who they benefit."[22]
 Asm. Steven S. Choi (R-68) stated, "Is it right to give someone a job just because they are
white, or black or green or yellow? Or just because they are male? Repealing Proposition
209, enacted by voters 24 years ago, is to repeal the prohibition of judgment based on race,
sex, color, ethnicity and national origin. We are talking about legalizing racism and
sexism."[23]
 Sen. Ling Ling Chang (R-29) said, "I have experienced racial discrimination so I know
what that’s like. But the answer to racial discrimination is not more discrimination which is
what this bill proposes. The answer is to strengthen our institutions by improving our
education system so all students have access to a quality education, and give opportunities
to those who are economically disadvantaged. ACA 5 legalizes racial discrimination and
that’s wrong."[24]
 Haibo Huang, co-founder of San Diego Asian Americans for Equality, wrote, "Race is a
forbidden classification for good reason, because it demeans the dignity and worth of a
person to be judged by ancestry instead of his or her own merit and essential qualities.
Racial preference is not transformed from patently unconstitutional into a compelling state
interest simply by relabeling it racial diversity. ... Judging people by their skin color is morally
repugnant. Equal opportunity is referenced to individual merits, it never guarantees equal
results. To the contrary, enforcing equal outcome regardless of qualification and effort bears
the hallmark of communism."[25]
 John Fund, national-affairs reporter for the National Review, wrote, "Liberals in California’s
one-party state are on an ideological crusade to continue a racial spoils system forever.
They should realize how much of the country disagrees with them and how the politics of
the issue could once again surprise them and blow up in their face."[26]
 Richard D. Kahlenberg, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation in Washington, D.C.,
stated, "Because it is much cheaper to provide racial preferences to upper middle class
Latino and African American students than it is to do the hard work of recruiting
economically disadvantaged and working-class Latino and African American students, I fear
that many of these progressive reforms could be diluted if 209 is repealed."[27]
Cash
Contributions
In-Kind
Contributions
Total
Contributions
Cash
Expenditures
Total
Expenditures

Support $114,000.00 $0.00 $114,000.00 $12,500.00 $12,500.00
Oppose $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Media editorials
Support
 San Francisco Chronicle: "Nearly a quarter of a century ago, California voters passed the
deceptively named California Civil Rights Initiative. But Proposition 209 was not about
advancing civil rights. It was about prohibiting the consideration of race and gender in public
education, employment and contracting. ... It was just about shutting the door on efforts to
overcome those institutional barriers to the full participation of women and minorities. It was
wrong in 1996, when it was passed by 55% of California voters, and it is wrong now. It
should be repealed."[29]
Opposition
 The Wall Street Journal: "Now it’s up to the voters. Last November voters in Washington
state narrowly defeated a similar amendment, though opponents were vastly outspent by
those favoring racial preferences. California is a more liberal state and its political class and
nearly all media will support repeal. But judging individuals by the color of their skin is
antithetical to equal justice under the law. Let’s hope Californians hold on to this American
principle of equality that goes back to the Declaration of Independence, the 14th
Amendment, and the civil-rights movement."[30]
California Proposition 17, Voting Rights Restoration for
Persons on Parole Amendment (2020)
A "yes" vote supports this constitutional amendment to allow people on
parole for felony convictions to vote.
A "no" vote opposes this constitutional amendment, thereby continuing
to prohibit people who are on parole for felony convictions from voting.
Overview
As of 2020, the California Constitution disqualifies people with felonies from voting until
their imprisonment and parole are completed. The ballot measure would amend the
state constitution to allow people with felonies who are on parole to vote; therefore, the
ballot measure would keep imprisonment as a disqualification for voting but remove
parole status.[1]

Support
The Free the Vote Coalition is leading the campaign in support of the ballot measure.[3]
Supporters
Officials
 Sen. Scott Wiener (D-11)[1]
 Sen. Holly Mitchell (D-30)[5]
 Sen. Steve Bradford (D-35)[5]
 Asm. Kevin McCarty (D-7)[1]
 Asm. Rob Bonta (D-18)[1]
 Asm. Wendy Carrillo (D-51)[1]
 Asm. Mike Gipson (D-64)[1]
 Asm. Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher (D-80)[1]
 Asm. Ash Kalra (D-27)[1]
 Asm. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-54)[1]
 Asm. Kevin Mullin (D-22)[1]
 Asm. Mark Stone (D-29)[1]
 Asm. Shirley Weber (D-79)[1]
Organizations
 ACLU of California[6]
 League of Women Voters of California[7]
Arguments
 Asm. Kevin McCarty, the lead legislative sponsor of the amendment, said, "Parole by
definition is not punishment — it’s to help reintegrate people back into the mainstream.
Parolees are many times working, paying taxes, raising their family, doing right. And they
can’t vote on policies that affect their lives."[8]
 Taina Vargas-Edmond, executive director of Initiate Justice, stated, "The removal of the
right to vote is not based in an interest in public safety. Rather, it is rooted in a punitive
justice belief system that intentionally attempts to rob marginalized people of their political
power."[9]
 The Brennan Center for Justice provided an argument to the state Legislature, which said,
"California is one of only a handful of states that denies the right to vote to people on parole
but allows people on probation to vote. Few people, including election administrators,
understand the difference between probation and parole. And as Californians know, those
distinctions are becoming increasingly opaque and confusing as new forms of supervision
get created. The result is that eligible voters think that they cannot or refrain from voting out
of fear that they may be breaking the law, a phenomenon we call "de facto
disenfranchisement."[1]
Opposition
Opponents
 Sen. Jim Nielsen (R-4)[9]
Arguments
 State Sen. Jim Nielsen (R-4) called the constitutional amendment a criminal injustice
proposal and stated, "Let’s talk a little about the universe we are dealing with here. They
include murderers, voluntary manslaughter, rape, sodomists. For those that commit the

crimes, particularly the heinous crimes, part of their sentence is to complete the parole
period."[9]
 The Election Integrity Project California provided an argument to the state Legislature,
which said, "ACA 6 seeks to restore voting rights, the most fundamental and valuable of
American privileges, to those who have not completed making full restitution for their crimes.
While on parole, a former criminal's liberties, such as movement, association, activities and
even ownership of certain items are still heavily restricted and regularly monitored by the
system. Any misstep results in immediate re-incarceration. In other words, an individual on
parole has not regained the full trust of the society at large, nor the privilege to participate as
a full member of that society."[1]
California Proposition 18, Primary Voting for 17-Year-Olds
Amendment (2020)
A "yes" vote supports this constitutional amendment to allow 17-year-
olds who will be 18 at the time of the next general election to vote in
primary elections and special elections.
A "no" vote opposes this constitutional amendment, thereby continuing
to prohibit 17-year-olds who will be 18 at the time of the next general
election to vote in primary elections and special elections.
Overview
The ballot measure would allow 17-year-olds who will be 18 at the time of the next
general election to vote in primary elections and special elections.[1]
Support
Supporters
 Asm. Kevin Mullin (D-22)[3]
Arguments
 The California Association of Student Councils submitted an argument in support of the
constitutional amendment, which said, "Young people whose birthdays fall between the
primary [and] general election are currently at a disadvantage to those who are permitted to
vote in the primaries. Without full exposure to the election process they are unable to submit
their most educated vote in the general election. Assembly Constitutional Amendment [four]
would ensure that a greater number of citizens voting in the general election have the
resources and experience they need to provide the vote that best matches their own
values."[1]

Opposition
Arguments
 The Election Integrity Project California, Inc. submitted an argument in opposition to the
constitutional amendment, which said, "17-year-olds are legal minors. Under that definition,
they are still considered children. They are almost all still living at home and under the
strong influence of their parents. This is not conducive to independent thought and voting
without undue pressure from their immediate superiors... 17-year-olds will almost always still
be in high school, and under the strong influence of their teachers. This again makes it less
likely that they would be expressing their own, independently thought-out choices were they
to be allowed to vote."[1]
California Proposition 19, Property Tax Transfers,
Exemptions, and Revenue for Wildfire Agencies and Counties
Amendment (2020)
A "yes" vote supports this constitutional amendment to:
* allow eligible homeowners to transfer their tax assessments anywhere
within the state and allow tax assessments to be transferred to a more
expensive home with an upward adjustment;
* increase the number of times that persons over 55 years old or with
severe disabilities can transfer their tax assessments from one to three;
* require that inherited homes that are not used as principal residences,
such as second homes or rentals, be reassessed at market value when
transferred; and
* allocate additional revenue or net savings resulting from the ballot
measure to wildfire agencies and counties.
States highlighted in yellow allow 17
year old to vote in state primaries.

Overview
How would the ballot measure change the rules governing tax assessment
transfers?
The ballot measure would change the rules for tax assessment transfers. In California,
eligible homeowners can transfer their tax assessments to a different home of the same
or lesser market value, which allows them to move without paying higher taxes.
Homeowners who are eligible for tax assessment transfers are persons over 55 years
old, persons with severe disabilities, and victims of natural disasters and hazardous
waste contamination.[1]
The ballot measure would allow eligible homeowners to transfer their tax assessments
anywhere within the state and allow tax assessments to be transferred to a more
expensive home with an upward adjustment. The number of times that a tax
assessment can be transferred would increase from one to three for persons over 55
years old or with severe disabilities (disaster and contamination victims would continue
to be allowed one transfer).[1]
How would the ballot measure affect inherited properties?
In California, parents or grandparents can transfer primary residential properties to their
children or grandchildren without the property's tax assessment resetting to market
value. Other types of properties, such as vacation homes and business properties, can
also be transferred from parent to child or grandparent to grandchild with the first $1
million exempt from re-assessment when transferred.[1]
The ballot measure would eliminate the parent-to-child and grandparent-to-grandchild
exemption in cases where the child or grandchild does not use the inherited property as
their principal residence, such as using a property a rental house or a second home.
When the inherited property is used as the recipient's principal residence but has a
market value above $1 million, an upward adjustment in assessed value would occur.
The ballot measure would also apply these rules to certain farms. Beginning on
February 16, 2023, the taxable value of an inherited principal residential property would
be adjusted each year at a rate equal to the change in the California House Price
Index.[1]
A "no" vote opposes this constitutional amendment to, therefore
continuing to:
* allow eligible homeowners to transfer their tax assessments within
counties and to homes of equal or lesser market value;
* increase the number of times that persons over 55 years old or with
severe disabilities can transfer their tax assessments from one to three;
and
* allow the tax assessments on inherited homes, including those not
used as principal residences, to be transferred from parent to child or
grandparent to grandchild.

What would the ballot measure do with changes in revenue?
The ballot measure would create the California Fire Response Fund (CFRF) and
County Revenue Protection Fund (CRPF). The ballot measure would require the
California Director of Finance to calculate additional revenues and net savings resulting
from the ballot measure. The California State Controller would be required to deposit 75
percent of the calculated revenue to the Fire Response Fund and 15 percent to the
County Revenue Protection Fund. The County Revenue Protection Fund would be used
to reimburse counties for revenue losses related to the measure's property tax changes.
The Fire Response Fund would be used to fund fire suppression staffing and full-time
station-based personnel.[1]
California Proposition 20, Criminal Sentencing, Parole, and
DNA Collection Initiative (2020)
A "yes" vote supports this initiative to add crimes to the list of violent felonies
for which early parole is restricted; recategorize certain types of theft and
fraud crimes as wobblers (chargeable as misdemeanors or felonies); and
require DNA collection for certain misdemeanors.
A "no" vote opposes this initiative to add crimes to the list of violent felonies
for which early parole is restricted; recategorize certain types of theft and
fraud crimes as wobblers (chargeable as misdemeanors or felonies); and
require DNA collection for certain misdemeanors.
Overview
What would this ballot initiative change about criminal sentencing
and supervision policies in California?
The ballot initiative would amend several criminal sentencing and supervision laws
that were passed between 2011 and 2016.[1]
The ballot initiative would make specific types of theft and fraud crimes, including
firearm theft, vehicle theft, and unlawful use of a credit card, chargeable as
misdemeanors or felonies, rather than misdemeanors. The ballot initiative would
also establish two additional types of crimes in state code—serial crime and
organized retail crime—and charge them as wobblers (crimes chargeable as
misdemeanors or felonies).[1]
The ballot initiative would require persons convicted of certain misdemeanors that
were classified as wobblers or felonies before 2014, such shoplifting, grand theft,
and drug possession, along with several other crimes, including domestic violence

and prostitution with a minor, to submit to the collection of DNA samples for state
and federal databases.[1]
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (DCR) has a parole
review program in which felons convicted of nonviolent crimes, as defined in law,
could be released on parole upon completing their sentence for his or her offense
with the longest imprisonment term. The ballot initiative would require the parole
review board to consider additional factors, such as the felon's age, marketable
skills, attitude about the crime, and mental condition, as well as the circumstances of
the crimes committed, before deciding whether to release a felon on parole. The
ballot initiative would allow prosecutors to request a review of the board's final
decision. The ballot initiative would also define 51 crimes and sentence
enhancements as violent in order to exclude them from the parole review program.[1]
In California, counties are responsible for supervising paroled felons convicted of
non-serious and non-violent crimes, as defined in law, and who were not classified
as high-risk sex offenders nor classified as needing treatment from the state
Department of Mental Health. Counties have discretion on whether to petition the
judicial system to change a felon's post-release supervision terms or status. The
ballot initiative would require local probation departments to ask a judge to change
the conditions or status of a felon's post-release supervision if the felon violated
supervision terms for the third time.[1]
What existing laws would this ballot initiative change?
The ballot initiative was designed to make changes to AB 109 (2011), Proposition
47 (2014), and Proposition 57 (2016)—three measures that were each intended to
reduce the state’s prison inmate population. According to Assemblyman Jim
Cooper (D-9), the goal of the initiative is to "[reform] the unintended consequences
of reforms to better protect the public."[2]
Former Gov. Jerry Brown (D) disagreed
with Cooper's assessment, saying the initiative is the "latest scare tactic on criminal
justice reform."[3]
Before Proposition 47 and Proposition 57, and a month after the passage of AB 109,
the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that overcrowding in the state's prisons resulted in
cruel and unusual punishment and affirmed a lower court's order to reduce the
prison population. AB 109 shifted the imprisonment of non-serious, non-violent, and
non-sexual offenders, as defined in state law, from state prisons to local jails. AB
109 also made counties, rather than the state, responsible for supervising certain
felons on parole. Proposition 47, which voters approved in 2014, changed several
crimes, which the measure considered non-serious and non-violent, from felonies or
wobblers to misdemeanors. Former Gov. Brown (D) developed Proposition 57,
which voters approved in 2016. Proposition 57 increased parole chances for felons
convicted of nonviolent crimes, as defined in state law, and gave them more
opportunities to earn sentence-reduction credits for good behavior.
The Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, a nonprofit based in San Francisco,
described AB 109 and Propositions 47 and 57 as successful sentencing reforms that

reduced overcrowding in state prisons.[4]
Andrew Do, chair of the Orange County
Board of Supervisors, described the measures as "California’s dangerous trifecta."[5]
Fiscal impact statement
“
Increased state and local correctional costs likely in the tens of millions of
dollars annually, primarily related to increases in penalties for certain theft-
related crimes and the changes to the nonviolent offender release
consideration process. Increased state and local court-related costs of around
a few million dollars annually related to processing probation revocations and
additional felony theft filings. Increased state and local law enforcement costs
not likely to exceed a couple million dollars annually related to collecting and
processing DNA samples from additional offenders.[10]
”
Support
Keep California Safe is leading the campaign in support of the ballot initiative.[11]
Keep
California Safe named the ballot initiative the Reducing Crime and Keeping California
Safe Act.[1]
The campaign is a project of the California Public Safety Partners
(CAPSP).[2]
Supporters
Officials
 Asm. Jim Cooper (D-9)[12]
 Asm. Vince Fong (R-34)[13]
Municipalities
 Orange County Board of Supervisors[14]
Organizations
 Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs[15]
 Los Angeles Police Protective League[15]
 Peace Officers Research Association of California[15]
Businesses
 Albertsons Safeway[15]
Arguments
 Asm. Jim Cooper (D-9) said, "Right now California crimes that are considered nonserious
and nonviolent—and that allow you to get out of jail or prison earlier—are drugging and
raping somebody, raping a developmentally disabled person, spousal abuse, a drive-by
shooting, human trafficking of a child. So a myriad of different crimes, some 17 to be exact.
The public never had any idea. These were not considered serious or violent crimes in the
state of California. When they hear it they're shocked."[16]
Opposition

Opponents
Officials
 Gov. Jerry Brown (D)[17]
Organizations
 American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California[15]
Unions
Arguments
 Ana Zamora, director of prosecutorial reform for the ACLU of Northern California, said,
"They would like us to believe that California is in dire straits in order to reverse many of the
reforms we have put in place since 2012. ... We urge the proponents of this new effort to
reject the Trump Administration’s return to the failed 1990’s era of harsh sentencing and
mass incarceration, as the voters of this state have consistently done, and instead work
toward keeping California’s crime rates the lowest in history."[2]
Support
The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in
support of the initiative.[15]
Committe
e
Cash
Contribution
s
In-Kind
Contribution
s
Total
Contribution
s
Cash
Expenditure
s
Total
Expenditure
s
Keep
California
Safe
$3,731,671.00 $232,622.90 $3,964,293.90 $2,132,855.59 $2,365,478.49
Protecting
California
Cooper
Ballot
Measure
Committee
$29,500.00 $0.00 $29,500.00 $12,629.39 $12,629.39
Total $3,761,171.00 $232,622.90 $3,993,793.90 $2,145,484.98 $2,378,107.88
Donors
The following were the top five donors who contributed to the support committee.[15]
Donor
Cash
Contributions
In-Kind
Contributions
Total
Contributions
California Correctional
Peace Officers Association
$2,000,000.00 $0.00 $2,000,000.00

Truth in American
Government Fund
Association For Los
Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
PIC
$200,000.00 $0.00 $200,000.00
Los Angeles Police
Protective League Issues
PAC
$200,000.00 $0.00 $200,000.00
Jim Cooper for Assembly
2018
$125,000.00 $0.00 $125,000.00
Albertsons Safeway $100,000.00 $0.00 $100,000.00
California Correctional Peace Officers Association
In December 2018, the California Correctional Peace Officers Association's (CCPOA)
political fund contributed $2 million to the Keep California Safe PAC. On January 14,
2019, CCPOA president Kurt Stoetzl asked the PAC to return the contribution. Stoetzl
said, "As you aware, during the last week of December 2018, CCPOA contributed two
million dollars to your Issues Committee. As you may not be aware, this contribution
was made by our past president in the final hours of his term. This contribution was
made without the new leadership of CCPOA having the opportunity to evaluate the
proposed initiative, to determine if the goals of your Issues Committee, and the initiative,
are in step in the goals of CCPOA." Stoetzl said the CCPOA wanted the contribution
back "so that we can evaluate your positions and determine whether or not we are in
support."[19]
Opposition
opposition to the initiative.[15]
Committee
Cash
Contribution
s
In-Kind
Contribution
s
Total
Contribution
s
Cash
Expenditure
s
Total
Expenditure
s
California
Public
Safety and
Rehabilitatio
n
$500,000.00 $0.00 $500,000.00 $79,523.50 $79,523.50

Committee
for California
Issues PAC
$260,478.31 $49,500.00 $309,978.31 $103,689.72 $153,189.72
Total $760,478.31 $49,500.00 $809,978.31 $183,213.22 $232,713.22
Donors
The following were the top donors to the opposition committee.[15]
Donor
Cash
Contributions
In-Kind
Contributions
Total
Contributions
Lynn Schusterman $250,000.00 $0.00 $250,000.00
Patty Quillin $250,000.00 $0.00 $250,000.00
American Civil Liberties
Union of Northern
California
$200,000.00 $49,500.00 $249,500.00
Governor Brown's Ballot
Measure Committee
$60,478.31 $0.00 $60,478.31
California's state imprisonment rate
Prior to the enactment of AB 109's Postrelease Community Supervision Act (PCSA) on
July 1, 2011, the state's imprisonment rate was 431 inmates per 100,000 residents. The
next year the imprisonment rate was 356 inmates per 100,000 residents. In 2019, the
rate fell to 317 inmates. The following graph illustrates the state's imprisonment rate
from 1995 through 2019. Rates were calculated using the CDCR's prison population
reports and the U.S. Census Bureau's annual population estimates.[36][37]
 The first orange bar represents the enactment of AB 109's PCSA on July 1, 2011.
 The second orange bar represents the enactment of Proposition 47 following the election on
November 4, 2014.
 The third orange bar represents July 1, 2017—the date when the CDCR started referring
inmates for Proposition 57's parole program.

California Proposition 21, Local Rent Control Initiative (2020)
A "yes" vote supports this ballot initiative to allow local governments to enact
rent control on housing that was first occupied over 15 years ago, with an
exception for landlords who own no more than two homes with distinct titles
or subdivided interests.
A "no" vote opposes this ballot initiative, thereby continuing to prohibit rent
control on housing that was first occupied after February 1, 1995, and
housing units with distinct titles, such as single-family homes.
Overview
What would the ballot measure change about rent control in California?
The ballot measure would replace the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act (Costa-
Hawkins), which was passed in 1995. Prior to the enactment of Costa-Hawkins, local
governments were permitted to enact rent control, provided that landlords would receive
just and reasonable returns on their rental properties. Costa-Hawkins continued to allow
local governments to use rent control, except on (a) housing that was first occupied
after February 1, 1995, and (b) housing units with distinct titles, such as condos,
townhouses, and single-family homes.[1]
The ballot measure would allow local governments to adopt rent control on housing
units, except on (a) housing that was first occupied within the last 15 years and (b) units
owned by natural persons who own no more than two housing units with separate titles,

such as single-family homes, condos, and some duplexes, or subdivided interests, such
as stock cooperatives and community apartment projects.[2]
Under Costa-Hawkins, landlords are allowed to increase rent prices to market rates
when a tenant moves out (a policy known as vacancy decontrol).[1]
The ballot measure
would require local governments that adopt rent control to allow landlords to increase
rental rates by 15 percent during the first three years following a vacancy.[2]
Overview
What would the ballot measure change about rent control in California?
The ballot measure would replace the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act (Costa-
Hawkins), which was passed in 1995. Prior to the enactment of Costa-Hawkins, local
governments were permitted to enact rent control, provided that landlords would receive
just and reasonable returns on their rental properties. Costa-Hawkins continued to allow
local governments to use rent control, except on (a) housing that was first occupied
after February 1, 1995, and (b) housing units with distinct titles, such as condos,
townhouses, and single-family homes.[1]
The ballot measure would allow local governments to adopt rent control on housing
units, except on (a) housing that was first occupied within the last 15 years and (b) units
owned by natural persons who own no more than two housing units with separate titles,
such as single-family homes, condos, and some duplexes, or subdivided interests, such
as stock cooperatives and community apartment projects.[2]
Under Costa-Hawkins, landlords are allowed to increase rent prices to market rates
when a tenant moves out (a policy known as vacancy decontrol).[1]
The ballot measure
would require local governments that adopt rent control to allow landlords to increase
rental rates by 15 percent during the first three years following a vacancy.[2]
Support
Homeowners and Tenants United is leading the campaign in support of the ballot
initiative. The campaign is sponsored by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. Proponents
named the initiative the Rental Affordability Act.[8]
Supporters
Officials
 U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont)[9]
 U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-43)[10]
Organizations
 ACCE Action[10]

 AIDS Healthcare Foundation[10]
 Democratic Socialists of America, Los Angeles[10]
 Eviction Defense Network[10]
 National Lawyers Guild, Los Angeles[10]
Individuals
 Dolores Huerta[10]
 Michael Weinstein[11]
Arguments
 Michael Weinstein, president of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, said, "Among the 17
million renters in California, the suffering is unabated. Not only do we see increased
homelessness, but the affordability crisis has reached epic proportions with many people
paying 50 percent or more of their income to keep a roof over their head."[11]
 U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), a candidate for president in 2016 and 2020, stated,
"This initiative will allow California cities to pass sensible limits on rent increases and protect
families, seniors and veterans from skyrocketing rents. I was born and raised in a three-and-
a-half room rent-controlled apartment in Brooklyn, New York. That most minimal form of
economic security was crucial for our family, but today that type of economic security does
not exist for millions of Americans. That has got to change."[9]
Opposition
Arguments
 Sid Lakireddy, president of the California Rental Housing Association, stated, "It has been
proven time and again that rent control does not work. Voters overwhelmingly rejected the
2018 rent control initiative and Michael Weinstein’s second attempt will also be rejected. We
do not need more distractions and resources spent on failed policies but instead we need
policies that encourage more affordable and accessible housing."[11]
Support
support of the ballot initiative.[12]
Committe
e
Cash
Contribution
s
In-Kind
Contribution
s
Total
Contribution
s
Cash
Expenditure
s
Total
Expenditure
s
Homeowner
s and
$4,155,007.00 $959,572.27 $5,114,579.27 $3,808,973.55 $4,768,545.82

Tenants
United
Total $4,155,007.00 $959,572.27 $5,114,579.27 $3,808,973.55 $4,768,545.82
Donors
The following was the top donor to the support committee.[12]
Donor
Cash
Contributions
In-Kind
Contributions
Total
Contributions
AIDS Healthcare
Foundation
$4,152,918.00 $959,572.27 $5,112,490.27
Opposition
The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in
opposition to the ballot initiative.[12]
Committe
e
Cash
Contribution
s
In-Kind
Contribution
s
Total
Contribution
s
Cash
Expenditure
s
Total
Expenditure
s
Californians
for
Responsibl
e Housing
$6,002,219.39 $0.00 $6,002,219.39 $635,322.44 $635,322.44
Californians
for
Affordable
Housing
$183,005.59 $0.00 $183,005.59 $115,206.43 $115,206.43
Total $6,185,224.98 $0.00 $6,185,224.98 $750,528.87 $750,528.87
Donors
The following were the top five donors who contributed to the opposition committees.[12]
Donor
Cash
Contributions
In-Kind
Contributions
Total
Contributions
Californians for
Responsible Housing -
$1,012,219.14 $0.00 $1,012,219.14

General Purpose
Committee
Essex Property Trust, Inc.,
and Affiliated Entities
$1,000,000.00 $0.00 $1,000,000.00
UDR, Inc. $757,513.00 $0.00 $757,513.00
R&V Management
Corporation and Affiliates
$550,000.00 $0.00 $550,000.00
Equity Residential $426,220.00 $0.00 $426,220.00
Opposition
 Orange County Register: "Alas, Michael Weinstein, the president and CEO of the AIDS
Healthcare Foundation, is back pitching a modified but still fundamentally flawed redo of
Prop. 10. ... The proposal is predicated on the same flawed logic as Prop. 10 and would
lead to many of the same unintended consequences as Prop. 10. ... Prop. 10 2.0 should be
quickly discarded."[13]
California Proposition 22, App-Based Drivers as
Contractors and Labor Policies Initiative (2020)
A "yes" vote supports this ballot initiative to define app-based transportation
(rideshare) and delivery drivers as independent contractors and adopt labor
and wage policies specific to app-based drivers and companies.
A "no" vote opposes this ballot initiative, meaning California Assembly Bill 5
(2019) could be used to decide whether app-based drivers are employees or
independent contractors.
Overview

What would app-based drivers be classified as for employment?
The ballot initiative would consider app-based drivers to be independent contractors and
not employees or agents. Therefore, the ballot measure would override Assembly Bill
5 (AB 5), signed in September 2019, on the question of whether app-based drivers are
employees or independent contractors.[1]
The ballot initiative would define app-based drivers as workers who (a) provide delivery
services on an on-demand basis through a business’s online-enabled application or
platform or (b) use a personal vehicle to provide prearranged transportation services for
compensation via a business’s online-enabled application or platform.[1]
Examples of
companies that hire app-based drivers include Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash. The ballot
measure would not affect how AB 5 is applied to other types of workers.
What else would the ballot measure change?
The ballot measure would enact labor and wage policies specific to app-based drivers
and companies, including a net earnings floor based on 120 percent of the state's or
municipality's minimum wage and 30 cents per mile; a limit to the hours permitted to
work during a 24-hour period; healthcare subsidies; occupational accident insurance;
and accidental death insurance. The ballot measure would also require the companies
to develop anti-discrimination and sexual harassment policies.[1]
Who is behind the ballot initiative?
On August 30, 2019, three companies—DoorDash, Lyft, and Uber—each placed $30
million into campaign accounts to fund a ballot initiative campaign should the legislature
pass AB 5 without compromising with the companies. "We remain focused on reaching
a deal, and are confident about bringing this issue to the voters if necessary," said Lyft
spokesperson Adrian Durbin.[5][6][7]
Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed AB 5 on September
18 without an exemption for app-based drivers and employers. The ballot initiative was
filed on October 29, 2019. Brandon Castillo, a spokesperson for the campaign
supporting the initiative, stated, "We're going to spend what it takes to win. It's been
widely reported that three of the companies already shifted $90 million, but we're still in
the early phases. The bottom line is: We're committed to passing this."[8]
The companies
Instacart (Maplebear, Inc.) and Postmates also joined the campaign, each contributing
$10 million. Together, the five businesses had provided more than $110 million in
Support
Protect App-Based Drivers & Services is leading the campaign in support of the
ballot initiative.[12]

Supporters
Businesses
 DoorDash[13][14]
 Instacart[13][14]
 Lyft[13][14]
 Postmates[13][14]
 Uber[13][14]
Arguments
 The campaign Protect App-Based Drivers & Services stated, "If rideshare and delivery
drivers are forced to be classified as employees with set shifts, it could significantly limit the
availability and affordability of these on-demand services that benefit consumers, small
businesses and our economy. In addition, current law for independent contractors denies
companies the ability to provide many workplace protections, such as guaranteed hourly
earnings and benefits. State law also makes it difficult for rideshare and delivery service
companies to implement many customer and public safety protections."[15]
 Tecoy Porter, president of the National Action Network, Sacramento Chapter, said, "App-
based driving is under threat. That’s why we need this ballot measure to pass, to end the
uncertainty and make sure people maintain the ability to earn money on their terms, when
their schedules allow, even after this pandemic has passed."[16]
Opposition
Coalition to Protect Riders and Drivers is leading the campaign in opposition to the
ballot initiative.[17]
Opponents
Officials
 Former Vice President Joe Biden (D)[18]
 U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)[20]
Unions
 California Labor Federation[17]
 Transport Workers Union of America[21]
Arguments
 Asm. Lorena Gonzalez (D-80), who authored AB 5, said, "These billion-dollar corporations
still refuse to offer their workers what every other employee in California is entitled to:
earning the minimum wage for all hours worked, social security, normal reimbursements for
their costs, overtime pay, and the right to organize."[22]
 Art Pulaski, chief officer of the California Labor Federation, said, "This measure is another
brazen attempt by some of the richest corporations in California to avoid playing by the

same rules as all other law-abiding companies in our state. ... These CEOs spin this ballot
measure as a benefit to workers, but their corporate Hail Mary falls short. It steals
protections and pay their employees are entitled to under current law."[23]
Campaign finance
The campaign finance information on this page reflects the most recently scheduled
reports processed by Ballotpedia, which covered through March 31, 2020, and interim
reports available as of May 17, 2020. The deadline for the next scheduled reports is July
31, 2020.
Protect App-Based Drivers And Services was organized as a political action
committee (PAC) to support the ballot initiative. Protect App-Based Drivers And
Services, along with allied committees, had raised $110.69 million, including $30.47
million from Lyft, Inc., $30.23 million from Uber Technologies, Inc., and $30.00
million from DoorDash, Inc. The PACs had expended $12.78 million.[9]
Coalition to Protect Riders and Drivers was organized as a political action
committee (PAC) to oppose the ballot initiative. The PAC had raised $690,000, with
the Transport Workers Union of America providing $500,000. The PAC had
expended $127,011.[9]
Cash
Contributions
In-Kind
Contribution
s
Total
Contributions
Cash
Expenditure
s
Total
Expenditure
s
Suppor
t
$110,000,131.5
2
$693,388.56
$110,693,520.0
8
$12,085,908.6
3
$12,779,297.1
9
Oppos
e
$690,000.00 $0.00 $690,000.00 $127,011.48 $127,011.48
Support
The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees
in support of the initiative.[9]
Committe
e
Cash
Contribution
s
In-Kind
Contributio
ns
Total
Contribution
s
Cash
Expenditur
es
Total
Expenditur
es
Protect App-
Based
Drivers And
Services
$110,000,000.
00
$690,578.95
$110,690,578.
95
$12,085,666.
14
$12,776,245.
09

Californians
for
Innovation
and
Opportunity
$0.00 $2,809.61 $2,809.61 $0.00 $2,809.61
Californians
to Protect
Worker
Independen
ce and
Consumer
Choice
$131.52 $0.00 $131.52 $242.49 $242.49
Total
$110,000,131.
52
$693,388.56
$110,693,520.
08
$12,085,908.
63
$12,779,297.
19
Donors
The following were the top five donors who contributed to the support committees.[9]
Donor
Cash
Contributions
In-Kind
Contributions
Total
Contributions
Lyft, Inc. $30,000,000.00 $468,172.96 $30,468,172.96
Uber Technologies, Inc. $30,000,000.00 $232,517.69 $30,232,517.69
DoorDash, Inc. $30,000,000.00 $1,638.30 $30,001,638.30
Maplebear Inc., DBA
InstaCart
$10,000,000.00 $0.00 $10,000,000.00
Postmates Inc. $10,000,000.00 $0.00 $10,000,000.00
Opposition
The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees
in opposition to the initiative.[9]
Committe
e
Cash
Contribution
s
In-Kind
Contribution
s
Total
Contribution
s
Cash
Expenditure
s
Total
Expenditure
s
Coalition to
Protect
$690,000.00 $0.00 $690,000.00 $127,011.48 $127,011.48

Riders and
Drivers
Total $690,000.00 $0.00 $690,000.00 $127,011.48 $127,011.48
Donors
The following were the top five donors who contributed to the opposition
committee.[9]
Donor
Cash
Contributions
In-Kind
Contributions
Total
Contributions
Transport Workers Union
of America
$500,000.00 $0.00 $500,000.00
Working Families Issues
Committee, sponsored by
the California Labor
Federation, AFL-CIO
$95,000.00 $0.00 $95,000.00
Council Issues Committee
$75,000.00 $0.00 $75,000.00
District Council of
Ironworkers Political
Issues Committee
$10,000.00 $0.00 $10,000.00
International Union of
Operating Engineers Local
12
$5,000.00 $0.00 $5,000.00
California Proposition 23, Dialysis Clinic Requirements
Initiative (2020)
A "yes" vote supports this ballot initiative to require chronic dialysis clinics
to: have an on-site physician while patients are being treated; report data on
dialysis-related infections; obtain consent from the state health department
before closing a clinic; and not discriminate against patients based on the
source of payment for care.
A "no" vote opposes this ballot initiative to require chronic dialysis clinics to:
have an on-site physician while patients are being treated; report data on

dialysis-related infections; obtain consent from the state health department
before closing a clinic; and not discriminate against patients based on the
source of payment for care.
Overview
What would this ballot initiative require of dialysis clinics?
The ballot measure would require chronic dialysis clinics to:[1]
 have a minimum of one licensed physician present at the clinic while patients are being
treated, with an exception for when there is a bona fide shortage of physicians;
 report data on dialysis-related infections to the state health department and National
Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN);
 require the principal officer of the clinic to certify under penalty of perjury that he or she is
satisfied, after review, that the submitted report is accurate and complete; and
 provide a written notice to the state health department and obtain consent from the state
health department before closing a chronic dialysis clinic.
The ballot measure would also state that a chronic dialysis clinic cannot "discriminate
with respect to offering or providing care" nor "refuse to offer or to provide care, on the
basis of who is responsible for paying for a patient's treatment."[1]
How does this ballot initiative relate to 2018's Proposition 8?
See also: California Proposition 8 (2018)
In 2018, 59.9 percent of voters rejected California Proposition 8, which would have
required dialysis clinics to issue refunds to patients (or patients' insurers) for profits
above 115 percent of the costs of direct patient care and healthcare
improvements.[2]
Proposition 8 (2018) and the Dialysis Clinic Requirements Initiative
(2020) were designed to enact policies related to dialysis clinics, but the specific
policies are different. Proposition 8 would have capped profits and required refunds,
whereas this year's initiative would address minimum physician staffing, data
reporting, and clinic closures.
Proposition 8, like this year's dialysis-related ballot initiative, had the support of
the SEIU-UHW West, a labor union for healthcare workers. Proposition 8
established a new front in the conflict between the SEIU-UHW West and the state's
two largest dialysis businesses, DaVita and Fresenius Medical Care. The SEIU-
UHW West said workers at dialysis clinics have been attempting to unionize since
2016, but that their employers were retaliating against pro-union employees. Kent
Thiry, CEO of DaVita, argued that "Proposition 8 puts California patients at risk in an
effort to force unionization of employees."[3]
Sean Wherley, a spokesperson for the
SEIU-UHW West, contended that dialysis workers "want these [initiative] reforms
regardless of what happens with their union efforts."[4]

Support
Californians for Kidney Dialysis Patient Protection is leading the campaign in
The SEIU-UHW West is sponsoring the campaign.[8]
Opposition
Stop the Dangerous & Costly Dialysis Proposition is leading the campaign in
Opponents
The campaign Stop the Dangerous & Costly Dialysis Proposition provided a list of
involved organizations on the campaign's website, which is available here.
Organizations
 California Medical Association[10]
 California State Conference NAACP[11]
 American Legion, Department of California[11]
 AMVETS, Department of California[11]
 California Taxpayer Protection Committee[11]
Businesses
 DaVita, Inc.[8]
 Fresenius Medical Care[8]

Cash
Contributions
In-Kind
Contributions
Total
Contributions
Cash
Expenditures
Total
Expenditures
Support $5,914,158.48 $0.00 $5,914,158.48 $5,859,759.41 $5,859,759.41
Oppose $2,021,121.00 $0.00 $2,021,121.00 $478,747.05 $478,747.05
Support
Committe
e
Cash
Contribution
s
In-Kind
Contribution
s
Total
Contribution
s
Cash
Expenditure
s
Total
Expenditure
s

Californians
for Kidney
Dialysis
Patient
Protection
$5,914,158.48 $0.00 $5,914,158.48 $5,859,759.41 $5,859,759.41
Total $5,914,158.48 $0.00 $5,914,158.48 $5,859,759.41 $5,859,759.41
Donors
Donor
Cash
Contributions
In-Kind
Contributions
Total
Contributions
SEIU-UHW West Political
Issues Committee
$5,300,000.00 $0.00 $5,300,000.00
Service Employees
International Union, United
Healthcare Workers West
(Nonprofit 501(c)(5))
$580,514.44 $0.00 $580,514.44
Opposition
Committe
e
Cash
Contribution
s
In-Kind
Contribution
s
Total
Contribution
s
Cash
Expenditure
s
Total
Expenditure
s
Stop the
Dangerous
& Costly
Dialysis
Proposition
$2,021,121.00 $0.00 $2,021,121.00 $478,747.05 $478,747.05
Total $2,021,121.00 $0.00 $2,021,121.00 $478,747.05 $478,747.05
Donors
The following were the top donors to the opposition committees.[8]
Donor
Cash
Contributions
In-Kind
Contributions
Total
Contributions

DaVita, Inc. $1,010,560.50 $0.00 $1,010,560.50
Fresenius Medical Care $1,010,560.50 $0.00 $1,010,560.50
Conflict between labor and dialysis businesses
Proposition 8 established a new front in the conflict between the SEIU-UHW West, a
labor organization, and the state's two largest dialysis businesses DaVita and Fresenius
Medical Care.
The SEIU-UHW West said workers at dialysis clinics have been attempting to unionize
since 2016, but that their employers were retaliating against pro-union
employees.[13]
Kent Thiry, CEO of DaVita, argued that "Proposition 8 puts California
patients at risk in an effort to force unionization of employees."[3][14]
Kathy Fairbanks, an
opposition spokesperson, similarly stated, "[Sponsors] want to bring the dialysis
community to the table and unionize it. This is just leverage."[15]
Wherley, a
spokesperson for the SEIU-UHW West, contended that dialysis workers "want these
[initiative] reforms regardless of what happens with their union efforts."[4]
Dave Regan
stated, "The reason Prop. 8 is on the ballot is because they have a terrible business
model and they’re gouging patients and insurers."[3]
Jim Miller, a columnist for The Sacramento Bee, and Melanie Mason, a state politics
journalist for the Los Angeles Times, both stated that the ballot initiative could also
provide the SEIU-UHW West with leverage over legislation to enact new regulations on
dialysis clinics in the California State Legislature.[4][16]
Wherley said the union was taking
a two-pronged approach, wanting to make "sure we have as many options available as
possible."[4]
In 2017, legislation was introduced, but not passed, to require staff-patient
ratios in dialysis clinics and, like the ballot initiative, limit the revenue of
businesses.[17][18][19][4][20]
California Proposition 24, Consumer Personal Information
Law and Agency Initiative (2020)
A "yes" vote supports this ballot initiative to expand the state’s consumer
data privacy laws, including provisions to allow consumers to direct
businesses to not share their personal information; remove the time period in
which businesses can fix violations before being penalized; and create the
Privacy Protection Agency to enforce the state’s consumer data privacy laws.

A "no" vote opposes this ballot initiative to expand the state’s consumer data
privacy laws or create the Privacy Protection Agency to enforce the state’s
consumer data privacy laws.
Overview
What would this ballot initiative change about the CCPA?
The ballot initiative would expand the provisions of the California Consumer Privacy Act
of 2018 (CCPA), create the California Privacy Protection Agency, and remove the ability
of businesses to fix violations before being penalized for violations. The ballot initiative
would require businesses to do the following:[1]
 not share a consumer's personal information upon the consumer's request;
 provide consumers with an opt-out option for having their sensitive personal information, as
defined in law, used or disclosed for advertising or marketing;
 obtain permission before collecting data from consumers who are younger than 16;
 obtain permission from a parent or guardian before collecting data from consumers who are
younger than 13; and
 correct a consumer's inaccurate personal information upon the consumer's request
Fiscal impact
“
Increased annual state costs of roughly $10 million for a new state agency to
monitor compliance and enforcement of consumer privacy laws. Increased
state costs, potentially reaching the low millions of dollars annually, from
increased workload to DOJ and the state courts, some or all of which would be
offset by penalty revenues. Unknown impact on state and local tax revenues
due to economic effects resulting from new requirements on businesses to
protect consumer information.[7]
”
Support
Californians for Consumer Privacy is leading the campaign in support of the ballot
initiative. Alastair Mactaggart, a real estate developer and investor based in San
Francisco, is chairperson of the campaign.[8]
Arguments
 Alastair Mactaggart, chairperson of Californians for Consumer Privacy, stated:
o "We’ve come a long way in the two years since passing the landmark California
Consumer Privacy Act, but during these times of unprecedented uncertainty, we need to

ensure that the laws keep pace with the ever-changing ways corporations and other
entities are using our data. That’s why our campaign is going to make sure all
Californians know about the new and stronger rights provided under this ballot measure,
the California Privacy Rights Act, and why we need their support in November."[9]
o "Especially post-COVID, people are going to be more sensitive to privacy concerns. I
feel strongly — and polling shows — that Californians want more control over their
information."[9]
o "Sensible companies realize this regulation is coming. This is not a burn-down-the-
whole-world law. This is not a law that, you know, puts anybody out of business."[10]
Opposition
Opponents
 Consumer Federation of California[11]
Arguments
 Richard Holober, president of the Consumer Federation of California, said, "[T]he 2020
‘privacy’ initiative would grant big business greater latitude to invade the privacy of
consumers and workers than is permitted under current law. The 2020 initiative is a missed
opportunity to strengthen privacy rights for everyday Californians. On the contrary, it
enables big corporations more opportunities to profit at the expense of our privacy."[11]

Cash
Contributions
In-Kind
Contributions
Total
Contributions
Cash
Expenditures
Total
Expenditures
Support $150,000.00 $4,596,162.03 $4,746,162.03 $77,764.30 $4,673,926.33
Oppose $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Support
Committe
e
Cash
Contribution
s
In-Kind
Contribution
s
Total
Contribution
s
Cash
Expenditure
s
Total
Expenditure
s
Californians
for
Consumer
Privacy
$150,000.00 $4,596,162.03 $4,746,162.03 $77,764.30 $4,673,926.33

Total $150,000.00 $4,596,162.03 $4,746,162.03 $77,764.30 $4,673,926.33
Donors
Donor
Cash
Contributions
In-Kind
Contributions
Total
Contributions
Alastair Mactaggart $150,000.00 $4,596,162.03 $4,746,162.03
California Proposition 25, Replace Cash Bail with Risk
Assessments Referendum (2020)
A "yes" vote is to uphold the contested legislation, Senate Bill 10 (SB 10),
which would replace cash bail with risk assessments for detained suspects
awaiting trials.
A "no" vote is to repeal the contested legislation, Senate Bill 10 (SB 10),
thus keeping in place the use of cash bail for detained suspects awaiting
trials.
Overview
How does bail work in California?
As of 2019, California utilized a cash bail system to release detained criminal suspects
before their trials. Suspects paid a cash bond to be released from jail pending trial with
the promise to return to court for trial and hearings. The cash bond was repaid to
suspects after their criminal trials were completed, no matter the outcome.[2]
The Judicial
Council of California, which is the rule-making department of the state's judicial system,
described bail as a tool to "ensure the presence of the defendant before the court." The
state's countywide superior courts were responsible for setting cash bail amounts for
crimes, and judges were permitted to adjust the cash bail amounts upward or
downward.[3]
Suspects could post bail with their own money or through a commercial
bail bond agent, who pays the full bail amount in exchange for a non-refundable
premium from suspects. In California, there was no law setting or capping premiums on
bail bonds. According to the California Department of Insurance, agents typically
charged around 10 percent.[4][5][6]

What was SB 10 designed to change about bail in California?
SB 10 was designed to make California the first state to end the use of cash bail for all
detained suspects awaiting trials.[7][8][9]
The legislation would replace the state's cash bail
system with risk assessments to determine whether a detained suspect should be
granted pretrial release and under what conditions. The risk assessments would
categorize suspects as low risk, medium risk, or high risk. Suspects deemed as having
a low risk of failing to appear in court and a low risk to public safety would be released
from jail, while those deemed a high risk would remain in jail, with a chance to argue for
their release before a judge. Those deemed a medium risk could be released or
detained, depending on the local court's rules. SB 10 would exempt suspects of
misdemeanors, with exceptions, from needing a risk assessment to be released.[1]
SB 10 would require the superior courts to establish pretrial assessment divisions,
which would be tasked with conducting risk assessments and making recommendations
for conditions of release. The state Judicial Council would decide which risk assessment
tools are valid for use. SB 10 would not itself mandate what factors the assessment
tools need to consider, but the bill would state that "tools shall be demonstrated by
scientific research to be accurate and reliable."[1]
How did the veto referendum get on the ballot?
In the California State Legislature, most Democrats (67 of 81) supported SB 10, while
just one (of 39) Republican supported the legislation.[10]
California Gov. Jerry Brown (D)
signed SB 10 on August 28, 2018, and the veto referendum to overturn the bill was filed
on August 29. Sen. Robert Hertzberg (D-18), the bill’s lead sponsor, described SB 10 as
a "transformational shift away from valuing private wealth and toward protecting public
safety."[11]
He also said that upholding the legislation "is ground zero in the fight over
criminal justice reform."[12]
The American Bail Coalition, a nonprofit trade association, organized the political action
committee Californians Against the Reckless Bail Scheme to lead the effort to repeal SB
10 through a veto referendum.[13]
Jeff Clayton, the coalition's executive director, stated,
"The only debate we’re having right now is: Is the current system worse than the
alternative? And the answer is, no, it’s not."[14]
The PAC had reported raising $3.58
million through December 31, 2019. The top ten donors to the committee were bail bond
businesses, owners of bail bond businesses, or companies that provided services or
insurance to bail bond businesses. David Quintana, a California Bail Agents Association
lobbyist, said, “You don’t eliminate an industry and expect those people to go down
quietly.”[15]
California's three ACLU affiliates opposed SB 10, issuing a joint statement that said:
"SB 10 is not the model for pretrial justice and racial equity that California should strive
for." The statement called for new legislation to "address racial bias in risk assessment
tools."[16]
ACLU of North California executive director Abdi Soltani said the group would
not, however, align with bail bond businesses to overturn SB 10. Soltani stated, "Make
no mistake, the bail industry is not interested in equal justice or equal protection under
the law, they are seeking to turn back the clock to protect their bottom line."[17]

Support for "Yes" vote
Upholding Senate Bill 10 requires a "Yes" vote on the veto referendum.
Supporters
Organizations
 Action Now Initiative[20]
 NextGen California[21]
Unions
Arguments
 Sen. Robert Hertzberg (D-18), the lead legislative sponsor of SB 10, said, “Voter
referendums are supposed to be about direct democracy - now wealthy people can simply
write big checks. The reality is that California is the biggest bail market and has the highest
bail rates in the country. If these companies can delay it for a year, they can make money
for a year.”[23]
Support for "No" vote
Californians Against the Reckless Bail Scheme is leading the campaign in support of
a "No" vote (to repeal Senate Bill 10) on the veto referendum.[24]
Supporters
Officials
 Former Asm. Joe Coto (D)[25]
Municipalities
 Orange County Board of Supervisors[26]
Organizations
 American Bail Coalition[27]
 California Bail Agents Association[28]

Arguments
 Jeff Clayton, spokesperson for Californians Against the Reckless Bail Scheme, said, "This
legislation is a reckless attempt at changing the state's bail system and is fundamentally bad
for California. While we all agree that bail reform is necessary, this costly, reckless plan will
use racially-biased computer algorithms to decide who gets stuck in jail and who goes free.
That’s not right."[29]
 Former Asm. Joe Coto (D) wrote, "The biggest flaw in SB 10 is the use of computer
programs to make important justice decisions. These are the same type of algorithms that
Big Data companies use to bombard us with ads every day. While I might appreciate an
algorithm recommending books or television shows, I have long been against their use in
making determinations over insurance rates, and whether or not someone gets a home loan
or credit card. The use of algorithms has been proven to discriminate against the poor,
minorities and people who live in certain neighborhoods. Relying on algorithms to make
important criminal justice decisions is even more appalling."[25]

Cash
Contributions
In-Kind
Contributions
Total
Contributions
Cash
Expenditures
Total
Expenditures
Support $1,300,000.00 $48,004.09 $1,348,004.09 $323,043.43 $371,047.52
Oppose $3,961,947.00 $0.00 $3,961,947.00 $3,708,363.69 $3,708,363.69
Support for "yes" vote
The contribution and expenditure totals for the committee advocating for a "yes" vote on
the referendum (uphold the law) were as follows:[30]
Committe
e
Cash
Contribution
s
In-Kind
Contribution
s
Total
Contribution
s
Cash
Expenditure
s
Total
Expenditure
s
End
Predatory &
Unfair
Money Bail
$1,300,000.00 $48,004.09 $1,348,004.09 $323,043.43 $371,047.52
Californians
for Bail
Reform
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Total $1,300,000.00 $48,004.09 $1,348,004.09 $323,043.43 $371,047.52

Donors
The following were the top five donors who contributed to End Predatory & Unfair
Money Bail:[30]
Donor
Cash
Contributions
In-Kind
Contributions
Total
Contributions
Action Now Initiative $500,000.00 $0.00 $500,000.00
Lynn Schusterman $250,000.00 $0.00 $250,000.00
Patty Quillin $250,000.00 $0.00 $250,000.00
Council
$250,000.00 $0.00 $250,000.00
NextGen California
Sponsored by NextGen
Climate Action
$50,000.00 $0.00 $50,000.00
Support for "no" vote
The contribution and expenditure totals for the committee advocating for a "no" vote on
the referendum (repeal the law) were as follows:[30]
Committe
e
Cash
Contribution
s
In-Kind
Contribution
s
Total
Contribution
s
Cash
Expenditure
s
Total
Expenditure
s
Californians
Against the
Reckless
Bail
Scheme
$3,961,947.00 $0.00 $3,961,947.00 $3,708,363.69 $3,708,363.69
Total $3,961,947.00 $0.00 $3,961,947.00 $3,708,363.69 $3,708,363.69
Donors
The following were the top five donors who contributed to Californians Against the
Reckless Bail Scheme:[30]
Donor
Cash
Contributions
In-Kind
Contributions
Total
Contributions

Triton Management
Services, LLC
$921,633.31 $0.00 $921,633.31
Bankers Insurance
Company
$571,027.40 $0.00 $571,027.40
Lexington National
Insurance Corporation
$531,728.76 $0.00 $531,728.76
Financial Casualty &
Surety, Inc.
$444,495.88 $0.00 $444,495.88
AIA Holdings Inc. $333,212.85 $0.00 $333,212.85
[hide]California Proposition 25, Replace Cash Bail with Risk Assessments
Referendum (2020)
Poll
Support
for "Yes"
vote
(uphold
law)
Oppose
for "No"
vote
(repeal
law)
Undecided
Margin
of error
Sample
size
UC Berkeley
Institute of
Governmental
Studies
9/13/2019 -
9/18/2019
39.0% 32.0% 29.0% +/-2.0 3,945
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those
displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate
another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Not on the ballot
The list below contains measures that were proposed and reached a certain stage in
the initiative or referral process, but did not make the ballot.
Type ID Des
CICA #17-0055 Tax on Commercial and Industrial Properties for Education and
CISS #18-0001 Independence Referendum in 2021 Initiative
CISS #18-0002 Repeal the Sanctuary State Law Initiative
CICA #18-0003 Sports Wagering Initiative
CICA #18-0004 Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Initiative
CISS #18-0005 U.S. Citizenship Required to Vote Initiative
CICA #18-0006 Property Tax Transfer Initiative
CISS #18-0007 Repeal Data Collection on Police Officers' Stops Initiative
CISS #18-0008 Changes to Criminal Realignment Policies Initiative
CICA #18-0010 Transportation Lockbox and Terminate High-Speed Rail Initiativ
CISS #18-0011 Child Custody Determination by Jury Initiative
CISS #19-0002 Alimony Limited to Five Years Initiative
CICA #19-0004 Property Tax Transfer Initiative
CISS #19-0005 Bonds for Climate Impact Mitigation Initiative
CICA #19-0006 Cash Bail in Constitution Initiative
CICA #19-0007 Hydroelectric Included as Renewable and Zero-Carbon Resourc
CISS #19-0009 Electronic Signatures for Initiative, Referendum, and Recall Initia
CISS #19-0010 Marijuana Legal Regulations Initiative
CISS #19-0011 Marijuana Legal Regulations Initiative
CICA #19-0012 Unicameral Nonpartisan Legislature Initiative
CICA #19-0013 Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative
VR #19-0014 SB 276 Referendum: Vaccination Medical Exemptions Review
VR #19-0015 SB 714 Referendum: Vaccination Medical Exemptions Review
CISS #19-0016 Psilocybin Mushroom Decriminalization Initiative
CISS #19-0017 Consumer Personal Information Law and Agency Initiative
CISS #19-0018 Changes to Medical Malpractice Lawsuits Cap Initiative
CISS #19-0019 Consumer Personal Information Law and Agency Initiative
CISS #19-0020 Herbicides and Pesticides Reduction
CICA #19-0023 Tax on Income Above One Million for Education Funding Initiativ
CISS #19-0024 Intervention Predicate Crimes and Treatment Court Initiative
CISS #19-0027 Psilocybin Mushroom Decriminalization Initiative
CISS #19-0028 Packaging Waste Reduction Regulations Initiative
CISS #19-0029 Legalize Sports Betting on American Indian Lands Initiative

CISS #19-0030 Dialysis Clinic Requirements and Notice to Close Initiative
CISS #19-0031 Ban Sale and Registration of Gasoline and Diesel Passenger Ve
CISS #19-0032 Air Pollution Control Districts to Direct Ozone Reduction Initiative
CISS #19-0033 Child Custody Determination by Jury Initiative
LRCA SCA 6 Legalize Sports Betting Amendment
LRCA ACA 8 Voting for 17-Year-Olds Amendment
LRCA ACA 14 University of California Contract Labor Standards Amendment
LRCA ACA 25 State of Emergency Remote Legislature Amendment
LRCA SCA 1 Repeal Article 34 Local Referendum Requirement for Low-Rent
LRCA SCA 2 Recall Elections Amendment
BI AB 694 Veterans Housing and Homeless Prevention Bond
BI SB 45 Wildfire, Water, and Climate Change Projects Bond

California 2020 ballot propositions

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to California 2020 ballot propositions

Similar to California 2020 ballot propositions (20)

More from Southwest Riverside County Association of Realtors

More from Southwest Riverside County Association of Realtors (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (15)

California 2020 ballot propositions