California

RESULTS

1254 Total Items
California
“None of the Above” Ballot Option. Initiative Statute.
Proposition 23
Election:
Primary

2000

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 36%)
Topic Areas:
Elections

Summary: Click for Summary
This measure would require that all election ballots for federal and state offices shown in Figure 1 provide voters with the option of voting for “none of the above.” A voter could cast a ballot for “none of the above” in a general, special, primary, or recall election for those offices. Elections for judges and local offices would not include the option of voting for “none of the above.”



Under this measure, only votes cast for candidates whose names appear on the ballot or for write-in candidates would be counted when determining the nomination or election of candidates for those state and federal offices. The number of voters selecting “none of the above” would be reported in official election returns but would not affect the outcome of the election.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:



Generally minor costs to state and county governments.

[S]


1988 School Facilities Bond Act
Proposition 79
Election:
General

1988

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 61.2%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Education: PreK-12

Summary: Click for Summary
This act provides for a bond issue of eight hundred million dollars ($800,000,000) to provide capital outlay for construction or improvement of public schools.


1990 School Facilities Bond Act
Proposition 123
Election:
Primary

1990

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 57.5%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Education: PreK-12

Summary: Click for Summary
This act provides for a bond issue of eight hundred million dollars ($800,000,000), to provide capital outlay for construction or improvement of public schools.

[S/BOND]


1992 School Facilities Bond Act
Proposition 155
Election:
General

1992

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 51.8%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Education: PreK-12

Summary: Click for Summary
This act provides for a bond issue of nine hundred million dollars ($900,000,000) to provide capital outlay for construction or improvement of public schools. Appropriates money from state General Fund to pay off bonds.

[S/BOND]


1998 Indian Gaming Compacts. Referendum Statute.
Proposition 29
Election:
Primary

2000

Type:
Popular Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 53.1%)
Topic Areas:
Gambling & Lotteries | State-Tribal Relations

Summary: Click for Summary
If approved by the voters, this proposition would allow the Pala compacts approved by the Governor and the Legislature in 1998 to go into effect.



The Pala compact authorizes the operation of Indian “video lottery terminals” if they operate as lotteries, not slot machines. The compact contains a provision that if the terminals are found by the courts to be slot machines, then the compact is void. The Pala compact does not allow any other Class III games (such as twenty-one or craps).



These compacts, however, would not go into effect if the voters approve Proposition 1A on this ballot. This is because the newer compacts approved in September 1999 become effective if Proposition 1A is approved and the federal government approves the compacts. In this case, the September 1999 compacts replace all previously approved compacts–including the Pala compacts.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:



– If Proposition 1A (on this ballot) is approved, Proposition 29 would have no fiscal impact on state and local governments.

– If Proposition 1A is not approved, Proposition 29 would result in unknown, but probably not significant fiscal impacts on state and local governments.

[S]


Abolition of Poll Tax
Proposition 10
Election:
General

1914

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 52.0%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law | Elections

Summary: Click for Summary
No poll tax or head tax for any purpose whatsoever shall be levied or collected in the State of California.

[CA]


Absence of Judicial Officers from State. Authorizing Legislature to Change Number of Superior Judges.
Proposition 24
Election:
General

1930

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 47.2%)
Topic Areas:
Judiciary

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends Section 9, Article VI, of Constitution. Prohibits Legislature from granting leave of absence to any judicial officer declares any such officer who absents himself from State for more than sixty consecutive days forfeits his office, but Governor may, on terms fixed by him, extend said period. Authorizes Legislature, by two-thirds vote of each house, to increase or diminish number of Superior Court judges in any county or city and county, but any reduction shall not affect elected judge.


Absent Voters
Proposition 17
Election:
General

1920

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 49.0%)
Topic Areas:
Elections

Summary: Click for Summary
Authorizes legislative provision permitting registered voters, absent from their voting precincts at any primary or general election because of occupation requiring travel or military or naval service other than in United States regular army or navy, to vote in home precinct prior to election, or in any municipality within state on election day, and those in such service wherever in United States at least fifty thereof are stationed on election day; and provides for counting such votes by such methods as Legislature may prescribe.


Absent Voters
Proposition 4
Election:
General

1918

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 42.9%)
Topic Areas:
Elections

Summary: Click for Summary
Assembly Constitutional Amendment 1. Adds proviso to Section 1. Article II of Constitution authorizing legislative provision permitting registered voters, absent from their voting precincts at any primary or general election because of occupation requiring travel or military or naval service other than in United States regular army or navy, to vote in home precinct prior to election, or in any municipality within state on election day and those in such service wherever in United States at least fifty thereof are stationed on election day, and providing for counting such votes by such methods as legislature may prescribe.


Absent Voters
Proposition 22
Election:
General

1922

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 50.9%)
Topic Areas:
Elections

Summary: Click for Summary
Assembly Constitutional Amendment 13, amending Section 1 of Article II of Constitution. Adds to present section proviso authorizing legislative provision permitting registered voters, absent from their voting precincts at any primary or general election because of occupation requiring travel or federal or state military or naval service, to vote in home precinct prior to election, or at any municipality within this state on election day, or at any place if engaged in such service, all votes cast elsewhere than in home precinct to be received by county clerk of home precinct within two weeks of election.


Absent Voters
Proposition 18
Election:
General

1928

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 76.5%)
Topic Areas:
Elections

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends Section 1, Article II, of Constitution. Extends to those voters engaged in the civil or congressional service of the United States or of the state the same privilege now possessed by those engaged in the military or naval service of casting their votes, at any primary or general election, at any place under such provisions as the Legislature may prescribe.


Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).
Proposition 64
Election:
General

1986

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 29.3%)
Topic Areas:
Health

Summary: Click for Summary
Declares that AIDS is an infectious, contagious and communicable disease and that the condition of being a carrier of the HTLV-III virus is an infectious, contagious and communicable condition. Requires both be placed on the list of reportable diseases and conditions maintained by the director of the Department of Health Services. Provides that both are subject to quarantine and isolation statutes and regulations. Provides that Department of Health Services personnel and all health officers shall fulfill the duties and obligations set forth in specified statutory provisions to preserve the public health from AIDS. Summary of Legislative Analyst’s estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact: The fiscal effect of the measure could vary greatly depending upon how it would be interpreted by public health officers and the courts. If only existing discretionary communicable disease controls were applied to the AIDS disease, given the current state of medical knowledge, there would be no substantial change in state and local costs as a direct result of this measure. If the measure were interpreted to require added control measures, depending upon the level of activity taken, the cost of implementing these measures could range to hundreds of millions of dollars per year.

[S]


Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome — AIDS.
Proposition 69
Election:
Primary

1988

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 32.0%)
Topic Areas:
Health

Summary: Click for Summary
Declares that AIDS is an infectious, contagious and communicable disease and that the condition of being a carrier of the HTLV-III virus or other AIDS-causing viral agent is an infectious, contagious and communicable condition. Requires each be placed on the list of reportable diseases and conditions maintained by the Department of Health Services. Provides each is subject to quarantine and isolation statutes and regulations. Provides that Health Services Department personnel and all health officers shall fulfill the duties and obligations set forth in specified statutory provisions to preserve the public health from AIDS.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact:

The net fiscal impact of this measure is unknown — and could vary greatly, depending on what actions are taken by health officers and the courts to implement it. If current practices used for the control of AIDS are continued, there would be no substantial change in direct costs. If the measure were interpreted to require changes in AIDS control measures by state local health officers, depending upon the level of activity, the cost of implementing it could range from millions to hundreds of millions of dollars.

[S]


Acquisition of Land for Public Improvements
Proposition 10
Election:
General

1928

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 73.4%)
Topic Areas:
Natural Resources | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Adds Section 14 1/2 to Article I of Constitution. Authorizes State, county or city to acquire land by gift, purchase or condemnation, for memorial grounds, streets, squares, parkways and reservations, limited to parcels within one hundred fifty feet of closest boundary of such improvement; when parcels lie partially within such limit only portions thereof within two hundred feet of such boundary may be acquired; after improvement completed land not necessary therefor may be conveyed, with reservations concerning future use so as to protect the improvements; Legislature to prescribe procedure.


Acquisition of Rights of Way by State
Proposition 9
Election:
General

1928

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 78.8%)
Topic Areas:
Land Use/Property Rights | Transportation

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends Section 14, Article I, of Constitution. Confers upon the State the same power now possessed by municipal corporations and counties to appropriate a right of way without full compensation therefor being first made in money or ascertained and paid into court for the owner, but requires that in any action to acquire such right of way security shall be given for immediate payment to the owner of just compensation for the property so taken as soon as the amount thereof can be ascertained according to law.


Administration of Justice
Proposition 10
Election:
General

1960

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 74.4%)
Topic Areas:
Judiciary

Summary: Click for Summary
Provides that membership of Judicial Council besides judges shall include members of State Bar and two legislators; permits appointment of administrative director. Creates Commission on Judicial Qualifications consisting of judges, members of State Bar and citizens; provides procedure for removal of judges for misconduct or to compel retirement for disability. Declares State Bar of California is a public corporation. Changes name of Commission on Qualifications to Commission on Judicial Appointments.


Administrative Agencies
Proposition 5
Election:
Primary

1978

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 54.5%)
Topic Areas:
State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Adds section 3.5 to article III of Constitution to preclude administrative agency, even if created by Constitution or initiative, from (1) declaring a statute unconstitutional or (2) declaring a statute to be unenforceable or refusing to enforce a statute, because of unconstitutionality or because federal law or regulations prohibit enforcement, unless appellate court has made such determination. Financial impact: Increases or decreases in government costs or revenue during period before constitutionality or enforceability is determined by appellate court.

[CA]


Adoption and Amendment of Municipal Charters
Proposition 25
Election:
General

1914

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 55.7%)
Topic Areas:
Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
[Summary from Hastings Law Library California Ballot Measures Database]

Authorizes cities of more than thirty-five hundred population to adopt charters; prescribes method therefor, and time for preparation thereof by freeholders; requires but one publication thereof, copies furnished upon application; provides for approval by legislature, method and time for amendment, and that of several conflicting concurrent amendments one receiving highest vote shall prevail; authorizes charter to confer on municipality all powers over municipal affairs, to establish boroughs and confer thereon general and special municipal powers.

[Constitutional Amendment]


After School Programs. State Grants. Initiative Statute.
Proposition 49
Election:
General

2002

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 56.6%)
Topic Areas:
Education: PreK-12

Summary: Click for Summary
Increases state grant funds available for before and after school programs providing tutoring, homework assistance, and educational enrichment. Establishes priority for continued funding level for schools already receiving grants. Makes public elementary, middle and junior high schools, including charter schools, eligible for grants ranging from $50,000 to $75,000. Provides priority for additional funding for schools with predominantly low-income students. Declares that funding for before and after school programs shall be above Proposition 98 base funding, and at least $85 million for first year increasing to $550 million annually if state revenues grow.



Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments:



This measure would have a major fiscal effect of additional annual state costs for before and after school programs that could exceed $400 million annually, beginning in 2004-2005.

[S]


Aged and Blind Act
Proposition 4
Election:
General

1948

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 51%)
Topic Areas:
Human Services

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[CA]


Aged and Blind Act
Proposition 2
Election:
Special

1949

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 57.5%)
Topic Areas:
Human Services

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[CA]


Agricultural Labor Relations
Proposition 22
Election:
General

1972

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 42.1%)
Topic Areas:
Agriculture | Labor & Employment

Summary: Click for Summary
Sets forth permissible and prohibited labor relation activities of agricultural employers, employees, and labor organizations. Makes specified types of strikes, picketing, and boycotts unlawful. Defines unfair labor practices. Creates Agricultural Labor Relations Board with power to certify organizations as bargaining representatives, conduct elections therefor, prevent unfair labor practices, and investigate and hold hearings relating to enforcement of Act. Provides Board’s orders are reviewable and enforceable by courts. Provides interference with Board’s performance of duties or commission of defined unlawful acts is punishable by fine and/or imprisonment. Financial impact: Cost increase to state of $600,000 per year.

[S]


Agricultural Labor Relations – Initiative Statute
Proposition 14
Election:
General

1976

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 37.8%)
Topic Areas:
Agriculture | Labor & Employment

Summary: Click for Summary
Repeals Agricultural Labor Relations Act of 1975; reenacts as Agricultural Labor Relations Act of 1976. Makes technical amendments to maintain status quo under 1975 Act, except requires new appointments to Agricultural Labor Relations Board. Additional amendments require: access for union organizers to property of employers for certain periods; minimum of 50% of employees to petition for decertification of union; Legislature to provide appropriations necessary to carry out the Act; Board to provide employer-supplied lists of agricultural employees to persons involved in elections. Permits Board to award treble damages for unfair labor practices. Financial impact: Proposition would result in minor, if any, increased costs to the state.

[S]


Aid to Needy Aged
Proposition 4
Election:
General

1954

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 45.4%)
Topic Areas:
Human Services

Summary: Click for Summary
This initiative measure would add Article XXVIII to the Constitution and would increase the maximum amount of aged aid payable to persons eligible therefor under the Welfare and Institutions Code from $80, as now fixed by statute, to $100. It would authorize the Legislature to increase, but not to decrease, the $100 amount.



It would provide that all money paid to a recipient of aged aid is intended to help him meet his individual needs and is not paid for the benefit of, or to be construed as income to, any other person.



This measure would appropriate from the State Treasury the sum which is necessary to pay the State share, as determined by law, of the cost of aged aid to each eligible aged person, after deducting Federal assistance payments and sums otherwise appropriated or made available by law for such aid. The amendment states that it is not intended to prevent the Legislature from determining the extent, if any, to which the counties of the State shall be required to participate in the cost of such aid.



If adopted by the people, this measure will become operative on the first day of the fourth month following the month in which it was adopted.

[CA]


Aid to Widows of Veterans
Proposition 12
Election:
General

1962

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 4935%)
Topic Areas:
Human Services | Military & Veterans Affairs

Summary: Click for Summary
Provides that State money or credit can be used in aiding widows of veterans who served during time of war in acquiring or paying for farms or homes.


Air Quality Improvement. Tax Credits. Initiative Statute.
Proposition 7
Election:
General

1998

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 43.6%)
Topic Areas:
Environmental Protection | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Authorizes $218 million in state tax credits annually, until January 2011, to encourage air-emissions reductions through the acquisition, conversion, and retrofitting of vehicles and equipment.

[S]


Alcohol Surtax. Constitutional Amendment.
Proposition 134
Election:
General

1990

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 31.0%)
Topic Areas:
Drug/Alcohol/Tobacco Policy | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
– Establishes Alcohol Surtax Fund in State Treasury.

– Imposes surtax of five cents per 12 ounces beer, 5 ounces most wines, 1 ounce distilled spirits.

– Imposes additional per unit floor stock tax.

– Proceeds deposited into Alcohol Surtax Fund.

– Guarantees 1989-90 nonsurtax funding with required annual adjustments, and appropriates Surtax Fund revenues for increased funding for alcohol and drug abuse prevention, treatment and recovery programs (24%); emergency medical care (25%); community mental health programs (15%); child abuse and domestic violence prevention training and victim services (15%); alcohol and drug related law enforcement costs, other programs (21%).



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:



Surtax would increase tax on beer from 4 cents to 57 cents per gallon, most wines from 1 cent to $1.29 per gallon, and distilled spirits from $2 to $8.40 per gallon.

[CA]


Alcoholic Beverage Control
Proposition 3
Election:
General

1954

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 66.3%)
Topic Areas:
Business & Commerce | Drug/Alcohol/Tobacco Policy

Summary: Click for Summary
This constitutional amendment would place the existing alcoholic beverage regulatory powers of the State Board of Equalization, other than those relating to excise taxes on alcoholic beverages, in a Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control to be administered by a Director of Alcoholic Beverage Control.



The director would be appointed by the Governor, subject to confirmation by a majority vote of all the members elected to the Senate, and would serve at the Governor’s pleasure. He would also be removable from office by the Legislature for dereliction of duty, corruption, or incompetency, by a majority vote of all members elected to each house on a concurrent resolution introduced by at least five members of the Senate, or ten members of the Assembly, as joint authors. The director would be authorized to employ four persons exempt from civil service.



In addition to the existing constitutional ground for disciplinary action against a liquor licensee (that is, that the granting or continuance of the license would be contrary to public welfare or morals), this measure would authorize the department to deny, suspend, or revoke a license if the person seeking or holding a license has violated any law prohibiting conduct involving moral turpitude.



The measure would also provide for an Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board consisting of three members who would be required to be, at the time originally appointed, from different counties. The members would be appointed and be removable from office in the same manner as the Director of Alcoholic Beverage Control.



Any person aggrieved by a decision of the department ordering any penalty assessment, or issuing, denying, transferring, suspending, or revoking any license, would be entitled to appeal to the board, and the board would review the decision, subject to limitations imposed by the Legislature. The review would be limited to specified questions of law, and the board would be prohibited from receiving any additional evidence. The board, if it reverses the department’s decision, could direct a reconsideration of the matter and could direct the department to take further action as required by law; but the board could not limit or control the discretion vested by law in the department. Orders of the board would be subject to judicial review upon petition of the director or any party aggrieved thereby.



The measure would authorize the Legislature to enact laws implementing it and not inconsistent with it, but would prohibit the Legislature from constituting the State or any agency thereof a manufacturer or seller of intoxicating liquors. In accordance with this authorization, the Legislature has enacted Chapter 20 of the 1954 First Extraordinary Session, which implements the provisions of this constitutional amendment.



The measure would authorize the Legislature, rather than the State Board of Equalization, to change on-sale license fees.



The measure, if adopted, would become operative January 1, 1955.


Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board
Proposition 18
Election:
General

1962

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 46.7%)
Topic Areas:
Business & Commerce | Drug/Alcohol/Tobacco Policy | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Provides for staggered four year term appointment of members who may be removed by Governor or Legislature for cause. Defines review power of the Board to include whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence in the light of the whole record viewed in its entirety, including the body of evidence opposed to the department’s findings.


Alcoholic Beverage Establishments
Proposition 5
Election:
General

1956

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 50.6%)
Topic Areas:
Business & Commerce | Drug/Alcohol/Tobacco Policy

Summary: Click for Summary
This amendment to Section 22 of Article XX of the Constitution would repeal the present constitutional prohibition against the sale of intoxicating liquor for consumption in public premises which are not bona fide public eating places.


The measure specifically authorizes the Legislature to provide for the issuance of licenses for the four following types of premises, in which only the alcoholic beverages specified in the licenses may be sold and served for consumption upon the premises;



(1) Bona fide public eating places, as defined by the Legislature. The Legislature has already defined this term in a law enacted to carry out the provisions of this measure (Stats. 1955, Ch. 1779). Both the constitutional amendment and the law would become operative on January 1, 1957, if the constitutional amendment is adopted.



(2) Public premises in which food shall not be sold or served as it would be in a bona fide public eating place. The Legislature, however, is authorized to permit the sale or service of food products incidental to the sale of alcoholic beverages in such premises. No person under the age of 21 years may be permitted to enter and remain in such public premises without lawful business therein.



(3) Public premises for the sale and service of beers alone.



(4) Railroad dining or club cars, passenger ships, common carriers by air, and bona fide clubs after such clubs have been lawfully operated for not less than one year, under such conditions as the Legislature may impose.



The measure expressly prohibits the sale, furnishing, giving, or causing to be sold, furnished, or given away, of alcoholic beverages to any person under the age of 21 years, and prohibits the purchase of alcoholic beverages by any person under the age of 21 years. These prohibitions have been in force as statutory provisions for many years.



The measure also specifically authorizes the Legislature to provide for the issuance of all types of licenses necessary for the manufacture, sale, purchase, possession, and transportation of alcoholic beverages.


Alcoholic Beverages. Taxes. Legislative Constitutional Amendment
Proposition 126
Election:
General

1990

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 40.9%)
Topic Areas:
Drug/Alcohol/Tobacco Policy | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
– Adds to Constitution, alcohol beverage excise tax rates, proceeds payable to General Fund.

– Increases taxes payable to State General Fund on alcoholic beverages, as of March 1, 1991 — beer, from 4 to 20 cents per gallon; specified wines from 1 to 20 cents per gallon; fortified wines from 2 to 20 cents per gallon; distilled spirits from $2.00 to $3.30 per gallon.

– Amends Constitution to exclude excise surtaxes imposed by this measure from appropriations limit, as specified.

– Provides that tax rate modifications of this measure control over conflicting provisions of Propositions 134 and 136.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:

– This measure would result in additional General Fund revenues of approximately $70 million for a portion of 1990-91 and approximately $195 million in fiscal year 1991-92, the first full year it is in effect.

– Similarly, local sales tax revenues would increase statewide by approximately $1.6 million annually.
– Revenues generated after fiscal year 1991-92 will depend upon the trends in alcohol sales.

– Adjustments are also made to the state’s constitutional spending limit to include the additional tax revenue.

[CA]


Alien Land Law
Proposition 1
Election:
General

1920

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 75.1%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law | Land Use/Property Rights

Summary: Click for Summary
Permits acquisition and transfer of real property by aliens eligible to citizenship, to same extent as citizens except as otherwise provided by law; permits other aliens, and companies, associations and corporations in which they hold majority interest, to acquire and transfer real property only as prescribed by treaty, but prohibiting appointment thereof as guardians of estates of minors consisting wholly or partially of real property or shares in such corporations; provides for escheats in certain cases; requires reports of property holdings to facilitate enforcement of act; prescribes penalties and repeals conflicting acts.

[S]


Alien Poll Tax
Proposition 11
Election:
General

1920

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 81.9%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law | Elections

Summary: Click for Summary
Requires the Legislature to provide for the levy of an annual poll tax, and the collection thereof by assessors, of not less than four dollars on every alien male inhabitant of this state over twenty-one and under sixty years of age, except paupers, idiots and insane persons, such tax to be paid into county school fund in county where collected.


Allocation of Public School Funds
Proposition 13
Election:
General

1946

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 39.4%)
Topic Areas:
Budgets | Education: PreK-12

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends Section 6, Article IX, and Section 15, Article XIII, of the Constitution. Simplifies procedure for allocating State funds for support of public school system. Eliminates necessity of making allocations for support of public schools from State General Fund by providing that sums now appropriated to such fund for support of public schools be appropriated to the State School Fund. Leaves unchanged amounts required to be raised by State for support of public school system.


Allocation Of Vehicle License Fee Taxes To Counties And Cities.
Proposition 47
Election:
Primary

1986

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 81.8%)
Topic Areas:
Local Government | Tax & Revenue | Transportation

Summary: Click for Summary
At present the state is not required by the Constitution to allocate revenue from taxes imposed pursuant to the Vehicle License Fee Law to local governments. However, specified portions of these revenues are statutorily required to be allocated to counties and cities. This measure would require all revenues from taxes imposed pursuant to the Vehicle License Fee Law to be allocated to counties and cities on and after July 1 following its adoption except fees on trailer coaches and mobilehomes and the costs of collection and refunds. Summary of Legislative Analyst’s estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact: This measure would have no direct fiscal effect. It would prevent Legislature from changing the law to take any portion of vehicle license fees away from counties and cities. However, measure would not necessarily affect either the level of state expenditures and revenues or the amount of vehicle license fees received by individual counties and cities as state still could reduce other forms of aid to local government or change existing formula for dividing vehicle license fee revenues between counties and cities.


Allowing Legislature to Enact Permanent Daylight Saving Time If Allowed by Federal Law Measure
Proposition 7
Election:
General

2018

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 59.6%)
Topic Areas:
Business & Commerce | Legislatures

Summary: Click for Summary
The measure repeals Proposition 12 from 1949, which created daylight saving time in California. It would allow the legislature to establish permanent daylight saving time by a two-thirds vote if federal law is changed to allow it.


Allows Auto Insurance Companies to Base Their Prices in Part on a Driver’s History of Insurance Coverage. Initiative Statute.
Proposition 17
Election:
Primary

2010

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 48.1%)
Topic Areas:
Insurance

Summary: Click for Summary
June 8, 2010 primary

Permits companies to reduce or increase cost of insurance depending on whether driver has a history of continuous insurance coverage.



Background
Automobile insurance is one of the major types of insurance purchased by California residents. It accounted for about $19.7 billion (36 percent) of all premiums collected by California insurers in 2008. Among the types of automobile insurance coverage available is bodily injury liability, which provides protection in the event a motorist physically injures someone else.



State Regulation of Automobile Insurance. In 1988, California voters passed Proposition 103, which requires the Insurance Commissioner to review and approve rate changes for certain types of insurance, including automobile insurance, before changes to the rates can take effect. Proposition 103 also requires that rates and premiums for automobile insurance policies be set by applying the following rating factors in decreasing order of importance: (1) the insured’s driving safety record, (2) the number of miles they drive each year, and (3) the number of years they have been driving.



The Insurance Commissioner may adopt additional rating factors to determine automobile rates and premiums. Currently, 16 optional rating factors may be used for these purposes. For example, insurance companies may provide discounts to individuals for being long-term customers of theirs. Insurance companies are prohibited, however, from offering this kind of discount to new customers who switch to them from other insurers.



In addition, Proposition 103 contains a provision related to individuals who were previously uninsured. Specifically, Proposition 103 prohibits insurance companies from using the information that an individual did not previously have automobile insurance to: (1) determine whether the individual is eligible for coverage or (2) decide the premiums charged for coverage.



Insurance Premium Tax. Insurance companies doing business in California currently pay an insurance premium tax instead of the state corporate income tax. The tax is based on the amount of insurance premiums earned in the state each year for automobile insurance as well as for other types of insurance coverage. In 2008, insurance companies paid about $247 million in premium tax revenues on automobile policies in California. These revenues are deposited into the state General Fund.



Proposal
This measure amends Proposition 103 to allow an insurance company to offer a “continuous coverage” discount on automobile insurance policies to new customers who switch their coverage from another insurer. If an insurance company chooses to provide such a discount, it must be based on the length of time the customer continuously had bodily injury liability coverage. Customers would generally be eligible for this discount so long as their coverage had not lapsed for more than 90 days in the past five years, except if any lapse was the result of a failure to pay the premium. Also, customers would still be eligible for this kind of discount under the measure if a lapse in coverage was due to military service in another country. Children residing with a parent could qualify for the discount based on their parent’s eligibility.


Alternative Energy Sources Facility Financing.
Proposition 8P
Election:
Primary

1980

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 50.2%)
Topic Areas:
Energy & Electric Utilities

Summary: Click for Summary
Not available.


Alternative Energy. Research, Production, Incentives. Tax on California Oil. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Proposition 87
Election:
General

2006

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 45.4%)
Topic Areas:
Energy & Electric Utilities | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
– Establishes $4 billion program with goal to reduce petroleum consumption by 25%, with research and production incentives for alternative energy, alternative energy vehicles, energy efficient technologies, and for education and training.

– Funded by tax of 1.5% to 6% (depending on oil price per barrel) on producers of oil extracted in California. Prohibits producers from passing tax to consumers.

– Program administered by new California Energy Alternatives Program Authority.

– Prohibits changing tax while indebtedness remains.

– Revenue excluded from appropriation limits and minimum education funding (Proposition 98) calculations.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:

– New state revenues – depending on the interpretation of the measure – from about $225 million to $485 million annually from the imposition of a severance tax on oil production, to be used to fund $4 billion in new alternative energy programs over time.

– Potential reductions of state revenues from oil production on state lands of up to $15 million annually; reductions of state corporate taxes paid by oil producers of up to $10 million annually; local property tax reductions of a few million dollars annually; and potential reductions in fuel-related excise and sales taxes.

[CA/S]


Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Renewable Energy. Bonds. Initiative Statute.
Proposition 10
Election:
General

2008

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 40.5%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Energy & Electric Utilities | Environmental Protection | Transportation

Summary: Click for Summary
BACKGROUND



State Energy and Air Quality Programs. The state administers a number of programs to promote renewable energy (such as solar and wind power), alternative clean fuels (such as natural gas), energy efficiency, and air quality improvements. Some programs provide financial incentives, such as grants, loans, loan guarantees, rebates, and tax credits. Funding for these programs has primarily come from fee revenues, although general obligation (GO) bonds more recently have been a funding source for air quality-related incentive programs.



State and Local Taxes and Local Vehicle License Fee (VLF) Revenues. State and local governments levy a number of taxes, including the sales and use tax (SUT). The SUT is levied on the final purchase price of tangible personal items, with a number of specified exemptions. The SUT has two rate components: one state and one local. The state SUT rate is currently 6.25 percent, of which 1 percent is distributed to local governments. The local SUT rate currently varies between 1 percent and 2.5 percent, depending on the local jurisdiction in which the tax is levied. Thus, the overall rate in California varies from 7.25 percent to 8.75 percent. In addition, the state collects an annual VLF on motor vehicles. Most of these VLF revenues are distributed to cities and counties. Currently, the VLF rate is equal to 0.65 percent of a motor vehicle’s depreciated purchase price.



PROPOSAL



Authority to Sell GO Bonds. This measure allows the state to sell $5 billion in GO bonds for various renewable energy, alternative fuel, energy efficiency, and air emissions reduction purposes.



The bond money primarily would (1) provide $3.4 billion for financial incentives to reduce the cost to purchase or lease high fuel economy vehicles and dedicated clean alternative fuel vehicles (primarily rebates for trucks and other medium- and heavy-duty vehicles), and (2) $1.6 billion to fund research, design, development, and deployment of renewable electricity generating technology. The measure allocates the bond funds among four accounts.



State Agency Administration of Bond Funds. The measure designates various state agencies to administer different components of the measure. Specifically, the State Board of Equalization (BOE) would administer the alternative-fuel vehicle rebates, the Air Resources Board would administer the incentives for alternative-fuel research and development, and the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission would administer the renewable energy incentives and the monies available for grants to local governments and public higher education institutions. Regarding BOE’s administration of the rebates, the measure provides that BOE shall calculate the SUT applicable to the sale or lease of a vehicle at the pre-rebate purchase or lease price.



The measure requires each state administering agency to adopt program milestones, provide for annual independent audits, issue annual progress reports, and establish procedures for oversight of the awarding of incentives. The measure also requires that the monies allocated to each bond account be spent within ten years, with reasonable efforts to be made to spend the monies for alternative-fuel vehicle rebates within five years.



Finally, the measure specifies that not more than 1 percent of the funds in each account established by the measure may be used to pay for program administration.



FISCAL EFFECT



Bond Costs. The cost of these bonds would depend on interest rates in effect at the time they are sold and the time period over which they are repaid. The state would likely make principal and interest payments from the state’s General Fund over a period of 30 years. If the bonds were sold at an average interest rate of about 5 percent, the cost would be about $10 billion to pay off both the principal ($5 billion) and interest ($5 billion). The average payment would be about $335 million per year.



Impact on State Sales Tax Revenues. The measure provides $2.9 billion for a variety of vehicle-related rebates. The rebates are designed to encourage the purchase or lease of vehicles that, presumably, are more expensive than the vehicles that consumers (individuals and businesses) would purchase or lease in the absence of the rebates. To the extent the rebates result in individuals and/or businesses purchasing or leasing vehicles that are more expensive than those that they would otherwise purchase or lease, state sales tax revenues would increase. In addition, consistent with the experience with other vehicle rebate programs in California, retailers may adjust the sales price upwards to account for the individuals and/or businesses being eligible for a rebate. Such an increase in the sales prices of these products would result in an increase in state sales tax revenues. Finally, rebates will result in lower out-of-pocket expenses for some individuals and/or businesses purchasing or leasing vehicles. If these individuals and/or businesses spend any of these savings on other taxable purchases, this will result in increased SUT revenues.



While the exact amount of increased sales tax revenue that would result from the measure would depend on the quantity and actual selling price of vehicles purchased or leased and other behavioral effects in response to the rebates, we estimate that the amount is potentially in the tens of millions of dollars from 2009 to about 2019.



Impact on Local Revenues. The bond-funded incentive programs under the measure would result in the following two effects on local revenues:

– Increased Local Sales Tax Revenues. As with the measure’s impact on state sales tax revenues discussed above, depending on the quantity and actual selling price of vehicles purchased or leased in response to the rebates, the measure would result in increased sales tax revenues to local governments, potentially in the low tens of millions of dollars from 2009 to about 2019.

– Increased Local VLF Revenues. As stated above, the measure could result in individuals and/or businesses purchasing or leasing vehicles that are more expensive than those they would otherwise purchase or lease. To the extent that the measure results in the purchase or lease of more expensive vehicles than would otherwise be purchased or leased, it would lead to increased local VLF revenues. While the exact amount of any such VLF revenue increase would depend upon the quantity and actual selling price of any vehicles purchased or leased as a result of the rebates offered by the measure, we estimate the increase in VLF revenues to be potentially in the millions of dollars from 2009 to about 2019.
State Administrative Costs to Implement the Measure. The measure’s 1-percent limit on administrative costs may leave the various state departments with insufficient funds to implement the programs consistent with the provisions of the proposition. To the extent the measure fails to provide adequate funding for its administration, other state funds may face pressure, potentially averaging up to about $10 million annually, to fund implementation of the measure through about 2018–19.


Ambulance Employees to Receive Paid On-Call Breaks and Additional Training Initiative
Proposition 11
Election:
General

2018

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 59.6%)
Topic Areas:
Health | Human Services

Summary: Click for Summary
The measure allows ambulance providers to require ambulance workers to remain on-call during breaks, although it requires providers to pay at the regular rate during the breaks. Breaks cannot be required to be taken in the first or last hour of a shift, and if called onto duty, the break is made void. The measure also increases required training, particularly for active shooter scenarios and for multiple casualties, natural disasters, violence prevention, and mental health. Covers paramedics and EMTs.


Amending Los Angeles City Charter
Proposition 6
Election:
General

1936

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 42.4%)
Topic Areas:
Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Adds section 8b to Article XI of Constitution. Authorizes and prescribes procedure for amending Los Angeles city charter: (a) to grant Pacific Exposition, a corporation, exclusive possession and control, for purpose of holding an exposition commemorating completion of Boulder Dam, of any lands held by Los Angeles Board of Education or the city, under such terms as said board or city respectively may determine; (b) to authorize city council to temporarily close city streets and granting said Pacific Exposition exclusive management and control thereof for such exposition purpose.


Amending State Athletic Commission Initiative Act
Proposition 13
Election:
General

1932

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 53.9%)
Topic Areas:
Business & Commerce | Military & Veterans Affairs | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Adds Section 25 3/4 to Article IV of Constitution. Declares Legislature may amend State Athletic Commission initiative act, except provisions thereof allowing wrestling and twelve round boxing contests, to provide for supervision and regulation of wrestling, boxing or sparring, matches or exhibitions, but limits boxing or sparring match or exhibition to twelve rounds not exceeding three minutes each. Appropriates State moneys derived from such matches or exhibitions, (less expenses of Commission and salaries), to maintain homes for care of war veterans, apportioning same as Legislature directs.


Amendment of Laws Adopted by Initiative
Proposition 12
Election:
General

1946

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 56.9%)
Topic Areas:
Elections-Initiative Process | Legislatures

Summary: Click for Summary
Adds Section 1b to Article IV of the Constitution. Authorizes the Legislature to propose amendments to, or repeal of, laws enacted by initiative. Provides that such proposed amendment or repeal be submitted to vote of the people for adoption or rejection.


Amendment to Allow Legislature to Exclude Rainwater Capture Systems from Property Tax Assessments
Proposition 72
Election:
Primary

2018

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 84.2%)
Topic Areas:
Budgets | Environmental Protection | Natural Resources | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Proposition 72 would allow the California State Legislature to exclude rainwater capture systems added to properties after January 1, 2019, from counting as new construction. When a property owner adds new construction to his or her property, the new construction is assessed for taxable value. Adding a rainwater capture system to one’s property counts as a new construction. This amendment would allow the legislature to not include new rainwater capture systems to property value assessments.


Amendment to the State Highway Act
Proposition 7
Election:
General

1916

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 76.0%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Transportation

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends Section 8 of State Highway Act of 1909 by providing that whenever state engineering department determines that construction cost of state highway in county entails unjust burden on such county in refunding to state entire bond interest on bond proceeds spent therefor, such county shall be required to refund only such portion thereof as such department adjudges reasonable. Amendment effective December 31, 1916.


Annual Legislative Sessions and Budgets
Proposition 2
Election:
General

1942

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 42.6%)
Topic Areas:
Legislatures

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends Constitution, Article IV, sections 2 and 34. Requires annual sessions of Legislature, unless Governor in interim convenes Legislature in extraordinary session; all sessions, except extraordinary, commencing first Monday in March and continuing not exceeding 60 days; members’ compensation, provided by section 23 same Article, paid during regular session as provided by law. Requires Governor, within first five days of each regular session, submit to Legislature budget for next fiscal year instead of next biennium as now required; in other respects continues existing provisions of section 34 relating to State budgets.


Annual Sessions of the Legislature
Proposition 6
Election:
General

1946

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 65.8%)
Topic Areas:
Legislatures

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends Sections 2, 34 and 34a, Article IV of the Constitution. Provides that Legislature shall meet annually. Limits sessions during the even-numbered years to consideration of the Budget Bill and certain special matters. Provides that State Budget shall be for a one-year rather than a two-year period.


Appeals in Criminal Cases.
Proposition 9
Election:
General

1911

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Undecided
Topic Areas:
Criminal Justice

Summary: Click for Summary
Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 26, a resolution to propose to the people of the State of California an amendment to the constitution of the State of California, by adding a new section to article VI thereof, to be numbered section 4 1/2, relating to appeals in criminal cases.


Appellate Court Divisions
Proposition 9
Election:
General

1918

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 52.6%)
Topic Areas:
Judiciary

Summary: Click for Summary
Senate Constitutional Amendment 45. Amends Section 4 Article VI of Constitution. Divides first and second district courts of appeal, each into two divisions of three justices each, present officers and terms of justices unaffected, such justices constituting division one of their respective districts, governor appointing three justices for each division two thereof to serve until successors are elected; requires two justices present to transact business and two to concur in judgment; whenever judge of supreme or appellate court can not act therein authorizes remaining justices thereof to select appellate or superior judge to act pro tempore.


Appellate Courts
Proposition 7
Election:
General

1940

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 40.1%)
Topic Areas:
Judiciary

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends Constitution, Article VI, sections 1a to 4c, inclusive, 5, 11, 15, 17, 21, 25 and 26; adds section 4d. Increases supervisory powers of judicial council. Prohibits temporary assignment of trial judges to appellate courts. Limits jurisdiction of Supreme Court. Increases jurisdiction of district courts of appeal and authorizes Legislature to provide additional divisions and districts thereof. Permits transfer of cases by Supreme Court. Permits certification of questions by superior courts and district courts of appeal to Supreme Court. Guarantees oral argument.


Application of Existing 1 Percent Tax on Incomes over One Million Dollars to Homelessness Prevention Bonds
Proposition 2
Election:
General

2018

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 63.4%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Human Services | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Proposition 63, passed by voters in 2004, initiated a 1 percent tax on incomes over $1 million. This measure authorizes the state to use that revenue on $2 billion in revenue bonds for homelessness prevention housing for persons in need of mental health services. Proposition 63 originally required that its revenue be spent on mental health services, but this change is enough to require a vote of the people on the ballot (any change to a ballot measure requires this).


Appointment of Regents, University of California
Proposition 5
Election:
Primary

1972

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 61.2%)
Topic Areas:
Education: Higher Ed | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Requires that appointments to the Regents of the University of California by the Governor be approved by a majority of the membership of the Senate.


Apportioning State Taxes to Firemen’s Funds
Proposition 2
Election:
General

1930

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 24.2%)
Topic Areas:
Human Services | Insurance | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Adds Section 19 to Article XIII of constitution. Requires biennial legislation distributing not exceeding half of state taxes on premiums of fire insurance companies among firemen’s pension, relief, health, life and accident insurance funds of counties, municipalities and political subdivisions, in proportion that each fund bears to aggregate thereof at distribution time; permitting distribution of portion thereof to any said subdivision having no such fund and maintaining paid or volunteer fire department. Authorizes legislation permitting local authorities to apply distributions hereunder toward procuring such insurance and paying firemen’s pensions.


Apportionment of Certain Monies to Political Subdivisions for Political Purposes
Proposition 14
Election:
General

1940

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 40.6%)
Topic Areas:
Ethics/Lobbying/Campaign Finance | Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Adds section 31d to Article IV of Constitution. Empowers Legislature to apportion, by general and uniform laws, to cities, counties, and cities and counties, for local purposes, moneys derived under Chapter 362, Statutes 1935, as amended (act relating to licensing and taxing of vehicles, etc.) and moneys derived under “Alcoholic Beverage Control Act” (Chapter 330, Statutes 1935, as amended) and acts amendatory or supplemental to either of said statutes or substituted therefor.


Apportionment of Funds to Political Subdivisions
Proposition 8
Election:
General

1938

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 25.6%)
Topic Areas:
Budgets | Local Government | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends section 31 of Article IV of Constitution. Adds to present section dealing with public credit and moneys, the proviso that Legislature shall have power by general and uniform laws to provide for the apportionment of funds out of State treasury for county, city and county, city or other municipal purposes. Eliminates prohibition of legislative gift or authorization of gift of public money or thing of value to municipal corporations.


Apportionment of Local Sales and Use Tax
Proposition 8
Election:
General

1968

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 51.2%)
Topic Areas:
State Government | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Legislature may, by general law, authorize counties, cities and counties, and cities to contract to apportion between themselves revenues derived from any sales or use tax imposed by them which is collected by the state, provided the electors of each local entity approve the contract by majority vote. The contract may provide that the recipient of funds pursuant to such contract may use such funds for same purposes as its own revenues.


Appropriation for Public Schools
Proposition 4-G
Election:
General

1970

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 46.9%)
Topic Areas:
Budgets | Education: PreK-12

Summary: Click for Summary
Authorizes Legislature to make appropriation for public schools prior to passage of budget bill if delayed.


Appropriations Limit Adjustment.
Proposition 71
Election:
Primary

1988

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 48.9%)
Topic Areas:
Budgets | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Constitution limits tax revenues state and local governments annually appropriate for expenditure: allows “cost of living” and “population” changes. “Cost of living” defined as lesser of change in US Consumer Price Index or per capita personal income; measure redefines as greater of change in California Consumer Price Index or per capita personal income. “State population” redefined: includes increases in K-12 or community college average daily attendance greater than state population growth. Local government “population” redefined: includes increases in residents and persons employed. Specifies motor vehicle and fuel taxes are fees excluded from appropriations limit.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact:

Change in the appropriations limit inflation adjustment will allow increased state appropriations of up to $700 million in 1988-89, and increasing amounts annually thereafter. Change in the population adjustment will allow further undetermined increase in state appropriations. State’s ability to appropriate additional funds as a result of increased state limit is dependent on receipt of sufficient revenue. Based on estimates contained in Governor’s Budget, state revenues will not be sufficient in 1988-89 to fund any additional appropriations allowed by this measure. In future years, economy’s performance will determine whether and to what extent state revenues will be available to fund such additional appropriations. Local government and school district appropriation limits will be increased by unknown but significant amounts. Change in the treatment of state transportation-related revenues would have no fiscal effect because of the limit adjustment formula.

[CA]


Approval of Healthcare Insurance Rate Changes
Proposition 45
Election:
General

2014

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 40.2% unofficial)
Topic Areas:
Health | Insurance

Summary: Click for Summary
Requires health insurance rate changes to be approved by Insurance Commissioner before taking effect. Requires sworn statement by health insurer as to accuracy of information submitted to Insurance Commissioner to justify rate changes. Provides for public notice, disclosure and hearing on health insurance rate changes, and subsequent judicial review. Does not apply to employer large group health plans. Prohibits health, auto and homeowners insurers from determining policy eligibility or rates based on lack of prior coverage or credit history. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Increased state administrative costs ranging in the low millions to low tens of millions of dollars annually to regulate health insurance rates, funded with revenues collected from filing fees paid by health insurance companies. (11-0070)


Assembly Payroll Expenses
Proposition 24
Election:
General

1914

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 15.0%)
Topic Areas:
Legislatures

Summary: Click for Summary
[Summary from Hastings Law Library California Ballot Measures Database]

Increases the amount allowed for the total expense for officers, employees and attaches of assembly at any regular or biennial session of legislature from present amount of five hundred dollars per day to six hundred dollars per day; makes no other change in operation of present section.

[Constitutional Amendment]


Assessed Valuation. Replacement Dwellings.
Proposition 90
Election:
General

1988

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 69.1%)
Topic Areas:
Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Currently, homeowners over the age of 55 may, under certain conditions, transfer the current assessed value of their home to a replacement dwelling of equal or lesser value located in the same county. This authorizes the Legislature to permit the transfer of assessed valuation to replacement dwellings located in different counties if the county of the replacement dwelling adopts an ordinance participating in the program. Applies to replacement dwellings acquired on or after a county ordinance is adopted, but not before November 9, 1988. Contains provisions concerning the effective date of amendments.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact. By itself, this measure would have no direct fiscal effect because it merely authorizes legislative action. If implemented, it would reduce property tax collections in an amount which would depend on the extent of county participation, number of qualifying homeowners, and value of dwellings involved. The property tax revenue loss would not exceed $20 million in the first year if all counties participated and could be substantially less. The revenue loss would increase annually. Sixty percent of the loss would be borne by the cities, counties, and special districts. The remainder would affect school districts and community college districts. Under existing law, the State General Fund would offset the schools’ losses beginning in 1989-90.


Assessment of Agricultural Land
Proposition 4-G
Election:
General

1962

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 47.4%)
Topic Areas:
Agriculture | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Upon adoption of ordinance by county or city, assessor on application of owner shall assess land used exclusively for agricultural purposes for prior two years on basis of such agricultural use only until such time as owner applies for assessment on regular basis or land is diverted from agricultural use, in which event the land shall be subject to additional taxes for prior seven years. Legislature shall provide procedures and necessary legislation to implement.


Assessment of Golf Courses
Proposition 6
Election:
General

1960

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 62.1%)
Topic Areas:
Business & Commerce | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Establishes manner in which non-profit golf courses should be assessed for purposes of taxation.


Assessments: Historical Landmark Area
Proposition 11
Election:
General

1962

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 33.3%)
Topic Areas:
Arts & Culture | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Provides manner for assessing real property on which is located any structure of historical significance located within a historical landmark area established by state law or city ordinance; owner must agree to pay increased taxes if he changes use during year and pay increased taxes for five preceding years if law or ordinance establishing area is repealed. Before assessor may so assess property Legislature must pass law specifically so authorizing in that historical landmark area.


Assignment of Students to Schools
Proposition 21
Election:
General

1972

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 63.1%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law | Education: PreK-12

Summary: Click for Summary
Adds section to Education Code providing: “No public school student shall, because of his race, creed, or color, be assigned to or be required to attend a particular school.” Repeals section establishing policy that racial and ethnic imbalance in pupil enrollment in public schools shall be prevented and eliminated. Repeals section which (1) establishes factors for consideration in preventing or eliminating racial or ethnic imbalances in public schools; (2) requires school districts to report numbers and percentages of racial and ethnic groups in each school; and (3) requires districts to develop plans to remedy imbalances. Financial impact: None.

[S]


Attorney Fees Limit For Tort Claims.
Proposition 106
Election:
General

1988

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 46.9%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law | Judiciary

Summary: Click for Summary
Measure places limit on amount of a contingency fee an attorney may collect for representing a plaintiff in connection with a tort claim. The fee may be no more than 25 percent of first $50,000 recovered, no more than 15 percent of next $50,000 recovered, and no more than 10 percent of amount recovered above $100,000. The court may review the fee and reduce it below the stated limits if it is not reasonable and fair. Defines amount recovered to calculate fee limitations. Summary of Legislative Analyst’s estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact: Fiscal impact on state and local governments is unknown and would depend on how attorneys and their clients respond to these contingency limits. The response could affect the number of cases filed and settled, and the size of awards.

[S]


Attorney Fees, Shareholder Actions, Class Actions. Initiative Statute.
Proposition 201
Election:
Primary

1996

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 40.7%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law | Judiciary

Summary: Click for Summary
– Requires losing party to pay winning party’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and expe nses in shareholder actions against corporations and in class actions based on securities law violations.

– Payment by member of losing party not required if position was substantially justified and payment would be unjust. Court may require losing party’s attorney to pay.

– After hearing, court may require plaintiff to furnish bond for defendant’s estimated fees and expenses, unless plaintiff owns or traded at least 5% of shares. Plaintiff’s attorney may agree to furnish bond and pay defendant’s fees and expenses for plaintiff.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact: Adoption of this measure would have unknown, but probably not significant, fiscal impact on state and local governments.

[S]


Attorney General
Proposition 4
Election:
General

1934

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 70.3%)
Topic Areas:
Criminal Justice | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Declares Attorney General, State’s chief law officer, shall see all State laws enforced, directly supervise district attorneys, sheriffs and other enforcement officers designated by law, and require from them written reports concerning criminal matters. Empowers him to prosecute, with district attorney’s powers, violations within superior court’s jurisdiction; assist district attorneys when public interest or Governor requires, and perform other duties prescribed by law; Governor and Controller allowing his necessary expenses from general fund. Makes his salary same as Supreme Court Associate Justice, prohibiting him from private practice, and requiring his entire time in State service.

[CA]


Attorney’s Contingency Fees, Limits. Initiative Statute.
Proposition 202
Election:
Primary

1996

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 48.8%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law | Judiciary

Summary: Click for Summary
– Limits fees which plaintiffs’ attorneys may collect, if payable contingent on plaintiffs’ recovery of compensation, in personal injury, wrongful death, other tort cases. Hourly rates not limited

– Requires demand against defendants for compensation with supporting information. Allows defendants to respond with prompt settlement offer with supporting information. If accepted, plaintiffs’ attorneys may not collect contingent fees exc eeding 15% of defendants’ offer. If not accepted, they may collect fees above 15% only on part of recovery in excess of defendants’ prompt settlement offer.

– Fiduciary relationship applies to fee agreement between plaintiff, plaintiff’s attorney.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact: Adoption of this measure would have an unknown net fiscal impact on state and local governments.

[S]


Attorney-Client Fee Arrangements. Securities Fraud. Lawsuits. Initiative Statute.
Proposition 211
Election:
General

1996

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 25.6%)
Topic Areas:
Banking & Financial Services | Business & Commerce | Judiciary

Summary: Click for Summary
– Prohibits restrictions on attorney-client fee arrangements, except as allowed by laws existing on January 1, 1995.

– Prohibits deceptive conduct by any person in securities transactions resulting in loss to pension, retirement funds, savings. Imposes civil liability, including punitive damages, for losses.

– Authorizes class actions, derivative suits; adds presumption fraudulent acts affected market value of security.

– Prohibits indemnification of officers found liable for fraudulent acts by business entities, but may purchase insurance to cover liability.

– Declares measure conflicts with other ballot measures that restrict attorney fees or securities fraud actions.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:



Potential increase in court-related costs to state and local governments of an unknown, but probably not significant, amount.



Potential increase in revenue to the state of an unknown, but probably not significant, amount.

[S]


Attorneys. Fees. Right to Negotiate. Frivolous Lawsuits. Initiative Statute.
Proposition 207
Election:
General

1996

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 34.2%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law | Judiciary

Summary: Click for Summary
– Except as allowed by laws in effect on January 1, 1995, prohibits restrictions on the right to negotiate amount of attorneys’ fees, whether fixed, hourly or contingent.

– Prohibits attorney from charging or collecting excessive or unconscionable fees.

– Authorizes court to impose sanctions upon attorney who files a lawsuit or pleading which is totally and completely without merit or filed solely to harass opposing party. Prohibits sanctioned attorney from collecting fees for case.

– Requires State Bar to recommend appropriate discipline for attorneys with repeated sanctions.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact: Adoption of this measure would have an unknown, but probably not significant, net fiscal impact on state and local governments.

[S]


Authorizing Agreements by Political Subdivisions for Joint Exercise of Powers
Proposition 22
Election:
General

1934

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 48.9%)
Topic Areas:
Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Permits two or more political subdivisions, majority of voters thereof respectively consenting, to jointly frame and adopt articles of agreement for joint exercise of powers and functions common thereto. Defines “political subdivision” as county, city and county, or incorporated city. Prescribes procedure for framing agreement by board of electors elected five from each subdivision, and for adoption, amendment and rescission thereof by majority vote in each subdivision. Agreement when adopted constitutes organic law of political subdivisions parties thereto as to competent matters therein contained.


Authorizing Board of Supervisors to Draft County Charter
Proposition 18
Election:
General

1932

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 40.5%)
Topic Areas:
Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Adds Section 7 1/4 to Article XI of Constitution. Confers upon board of supervisors of any county same power to draft a proposed charter for said county as is conferred upon board of freeholders elected under Section 7 1/2 of Article XI; declares provisions of latter section shall otherwise apply in every respect to such proposed charter.


Authorizing City of Escondido to Hold Stock in Mutual Water Company
Proposition 10
Election:
General

1932

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 76.8%)
Topic Areas:
Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Adds Section 31b to Article IV of Constitution. Authorizes City of Escondido, California, for purpose of supplying water for public or municipal purposes or for use of its inhabitants, to acquire and hold shares of capital stock of mutual water company or corporation; declares such holding shall entitle city to all rights, powers and privileges, and subject it to obligations and liabilities, given or imposed by law to or upon other holders of stock in said corporation.


Authorizing City of Glendale, After Elections Therefor, to Pay Owners Certain Improvement Assessments Upon Their Properties
Proposition 12
Election:
General

1932

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 77.2%)
Topic Areas:
Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends Section 31 of Article IV of Constitution. Provides that City of Glendale, in Los Angeles County, when authorized by majority vote at election therefor, may pay from surplus of its public service department to owners of property at time of such authorization the amount of any assessment for replacement of water mains levied upon such property between May 11, 1921 and ratification of this amendment, and that no statute of limitations shall apply thereto.


Authorizing Indemnity to Owners of Livestock Destroyed to Prevent Spread of Disease
Proposition 13
Election:
General

1930

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 82.9%)
Topic Areas:
Agriculture | Animal Rights/Hunting & Fishing

Summary: Click for Summary
Adds Section 31a to Article IV of Constitution. Declares that nothing in Constitution shall be construed as limiting the power of the Legislature to provide by general law, from public moneys or funds, for the indemnification of owners of live stock taken, slaughtered or otherwise disposed of pursuant to law to prevent the spread of contagious or infectious disease; provided the amount paid in any case for such animal shall not exceed the value thereof.


Authorizing Quasi-Public Corporations to Extend Term of Existence
Proposition 14
Election:
General

1928

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 68.1%)
Topic Areas:
Business & Commerce | Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends Section 7, Article XII, of Constitution. Authorizes any quasi-public corporation to extend its term of existence, prior to expiration thereof, for not exceeding fifty years from date of extension, by vote or written consent of stockholders representing two-thirds of its stock or of two-thirds of its members; extension of any corporation’s term not to extend term of any franchise previously held, owned or controlled by it; requires public utility corporation first obtain written consent of Railroad Commission or body having jurisdiction over issuance of its securities.


Authorizing State Aid to Needy Blind Persons
Proposition 19
Election:
General

1928

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 82.5%)
Topic Areas:
Budgets | Human Services

Summary: Click for Summary
Inserts proviso empowering Legislature to grant aid to needy blind persons not inmates of any institution supported wholly of partly by the State or by any political subdivision thereof; and declares that any county or municipality providing for the support of such needy blind persons shall be entitled to receive the same pro rata appropriations as may be granted to such institutions under church or other control.


Authorizing State Aid to Needy Physically Handicapped Persons
Proposition 12
Election:
General

1928

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 76.3%)
Topic Areas:
Budgets | Human Services

Summary: Click for Summary
Inserts proviso empowering Legislature to grant aid to needy physically handicapped persons not inmates of institution under supervision of State department of institutions and supported wholly or partly by the State or by institution supported wholly or partly by political subdivision thereof; declares that county or municipality providing support for such persons shall receive same pro rata appropriations granted to such institutions under church or other control; eliminates provisions relating to Panama-Pacific International Exposition held in 1915.


Authorizing State And Political Subdivisions to Hold Stock in Mutual Water Corporations
Proposition 13
Election:
General

1928

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 47.4%)
Topic Areas:
Local Government | Natural Resources | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends Section 31, Article IV, of Constitution. Inserts proviso authorizing the State, or any political subdivision thereof, municipality, or other public corporation to be stockholder in any mutual water corporation when stock is acquired or held for supplying water for public purposes or for use of inhabitants thereof; declares such holder shall have the rights, powers, privileges, obligations and liabilities, of other stockholders in the mutual water corporation in which stock is so held.


Authorizing State’s Borrowing Money in Anticipation of Taxes and Revenues
Proposition 2
Election:
Special

1935

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 34.6%)
Topic Areas:
Budgets | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Adds section to Constitution. Approves and legalizes legislature’s act entitled “An act relating to the borrowing of money by the State in anticipation of taxes and revenues, and making an appropriation.” Authorizes State’s borrowing, as in said act provided, for general fund appropriations, up to fifty per cent of taxes and revenues paid into general fund during preceding fiscal year; requires money so borrowed with interest be paid from general fund within one year of date borrowed; if default, indebtedness continues payable from general fund.


Automobile Accident Claims And Insurance Rates.
Proposition 101
Election:
General

1988

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 13.3%)
Topic Areas:
Insurance

Summary: Click for Summary
Reduces bodily injury, uninsured motorist rates to 50 percent of October 31, 1988, or October 31, 1987, level, whichever is lower, adjusted for medical inflation. Limits motor vehicle accident recovery for noneconomic losses such as pain and suffering to 25 percent of economic losses, as defined. Prohibits attorney contingent fees greater than 25 percent of economic losses, as defined. Limitations not applicable to survival, wrongful death actions or actions involving serious and permanent injuries and/or disfigurement. Provisions expire December 31, 1992.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s estimate of net state and local government impact:

Would increase state administrative costs by about $2 million in 1988-89, varying thereafter with workload, to be paid by additional fees on the insurance industry. State and affected local governments would have unknown savings from reduced insurance rates and loss limitations. Possible reduction in court costs and court revenues could result from limitation on claims for noneconomic damages. Would reduce state revenues from the gross premiums tax by about $50 million a year for next four years if no other changes are made in insurance rates.

[S]


Automobile And Other Insurance.
Proposition 104
Election:
General

1988

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 25.4%)
Topic Areas:
Insurance

Summary: Click for Summary
Establishes no-fault insurance for automobile accident injuries, covering medical expenses, lost wages, funeral expenses. Accident victim may recover from responsible party only for injuries beyond no-fault limits. Prohibits recovery for noneconomic injuries except cases of serious and permanent injuries and specified crimes. Reduces rates for certain coverages 20 percent for two years. Cancels Propositions 100, 101, 103. Restricts future insurance regulation legislation. Requires arbitration of disputes over insurers’ claims practices, limits damage awards against insurers. Prohibits agents and brokers from discounting. Increases Insurance Commissioner’s power to prosecute fraudulent claims. Limits plaintiffs’ attorney contingency fees in motor vehicle accident cases.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact:

Would increase state administrative costs by about $2.5 million in 1988-89, varying thereafter with workload, to be paid by additional fees on the insurance industry. State and some local governments would have unknown savings from lower insurance rates and liability limitations. Possible but unknown effect on recovery of workers’ compensation. Possible reduction in court costs and court revenues could result from limitations on claims for noneconomic damages. Would reduce state revenue from the gross premiums tax by about $25 million a year for two years if no other changes are made in insurance rates.

[S]


Bail Exception. Felony Sexual Assault. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.
Proposition 189
Election:
General

1994

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 79.4%)
Topic Areas:
Criminal Justice

Summary: Click for Summary
– Amends State Constitution to add felony sexual assault offenses to crimes currently excepted from right to bail, which are

1) capital crimes;

2) felonies involving acts of violence when there is a substantial likelihood of harm to others if bail is granted; and,

3) any felony when the accused has threatened another with great bodily harm and the court finds a substantial likelihood that release would result in such harm.



– Requires judicial findings upon clear and convincing evidence of likelihood that release would result in great bodily harm to others.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact: Unknown, but probably not significant, costs to local governments for jailing individuals denied bail.

[CA]


Ballot Measures: Application. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.
Proposition 219
Election:
Primary

1998

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 67.3%)
Topic Areas:
Elections-Initiative Process

Summary: Click for Summary
In addition to voting for candidates for office, Californians vote on a variety of state and local measures–initiatives, referenda, constitutional amendments, bonds, and revisions to local charters. These measures are put before the voters by the state Legislature, local governing bodies (such as city councils and county boards of supervisors), and by individual citizens or groups seeking to change the law.



In most cases, these ballot measures apply to all areas within the state or a local community in the same way. For example, if a statewide measure passes, it applies to all counties in the same way, regardless of whether a majority of voters in any individual county approved the measure. One recent measure, however, was different (Proposition 172 on the November 1993 ballot). The measure, which enacted a statewide sales tax increase, provided that the revenues from the tax increase would go only to those counties that voted in favor of the measure. (Absent this vote the county could still receive the funds if the board of supervisors voted to request an allocation.) As a result, some people who otherwise would have voted “no” may have voted “yes” to ensure that their county received some of the money.



In addition, most ballot measures identify a specific policy that would be adopted if the measure passes. A recent local measure, however, contained an unusual provision. It stated that: If the measure were approved by a majority of voters, a tax for general purposes would be enacted.If, however, two-thirds of the voters approved the measure, a tax for special purposes would be enacted. Thus, a “yes” vote could mean two different things.



This proposition, a constitutional amendment, prohibits the type of measures discussed above by: Requiring state and local ballot measures to apply in the same way in all parts of the jurisdiction (that is, the state or a local government) affected by the measures, regardless of how any individual part of that jurisdiction voted. Thus, a ballot measure could not apply only in those areas that voted in favor of the measure.Prohibiting ballot measures from containing alternative or additional provisions that would be enacted depending on the percentage of votes cast in favor of the measure. Thus, a ballot measure could not have one outcome if approved by a majority of voters and a different outcome if approved by a two-thirds vote.

[CA]


Banks, Francisers, Corporations and Insurers – Taxation
Proposition 5
Election:
Primary

1976

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 59.4%)
Topic Areas:
Banking & Financial Services | Business & Commerce

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends Constitution Article XIII, sections 27 and 28(i) to require concurrence of majority instead of two-thirds of membership of both houses for passage of bills imposing tax on corporations including state and national banks and their franchises, or changing rate of taxes imposed on insurers. Financial impact: no direct fiscal effect on state or local governments.


Basic Health Care Coverage. Initiative Statute.
Proposition 166
Election:
General

1992

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 30.8%)
Topic Areas:
Business & Commerce | Health | Insurance

Summary: Click for Summary
– Requires employers to provide basic health care coverage for employees working specified hours, and their dependents, as permitted by federal law.

– Provides phase-in period.

– Employee contributions shall not exceed 2% of wages; eliminates duplicate coverage; specifies type of health care benefits, including prescription services.

– Subjects health carriers to enforcement powers of Insurance Commissioner or Commissioner of Corporations and prohibits exclusion based upon prior disease, disorder, or condition.

– Establishes Health Care Coverage Commission and panels for Medical Policy, Cost Containment, and Technology.

– Provides employer tax credits.

– Makes appropriations for commission support.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:

– Potential state general tax revenue losses of tens to hundreds of millions of dollars annually, in the short term. The longer-term impact on general tax revenues is unknown.

– State revenue losses of hundreds of millions of dollars annually from expanded use of the small business health care tax credit.

– State savings in the range of $250 million annually to the Medi-Cal Program.

– County savings of potentially more than $100 million annually.

– Net fiscal impact of the measure is unknown.

[S]


Basic Science Act
Proposition 3
Election:
General

1942

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 34.0%)
Topic Areas:
Health

Summary: Click for Summary
Creates Board of Examiners in basic sciences (naming five sciences) comprising five members with prescribed qualifications appointed by Governor. Requires persons obtain basic science certificate from said Board after written examination before applying to Medical, Dental, Osteopathic or Chiropractic Boards, or other governmental authority, for license to practice healing art (defining same) or any phase thereof. Exempts various professions, present licensees and persons treating sick by prayer in practice of any well-recognized religion. Prescribes examination fees, penalties for violations and disposition of fines, requiring proceeds therefrom used for administering Act. Declares existing statutes not repealed.

[S]


Beverage Containers.
Proposition 11
Election:
General

1982

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 44.1%)
Topic Areas:
Business & Commerce | Environmental Protection

Summary: Click for Summary
Requires that beverage containers sold, or offered for sale, on or after March 1, 1984, have a refund value, established by the distributor, of not less than 5 cents. Requires refund value be indicated on container. Requires that dealers and distributors pay the refund value on return of empty container. Provides for establishment of redemption centers. Provides for handling fees for dealers and redemption centers. Prohibits manufacturer from requiring a deposit from a distributor on a nonrefillable container. Contains definitions, specified exceptions, conditions, and other matters. Provides violation of statute is an infraction punishable by fine.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact: Net fiscal effect on state and local governments cannot be determined. Could result in reduced litter cleanup costs, reduced solid waste disposal costs, and an unknown increase or decrease in tax revenue collections. Variables involved are discussed in more depth in Analyst’s estimate.

[S]


Bills and Statutes-Effective Date. Governor’s Consideration. Referendum.
Proposition 6
Election:
General

1976

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 43.2%)
Topic Areas:
Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Extends from 12 to 30 days the time for Governor’s veto of bills submitted to him after adjournment of Legislature for interim study recess at end of first year of legislative session. Provides that bills passed during a regular legislative session which became law by reason of Governor’s failure to act within above-mentioned period shall go into effect on January 1 following their enactment unless referendum is proposed, in which event they become effective 90 days after enactment if referendum does not qualify for ballot within such 90-day period. Financial impact: Undeterminable.


Bingo
Proposition 9
Election:
Primary

1976

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 70.2%)
Topic Areas:
Human Services | Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Permits Legislature to authorize cities and counties to provide for bingo games, but only for charitable purposes. Financial impact: None on state; nominal fiscal effects on cities and counties.


Blind Veterans Tax Exemption
Proposition 10
Election:
General

1972

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 89.4%)
Topic Areas:
Military & Veterans Affairs | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Permits Legislature to increase property tax exemption from $5,000 to $10,000 for veterans who are blind due to service-connected disabilities. Financial impact: Nominal decrease in local government revenues.


Board of Forestry Established
Proposition 6
Election:
General

1942

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 49.2%)
Topic Areas:
Natural Resources | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Adds Article XXV to Constitution. Creates Board of Forestry of seven members, appointed by Governor with consent of Senate, to represent State’s interest in State forests and Federal land matters pertaining to forestry, and determine policy of Division of Forestry, which must prepare plan to reduce losses from forest fires, insect pests and forest diseases, provide fire protection and determine best use of uncultivated wild lands. Creates non-civil service office of State Forester as Chief of Division of Forestry. Transfers funds to support of new Board and Division of Forestry.


Boards of Equalization
Proposition 13
Election:
General

1942

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 44.9%)
Topic Areas:
Local Government | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends Constitution, Article XIII, section 9. State Board of Equalization to comprise five members, each elected from one of five equalization districts. Eliminates Controller from Board. Specifies counties comprising each district, permitting Legislature by two-thirds vote to redefine districts. Member’s term four years; those serving when section becomes operative continue for balance of term, Governor appointing member from fifth district to hold until January, 1947. Reenacts, substantially unchanged, present provisions constituting boards of supervisors equalization boards in their respective counties, but without power to alter property valuation assessed by State Board.


Bond Measure: California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks, and Coastal Protection Act of 2002
Proposition 40
Election:
Primary

2002

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 56.9%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Environmental Protection | Natural Resources

Summary: Click for Summary
To protect rivers, lakes, and streams to improve water quality and ensure clean drinking water; to protect beaches and coastal areas threatened by pollution; to improve air quality; to preserve open space and farmland threatened by unplanned development; to protect wildlife habitat; to restore historical and cultural resources; to repair and improve the safety of state and neighborhood parks; the state shall issue bonds totaling two billion six hundred million dollars ($2,600,000,000) paid from existing funds. This program is subject to an annual independent audit. Fiscal Impact: State cost of about $4.3 billion over 25 years (average cost of about $172 million per year) to repay bonds. State and local operation and maintenance costs of potentially tens of millions of dollars annually.

[S/BOND]


Bond Vote for Structurally Unsafe School Buildings
Proposition 9
Election:
General

1972

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 54.5%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Education: PreK-12

Summary: Click for Summary
Permits approval by majority vote, rather than two-thirds vote, to pass bond issue for purpose of repairing, reconstructing, or replacing structurally unsafe public school buildings. Financial impact: No direct cost but increased use of bonded debt due to reduced requirement for voter approval is anticipated.


Bonds
Proposition 14
Election:
General

1924

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 38.1%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures

Summary: Click for Summary
Assembly Constitutional Amendment 49. Amends Section 1 3/4 of Article XIII of Constitution. Declares that all bonds hereafter issued by the State of California, or by any county, city and county, municipal corporation or district, including school, reclamation, irrigation, and public utility districts, within this state, shall be free and exempt from taxation.


Bonds for Children’s Hospitals Initiative
Proposition 4
Election:
General

2018

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 62.7%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Health

Summary: Click for Summary
Authorizes $1.5 billion in bonds for the Children’s Hospital Bond Fund Act, which is used to award grants to children’s hospitals for construction, expansion, renovation, and equipment projects.


Bonds for State Buildings and University Buildings
Proposition 10
Election:
General

1926

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 67.6%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Education: Higher Ed

Summary: Click for Summary
Adds Section 4 to Article XVI of Constitution. Directs issuance of $8,500,000 of state bonds, and the use of the proceeds thereof, as provided in “California state buildings and state university buildings bonds act of 1925,” for completion and equipment of state buildings at Sacramento, the erection and equipment of state building at Los Angeles and buildings for University of California at Berkeley and Los Angeles; validates said bond act of 1925; declares section self-executing but permits legislation in furtherance thereof.


Bonds to Provide Community College Facilities
Proposition 4
Election:
Primary

1976

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 43.9%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Education: Higher Ed

Summary: Click for Summary
This act provides for a bond issue of one hundred fifty million dollars ($150,000,000).


Bonds to Provide Health Science Facilities
Proposition 2
Election:
General

1972

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 60.0%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Health

Summary: Click for Summary
This act provides for a bond issue of one hundred fifty-five million nine hundred thousand dollars ($155,900,000).


Bonds to Provide Public Community College Facilities
Proposition 1
Election:
General

1972

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 56.9%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Education: Higher Ed

Summary: Click for Summary
This act provides for a bond issue of one hundred sixty million dollars ($160,000,000).


Bonds to Provide State College
Proposition 2
Election:
General

1964

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 94.9%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Education: Higher Ed

Summary: Click for Summary
This act provides for a bond issue of three hundred eighty million dollars ($380,000,000).


Bonds to Provide State College and University Facilities
Proposition 2
Election:
General

1966

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 56.1%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Education: Higher Ed

Summary: Click for Summary
This act provides for a bond issue of two hundred thirty million dollars ($230,000,000).


Bonds to Provide State College, Junior College and University Facilities
Proposition 1a
Election:
General

1962

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 66.2%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Education: Higher Ed

Summary: Click for Summary
This act provides for a bond issue of two hundred seventy million dollars ($270,000,000). Eighty percent (80%) of the total amount of the bond issue will be used for the building construction, equipment and site acquisition needs for the California State Colleges, the public junior colleges, and the University of California.


Bonds to Provide State College, University and Urban School Facilities
Proposition 3
Election:
General

1968

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 44.6%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Education: Higher Ed

Summary: Click for Summary
This act provides for a bond issue of two hundred fifty million dollars ($250,000,000).


Bonds to Refund State Indebtedness
Proposition 10
Election:
Primary

1976

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 45.4%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Budgets

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends Constitution Article XVI, section 1 to permit Legislature, by a two-thirds vote, to authorize, without voter approval, refunding bonds to refinance any outstanding state debt. Financial impact: Unknown possible future savings in state interest costs.


Bonds: Housing for the Aged and Physically Handicapped
Proposition 4-P
Election:
Primary

1962

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 36.6%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Human Services

Summary: Click for Summary
Authorizes issuance and sale of $100,000,000 in State bonds for loans to private corporations and public agencies for constructing, acquiring, and developing low-rent housing for elderly and physically handicapped persons of low income as provided in the Housing for the Elderly Law enacted in 1961 which act is hereby, validated. Authorizes further supplemental legislation.


Borough Form of City Government
Proposition 16
Election:
General

1952

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 76.3%)
Topic Areas:
Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Section 8 of Article XI of the Constitution now permits the charter of any city to provide for the division of the city into territorial units (boroughs) with general or special municipal governmental powers relating to matters of local concern. This is known as the borough system of city government.



The Constitution does not at present permit the charter of a city to create such a local governmental unit (borough) in any part of the city unless the entire city is divided into such units (boroughs).



This amendment to the Constitution will permit the charter of a city to provide for the establishment of a borough system of government for either the entire city or for one or more parts of the city


Borough Form of County Government
Proposition 9
Election:
General

1956

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 38.2%)
Topic Areas:
Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
This constitutional amendment would add Section 7 1/2a to the Constitution. It would permit provision in a county charter for the establishment of a borough system of government for the whole or any part of the unincorporated territory of the county, without limitation upon the number of boroughs that may be so created. The Constitution does not now permit the charter of a county to create such a local governmental unit (borough), but does permit the creation of boroughs by charters of cities and of cities and counties. (Constitution, Art. XI, Sec. 8.)



This measure would allow the exercise of county powers by a borough through provision in a county charter and it permits the charter to provide for the administration of such boroughs. It would also allow the charter to authorize the boroughs to cooperate with other county boroughs, city boroughs or cities, or to exercise jointly any powers common to such county boroughs, city boroughs or cities.


Borough Government Permanency
Proposition 10
Election:
General

1918

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 51.1%)
Topic Areas:
Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Assembly Constitutional Amendment 2. Amends Section 8 1/2 of Article XI of Constitution. Adds provision thereto declaring that whenever a borough is established in a consolidated city and county pursuant to provisions of charter thereof, in connection with annexation of other territory, or otherwise, there shall thereafter be no change in the boundaries or governmental powers of such borough without the consent of a majority of the electors of such borough voting at an election held for that purpose.


Boxing and Wrestling Contests
Proposition 5
Election:
General

1928

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 36.7%)
Topic Areas:
Business & Commerce

Summary: Click for Summary
Repeals initiative act approved by electors November 4, 1924. That act authorizes boxing and wrestling contests for prizes or purses, or where admission fee is charged, limiting such boxing contests to twelve rounds; created athletic commission empowered to license such contests and participants therein; prescribes conditions under which licenses shall be issued and contests held; and declares amateur boxing contests, conducted under Section 412 of Penal Code (which limits such contests to four rounds and prohibits prize fights), are subject to that act, and under commission’s jurisdiction, when admission fee is charged.

[S]


Boxing and Wrestling Contests
Proposition 7
Election:
General

1924

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 51.0%)
Topic Areas:
Business & Commerce

Summary: Click for Summary
Authorizes boxing and wrestling contests for prizes or purses, or where admission fee is charged, limiting such boxing contests to twelve rounds; creates athletic commission empowered to license such contests and participants therein; prescribes conditions under which licenses shall be issued and contests held; declares amateur boxing contests, conducted under Section 412 of Penal Code which prohibits prize fights and limits amateur boxing contests to four rounds, shall be subject to provisions of this measure and under sole jurisdiction of such commission when admission fee is charged.

[S]


Boxing and Wrestling Contests
Proposition 11
Election:
General

1966

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 73.6%)
Topic Areas:
Business & Commerce

Summary: Click for Summary
Amendment of Initiative. Submitted by Legislature. Provides Legislature may amend, revise, or supplement boxing and wrestling initiative act of November 4, 1924.


Boxing and Wrestling Contests
Proposition 20
Election:
General

1962

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 58.3%)
Topic Areas:
Business & Commerce

Summary: Click for Summary
Provides Legislature may amend Boxing and Wrestling initiative act of November 4, 1924, but shall not have power to prohibit wrestling and 12-round boxing contests.


Boxing and Wrestling Matches Regulated
Proposition 11
Election:
General

1942

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 70.4%)
Topic Areas:
Business & Commerce | Military & Veterans Affairs

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends Constitution, Article IV, section 25 3/4. Legislature may regulate wrestling and boxing matches. Limits boxing matches to twelve three-minute rounds, except championship matches may be fifteen rounds if first approved by State Athletic Commission. All moneys derived from license fees, taxes or other means, except legislative appropriations therefrom for administrative costs of Athletic Commission, applied to homes for care of war veterans. Exempts from tax proceeds of matches inuring exclusively to benefit of American Legion or other recognized veterans’ organizations. Authorizes Legislature to change Boxing and Wrestling Initiative Act.


Boxing Matches
Proposition 15
Election:
General

1958

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 44.1%)
Topic Areas:
Business & Commerce

Summary: Click for Summary
This measure would repeal Section 413 1/2 of the Penal Code, an initiative measure adopted in 1914. That section makes it a misdemeanor to participate in, hold, conduct, or attend boxing exhibitions held on Memorial Day (May 30) or Sundays. If adopted by the people, this measure would permit the holding of boxing exhibitions on those days.

[S]


Budget Implementation. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.
Proposition 169
Election:
Special

1993

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 38.7%)
Topic Areas:
Budgets | Legislatures

Summary: Click for Summary
– Authorizes enactment of an annual statute, with more than one subject, to implement changes in law directly related to appropriations in the annual budget act, if title so states, and, if bill enacting statute is presented to the Governor at same time as budget bill.

– Provisions of statute not directly related to implementation of budget act appropriation(s) declared void.

– Authorizes Governor to veto one or more changes in law in annual statute, while approving others.

– Authorizes legislative override of change(s) and enactment in the same manner as bills, if vetoed by Governor.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact: No significant costs or savings to state or local governments.

[CA]


Budget Process. Welfare. Procedural and Substantive Changes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Proposition 165
Election:
General

1992

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 46.6%)
Topic Areas:
Budgets | Human Services

Summary: Click for Summary
– Amends Constitution to allow Governor to declare “fiscal emergency” when budget not adopted or deficit exceeds specified percentages. Grants Governor, with restrictions, powers to reduce expenditures to balance budget including state salaries but not education (Proposition 98).

– Amends statutes to eliminate or limit automatic cost of living adjustments in specified welfare programs.

– Reduces AFDC by 10%, then 15% after six months on aid. Limits aid for new residents. Provides teenage recipients school attendance incentives.

– Gives counties discretion to set general assistance.

– Implements as federal law permits. Other provisions.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:



– Potential state savings, or costs of up to several hundred million or billions of dollars in some years, depending on the budget situation.

– Annual savings of about $680 million to the state General Fund and $35 million to counties, due to changes in the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) Program. The savings are due primarily to grant reductions. Savings in years beyond 1993-94 could increase by an unknown, but potentially significant, amount, due to the effect of certain provisions.

– Potential annual savings beginning in 1996-97 — up to several hundred million dollars to the state and several million dollars to counties — due to elimination of automatic cost of living adjustments in the AFDC Program and the Supplemental Security Income/State Supplementary Program (SSI/SSP).

– Unknown annual savings to counties — probably over $75 million and potentially several hundred million dollars — due to payment limits and funding discretion in general assistance (GA) programs. These savings would be partly offset by additional GA costs of up to $30 million annually, due to the effects of the measure’s AFDC provisions.

[CA/S]


Business Loans for Veterans
Proposition 4
Election:
General

1946

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 51.0%)
Topic Areas:
Business & Commerce | Military & Veterans Affairs | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends Section 31, Article IV of the Constitution. Permits loans to veterans for purpose of enabling veterans to buy a business, land, buildings, supplies, equipment, machinery or tools, to be used by the veteran in pursuing a gainful occupation. Provides that such aid is exempt from prohibition against giving or lending the credit of the State in aid of any person.


California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All Act
Proposition 68
Election:
Primary

2018

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 57.6%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Budgets | Environmental Protection | Land Use/Property Rights | Natural Resources

Summary: Click for Summary
Issues $4 billion in bonds for parks, environmental protection, and water infrastructure.


California Drug Price Relief Act
Proposition 61
Election:
General

2016

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 46.3% unofficial)
Topic Areas:
Health | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Prohibits state agencies from paying more for a prescription drug than the lowest price paid for the same drug by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs. Applies to any program where the state is the ultimate payer for a drug, even if the state does not purchase the drug directly. Exempts certain purchases of prescription drugs funded through Medi-Cal.


California Earthquake Safety And Housing Rehabilitation Bond Act Of 1988
Proposition 77
Election:
Primary

1988

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 56.1%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Human Services | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
This act provides for a bond issue of one hundred fifty million dollars ($150,000,000) to provide funds for a California Earthquake Safety and Housing Rehabilitation program.


California Fair Elections Act
Proposition 15
Election:
Primary

2010

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 42.7%)
Topic Areas:
Ethics/Lobbying/Campaign Finance

Summary: Click for Summary
Scheduled for the June 8, 2010 primary



Repeals ban on public funding of political campaigns. Creates a voluntary system for candidates for Secretary of State to qualify for a public campaign grant if they agree to limitations on spending and private contributions. Each candidate demonstrating enough public support would receive same amount. Participating candidates would be prohibited from raising or spending money beyond the grant. There would be strict enforcement and accountability. Funded by voluntary contributions and a biennial fee on lobbyists, lobbying firms, and lobbyist employers. Fiscal Impact: Increased revenues (mostly from charges related to lobbyists) totaling over $6 million every four years. These funds would be spent on public financing for campaigns of Secretary of State candidates for the 2014 and 2018 elections.



Background

Ban on Public Funds to Pay for Campaigns. State law bans the use of public funds for political candidates’ campaigns. This ban extends to all elected offices at the state level and most elected offices at the local level. (Using powers that they already have under the State Constitution, a small number of charter cities have created programs for the public financing of candidates for certain local offices.)



Entities That Oversee Campaign Finance Laws. The state’s campaign finance laws are administered by the Fair Political Practices Commission (commission) and the Secretary of State. Under state law, individuals and groups must disclose how much money has been given, received, and spent on political campaigns. This information is available to the public on the Secretary of State’s Web site. The commission monitors candidates and donors, and it can assess fines on candidates and donors who violate election laws.



Lobbyist Registration Administered by Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is elected statewide every four years and serves as the state’s chief elections official. The Secretary of State also has other duties, such as monitoring activities of lobbyists. Lobbying is the act of communicating directly with public officials in order to influence governmental actions on behalf of the lobbyist’s employer or client. Every two years, lobbyists, lobbying firms, and lobbyist employers must register with the Secretary of State. There is currently a $25 fee related to each lobbyist to cover the administrative expenses of registration.



Proposal

This measure:

1) Lifts the ban on public funding for political campaigns.

2) Establishes a public funding system for campaigns for the office of Secretary of State.

3)Requires lobbyists to pay higher charges for this public campaign funding.


California Housing and Jobs Investment Bond Act. $185 Million Legislative Bond Act.
Proposition 173
Election:
Special

1993

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 42.1%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Human Services

Summary: Click for Summary
This act establishes a comprehensive program to address the severe housing crisis in California by authorizing the issuance of bonds, requires the proceeds of the bonds to be deposited into the California Housing Loan Insurance Fund for the purpose of providing mortgage guaranty insurance for low and moderate income first-time home buyers pursuant to Part 4 (commencing with Section 51600) of Division 31 of the Health and Safety Code, and requires the repayment of General Fund costs from program revenues in excess of required program costs and reserves.

[S/BOND]


California Housing Bond Act of 1990
Proposition 145
Election:
General

1990

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 44.5%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Human Services

Summary: Click for Summary
This act establishes a comprehensive housing program to address the severe housing crisis in California by (a) authorizing the use of funds from the First-Time Home Buyers Bond Act of 1982, under which the voters of this state authorized a bond issue of two hundred million dollars ($200,000,000), to provide financial assistance to first-time homebuyers in the form of interest rate subsidies and deferred-payment, low-interest second-mortgage loans and (b) providing for a bond issue of one hundred twenty-five million dollars ($125,000,000) to provide funds for a housing and earthquake safety program that includes financing for:



(1) the preservation and rehabilitation of the existing stock of rental housing for families and individuals, including rental housing which meets the special needs of the elderly and disabled,



(2) emergency shelters and transitional housing for homeless families and individuals,



(3) a multifamily mortgage loan and bond insurance program,



(4) farmworker housing, and



(5) rehabilitation loans to enable unreinforced masonry rental buildings to withstand earthquakes.

[S/BOND]


California Park And Recreational Facilities Act Of 1984
Proposition 18
Election:
Primary

1984

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 63.2%)
Topic Areas:
Arts & Culture | Bond Measures | Natural Resources

Summary: Click for Summary
This act provides for a bond issue of three hundred seventy million dollars ($370,000,000) to be used for specified acquisition, development, rehabilitation, or restoration of real property by state, counties, cities and districts for park, beach, recreational, or historical preservation purposes.


California Park, Recreation, and Wildlife Enhancement Act of 1990
Proposition 149
Election:
General

1990

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 47.1%)
Topic Areas:
Arts & Culture | Bond Measures | Natural Resources

Summary: Click for Summary
This act provides for a bond issue of four hundred thirty-seven million dollars ($437,000,000) to provide funds for a program of acquiring, developing, rehabilitating, or restoring real property for state and local park, beach, recreation, greenbelt, wildland fire protection, coastal, historic, or museum purposes.

[S/BOND]


California Reading and Literacy Improvement and Public Library Construction and Renovation Bond Act of 2000
Proposition 14
Election:
Primary

2000

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 59.0%)
Topic Areas:
Arts & Culture | Bond Measures | Education: PreK-12

Summary: Click for Summary
This proposition allows the state to sell $350 million of general obligation bonds for local library facilities. The state would use these bond funds to provide grants to local governments to: (1) construct new libraries, (2) expand or renovate existing libraries, and (3) provide related furnishings and equipment. This grant program would be similar to the 1988 program. For example, local agencies would again have to pay 35 percent of the project cost.



Bonds. General obligation bonds are backed by the state, meaning the state is required to pay the principal and interest costs on these bonds. State General Fund revenues would be used to pay these costs. These revenues come primarily from state personal and corporate income taxes and the sales tax.



Grant Program. Under the program, local agencies would apply to the state for grants of between $50,000 and $20 million. As noted above, the grants could be used either to add new library space or renovate existing space. These funds could not be used for (1) books and other library materials, (2) certain administrative costs of the project, (3) interest costs or other charges for financing the project, or (4) ongoing operating costs of the new or renovated facility.



The proposition provides for a six-member state board to adopt policies for the program and decide which local agencies would receive grants. In reviewing local applications, the board must consider factors such as (1) the relative needs of urban and rural areas, (2) library services available to the local residents, and (3) the financial ability of local agencies to operate library facilities.



The proposition also provides for certain priorities for the grant monies. For instance, in considering applications for a new library, the state must give first priority to so called “joint use” libraries. These are libraries that serve both the community and a particular school district (or districts). In addition, for renovation projects, the state must give first priority to projects in areas where public schools have inadequate facilities to support access to computers and other educational technology.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:



State cost of about $600 million over 25 years to pay off both the principal ($350 million) and interest ($250 million) costs on the bonds. Payments of about $24 million per year.



One-time local costs (statewide) of $190 million to pay for a share of library facility projects. Potential additional local operating costs (statewide) ranging from several million dollars to over $10 million each year.

[S/BOND]


California Reading and Literacy Improvement and Public Library Construction and Renovation Bond Act of 2006.
Proposition 81
Election:
Primary

2006

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 46.9%)
Topic Areas:
Arts & Culture | Bond Measures | Education: PreK-12

Summary: Click for Summary
– This act provides for a bond issue in an amount not to exceed a total of six hundred million dollars ($600,000,000) to provide funds for the construction and renovation of public library facilities in order to expand access to reading and literacy programs in California’s public education system and to expand access to public library services for all residents of California.

– First priority given to eligible projects that were not funded under 2000 Library Bond Act.

– State General Fund money appropriated to pay off bonds.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:

– State cost of about $1.2 billion over 30 years to pay off both the principal ($600 million) and interest ($570 million) costs of the bonds. Payments of about $40 million per year.

– One-time local costs (statewide) of about $320 million to pay for a share of library facility projects. Potential additional local operating costs (statewide) of several millions of dollars annually.

[S/BOND]


California Safe Drinking Water Bond Act Of 1988
Proposition 81
Election:
General

1988

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 71.7%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Environmental Protection | Natural Resources

Summary: Click for Summary
This act provides for a bond issue of seventy-five million dollars ($75,000,000) to provide funds for improvement of domestic water systems to meet minimum drinking water standards.


California Safe Drinking Water Bond Law of 1976
Proposition 3
Election:
Primary

1976

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 62.6%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Environmental Protection | Natural Resources

Summary: Click for Summary
This act provides for a bond issue of one hundred seventy five million dollars ($175,000,000) to provide funds for improvement of domestic water systems to meet minimum drinking water standards.


California Safe Drinking Water Bond Law of 1976.
Proposition 9G
Election:
General

1980

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 64.4%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Environmental Protection | Natural Resources

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends California Safe Drinking Water Bond Law of 1976 by authorizing Legislature to increase from $15,000,000 to $30,000,000 the amount of previously authorized bond proceeds that may be used for grants to political subdivisions, owning or operating domestic water systems, upon determination that such subdivisions are otherwise unable to meet minimum safe drinking water standards. Provides that up to $15,000,000 of the $30,000,000 may be used for grants for construction, improvement, or rehabilitation of domestic water systems which have become contaminated by organic or inorganic compounds, or radiation. Fiscal impact on state or local governments: Revenue loss to State General Fund of $36 million (in principal plus interest) over a 30-year period.


California Safe Drinking Water Bond Law of 1984
Proposition 28
Election:
General

1984

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 73.5%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Environmental Protection | Natural Resources

Summary: Click for Summary
This act provides for a bond issue of seventy-five million dollars ($75,000,000) to provide funds for improvement of domestic water systems to meet minimum drinking water standards.


California Safe Drinking Water Bond Law Of 1986
Proposition 55
Election:
General

1986

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 78.7%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Environmental Protection | Natural Resources

Summary: Click for Summary
This act provides for a bond issue of one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000) to provide funds for improvement of domestic water systems to meet minimum drinking water standards.


California Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Act
Proposition 60
Election:
General

2016

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 46.1% unofficial)
Topic Areas:
Health

Summary: Click for Summary
Requires performers in adult films to use condoms during filming of sexual intercourse. Requires producers of adult films to pay for performer vaccinations, testing, and medical examinations related to sexually transmitted infections. Requires producers to obtain state health license at beginning of filming and to post condom requirement at film sites. Imposes liability on producers for violations, on certain distributors, on performers if they have a financial interest in the violating film, and on talent agents who knowingly refer performers to noncomplying producers. Permits state, performers, or any state resident to enforce violations.


California State Lottery. Allocation for Instructional
Materials. Legislative Initiative Amendment.
Proposition 20
Election:
Primary

2000

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 53.0%)
Topic Areas:
Education: Higher Ed | Education: PreK-12 | Gambling & Lotteries

Summary: Click for Summary
This proposition changes the way that a portion of the annual lottery revenues is distributed to public education. Basically, of the future growth in lottery funds, one-half must go to K-14 public schools and be spent on instructional materials. These funds would be allocated to K-14 schools on a per-student basis.



The proposition would not change the way “base” lottery revenues are allocated to public education. It also would not change the way that the other one-half of growth monies is allocated.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:



In the near term, tens of millions of dollars in annual lottery revenues that go to public education would be earmarked for instructional materials. Amounts earmarked in future years would depend on changes in the level of overall lottery revenues.

[S]


California State Park Bonds Act
Proposition 4
Election:
General

1928

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 73.8%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Natural Resources

Summary: Click for Summary
Adds Section 7 to Article XVI of Constitution. Approves and validates California State Park Bonds Act passed by the Legislature in 1927 and approved by the Governor; authorizes and directs the issuance and sale of $6,000,000 State bonds, and the use of the proceeds thereof, all as provided in said act, to provide a fund to be used for the acquisition of lands and other properties in California for State park purposes; declares section self-executing but permits legislation in furtherance thereof.


Calling Convention for Revision of Constitution
Proposition 1
Election:
General

1914

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 28.9%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law

Summary: Click for Summary
Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 17, a resolution recommending the calling of a convention for the revision of the Constitution of the State of California, recommending that the electors of the state vote at the next general election for the calling of a convention to revise the constitution, and to provide the number and qualification, compensation, and manner of electing the delegates to such convention.


Campaign Contribution Limitations. Elective State Offices.
Proposition 40
Election:
General

1984

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 35.5%)
Topic Areas:
Ethics/Lobbying/Campaign Finance

Summary: Click for Summary
Limits contributors and contributions to elective state office candidates. Limits contributions to individuals, political action committees, parties. Individuals’ yearly contributions limited to $1,000 per candidate, $250 per party or political action committee, with $10,000 maximum to all candidates, political action committees and parties. Parties and political action committees’ yearly contributions limited to $1,000 per candidate. Allows candidate expenditures only from designated account for legitimate campaign expenditures. Regulates independent expenditures, loans, and surplus contributions. Candidates may expend personal funds without limit. Provides limited public funding for candidates to match opposition candidates’ personal expenditures.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact: It is estimated that this measure would reduce State General Fund revenues by approximately $100,000 each fiscal year, and increase State General Fund expenditures by approximately up to $1,650,000 each fiscal year.

[S]


Campaign Contributions and Spending Limits. Restricts Lobbyists. Initiative Statute.
Proposition 208
Election:
General

1996

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 61.3%)
Topic Areas:
Ethics/Lobbying/Campaign Finance

Summary: Click for Summary
– Limits a contributor’s campaign contributions per candidate to $100 for districts of less than 100,000, $250 for larger districts, and $500 for statewide elections. Committees of small contributors can contribute twice the limit. Contribution limits approximately double for candidates who agree to limit spending. Limits total contributions from political parties, businesses, unions and others. Prohibits transfers between candidates.

– Limits fundraising to specified time before election.

– Prohibits lobbyists from making and arranging contributions to those they influence.

– Requires disclosure of top contributors on ballot measure advertising.

– Increases penalties under Political Reform Act.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:



Adoption of this measure would result in costs to state and local governments for implementation and enforcement of new campaign finance limitations in the range of up to $4 million annually.



The measure would result in unknown, but probably not significant, additional state and local election costs.

[S]


Campaign Contributions and Spending. Limits. Disclosure. Legislative Initiative Amendment.
Proposition 34
Election:
General

2000

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 61%)
Topic Areas:
Ethics/Lobbying/Campaign Finance

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary by Attorney General: Limits individual campaign contributions per election: state legislature, $3,000; statewide elective office, $5,000 (small contributor committees may double these limits); governor, $20,000. Limits contributions to political parties/political committees for purpose of making contributions for support or defeat of candidates. Establishes voluntary spending limits, requires ballot pamphlet to list candidates who agree to limit campaign spending. Expands public disclosure requirements, increases penalties for violations. Prohibits lobbyists’ contributions to officials they lobby. Limits campaign fund transfers between candidates, regulates use of surplus campaign funds. Effective 1/1/01, except statewide elective office effective 11/6/02.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact: Additional net costs to the state, potentially up to several million dollars annually, to publish candidate statements in the state ballot pamphlet and to implement and enforce provisions of the measure. Unknown, but probably not significant, costs to local governments to implement voluntary spending limit provisions of the measure.

[S]


Campaign Funding. Contribution Limits. Prohibition Of Public Funding.
Proposition 73
Election:
Primary

1988

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 58.1%)
Topic Areas:
Ethics/Lobbying/Campaign Finance

Summary: Click for Summary
Limits annual political contributions to a candidate for public office to $1,000 from each person, $2,500 from each political committee, and $5,000 from a political party and each “broad based political committee,” as defined. Permits stricter local limits. Limits gifts and honoraria to elected officials to $1,000 from each single source per year. Prohibits transfer of funds between candidates or their controlled committees. Prohibits sending newsletters or other mass mailings, as defined, at public expense. Prohibits public officials using and candidates accepting public funds for purpose of seeking elective office.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact:

Measure would result in net savings to state and local governments. State administrative costs would be about $1.1 million a year when measure is fully operational. These costs would be more than completely offset by savings of about $1.8 million annually resulting from ban on publicly funded newsletters and mass mailings. Local governments would have unknown annual savings primarily from the ban on publicly funded newsletters and mass mailings.

[S]


Changes California Law to Legalize Marijuana and Allow It to Be Regulated and Taxed.
Proposition 19
Election:
General

2010

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 46.5%)
Topic Areas:
Criminal Justice | Drug/Alcohol/Tobacco Policy | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
PROPOSAL

This measure changes state law to (1) legalize the possession and cultivation of limited amounts of marijuana for personal use by individuals age 21 or older, and (2) authorize various commercial marijuana–related activities under certain conditions. Despite these changes to state law, these marijuana–related activities would continue to be prohibited under federal law. These federal prohibitions could still be enforced by federal agencies. It is not known to what extent the federal government would continue to enforce them. Currently, no other state permits commercial marijuana-related activities for non-medical purposes.



State Legalization of Marijuana Possession and Cultivation for Personal Use

Under the measure, persons age 21 or older generally may (1) possess, process, share or transport up to one ounce of marijuana; (2) cultivate marijuana on private property in an area up to 25 square feet per private residence or parcel; (3) possess harvested and living marijuana plants cultivated in such an area; and (4) possess any items or equipment associated with the above activities. The possession and cultivation of marijuana must be solely for an individual’s personal consumption and not for sale to others, and consumption of marijuana would only be permitted in a residence or other “non–public place.” (One exception is that marijuana could be sold and consumed in licensed establishments, as discussed below.) The state and local governments could also authorize the possession and cultivation of larger amounts of marijuana.



State and local law enforcement agencies could not seize or destroy marijuana from persons in compliance with the measure. In addition, the measure states that no individual could be punished, fined, or discriminated against for engaging in any conduct permitted by the measure. However, it does specify that employers would retain existing rights to address consumption of marijuana that impairs an employee’s job performance.



This measure sets forth some limits on marijuana possession and cultivation for personal use. For example, the smoking of marijuana in the presence of minors is not permitted. In addition, the measure would not change existing laws that prohibit driving under the influence of drugs or that prohibit possessing marijuana on the grounds of elementary, middle, and high schools. Moreover, a person age 21 or older who knowingly gave marijuana to a person age 18 through 20 could be sent to county jail for up to six months and fined up to $1,000 per offense. (The measure does not change existing criminal laws which impose penalties for adults who furnish marijuana to minors under the age of 18.)



Authorization of Commercial Marijuana Activities

The measure allows local governments to authorize, regulate, and tax various commercial marijuana–related activities. As discussed below, the state also could authorize, regulate, and tax such activities.



Regulation. The measure allows local governments to adopt ordinances and regulations regarding commercial marijuana–related activities—including marijuana cultivation, processing, distribution, transportation, and retail sales. For example, local governments could license establishments that could sell marijuana to persons 21 and older. Local governments could regulate the location, size, hours of operation, and signs and displays of such establishments. Individuals could transport marijuana from a licensed marijuana establishment in one locality to a licensed establishment in another locality, regardless of whether any localities in between permitted the commercial production and sale of marijuana. However, the measure does not permit the transportation of marijuana between California and another state or country. An individual who was licensed to sell marijuana to others in a commercial establishment and who negligently provided marijuana to a person under 21 would be banned from owning, operating, being employed by, assisting, or entering a licensed marijuana establishment for one year. Local governments could also impose additional penalties or civil fines on certain marijuana–related activities, such as for violation of a local ordinance limiting the hours of operation of a licensed marijuana establishment.



Whether or not local governments engaged in this regulation, the state could, on a statewide basis, regulate the commercial production of marijuana. The state could also authorize the production of hemp, a type of marijuana plant that can be used to make products such as fabric and paper.



Taxation. The measure requires that licensed marijuana establishments pay all applicable federal, state, and local taxes and fees currently imposed on other similar businesses. In addition, the measure permits local governments to impose new general, excise, or transfer taxes, as well as benefit assessments and fees, on authorized marijuana–related activities. The purpose of such charges would be to raise revenue for local governments and/or to offset any costs associated with marijuana regulation. In addition, the state could impose similar charges.



BACKGROUND

Federal Law. Federal laws classify marijuana as an illegal substance and provide criminal penalties for various activities relating to its use. These laws are enforced by federal agencies that may act independently or in cooperation with state and local law enforcement agencies.



State Law and Proposition 215. Under current state law, the possession, cultivation, or distribution of marijuana generally is illegal in California. Penalties for marijuana–related activities vary depending on the offense. For example, possession of less than one ounce of marijuana is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine, while selling marijuana is a felony and may result in a prison sentence.



In November 1996, voters approved Proposition 215, which legalized the cultivation and possession of marijuana in California for medical purposes. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2005, however, that federal authorities could continue to prosecute California patients and providers engaged in the cultivation and use of marijuana for medical purposes. Despite having this authority, the U.S. Department of Justice announced in March 2009 that the current administration would not prosecute marijuana patients and providers whose actions are consistent with state medical marijuana laws.


Changes Law to Allow Auto Insurance Companies to Set Prices Based on a Driver’s History of Insurance Coverage. Initiative Statute.
Proposition 33
Election:
General

2012

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 45.3% (unofficial))
Topic Areas:
Insurance

Summary: Click for Summary
Changes current law to permit insurance companies to set prices based on whether the driver previously carried auto insurance with any insurance company. Allows insurance companies to give proportional discounts to drivers with some prior insurance coverage. Will allow insurance companies to increase cost of insurance to drivers who have not maintained continuous coverage. Treats drivers with lapse as continuously covered if lapse is due to military service or loss of employment, or if lapse is less than 90 days.


Changes Legislative Vote Requirement to Pass a Budget from Two-Thirds to a Simple Majority. Retains Two-Thirds Vote Requirement for Taxes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Proposition 25
Election:
General

2010

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 55.1%)
Topic Areas:
Budgets | Legislatures

Summary: Click for Summary
PROPOSAL

Lowers Legislative Vote Requirements for the Budget Bill and Related Legislation. This measure amends the Constitution to lower the vote requirement necessary for each house of the Legislature to pass a budget bill and send it to the Governor. Specifically, the vote requirement would be lowered from two–thirds to a majority (50 percent plus one) of each house of the Legislature. The lower vote requirement also would apply to trailer bills that appropriate funds and are identified by the Legislature “as related to the budget in the budget bill.” Both the budget bill and these trailer bills would take effect immediately after being signed by the Governor (or on a later date specified in the bill). A two–thirds vote of the Legislature would still be required to override any veto by the Governor. This measure’s constitutional provisions do not specifically address the legislative vote requirement for increasing state tax revenues, but the measure states that its intent is not to change the existing two-thirds vote requirement regarding state taxes.



Loss of Pay and Reimbursements by Legislators. In any year when the Legislature has not sent a budget bill to the Governor by June 15, this measure would prohibit Members of the Legislature from collecting any salary or reimbursements for travel or living expenses. This prohibition would be in effect from June 15 until the day that a budget is presented to the Governor. These salaries and expenses could not be paid to legislators at a later date.



BACKGROUND

Process for Passing a Budget. The State Constitution gives the Legislature the power to appropriate (that is, allow the spending of) state funds. The annual state budget is the Legislature’s primary method of authorizing state expenses for a fiscal year (which runs from July 1 to June 30). The Constitution requires that the Governor propose a budget by January 10 for the next fiscal year. Each of the two houses of the Legislature (the State Assembly and the State Senate) then is required to pass the annual budget bill by June 15 and send it to the Governor. The Governor may either sign the budget approved by the Legislature or veto (reject) all or a part of it. By a two–thirds (67 percent) vote in each house of the Legislature, a veto by the Governor may be overridden. While the Constitution has a date by which the Legislature must pass a budget, it does not have a specific date by which a final budget must be put into law.



Two–Thirds Vote Requirement for Passage of State Budget. The Constitution requires a two–thirds vote of each house of the Legislature for the passage of “urgency” measures that take effect immediately, bills that increase state tax revenues, and General Fund appropriations (except appropriations for public schools). Because the state budget includes General Fund appropriations and needs to take effect immediately, it requires a two–thirds vote for passage. Certain budget actions, such as a decision to change the services that a state department is mandated to provide, require changing state law. These changes often are included in “trailer bills” that accompany passage of the budget each year. In general, bills passed by the Legislature take effect on January 1 of the next year. In order for trailer bills to take effect immediately, however, they must be passed by a two–thirds vote of each house of the Legislature.



Late Budgets. Since 1980, the Legislature has met its June 15 constitutional deadline for sending a budget to the Governor five times. During that same period, a final budget—passed by the Legislature and approved by the Governor—was in place prior to the July 1 start of the fiscal year on ten occasions, including three times since 2000. When a fiscal year begins without a state budget in place, some state expenses are not paid as scheduled. For example, state elected officials (such as the Governor and Members of the Legislature) have not received salaries after July 1 until a final budget is in place. Salary payments withheld from these officials have been paid in full when the final budget goes into effect.


Changing Motor Vehicle Taxation
Proposition 18
Election:
General

1930

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 40.3%)
Topic Areas:
Tax & Revenue | Transportation

Summary: Click for Summary
Adds Section 1c to Article XIII of Constitution. Requires Legislature provide for tax on motor vehicles in lieu of personal property taxes thereon, prescribe basis and method of fixing amount thereof, and collection by state department registering such vehicles; requires at least 95 per cent of fund derived therefrom be paid each year to respective counties from which such vehicles were registered, each county’s share to be distributed between county and political subdivisions therein, as prescribed by law. Declares section shall not affect motor vehicle registration fees.


Charters for Counties and Cities
Proposition 2
Election:
General

1974

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 72.8%)
Topic Areas:
Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends Article XI, section 3(a), of State Constitution to provide that a city or county may adopt, amend, revise, or repeal a charter by a majority of its electors voting, and without approval of the Legislature, Makes charter, or changes thereto, effective upon filing with the Secretary of State. Charter provisions are the law of the state having the force and effect of legislative enactments. County charters adopted pursuant to this section supersede any existing charter and all inconsistent laws. Financial impact: None on local government and minor savings to state government.


Charters of Cities, or Cities and Counties
Proposition 24
Election:
General

1936

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 52.6%)
Topic Areas:
Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends section 8 of Article XI of Constitution. Declares that at election for adoption of charter by cities, or cities and counties, electors shall first vote on question, “Shall a board of freeholders be elected to frame a proposed new charter?” and secondly for freeholders, provided that the fifteen candidates for freeholder receiving highest number of votes shall be elected only if first question receives majority vote of electors voting thereon. Authorizes legislative body of city, or city and county, to frame a charter for submission to electors.


Child Care Facilities Financing Act of 1990
Proposition 151
Election:
General

1990

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 47.5%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Education: PreK-12 | Human Services

Summary: Click for Summary
This act provides for a bond issue of thirty million dollars ($30,000,000) to provide funds for child care facilities.

[S/BOND]


Children’s Hospital Projects. Grant Program. Bond Act. Initiative Statute.
Proposition 61
Election:
General

2004

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 58.3%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Health

Summary: Click for Summary
– Authorizes $750,000,000 in general obligation bonds, to be repaid from state’s General Fund, for grants to eligible children’s hospitals for construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation, furnishing and equipping children’s hospitals.

– 20% of bonds are for grants to specified University of California general acute care hospitals; 80% of bonds are for grants to general acute care hospitals that focus on children with illnesses such as leukemia, heart defects, sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis, provide comprehensive services to a high volume of children eligible for government programs, and that meet other stated requirements.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact: State cost of about $1.5 billion over 30 years to pay off both the principal ($750 million) and the interest ($756 million) costs of the bonds. Payments of about $50 million per year.


Children’s Hospital Bond Act. Grant Program. Initiative Statute.
Proposition 3
Election:
General

2008

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 55.3%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Health

Summary: Click for Summary
BACKGROUND

Children’s hospitals focus their efforts on the health care needs of children by providing diagnostic, therapeutic, and rehabilitative services to injured, disabled, and sick infants and children. Many children receiving services in these hospitals are from low-income families and have significant health care needs.



Proposition 61, which voters approved at the November 2004 statewide general election, authorized the sale of $750 million in general obligation bonds to provide funding for children’s hospitals. The eligibility criteria for hospitals to receive funds under Proposition 61 is the same under this measure. As of June 1, 2008, about $403 million of the funds from Proposition 61 had been awarded to eligible hospitals.



PROPOSAL

This measure authorizes the state to sell $980 million in general obligation bonds for capital improvement projects at children’s hospitals. The measure specifically identifies the five University of California children’s hospitals as eligible bond fund recipients. There are additional children’s hospitals that are likely to meet other eligibility criteria specified in the measure, which are based on hospitals’ performance in the 2001–02 fiscal year. These criteria include providing at least 160 licensed beds for infants and children.



The money raised from the bond sales could be used for the construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation, furnishing, equipping, financing, or refinancing of children’s hospitals in the state. Eighty percent of the monies would be available to nonprofit children’s hospitals and the remaining 20 percent would be available to University of California children’s hospitals. The monies provided could not exceed the total cost of a project, and funded projects would have to be completed “within a reasonable period of time.”



Children’s hospitals would have to apply in writing for funds. The California Health Facilities Financing Authority (CHFFA), an existing state agency, would be required to develop the grant application. It must process submitted applications and award grants within 60 days. The CHFFA’s decision to award a grant would be based on several factors, including whether the grant would contribute toward the expansion or improvement of health care access for children who are eligible for governmental health insurance programs, or who are indigent, underserved, or uninsured; whether the grant would contribute toward the improvement of child health care or pediatric patient outcomes; and whether the applicant hospital would promote pediatric teaching or research programs.



FISCAL EFFECTS

The cost of these bonds to the state would depend on the interest rates obtained when they were sold and the time period over which this debt would be repaid. If the $980 million in bonds authorized by this measure were sold at an interest rate of 5 percent and repaid over 30 years, the cost to the state General Fund would be about $2 billion to pay off both the principal ($980 million) and the interest ($933 million). The average payment for principal and interest would be about $64 million per year. Administrative costs would be limited to CHFFA’s actual costs or 1 percent of the bond funds, whichever is less. We estimate these costs will be minor.


Chiropractic
Proposition 16
Election:
General

1922

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 59.5%)
Topic Areas:
Health

Summary: Click for Summary
Creates Board of Chiropractic Examiners, appointed by Governor and paid from receipts under act; prescribes powers and duties thereof; prohibits practice of chiropractic without license therefrom, authorizing issuance thereof to certain chiropractic graduates and establishing prerequisites of study and other conditions to such issuance; provides for revocation of such licenses; declares chiropractic licentiates shall observe and be subject to all state and municipal regulations relating to all matters pertaining to public health, shall sign death certificates and make reports as required by law; prescribes penalties and repeals conflicting legislation.

[S]


Chiropractic
Proposition 9
Election:
General

1934

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 38.0%)
Topic Areas:
Health

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends Chiropractic Act. Creates State Chiropractors Association; provides for organization, government, membership, powers and duties thereof; defines chiropractic and physical therapy; and regulates practice thereof; provides for investigation and approval of chiropractic and physical therapy schools and colleges; establishes qualifications and educational requirements for licensees; provides for issuance of chiropractic and physical therapy licenses; fixes license fees; provides for suspension, revocation and reinstatement of licenses; entitles licensees, in practice of their profession, to practice in public institutions and to equality with other professional licensees under Workmen’s Compensation Act; prescribes penalties for violations; repeals all conflicting acts.

[S]


Chiropractic
Proposition 5
Election:
General

1920

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 49.2%)
Topic Areas:
Health

Summary: Click for Summary
Creates Board of Chiropractic Examiners appointed by Governor and paid from receipts under act; prescribes powers and duties thereof and prohibits practice of chiropractic without license therefrom; regulates issuance of such licenses; requires licensees to observe state and municipal regulations relating to control of contagious and infectious diseases and authorizes them to sign birth and death certificates and use natural agencies and manual and mechanical means and manipulations as auxiliaries in their practice; declares other methods of healing, and chiropractors licensed under other acts, not affected hereby; prescribes penalties and repeals all conflicting legislation.

[S]


Chiropractors
Proposition 2
Election:
Special

1939

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 29.7%)
Topic Areas:
Health

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends title and certain sections of Chiropractic Act; provides secretary of Chiropractic Board shall devote full time to duties and increases his salary; increases powers of board; increases educational requirements of applicant for license; permits licensees to diagnose and treat diseases, injuries, deformities or other physical or mental conditions of human beings, without using drugs or severing any tissues of human body; specifies grounds of and proceedings for suspension or revocation of license; specifies annual renewal license fee and method of reinstating forfeited license; declares licensees shall report communicable diseases and sign birth and death certificates.

[S]


Chiropractors
Proposition 7
Election:
General

1950

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 57.0%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law | Health

Summary: Click for Summary
This measure provides that no blind person shall be denied admission into any college or school of chiropractic or denied the right to take any examination given by such school or college, or denied a diploma or certificate of graduation or a degree, or denied admission into any examination for a state license or denied a regular license to practice chiropractic, on the ground that he is blind. The measure would so provide by adding a new section to the Chiropractic Initiative Act of 1922 which provided for the organization of the Board of Chiropractic Examiners and for certain educational and licensing requirements for the practice of chiropractic in this State.



Except in certain cases otherwise provided for by law, an applicant for a license to practice chiropractic must be a graduate of a chiropractic school or college approved by the Board of Chiropractic Examiners (Act of 1922, Sec. 5; Statutes 1947, Ch. 151, Sec. 3). The board has adopted a rule that no student shall be enrolled in an approved school unless he has at least 50 percent vision and hearing and is without a major physical defect (Title 16, California Administrative Code, Sec. 337, subds. (b) (c)). The validity of this rule was sustained in the case of Hunt v. Board of Chiropractic Examiners, 87 Cal. App. 2d 98, where the court held that the rule was within the authority conferred on the board by the Chiropractic Initiative Act of 1922.



The new section proposed by the present measure would remove blindness as a ground for refusing admission to or graduation from a school or college of chiropractic or for refusing a state license to practice chiropractic, and would invalidate the board’s present rule insofar as it requires a person to possess at least 50 percent vision to be eligible to enter an approved school or college of chiropractic.

[S]


Chiropractors
Proposition 7
Election:
General

1960

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 56.3%)
Topic Areas:
Health

Summary: Click for Summary
Permits two, rather than one, board members from same chiropractic school or college to be members of board at same time, Provides that Legislature may fix fees of applicants and licensees and per diem compensation payable to board members.


Chiropractors
Proposition 8
Election:
Primary

1972

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 73.6%)
Topic Areas:
Health

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends several sections of the Chiropractic Initiative Act. Provides that members of the Board of Chiropractic Examiners shall be citizens of the United States and have resided and been licensed Chiropractors in California for at least five years. Deletes provision that District Attorneys are required to prosecute violations of the Chiropractic Act. Revises examination procedure. Makes other nonsubstantive changes in that Act. Financial impact: This measure does not involve any significant cost or revenue considerations.

[S]


Chiropractors
Proposition 16
Election:
General

1948

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 66.6%)
Topic Areas:
Health

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends Chiropractic Act. Authorizes State Board of Chiropractic Examiners to approve or disapprove schools, prescribe requirements therefor, and determine minimum requirements for chiropractic teachers. Requires license applicants to be graduates of approved schools and increases minimum chiropractic course from 18 to 36 months. Authorizes Board to employ investigators, clerical and other help, and non-member secretary. Adds power of license suspension to Board’s present power of revocation; brings disciplinary proceedings under Administrative Procedure Act. Eliminates fixed $2 annual license renewal fee and authorizes Board to prescribe renewal fee between $2 and $10.


Chiropractors
Proposition 17
Election:
General

1952

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 45.8%)
Topic Areas:
Health

Summary: Click for Summary
This measure submits to the voters for approval or rejection amendments made by Chapter 1650 of the Statutes of 1951 to the Chiropractic Initiative Act of 1922, providing for the organization of the Board of Chiropractic Examiners and for educational and licensing requirements for the practice of chiropractic in this State, which amendments may be summarized as follows:



The measure increases membership of the State Board of Chiropractic Examiners from five to seven members, and increases the vote necessary to carry motions or resolutions, to adopt rules, or to issue licenses from affirmative vote by three members to affirmative vote by four members.



It eliminates the provision precluding any two persons whose first diplomas were issued by the same chiropractic school from being members of the board at the same time. It also increases per diem for members of the board while engaged in official duties from $10 to $30.



It repeals the provision providing for the granting of licenses to graduates of chiropractic schools practicing chiropractic at the effective date of the Chiropractic Act, and those graduates who meet prescribed educational requirements prior to January 1, 1922, if application for the license is made within six months of the effective date of the Chiropractic Act, which is December 21, 1922.



The measure adds as a ground for suspension or revocation of a license or for refusal to grant a license any act which constitutes unprofessional conduct. Unprofessional conduct is defined as the procuring, aiding or abetting in the procuring, of criminal abortion; paying for steering patients into one’s office; obtaining a fee on assurance that a manifestly incurable disease can be made entirely well; wilful betrayal of professional secrets of a patient to his detriment; chiropractic advertising which is untrue or misleading; conviction of an offense involving moral turpitude; or wilful nelgect[sic] of a patient in a critical condition.



The measure further defines as unprofessional conduct the employing, directly or indirectly, of a suspended or unlicensed practitioner in the practice of any system or mode of treating the sick or afflicted, or aiding or abetting any unlicensed person to practice any system or mode of treating the sick or afflicted.



It requires that licenses be renewed annually, the issuance of such renewal licenses to be contingent upon submission of evidence satisfactory to the board that the applicant has completed at least 16 hours of postgraduate studies within the previous year.



It increases the fee required of a licentiate who fails, refuses, or neglects to pay the annual renewal fee for 60 days after January 1 of each year from $10 to $25, but exempts any licentiate serving in the United States armed forces from payment of the renewal fee during his period of service and for one year thereafter.



It increases the fine for certain acts declared to be a misdemeanor by the Chiropractic Act from not less than $50 nor more than $200 to not less than $200 nor more than $600.


Chiropractors, Board of Examiners. Licensing Requirements
Proposition 15
Election:
General

1976

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 81.1%)
Topic Areas:
Health

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends initiative statute relating to chiropractors to provide for addition of two public members to State Board of Chiropractic Examiners. Requires chiropractic school or college to be accredited by Council on Chiropractic Education, or equivalent, before graduates thereof are eligible to apply for chiropractic licenses. Increases minimum educational requirements necessary to practice chiropractic to include, among others, 60 prechiropractic college credits. Authorizes Board to accept diplomate certificate and results of National Board of Chiropractic Examiners examination in lieu of all or part of California Board examination. Financial impact: Insignificant.

[S]


Chiropractors. School Accreditation and License Revocation.
Proposition 4
Election:
General

1978

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 75.0%)
Topic Areas:
Health

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends initiative statute relating to chiropractors to modify requirements and procedures for approval of chiropractic schools and colleges. Permits increase in fee for state license to practice chiropractic at discretion of board of examiners. Expands grounds for denial, suspension, or revocation of license to include conviction of any felony, or any offense substantially related to chiropractic, on plea or verdict of guilty or plea or no contest. Financial impact: Insignificant fiscal effect on state and local governments.

[S]


Chiropractors. Unprofessional Conduct. Legislative Initiative Amendment.
Proposition 44
Election:
Primary

2002

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 79.8%)
Topic Areas:
Health

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends Chiropractic Act to specify practices constituting unprofessional conduct; require investigation of licensee in certain circumstances and license revocation upon second conviction, or multiple convictions, of specified insurance fraud offenses. Fiscal Impact: Negligible additional state implementation costs. Potential state savings of unknown amount resulting from lower workers’ compensation and Medi-Cal costs.

[S]


Chiropractors: Rules
Proposition 11
Election:
General

1970

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 69.3%)
Topic Areas:
Health

Summary: Click for Summary
Amendment of Chiropractic Initiative Act, submitted by Legislature. Authorizes Board of Chiropractic Examiners to adopt specified rules and regulations governing chiropractics and specifies procedure by which rules are to be adopted, amended, repealed, or established.


Church Exemptions: Parking Lots
Proposition 6
Election:
General

1956

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 55.3%)
Topic Areas:
Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
This constitutional amendment would amend Section 1 1/2 of Article XIII of the Constitution, and would extend the existing church property tax exemption to real property used for parking automobiles of persons while attending religious services in the church.



The following requirements must be met to obtain the exemption:

(a) The property must be owned by the owner of a building used solely and exclusively for religious purposes.

(b) The property must be required by law to be made available for the parking of the automobiles of persons who attend services in the church.

(c) The property must be necessarily and reasonably required, and exclusively used, for such parking.

(d) The property must not during the preceding year have been rented or used for any commercial purpose.



The measure expressly provides that the real property need not be contiguous to land on which the church building is located. It has heretofore been held that parking space immediately adjacent to a church and under the circumstances required for its convenient use and occupation is entitled to be included in the church exemption (Immanuel Presbyterian Church v. Payne (1928), 90 Cal. App. 176). Hence, the practical effect of this amendment would be to include noncontiguous parking space in the church exemption and to limit the exemption, as to both contiguous and noncontiguous property, to property required by law to be made available for parking purposes.



The Legislature is authorized by law to qualify or withdraw this exemption.


Church Exemptions: Property Under Construction
Proposition 9
Election:
General

1954

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 73.4%)
Topic Areas:
Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
This constitutional amendment would extend the church property tax exemption to land for any church building in the course of construction, additional land required for the convenient use and occupation of the building, and the equipment for the building, if the building, equipment, and land are intended to be used exclusively for religious worship. The exemption would apply to taxes becoming a lien after the people vote on this measure. The present church exemption applies to buildings and the real property on which they are situated required for the convenient use and occupation of the buildings when they are used solely and exclusively for religious worship and also to such buildings in the course of construction intended to be used for such purposes. Neither it nor the extension proposed by this amendment is applicable to buildings rented for religious purposes.


Church, Orphanage, and College Tax Exemptions
Proposition 21
Election:
General

1938

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 36.5%)
Topic Areas:
Education: PreK-12 | Human Services | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends Constitution, Article XIII, sections 1a, 1« and 1«a. Extends exemption from taxation of buildings used solely and exclusively for religious worship to include all furnishings and other personal property therein; and of buildings occupied by institutions sheltering more than twenty orphans or half-orphans, receiving State aid, to include all personal property used in connection with such institutions. Denies exemptions to church property, to such orphan institutions, and to educational institutions of collegiate grade, unless those claiming exemption comply with prescribed statutory procedure.


Cigarette and Tobacco Tax. Benefit Fund. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Proposition 99
Election:
General

1988

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 58.2%)
Topic Areas:
Environmental Protection | Health | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Imposes additional tax upon cigarette distributors of one and one-fourth cents (1 1/4 cents) for each cigarette distributed. Imposes tax upon distributors of other tobacco products which is equivalent to combined rate of tax imposed on cigarettes. Directs State Board of Equalization to determine this tax annually. Places moneys raised in special account which can only be used for: treatment; research of tobacco-related diseases; school and community health education programs about tobacco; fire prevention; and environmental conservation and damage restoration programs. Declares revenues not subject to appropriations limit.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact:
Will raise additional state revenues of approximately $300 million in 1988-89 (part year) and $600 million in 1989-90 (first full year). These revenue increases would decline gradually in subsequent years. Annual administrative costs are estimated at $500,000 in 1988-89 and $300,000 in subsequent years. There would be no substantial net effect on sales and excise tax revenues to the state, cities, and counties.

[CA/S]


Cigarette Tax Increase Amendment
Proposition 56
Election:
General

2016

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 62.9% unofficial)
Topic Areas:
Drug/Alcohol/Tobacco Policy | Health | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Increases cigarette tax by $2.00 per pack, with equivalent increase on other tobacco products and electronic cigarettes containing nicotine. Allocates revenues primarily to increase funding for existing healthcare programs; also for tobacco use prevention/control programs, tobacco-related disease research and law enforcement, University of California physician training, dental disease prevention programs, and administration. Excludes these revenues from Proposition 98 funding requirements. If tax causes decreased tobacco consumption, transfers tax revenues to offset decreases to existing tobacco-funded programs and sales tax revenues. Requires biennial audit.


City and County Consolidation, and Annexation with Consent of Annexed Territory
Proposition 21
Election:
General

1914

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 43.8%)
Topic Areas:
Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Initiative amendment to section 8 1/2 of article XI of constitution. Present section unchanged except to authorize chartered cities to establish municipal courts and control appointments, qualifications and tenure of municipal officers and employees; authorizes cities exceeding 175,000 population to consolidate under charter and to annex any contiguous territory, but only upon consent of such territory and of county from which such territory is taken; prescribes procedure for consolidation and annexation.

[CA]


City Charter Provisions for Nomination and Election of Officers
Proposition 19
Election:
General

1932

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 48.5%)
Topic Areas:
Elections | Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends Section 8 1/2 of Article XI of Constitution. Adds provision permitting city or city and county charters to provide any mode for the nomination and/or election of officers of such city or city and county, and to adopt and provide for any system of proportional representation on the legislative body thereof, also the manner of voting under such system.


City Charters
Proposition 22
Election:
General

1938

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 39.3%)
Topic Areas:
Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends section 8 of Article XI of Constitution. Permits filing petitions for charter amendments at any time. Provides that amendments to charter shall be submitted by the legislative body of the city or city and county to the electors at the time of the holding of the next regular municipal election held not less than 60 days from the date of filing of the petition, or at any special election called for that purpose prior to the next regular municipal election. Provides qualified electors are those whose names appear upon current registration records.


City Charters
Proposition 17
Election:
General

1932

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 61.3%)
Topic Areas:
Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends Section 8, Article XI, of Constitution. Requires board of freeholders, within one year after their election, to prepare a proposed city charter, and if city’s population exceeds 50,000 requires copies thereof be printed and mailed each elector. Requires petition for submission of charter amendment be filed with legislative body of city at least sixty days before general election next preceding a regular session of Legislature. Permits charter provision for division of city into boroughs or districts; eliminates provision that borough’s powers be not changed without consent of electors of borough.


City Charters – Boards of Education
Proposition 4
Election:
Primary

1978

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 52.0%)
Topic Areas:
Education: PreK-12 | Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Requires that any amendment to a city charter which would change the manner, time, or terms of appointment or election of the governing board of a school or community college district or change charter provisions relating to the qualifications, compensation, removal or number of such members must be submitted for approval by a majority of all the qualified electors of the school or community college district voting on the question, including persons residing in such district but outside city boundaries. Requires submission of such amendments as separate questions. Financial impact: Minor increases in local election costs could result where voters live outside city’s boundary.

[CA]


City of Venice Indebtedness
Proposition 16
Election:
General

1918

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 52.9%)
Topic Areas:
Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Assembly Constitutional Amendment 62. Amends Section 13, Article XI of Constitution, relating to limitations upon county, municipal and district indebtedness, by adding proviso authorizing city of Venice to pay all its indebtedness incurred during years 1914 to 1916 inclusive exceeding the income and revenue therefor, amount to be paid in full of said indebtedness not to exceed in the aggregate sixty thousand dollars, whenever two-thirds of voters thereof so decide at election held for that purpose, and declaring that no statute of limitations shall apply in any manner.


Civil and Criminal Appeals
Proposition 16
Election:
General

1956

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 72.0%)
Topic Areas:
Criminal Justice

Summary: Click for Summary
This constitutional amendment would revise those sections of the Constitution which confer authority on the Supreme Court to transfer cases from one appellate court to another. It would amend Section 4c of Article VI and add a Section 4d to the same article.



Under present constitutional provisions, the Supreme Court may transfer any cause pending before it to a District Court of Appeal for decision, and may transfer causes pending in one District Court of Appeal to another, or from one division of such court to another division. This constitutional amendment would eliminate the phrase “cause pending” in connection with these transfers, and would permit such transfers in “any case” by the Supreme Court prior to decision in the case by the court from which it is to be transferred.



In addition to these transfers before decision, Section 4c of Article VI now provides for a transfer of causes to the Supreme Court after decision in the District Court of Appeal. It now specifies that judgments of a District Court of Appeal become final therein upon the expiration of 15 days in criminal cases, or 30 days in all other cases; and it now provides that transfers to the Supreme Court shall be made within 15 days after finality in the District Court of Appeal in criminal cases, and within 30 days after such finality in all other cases. In place of such fixed time limits, this measure would authorize the Judicial Council to adopt rules establishing the time when a decision of the District Court of Appeal becomes final, and would only permit the transfer of such cases to the Supreme Court prior to the date of finality thus established.


Claims Against Chartered Cities and Counties
Proposition 9
Election:
General

1960

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 74.1%)
Topic Areas:
Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Permits Legislature to prescribe procedures governing claims against chartered counties, cities and counties, and cities, or against officers, agents and employees thereof.


Claims and Budgets
Proposition 10
Election:
General

1934

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 67.7%)
Topic Areas:
Budgets

Summary: Click for Summary
Adds section 1a to Article IV of Constitution. Provides that notwithstanding any constitutional limitations or restrictions every State office, department, institution, board, commission, bureau, or other State agency, created by initiative act or otherwise, shall be subject to regulations and requirements with respect to filing of claims with State Controller and submission, approval and enforcement of budgets prescribed by law.


Class Size Reduction. Kindergarten-University. Public Education Bond Act
Proposition 1A
Election:
General

1998

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 62.5%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Education: Higher Ed | Education: PreK-12

Summary: Click for Summary
This $9,200,000,000 bond issue will provide funding for necessary education facilities for at least four years for class size reduction, to relieve overcrowding and accommodate student enrollment growth and to repair older schools and for wiring and cabling for education technology. Funds will also be used to upgrade and build new classrooms in community colleges, the California State University, and the University of California. These bonds may be used only for eligible construction projects.

[S/BOND]


Classification By Race, Ethnicity, Color or National Origin. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Proposition 54
Election:
Special

2003

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 36.1%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law

Summary: Click for Summary
Scheduled for the October 7, 2003 special election.



Effective January 1, 2005, prohibits state, local governments from using race, ethnicity, color or national origin to classify current or prospective students, contractors, or employees in public education, contracting or employment operations. Does not prohibit classification by sex. Prohibition also covers persons subject to other operations of government unless Legislature finds compelling state interest, authorizes by two-thirds of each house, and Governor approves. “Classifying” defined as separating, sorting, or organizing persons or personal data. Exemptions include: law enforcement descriptions; prisoner and undercover assignments; action taken to maintain federal funding. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: This measure would have a major fiscal impact of annual state savings potentially ranging from several million dollars in excess of $10 million beginning in 2015.

[CA]


Clean Environment Act
Proposition 9
Election:
Primary

1972

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 35.3%)
Topic Areas:
Business & Commerce | Energy & Electric Utilities

Summary: Click for Summary
Specifies permissible composition and quality of gasoline and other fuel for internal combustion engines. Authorizes shutting down of businesses and factories violating air pollution standards. Imposes restrictions on leasing and extraction of oil and gas from tidelands or submerged lands, or onshore areas within one mile of mean high tide line. Prohibits construction of atomic powered electric generating plants for five years. Establishes restrictions on manufacture, sale, and use of pesticides. Prohibits enforcement officials from having conflicting interests. Provides for relief by injunction and mandate to prevent violations. Imposes penal sanctions and civil penalties.

[S]


Clean Water and Water Conservation Bond Law of 1978
Proposition 2
Election:
Primary

1978

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 53.5%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Environmental Protection | Natural Resources

Summary: Click for Summary
This act provides for a bond issue of three hundred seventy-five million dollars ($375,000,000) to provide funds for water pollution control and water conservation.

[S]


Clean Water And Water Reclamation Bond Act Of 1988
Proposition 83
Election:
General

1988

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 64.4%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Environmental Protection

Summary: Click for Summary
This act provides for a bond issue of sixty-five million dollars ($65,000,000) to provide funds for water pollution control and water reclamation projects and makes changes in the Water Conservation and Water Quality Bond Law of 1986 relating to loans and the Clean Water Bond Law of 1984 relating to accounts, funding for specified purposes, loans, and compliance with federal requirements.


Clean Water Bond Law
Proposition 25
Election:
General

1984

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 72.9%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Environmental Protection | Natural Resources

Summary: Click for Summary
This act provides for a bond issue of three hundred twenty-five million dollars ($325,000,000) to provide funds for water pollution control, water conservation, and water reclamation projects and activities.


Clean Water Bond Law of 1974
Proposition 2
Election:
Primary

1974

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 70.5%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Environmental Protection | Natural Resources

Summary: Click for Summary
This act provides for a bond issue of two hundred fifty million dollars ($250,000,000) to provide funds for water pollution control.


Coastal Zone Conservation Act
Proposition 20
Election:
General

1972

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 55.2%)
Topic Areas:
Environmental Protection | Natural Resources

Summary: Click for Summary
Creates State Coastal Zone Conservation Commission and six regional commissions. Sets criteria for and requires submission of plan to Legislature for preservation, protection, restoration and enhancement of environment and ecology of coastal zone, as defined. Establishes permit area within coastal zone as the area between the seaward limits of state jurisdiction and 1000 yards landward from the mean high tide line, subject to specified exceptions. Prohibits any development within permit area without permit by state or regional commission. Prescribes standards for issuance or denial of permits. Act terminates after 1976. This measure appropriates five million dollars ($5,000,000) for the period 1973 to 1976. Financial impact: Cost to state of $1,250,000 per year plus undeterminable local government administrative costs.

[S]


College Exemption: Extension of
Proposition 13
Election:
General

1962

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 72.2%)
Topic Areas:
Education: Higher Ed

Summary: Click for Summary
Extends nonprofit college tax exemption to all grounds within which buildings are located used exclusively for purposes of education rather than limiting exempt area to 100 acres.


College Exemption: Property Under Construction
Proposition 14
Election:
General

1954

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 71.4%)
Topic Areas:
Education: Higher Ed

Summary: Click for Summary
This constitutional amendment would extend the college property tax exemption to land on which a building of an educational institution of collegiate grade in the course of construction is located if it is intended that the land and the building will be used for collegiate educational purposes. The exemption would be effective as of the first Monday in March, 1950, the date upon which the county property taxes for 1950-1951 became a lien.



The present college exemption applies to the building and equipment of any educational institution of collegiate grade and the grounds upon which the buildings are located not exceeding 100 acres in area, and securities and income used exclusively for purposes of education and also to a building in the course of construction on or after the first Monday of March, 1950.


Commission On Judicial Performance.
Proposition 92
Election:
General

1988

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 74.2%)
Topic Areas:
Judiciary

Summary: Click for Summary
Specifies the powers which the Commission on Judicial Performance may exercise if, after conducting a preliminary investigation, it determines that formal disciplinary proceedings should be instituted against a judge. Such powers would permit public hearings on charges of moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption, and require public hearing at request of judge charged absent good cause for confidentiality. Shortens the term of specified members of the commission from 4 to 2 years in order to provide for staggered terms. Prohibits members from serving more than two 4-year terms. Summary of Legislative Analyst’s estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact: This measure would have a minor impact on state costs.


Commission on Judicial Performance. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.
Proposition 190
Election:
General

1994

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 63.9%)
Topic Areas:
Judiciary | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
– Transfers authority to remove or discipline judges from California Supreme Court to Commission on Judicial Performance.

– Provides for public disciplinary proceedings against judges and former judges and specifies the circumstances warranting their removal, retirement, suspension, admonishment, or censure.

– Increases non-judicial citizen membership on the Commission.

– Specifies authority of Commission to discipline former judges.

– Provides immunities to persons employed by or making statements to the Commission.

– Specifies review processes for Commission determinations and requires the Supreme Court to issue Code of Judicial Ethics.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Fiscal Impact: Not likely to have a significant fiscal impact.

[CA]


Common Carriers. Railroads and Other Transportation.
Proposition 23
Election:
General

1911

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Undecided
Topic Areas:
Transportation

Summary: Click for Summary
Assembly Constitutional Amendment 50


Communicable Disease Tests.
Proposition 96
Election:
General

1988

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 62.4%)
Topic Areas:
Criminal Justice | Juvenile Justice

Summary: Click for Summary
Requires courts in criminal and juvenile cases, upon finding of probable cause to believe bodily fluids were possibly transferred, to order persons charged with certain sex offenses, or certain assaults on peace officers, firefighters, or emergency medical personnel, to provide specimens of blood for testing for acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), AIDS-related conditions and other communicable diseases. Provides notification to specified persons of test results. Requires medical personnel in correctional facilities to report inmate exposure to such diseases and notice to personnel who come in contact with such inmates. Provides confidentiality of information reported.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact:

The costs of judicial proceedings to local governments and laboratory costs to local and state governments could range up to $1 million annually depending on cost of courtroom hearings, the nature of the tests, and the number of persons subject to them.

[S]


Community Colleges. Funding. Governance. Fees. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Proposition 92
Election:
Primary

2008

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 42.7%)
Topic Areas:
Budgets | Education: Higher Ed

Summary: Click for Summary
Scheduled to appear on Feb. 5, 2008 presidential primary ballot.



Establishes in state constitution a system of independent public community college districts and Board of Governors. Generally, requires minimum levels of state funding for school districts and community college districts to be calculated separately, using different criteria and separately appropriated. Allocates 10.46 percent of current Proposition 98 school funding maintenance factor to community colleges. Sets community college fees at $15/unit per semester; limits future fee increases. Provides formula for allocation by Legislature to community college districts that would not otherwise receive general fund revenues through community college apportionment. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Potential increases in state spending on K-14 education of about $135 million in 2007-08, $275 million in 2008-09, and $470 million in 2009-2010, with unknown impact annually thereafter. Annual loss of fee revenues to community colleges of about $71 million in 2007-08, with unknown impacts annually thereafter.


Community Parklands Act Of 1986
Proposition 43
Election:
Primary

1986

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 67.3%)
Topic Areas:
Arts & Culture | Bond Measures | Natural Resources

Summary: Click for Summary
This act provides for a bond issue of one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000) to provide funds for acquiring, developing, improving, rehabilitating, or restoring urgently needed local and regional parks, beaches, recreational areas and facilities, and historical resources.


Community Property
Proposition 13
Election:
General

1920

Type:
Popular Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 32.0%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law | Land Use/Property Rights

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends Civil Code sections 1401 and 1402, adding thereto sections 1402a and 1271. Gives either spouse right to will half of community property to lineal descendants or other spouse, but not otherwise without latter’s written consent. In absence of testamentary disposition vests entire community property in surviving spouse except any portion reserved by judicial decree for wife’s support which, if not willed by her, vests in her heirs excluding husband. Excludes half of community property from inheritance taxes and in computing administration fees.


Community Redevelopment Projects
Proposition 18
Election:
General

1952

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 65.9%)
Topic Areas:
Economic Development

Summary: Click for Summary
This constitutional amendment declares subject to taxation all property in a community redevelopment project established under the Community Redevelopment Law (Section 33000 and following, Health and Safety Code), except that exempt from taxation by reason of public ownership.



It would authorize the Legislature to provide for the inclusion in a redevelopment plan of a provision for the division of taxes collected on property in a project as follows: to each public agency levying taxes, an amount equal to that which would be produced on an application of the agency’s tax rate to the assessed value of the property prior to the redevelopment; the excess to a special fund of the redevelopment agency to pay the interest and principal on any debts incurred by the agency in financing or refinancing the project. It would empower the Legislature to provide for the irrevocable pledging of such excess for the payment of such principal and interest.



In addition, the measure would validate all provisions of the Community Redevelopment Law consistent with the foregoing relating to the use or pledge of taxes.


Compensation for Industrial Accidents
Proposition 10
Election:
General

1911

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Undecided
Topic Areas:
Business & Commerce | Insurance | Labor & Employment

Summary: Click for Summary
Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 32. A resolution to propose to the people of the State of California an amendment to the constitution of the State of California, by adding to article XX a new section to be numbered section 21, relating to compensation for industrial accidents.


Compensation of County Officers
Proposition 7
Election:
General

1966

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 28.3%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment | Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Provides that boards of supervisors rather than Legislature shall fix their own salary subject to referendum and also salary of district attorneys and auditors. In charter counties boards of supervisors shall also fix their own salary.


Compensation of County Supervisors
Proposition 12
Election:
General

1970

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 50.6%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment | Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Provides that county governing body, rather than Legislature, shall prescribe compensation of its members by an ordinance that is subject to referendum.


Compensation of Legislative Members Increased, Mileage Maximum Fixed
Proposition 5
Election:
General

1942

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 35.6%)
Topic Areas:
Legislatures

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends Constitution, Article IV, section 23. Legislative members to receive $200 each for each month of term for which elected, payable monthly in even-numbered years, and during regular legislative session in odd-numbered years as may be provided by law; and mileage to be fixed by law not to exceed five cents per mile.


Compensation of Legislators
Proposition 5
Election:
General

1948

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 42.6%)
Topic Areas:
Legislatures

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends Section 23 of Article IV of the Constitution. Eliminates present provision that members of the Legislature shall receive salaries of $100 per month. Provides that members of the Legislature shall receive such compensation as may be fixed by law, plus mileage fixed by law but not to exceed five cents per mile.


Compensation of Legislators
Proposition 5
Election:
General

1960

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 42.0%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment | Legislatures

Summary: Click for Summary
Sets salary of members of the State Legislature at $750 per month. Provides that increased compensation provided by this amendment shall not increase retirement benefits for those legislators already retired.


Compensation of Legislators
Proposition 5
Election:
General

1958

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 30.0%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment | Legislatures

Summary: Click for Summary
This constitutional amendment would affect Section 23 of Article IV of the Constitution which purports to fix the salary of a Member of the Legislature at $100 a month. This 1924 salary amount was superseded in 1954 by the first paragraph of subdivision (b) of Section 2 of Article IV which fixes the present salary of a Member of the Legislature at $500 a month, and which would be repealed by this amendment.



As amended, the proposed Section 23 of Article IV would specify that the State Legislature is the highest legislative body in the State of California.



It would authorize the fixing of the salary of a Member of the Legislature by statute rather than by constitutional provision.



It would limit the statutory salary for a Member of the Legislature to an amount which does not exceed the average of the salaries provided by law for the office of a member of the board of supervisors in the five most populous counties in California.



This constitutional limit on legislators’ salaries would be flexible since changes in supervisors’ salaries, as well as changes in the population of counties established as provided by law, would increase or decrease the limit. The last such determination of county population is found in Government Code Section 28020. It is based upon the 1950 Federal Census which established Los Angeles, San Francisco, Alameda, San Diego and Contra Costa as the five most-populous counties in California. Using the average of the salaries now provided by law for a member of the board of supervisors in those counties, the constitutional limitation on annual salaries of Members of the Legislature would be $10,080. The amendment would, of course, permit the Legislature to fix the salary at any figure up to this limit.


Compensation of Legislators
Proposition 1-G
Election:
General

1962

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 34.1%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment | Legislatures

Summary: Click for Summary
Provides salaries of members of the Legislature shall not exceed amount established by law nor exceed an annual amount of one-half of the annual salary of a member of Congress in effect on January 1, 1962. Provides that any change in compensation under this amendment shall not be considered in computing retirement benefits. Amendment effective January 1, 1963.


Compensation of Local Officers
Proposition 14
Election:
General

1958

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 29.4%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment | Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Section 5 of Article XI prohibits an increase in the compensation of any county, township or municipal officer after his election or during his term of office. It also provides that this prohibition may be suspended by a two-thirds vote of the members of each house of the Legislature during any period when the United States is engaged in war and for one year after the termination of hostilities, as proclaimed by the President.



This constitutional amendment would amend this section by deleting the provision which prohibits such increases in compensation and by deleting the provision for suspending the prohibition during time of war.



Under Section 5 of Article XI, the Legislature is required to regulate the compensation of boards of supervisors, district attorneys and auditors in counties which have not adopted the charter form of county government. The section also provides that the Legislature may classify the counties by population for the purpose of regulating the compensation of such officers. This constitutional amendment would provide that the Legislature may, but is not required to, classify the counties by other factors as well as by population for the purpose of regulating the compensation of these officers.


Compensation of Local Officers
Proposition 8
Election:
General

1950

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 34.3%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment | Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
This constitutional amendment deletes an existing provision which prohibits any increase in the compensation of county, township, or municipal officers after their election or during their term of office.



If this measure is approved, it will allow increases in the compensation of county, township, or municipal officers at any time. It also validates all acts of the 1949 Session of the Legislature fixing the compensation of county officers and makes such compensation payable from the effective date of the amendment and until changed by the Legislature.



This constitutional amendment also deletes an existing provision authorizing the Legislature to suspend the prohibition against increases in compensation while the United States is engaged in war and for one year after the termination of hostilities and a provision making the prohibition against increases inapplicable to the compensation of deputies and assistants to county officers, and to the allowance of new or additional deputies or assistants to such officers. These two provisions are unnecessary if increases may be made at any time.


Compensation of Local Officers
Proposition 19
Election:
General

1962

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 51.3%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment | Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Provides that prohibition against increase of compensation of local officers after election or during term of office shall not prevent increase for members of board, commission or council serving staggered terms whenever one member becomes eligible for salary increase by beginning a new term of office.


Compensation of Officers, Increase During Term
Proposition 10
Election:
General

1944

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 52.0%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends Section 5 of Article XI, Constitution, to authorize Legislature, by two-thirds vote, to suspend prohibition against increasing the compensation of county, township, or municipal officers during their term of office. Such suspension to continue during the period in which the United States is engaged in war and for one year after the termination of hostilities.


Compensation Of Public Officials, Employees, Individual Public Contractors.
Proposition 61
Election:
General

1986

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 34.1%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment | Local Government | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Sets Governor’s annual salary at $80,000; other “Constitutional” officers at $52,500. Limits maximum compensation of elected or appointed state and local government employees and individual public contractors to 80% of Governor’s salary. Requires people’s vote to increase salaries of constitutional officers, members of Board of Equalization, legislators, judiciary, and specified local elected officers. Prohibits public officials and employees from accruing sick leave or vacation from one calendar year to another.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact: Public official and employee salary and benefit-related reductions would amount to $125 million in the first year at the state level and roughly the same amount at the local level. These reductions would not necessarily result in comparable savings. They would be offset to some extent or could be outweighed by the need to pay various costs depending on unknown factors relating to (1) how the measure is interpreted, (2) possible payment of vested sick and vacation leave at a one-time cost of about $7 billion, (3) how the measure would be implemented, (4) its effect on governmental efficiency resulting from its limitation on pay for officers, employees and contractors. Net fiscal impact is unknown.

[CA/S]


Compensation of Specified State Officers May Be Changed During Term of Office
Proposition 9
Election:
General

1942

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 46.1%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Adds section 22 to Article V of Constitution. Compensation of Superintendent of Public Instruction, State Treasurer, State Controller and Secretary of State may be diminished or increased by Legislature during term of office.


Compensation of State Executive Officers
Proposition 3
Election:
General

1930

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 37.2%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends Section 19 of Article V of Constitution. Declares Governor shall receive as annual compensation ten thousand dollars and Lieutenant-Governor four thousand dollars; Secretary of State, Controller, Treasurer, Attorney General, Surveyor General and Superintendent of Public Instruction, shall each receive such compensation as is or shall be provided by law. Declares compensation of officers herein mentioned shall be in full for official services and they shall not receive for themselves fees or perquisites for performing any official duty. Authorizes Legislature, in its discretion, to abolish office of Surveyor General.


Condemnation for Public Purposes
Proposition 16
Election:
General

1914

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 45.8%)
Topic Areas:
Land Use/Property Rights

Summary: Click for Summary
Authorizes state, county or municipality to condemn neighboring property within its limits additional to that actually intended for proposed improvement; declares same taken for public use; defines estate therein and manner of dealing therewith to further such improvement; permits county or municipality to condemn lands within ten miles beyond its boundaries for certain public purposes, with consent of other county or municipality if such lands lie therein; requires terms of condemnation, lease or disposal of such additional property to be prescribed by law.

[Constitutional Amendment]


Condemnation for Public Purposes
Proposition 8
Election:
Special

1915

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 37.1%)
Topic Areas:
Land Use/Property Rights

Summary: Click for Summary
[Summary from Hastings Law Library California Ballot Measures Database]

Senate Constitutional Amendment 27 adding section 20 to article XI of constitution. Authorizes state, county or municipality to condemn neighboring property within its limits additional to that actually intended for proposed improvement; declares same taken for public use; defines estate therein and manner of dealing therewith to further such improvement; permits county or municipality to condemn lands within ten miles beyond its boundaries for certain public purposes, with consent of other county or municipality if such lands lie therein; requires terms of condemnation, lease or disposal of such additional property to be prescribed by law.

[Constitutional Amendment]


Condemnation of Right of Way for Public Use
Proposition 13
Election:
General

1918

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 54.1%)
Topic Areas:
Land Use/Property Rights

Summary: Click for Summary
Assembly Constitutional Amendment 31. Amends Section 14 Article I of Constitution. Excepts counties from provisions requiring compensation be first made or paid into court for owner before right of way is appropriated; adds proviso authorizing state, political subdivision thereof or district, upon commencement of condemnation proceedings for right of way, to take immediate possession thereof upon making money deposits in such amounts as court may determine adequate to secure to owner immediate payment as compensation therefor, permitting court on motion and upon notice to alter amount of such security.


Congressional Term Limits. Initiative Statute.
Proposition 164
Election:
General

1992

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 63.6%)
Topic Areas:
Federal Government | Term Limits

Summary: Click for Summary
– Excludes from ballot for United States House of Representatives any person who has represented California congressional district(s) as member of the House during six or more of previous eleven years.

– Excludes from ballot for United States Senate any person who has represented California as Senator during twelve or more of previous seventeen years.

– Congressional service prior to 1993 is not counted.

– Full current and previous terms are counted even if person resigned during term.

– Term limits do not restrict “write-in” candidacies.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:



This measure would have no direct fiscal impact on state or local governments. However, to the extent that the measure results in more write-in candidates, counties would have additional elections-related costs for counting write-in votes. These costs probably would not be significant on a statewide basis.

[S]


Consolidated City and County Government
Proposition 14
Election:
General

1936

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 47.2%)
Topic Areas:
Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends section 7 1/2a of Article XI of Constitution. Provides a method by which any county, regardless of population, having one or more incorporated cities within its boundaries, may frame and adopt a charter for a consolidated city and county government having same boundaries as the former county. (Present constitutional provision excludes counties having less than 200,000 population from the right to adopt such a consolidated government and permits establishment of a city and county government for area comprising only a portion of the former county.)


Consolidated City and County Governments
Proposition 6
Election:
General

1912

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 37.9%)
Topic Areas:
Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Proposition to amend Section 7 of Article XI of the Constitution of the State of California, relating to the formation of consolidated city and county governments.

[CA]


Consolidation of City and County, and Limited Annexation of Contiguous Territory
Proposition 19
Election:
General

1914

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 50.5%)
Topic Areas:
Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Initiative amendment to section 8 1/2 of article XI of constitution. Present section unchanged except to authorize chartered cities to establish municipal courts, and control appointments, qualifications and tenure of municipal officers and employees; authorizes cities exceeding 50,000 population to consolidate and annex only contiguous territory included within county from which annexing territory was formed on consolidation, or concurrently or subsequently added to territory excluded from original consolidated territory; requires consent of annexed territory and of county from which taken; prescribes procedure for consolidation and annexation.

[CA]


Constitution Revision
Proposition 7
Election:
General

1962

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 67.0%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law | Legislatures

Summary: Click for Summary
Empowers Legislature to propose a revision of the Constitution to be voted on by the people. Provides that revision if approved by majority of electors voting shall be the Constitution or part of the Constitution if the revision revises only a part of the Constitution.


Constitution: Eliminates Obsolete and Superseded Provisions
Proposition 12
Election:
General

1960

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 78.4%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law

Summary: Click for Summary
Repeals and amends several provisions of the constitution to eliminate obsolete and superseded provisions without substantive change. Provides any amendment to constitution which is proposed by Legislature solely to eliminate obsolete and superseded provisions shall not affect prior validations and ratifications. Any other measure submitted to the people at the same election which affects the same sections contained in the legislative proposal shall control to the extent of any conflict.


Constitution: Eliminates Obsolete and Superseded Provisions
Proposition 16
Election:
General

1962

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 79.6%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law

Summary: Click for Summary
Repeals and amends several provisions of the Constitution solely to eliminate obsolete and superseded provisions.


Constitutional Amendments
Proposition 16
Election:
General

1970

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 51.1%)
Topic Areas:
Elections-Initiative Process

Summary: Click for Summary
Authorizes Legislature, by two-thirds vote, to amend or withdraw a proposed constitutional amendment or revision submitted by it. Provides initiatives, referendums, and legislative proposals take effect day after election, unless measure provides otherwise. Revises procedure for constitutional convention.


Constitutional Amendments and Laws. Naming Persons to Office.
Proposition 2
Election:
General

1950

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 68.6%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law | Elections-Initiative Process

Summary: Click for Summary
This constitutional amendment would prohibit the naming of any individual to hold any office by means of any constitutional amendment, law, or amendment thereto, which is submitted to and approved by the people.



It would accomplish this result by providing that no constitutional amendment, law, or amendment thereto, whether proposed by the initiative or by the Legislature, which names any individual or individuals by name or names to hold any office or offices shall hereafter be submitted to the electors, and by further providing that no such constitutional amendment, law, or amendment thereto, hereafter submitted to or approved by the electors shall become effective for any purpose.


Constitutional Amendments. Naming Corporations
Proposition 13
Election:
General

1964

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 69.1%)
Topic Areas:
Elections-Initiative Process

Summary: Click for Summary
Prohibits submission of constitutional amendments, whether proposed by initiative or Legislature, which name private corporations to perform any function or have any power or duty. Declares that any such amendment submitted to or approved by the electorate at the 1964 general election or thereafter shall not go into effect.


Constitutional Convention
Proposition 8
Election:
General

1934

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 51.4%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law

Summary: Click for Summary
Recommends that electors vote for or against a convention for purpose of revising State Constitution. If majority votes for such convention Governor shall issue proclamation that such convention has been called and Legislature at its next session shall provide for holding such convention at State Capitol within three months after such election and for election of delegates thereto; such revised Constitution to be submitted to electors for their approval or rejection.


Constitutional Convention
Proposition 23
Election:
General

1930

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 31.1%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends Section 2. Article XVIII, of Constitution. Provides for election within ten months after adoption hereof, on date fixed by Governor, of one hundred and twenty delegates, one from each senatorial and assembly district, to meet in convention at state capitol within three months after such election and frame new state constitution; empowers convention to employ clerks and experts; requires Legislature provide for expenses thereof and compensation of delegates; requires Constitution be submitted for adoption or rejection by majority of electors at election held therefor; provides for such election and proclamation of result.


Constitutional Convention
Proposition 10
Election:
General

1920

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 32.2%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law

Summary: Click for Summary
Declares that Legislature, whenever recommended by two-thirds of each branch thereof and approved by majority at next general election, shall provide at next session for calling convention to frame new Constitution and for electing delegates thereto; prescribes number and qualifications of such delegates; requires submission of such Constitution to people for approval at special election, authorizing such convention to submit alternative proposals. If this amendment is adopted requires that Legislature shall at next session enact all measures necessary to the holding of such convention.


Constitutional Convention of 1878-1879
Proposition 5
Election:
Special

1949

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 70.5%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law

Summary: Click for Summary
Repeals Section 19 of Article XX of Constitution, relating to payment of expenses of State Constitutional Convention of 1878-1879.


Constitutional Conventions
Proposition 12
Election:
General

1914

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 49.8%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law

Summary: Click for Summary
Present section unchanged except in following particulars: provides that delegates to constitutional conventions shall be nominated at non-partisan primary election as prescribed by legislature, those receiving majority vote thereat being elected, otherwise two highest candidates (or more if tied) being only candidates at further election; authorizes legislature to submit for adoption by electors other plans for selecting delegates; provides that convention shall meet within nine months after election, and may submit new constitution or amendments or revisions of that existing, as alternative propositions or otherwise.


Constitutional Officers, Legislators and Judges Compensation
Proposition 12
Election:
Primary

1978

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 38.1%)
Topic Areas:
Judiciary | Labor & Employment | Legislatures | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Repeals sections of Constitution, articles IV, V and VI relating to payment of compensation, travel and living expenses and retirement benefits for constitutional officers, legislators and judges. Adds article XXII providing for seven member commission which by resolution subject to legislative ratification by majority of each house, biennially sets salary, retirement, insurance and other benefits for above officials. Limits commission’s authority to provide health care benefits or insurance. Restricts said officials’ use of state automobiles to official business. Prohibits reduction of existing and additional future retirement rights and benefits once granted. Financial impact: Minor increase in state costs to support commission and staff. Otherwise, impact on state costs unpredictable.

[CA]


Constitutional Officers. Compensation.
Proposition 3
Election:
General

1944

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 52.5%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Adds section 22 to Article V, Constitution. Authorizes Legislature to fix compensation of Lieutenant Governor, Controller, Secretary of State, Superintendent of Public Instruction and Treasurer. Compensation thus fixed to be not less than $5,000 per annum.


Constitutional Provision Relating to State Fiscal Affairs
Proposition 8
Election:
Special

1949

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 72.1%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law

Summary: Click for Summary
Of two similar sections, each designated as Section 22 of Article IV of Constitution, relating to State’s fiscal affairs, repeals one, and amends the other to combine the provisions of both; also deletes inoperative provisions of amended section on subject of Panama-Pacific International Exposition of 1915.


Constitutional Provisions for Adoption of 1879 Constitution
Proposition 9
Election:
Special

1949

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 72.1%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law

Summary: Click for Summary
Repeals Sections 4 to 9, inclusive, of Article XXII of Constitution, relating to election upon question of adoption of Constitution of 1879.


Constitutional Provisions Regarding State Officers, Legislators and Judges
Proposition 11
Election:
Special

1949

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 27.8%)
Topic Areas:
Judiciary | Legislatures | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Repeals or amends various sections of Articles IV, V, VI, IX, XX and XXII of Constitution. Deletes provisions relating to terms of legislators and constitutional officers elected following adoption of 1879 Constitution and relating to abolished office of Surveyor General. Deletes salary provisions formerly applicable to State constitutional officers and judges. Eliminates language formerly applicable to supreme court commissioners. Deletes special provision for time of election of Superintendent of Public Instruction.


Constitutional Provisions Relating to Judiciary
Proposition 17
Election:
General

1956

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 61.8%)
Topic Areas:
Judiciary

Summary: Click for Summary
This constitutional amendment would delete Section 17 of Article VI from the Constitution. That section purports to prescribe the compensation of the justices of the Supreme Court and of the District Courts of Appeal, and of the judges of the superior courts. It was abrogated, however, and the Legislature was given plenary power to prescribe the compensation of such justices and judges by an amendment to Section 11 of Article VI, adopted November 4, 1924. This latter section now provides that, “The compensation of the justices or judges of all courts of record shall be fixed, and the payment thereof prescribed, by the Legislature.”



This measure would also eliminate a 1904 prohibition (Section 25 of Article VI) against the creation of a Supreme Court Commission. It would repeal obsolete language abolishing the Supreme Court Commission which was, prior to such abolition, and prior to the creation of the District Courts of Appeal, utilized by the Supreme Court to assist it in the performance of its duties.


Constitutional Provisions Relating to Local Government
Proposition 4
Election:
Special

1949

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 66.5%)
Topic Areas:
Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Repeals Sections 7 1/2a, 8a and 18 1/2, amends Section 18, of Article XI of Constitution. Eliminates inoperative provisions relating to consolidated city and county charters, the former Panama-Pacific International Exposition, and the indebtedness of various named counties and cities.


Constitutional Revision
Proposition 1-G
Election:
General

1968

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 43.0%)
Topic Areas:
Human Services | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Repeals, amends, and revises various provisions of Constitution relating to public school system, state institutions and public buildings, cities and counties, corporations and public utilities, water use, state civil service, future constitutional revisions, and other matters. Legislature may provide that Superintendent of Public Instruction be chosen by method other than election; and Legislature may increase membership of Public Utilities Commission.


Constitutional Revision
Proposition 1a
Election:
General

1966

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 73.5%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law | Judiciary | Legislatures | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Repeals, amends, and revises various provisions of Constitution relating to separation of powers, and to the legislative, executive, and judicial departments; provides for annual general legislative sessions; provides compensation of members of Legislature shall be prescribed by statute passed by two-thirds vote, and limits rate of annual future adjustments; Legislature must enact laws prohibiting members from engaging in conflicting activities. Signatures necessary on petition for initiative statute reduced from 8% to 5%; eliminates initiatives to Legislature. Legislature shall provide for succession to the office of Governor in event of disability or vacancy.


Corporations
Proposition 14
Election:
General

1926

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 55.3%)
Topic Areas:
Business & Commerce

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends Section 11 of Article XII of Constitution by requiring that any increase of stock or bonded indebtedness of a corporation be assented to by the holders of at least two-thirds of the amount in value of the stock instead of by a majority, as now provided, and eliminates the present provision requiring that such increase be made at a meeting called for that purpose after sixty days’ public notice.


Corporations
Proposition 16
Election:
General

1930

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 59.5%)
Topic Areas:
Business & Commerce

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends Sections 1 and 7, and repeals Sections 2, 3, 9, 11, 12 and 14 of Article XII of Constitution. Empowers Legislature by general laws to provide for formation, organization and regulation of corporations, prescribe their powers, rights, duties and liabilities, and those of their officers, stockholders and members, and provide for extension of term of existence of all corporations formed for limited period, but shall not extend franchise of any quasi-public corporation nor remit forfeiture thereof. Declares present laws concerning corporations and those hereafter passed pursuant hereto may be altered or repealed.


County and Municipal Civil Service
Proposition 7
Election:
General

1936

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 36.3%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment | Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Adds section 21 to Article XI, Constitution. Requires appointment to county, district and municipal offices and employments be based on integrity, character, merit, fitness and industry. Excepts certain specified positions and those now excepted from such system in specified charters. Provides for county civil service commissions, empowered to provide qualified persons for appointments within county, including cities therein having no commission. Prohibits dismissals except for cause after hearing. Prohibits appointees under system from participating in county, city or district political activity. Continues specified officers and employees in office, placing them under system.

[CA]


County and School Tax Limitations
Proposition 18
Election:
General

1918

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 42.3%)
Topic Areas:
Local Government | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Creates state board of authorization; requires each county officer to file financial statements with governing body of county which shall submit same with budget to such state board before making tax levy; limits yearly increase in amounts raised thereby to five per cent of amount produced preceding year, unless greater amount authorized by such board or electors; makes special provisions for school matters, regulating such five per cent increase by average daily attendance; declares governing body of any political subdivision may subject same to provisions hereof; authorizes legislature to amend or repeal act.

[S]


County Assessment Appeals Boards
Proposition 12
Election:
General

1966

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 73.4%)
Topic Areas:
Local Government | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Legislative Constitutional Amendment. Authorizes any county to create assessment appeals board to act as board of equalization of taxable property in the county.


County Boards of Education
Proposition 7
Election:
General

1946

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 71.0%)
Topic Areas:
Education: PreK-12 | Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Adds Section 3.3 to Article IX of the Constitution. Provides that members of a county board of education by county charter may be elected rather than appointed, and that the qualifications and terms of office may be established by county charter rather than by general law.


County Charter Provisions for Nomination and Election of Officers
Proposition 20
Election:
General

1932

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 47.6%)
Topic Areas:
Elections | Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends Section 7 1/2 of Article XI of Constitution. Adds provision permitting county charters to provide any other mode in place of that provided by general laws for the nomination and/or election of elective officers of counties, townships, road districts and highway construction divisions therein, and to adopt and provide for any system of proportional representation on the legislative or governing body of counties, also the manner of voting under such system.


County Charters
Proposition 27
Election:
General

1914

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 53.7%)
Topic Areas:
Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
For the assumption and discharge by county officers of certain municipal functions of the cities and towns within the county, whenever, in the case of cities and towns incorporated under general laws, the discharge by county officers of such municipal functions is authorized by general law, or whenever, in the case of cities and towns organized under section eight of this article, the discharge by county officers of such municipal functions is authorized by provisions of the charters, or by amendments thereto, of such cities or towns.

[Constitutional Amendment]


County Charters
Proposition 11
Election:
Special

1915

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 38.5%)
Topic Areas:
Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 34, a resolution to propose to the people of the State of California an amendment to section seven and one-half of article eleven of the constitution of the State of California, relating to charters of counties and amendments to such charters and to the surrender thereof.

[Constitutional Amendment]


County Charters, “County Home Rule”.
Proposition 2
Election:
General

1911

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Undecided
Topic Areas:
Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Committee Substitute for Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 5, a resolution proposing to the people of the State of California an amendment to the constitution of the State of California, by adding a new section to article XI thereof to be known and designated as section seven and one half of said article XI of the constitution of the State of California, relating to charters of counties and amendments to such charters, and to the surrender thereof.


County Correctional Facility Capital Expenditure and Juvenile Facility Bond Act of 1990
Proposition 147
Election:
General

1990

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 37.3%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Criminal Justice | Juvenile Justice

Summary: Click for Summary
This act provides for a bond issue of two hundred twenty-five million dollars ($225,000,000) to provide funds for the construction, reconstruction, remodeling, replacement, and deferred maintenance of county correctional facilities and county juvenile facilities.

[S/BOND]


County Correctional Facility Capital Expenditure And Youth Facility Bond Act Of 1988
Proposition 86
Election:
General

1988

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 54.8%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Criminal Justice

Summary: Click for Summary
This act provides for a bond issue of five hundred million dollars ($500,000,000) to provide funds for the construction, reconstruction, remodeling, replacement, and deferred maintenance of county correctional facilities and county juvenile facilities and to provide funds to youth centers and youth shelters.


County Correctional Facility Capital Expenditure Bond Act Of 1986
Proposition 52
Election:
Primary

1986

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 67.2%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Criminal Justice

Summary: Click for Summary
This act provides for the construction, reconstruction, remodeling, and replacement of county correctional facilities and the performance of deferred maintenance thereon pursuant to a bond issue of four hundred ninety-five million dollars ($495,000,000).


County Courthouse Facility Capital Expenditure Bond Act of 1990
Proposition 150
Election:
General

1990

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 26.4)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Judiciary | Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
This act provides for a bond issue of two hundred million dollars ($200,000,000) to provide funds for the construction, reconstruction, remodeling, replacement, and deferred maintenance of county courthouse facilities.

[S/BOND]


County Government
Proposition 8
Election:
Special

1933

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 68.2%)
Topic Areas:
Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Repeals Sections 4 and 9, amends Section 5, Article XI. Requires Legislature to regulate compensation of supervisors, district attorneys and auditors; supervisors to regulate compensation of other officers in county (except Municipal Court judges), and number, appointment, terms and compensation of deputies and employees. Prohibits increase of compensation or extension of term after election or during term. Permits allowance of additional deputies or increase in their compensation. Validates Political Code Section 4056d, enacted by present Legislature, relating to supervisors’ powers and duties as to county and township officers, deputies and employees.


County Jail Capital Expenditure Bond Act of 1981
Proposition 2
Election:
General

1982

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 54.3%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Criminal Justice

Summary: Click for Summary
This act provides for the construction, reconstruction, remodeling, and replacement of county jails and the performance of deferred maintenance thereon pursuant to a bond issue of two hundred eighty million dollars ($280,000,000).


County Jail Capital Expenditure Bond Act Of 1984
Proposition 16
Election:
Primary

1984

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 58.8%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Criminal Justice

Summary: Click for Summary
This act provides for the construction, reconstruction, remodeling, and replacement of county jails and the performance of deferred maintenance thereon pursuant to a bond issue of two hundred fifty million dollars ($250,000,000).


County Officers
Proposition 8
Election:
General

1924

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 52.0%)
Topic Areas:
Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Senate Constitutional Amendment 15. Amends Section 9 of Article XI of Constitution, which prohibits increase in salary of county officer, by inserting therein a proviso authorizing Legislature by general laws to provide that such additional deputies or assistants as may be necessary and proper be allowed to the principal in any county office during his term and also provide that the compensation of such deputy or assistant be increased during the term of office of such principal.


County Superintendents of Schools
Proposition 9
Election:
General

1970

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 46.2%)
Topic Areas:
Education: PreK-12 | Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Board of Supervisors in each noncharter county, or in those counties uniting for joint superintendent, may provide by ordinance approved by electorate for appointment rather than election of county superintendent of schools.


County Superintendents of Schools
Proposition 8
Election:
General

1946

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 61.1%)
Topic Areas:
Education: PreK-12 | Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Adds Section 3.1 to Article IX of the Constitution. Requires that qualifications and salary of county superintendents of schools shall be fixed by the Legislature rather than by local authorities. Permits the Legislature to prescribe different qualifications and salary for each county.


County Superintendents of Schools and Boards of Education
Proposition 8
Election:
General

1976

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 53.4%)
Topic Areas:
Education: PreK-12 | Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends Article IX to authorize selection of county school superintendents either by appointment of the county board of education or election, at the option of the electorate. Transfers responsibility for the establishment of the salaries of county superintendents from the Legislature to the county board of education. Empowers two or more counties to establish by majority vote of their electorates a joint board of education, and county superintendent of schools. Specifies that joint boards of education and superintendents shall be governed by state statute and not county charter provisions. Financial impact: Indeterminable.


County Supervisorial District Boundaries
Proposition 9
Election:
General

1964

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 76.4%)
Topic Areas:
Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Provides that all counties, except as provided by Legislature, shall be subject to general laws relating to supervisorial district boundary adjustments.


County Tax Appeals Boards
Proposition 15
Election:
General

1962

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 53.9%)
Topic Areas:
Local Government | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Permits counties in excess of 400,000 population when authorized by Legislature to create tax appeals boards by ordinance. Provides that such boards shall constitute boards of equalization and shall equalize valuation of taxable property in county. County supervisors shall fix compensation of members and adopt rules of procedure. Legislature shall fix number of boards; number, qualifications, manner of selection, and terms of members; and procedure for discontinuance of such boards.


Court Consolidation
Proposition 48
Election:
General

2002

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 72.4%)
Topic Areas:
Judiciary

Summary: Click for Summary
Background



In 1998, California voters approved Proposition 220, which permitted superior and municipal courts, known as “trial courts,” within a county to consolidate their operations if approved by a majority vote of the superior court judges and municipal court judges in the county. Under consolidation, the superior court assumes jurisdiction over all matters handled previously by superior and municipal courts; municipal court judges become superior court judges and the municipal courts are abolished. All 58 California counties have since voted to consolidate their trial court operations.



At the request of the Legislature, the California Law Revision Commission has made recommendations on repealing statutes that are obsolete because of trial court reforms, including those resulting from court consolidation.



Proposal



This measure makes technical and conforming changes to the Constitution recommended by the California Law Revision Commission related to court consolidation. Specifically, the measure deletes obsolete provisions relating to the creation of municipal courts, eligibility requirements for municipal court judges, and the consolidation of municipal and superior courts. As regards the consolidation of municipal and superior courts, constitutional provisions relating specifically to the transition period will be repealed effective January 1, 2007. Finally, the measure makes conforming changes to the Constitution with respect to the membership of superior court judges on the California Judicial Council and the membership of the Commission on Judicial Performance. The California Judicial Council oversees and administers the trial courts. The Commission on Judicial Performance handles complaints against judges.



Fiscal Effects



This measure would not result in additional costs to state or local government.

[CA]


Court of Criminal Appeals
Proposition 12
Election:
General

1936

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 16.8%)
Topic Areas:
Judiciary

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends specified sections of Articles IV and VI. Adds new sections to Article VI. Creates Court of Criminal Appeals consisting of a Chief and four Associate Justices (twelve-year terms, salaries same as Supreme Court Justices) to succeed to jurisdiction of Supreme Court in death penalty cases and criminal jurisdiction of District Courts of Appeal. Governor appoints first Justices of Court of Criminal Appeals for specified terms, thereafter offices are elective. Grants Supreme Court limited appellate power to pass on validity of a law after decision thereon by Court of Criminal Appeals.


Court Review of Acts of Administrative Officers, Boards and Commissions
Proposition 6
Election:
General

1940

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 49.6%)
Topic Areas:
State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Adds section 5a to Article VI of Constitution. Empowers Legislature to provide methods for superior court review of rulings of administrative officers, boards and commissions. Declares superior court determination subject to appeal. Declares amendment shall not limit the jurisdiction of courts or the power to provide for review of rulings of Railroad Commission.


Courts
Proposition 6
Election:
General

1918

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 23.9%)
Topic Areas:
Judiciary

Summary: Click for Summary
Assembly Constitutional Amendment 61. Amends Section 1. Article VI of Constitution. Omits from enumeration of courts, in which judicial power is by that section declared vested, “district courts of appeal, superior courts and such inferior courts as the legislature may establish in any incorporated city or town, township, county or city and county,” and substitutes therefor “such other courts as the legislature by general law (subject to referendum) may establish.” Declares remaining provisions of same article, except section nineteen relating to charging juries, shall have same effect as general laws and legislature may repeal or amend same.


Courts
Proposition 11
Election:
General

1928

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 61.3%)
Topic Areas:
Judiciary

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends Sections 3, 4, 5, 13, adds Sections 4a, 4b, 4c, 11a, repeals short Section 11. Article VI, of Constitution. Changes provisions for electing Supreme Court Justices and filling vacancies therein; changes jurisdiction of Supreme Court, District Court of Appeal and Superior Court; empowers Legislature to create more such District Courts and divisions thereof, redivide State into Appellate Districts, establish appellate departments of Superior Court in county having municipal court, determine number and jurisdiction of municipal and inferior courts, and judges thereof, their qualifications and compensation; ratifies legislation fixing municipal court’s exclusive jurisdiction at law.


Courts: Superior and Municipal Court Consolidation. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.
Proposition 220
Election:
Primary

1998

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 64.5%)
Topic Areas:
Judiciary

Summary: Click for Summary
Trial Court Consolidation.

This proposition, a constitutional amendment, permits superior and municipal courts within a county to consolidate their operations if approved by a majority of the superior court judges and a majority of municipal court judges in the county. If the judges approve consolidation of the courts, the municipal courts of the county would be abolished and all municipal court judges and employees would become superior court judges and employees.



A consolidated superior court would have jurisdiction in all matters that currently fall under the jurisdiction of either the superior or municipal courts. A consolidated superior court would have an appellate division to handle misdemeanors and infractions and most civil lawsuits involving disputes of $25,000 or less that are currently appealed from a municipal court to a superior court. The Legislature can change these amounts thereby changing the appeal jurisdiction.



Other Changes

The proposition makes a number of other related and conforming changes to the Constitution with respect to the minimum qualifications and election of judges in consolidated courts. In addition, the measure makes:

(1) related and conforming changes to the membership of the Commission on Judicial Performance, which handles complaints against judges; and

(2) related, conforming, and other minor changes to the membership and terms of the California Judicial Council, which oversees and administers the state’s courts.



Fiscal Effect



The fiscal impact of this measure on the state is unknown and would ultimately depend on the number of superior and municipal courts that choose to consolidate. To the extent that most courts choose to consolidate, however, this measure would likely result in net savings to the state ranging in the millions to the tens of millions of dollars annually in the long term. The state could save money from greater efficiency and flexibility in the assignment of trial court judges, reductions in the need to create new judgeships in the future to handle increasing workload, improved management of court records, and reductions in general court administrative costs. At the same time, however, courts that choose to consolidate would result in additional state costs from increasing the salaries and benefits of municipal court judges and employees to the levels of superior court judges and employees. These additional costs would partially offset the savings.

[CA]


Creation of Court for Tax Appeals
Proposition 5
Election:
General

1946

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 28.7%)
Topic Areas:
Judiciary | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Adds Sections 4d and 4e to, and amends Section 1 of, Article VI of the Constitution. Creates Court of Tax Appeals consisting of three judges selected in the same manner as Justices of the Supreme Court. Gives court jurisdiction over appeals from the superior court in all cases involving the legality, imposition or collection of taxes and assessments. Decisions of court to be subject to review by the Supreme Court. Authorizes Legislature to provide for review by this new court of State administrative agencies’ determinations in tax matters.


Criminal Justice System. Victims’ Rights. Parole. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Proposition 9
Election:
General

2008

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 53.9%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law | Criminal Justice

Summary: Click for Summary
OVERVIEW OF PROPOSAL



This measure amends the State Constitution and various state laws to (1) expand the legal rights of crime victims and the payment of restitution by criminal offenders, (2) restrict the early release of inmates, and (3) change the procedures for granting and revoking parole. These changes are discussed in more detail below.



EXPANSION OF THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF CRIME VICTIMS AND RESTITUTION



Background



In June 1982, California voters approved Proposition 8, known as the “Victims’ Bill of Rights.” Among other changes, the proposition amended the Constitution and various state laws to grant crime victims the right to be notified of, to attend, and to state their views at, sentencing and parole hearings. Other separately enacted laws have created other rights for crime victims, including the opportunity for a victim to obtain a judicial order of protection from harassment by a criminal defendant.



Proposition 8 established the right of crime victims to obtain restitution from any person who committed the crime that caused them to suffer a loss. Restitution often involves replacement of stolen or damaged property or reimbursement of costs that the victim incurred as a result of the crime. A court is required under current state law to order full restitution unless it finds compelling and extraordinary reasons not to do so. Sometimes, however, judges do not order restitution. Proposition 8 also established a right to “safe, secure and peaceful” schools for students and staff of primary, elementary, junior high, and senior high schools.



Changes Made by This Measure



Restitution. This measure requires that, without exception, restitution be ordered from offenders who have been convicted, in every case in which a victim suffers a loss. The measure also requires that any funds collected by a court or law enforcement agencies from a person ordered to pay restitution would go to pay that restitution first, in effect prioritizing those payments over other fines and obligations an offender may legally owe.



Notification and Participation of Victims in Criminal Justice Proceedings. As noted above, Proposition 8 established a legal right for crime victims to be notified of, to attend, and to state their views at, sentencing and parole hearings. This measure expands these legal rights to include all public criminal proceedings, including the release from custody of offenders after their arrest, but before trial. In addition, victims would be given the constitutional right to participate in other aspects of the criminal justice process, such as conferring with prosecutors on the charges filed. Also, law enforcement and criminal prosecution agencies would be required to provide victims with specified information, including details on victim’s rights.



Other Expansions of Victims’ Legal Rights. This measure expands the legal rights of crime victims in various other ways, including the following:



– Crime victims and their families would have a state constitutional right to (1) prevent the release of certain of their confidential information or records to criminal defendants, (2) refuse to be interviewed or provide pretrial testimony or other evidence requested in behalf of a criminal defendant, (3) protection from harm from individuals accused of committing crimes against them, (4) the return of property no longer needed as evidence in criminal proceedings, and (5) “finality” in criminal proceedings in which they are involved. Some of these rights now exist in statute.

– The Constitution would be changed to specify that the safety of a crime victim must be taken into consideration by judges in setting bail for persons arrested for crimes.

– The measure would state that the right to safe schools includes community colleges, colleges, and universities.



RESTRICTIONS ON EARLY RELEASE OF INMATES



Background



The state operates 33 state prisons and other facilities that had a combined adult inmate population of about 171,000 as of May 2008. The costs to operate the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) in 2008–09 are estimated to be approximately $10 billion. The average annual cost to incarcerate an inmate is estimated to be about $46,000. The state prison system is currently experiencing overcrowding because there are not enough permanent beds available for all inmates. As a result, gymnasiums and other rooms in state prisons have been converted to house some inmates.



Both the state Legislature and the courts have been considering various proposals that would reduce overcrowding, including the early release of inmates from state prison. At the time this analysis was prepared, none of these proposals had been adopted. State prison populations are also affected by credits granted to prisoners. These credits, which can be awarded for good behavior or participation in specific programs, reduce the amount of time a prisoner must serve before release.



Collectively, the state’s 58 counties spend over $2.4 billion on county jails, which have a population in excess of 80,000. There are currently 20 counties where an inmate population cap has been imposed by the federal courts and an additional 12 counties with a self-imposed population cap. In counties with such population caps, inmates are sometimes released early to comply with the limit imposed by the cap. However, some sheriffs also use alternative methods of reducing jail populations, such as confining inmates to home detention with Global Positioning System (GPS) devices.



Changes Made by This Measure



This measure amends the Constitution to require that criminal sentences imposed by the courts be carried out in compliance with the courts’ sentencing orders and that such sentences shall not be “substantially diminished” by early release policies to alleviate overcrowding in prison or jail facilities. The measure directs that sufficient funding be provided by the Legislature or county boards of supervisors to house inmates for the full terms of their sentences, except for statutorily authorized credits which reduce those sentences.



CHANGES AFFECTING THE GRANTING AND REVOCATION OF PAROLE



Background



The Board of Parole Hearings conducts two different types of proceedings relating to parole. First, before CDCR releases an individual who has been sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole, the inmate must go before the board for a parole consideration hearing. Second, the board has authority to return to state prison for up to a year an individual who has been released on parole but who subsequently commits a parole violation. (Such a process is referred to as parole revocation.) A federal court order requires the state to provide legal counsel to parolees, including assistance at hearings related to parole revocation charges.



Changes Made by This Measure



Parole Consideration Procedures for Lifers. This measure changes the procedures to be followed by the board when it considers the release from prison of inmates with a life sentence. Specifically:



– Currently, individuals whom the board does not release following their parole consideration hearing must generally wait between one and five years for another parole consideration hearing. This measure would extend the time before the next hearing to between 3 and 15 years, as determined by the board. However, inmates would be able to periodically request that the board advance the hearing date.

– Crime victims would be eligible to receive earlier notification in advance of parole consideration hearings. They would receive 90 days advance notice, instead of the current 30 days.

– Currently, victims are able to attend and testify at parole consideration hearings with either their next of kin and up to two members of their immediate family, or two representatives. The measure would remove the limit on the number of family members who could attend and testify at the hearing, and would allow victim representatives to attend and testify at the hearing without regard to whether members of the victim’s family were present.

– Those in attendance at parole consideration hearings would be eligible to receive a transcript of the proceedings.



General Parole Revocation Procedures. This measure changes the board’s parole revocation procedures for offenders after they have been paroled from prison. Under a federal court order in a case known as Valdivia v. Schwarzenegger, parolees are entitled to a hearing within 10 business days after being charged with violation of their parole to determine if there is probable cause to detain them until their revocation charges are resolved. The measure extends the deadline for this hearing to 15 days. The same court order also requires that parolees arrested for parole violations have a hearing to resolve the revocation charges within 35 days. This measure extends this timeline to 45 days. The measure also provides for the appointment of legal counsel to parolees facing revocation charges only if the board determines, on a case-by-case basis, that the parolee is indigent and that, because of the complexity of the matter or because of the parolee’s mental or educational incapacity, the parolee appears incapable of speaking effectively in his or her defense. Because this measure does not provide for counsel at all parole revocation hearings, and because the measure does not provide counsel for parolees who are not indigent, it may conflict with the Valdivia court order, which requires that all parolees be provided legal counsel.



FISCAL EFFECTS



Our analysis indicates that the measure would result in: (1) state and county fiscal impacts due to restrictions on early release, (2) potential net state savings from changes in parole board procedures, and (3) changes in restitution funding and other fiscal impacts. The fiscal estimates discussed below could change due to pending federal court litigation or budget actions.



State and County Fiscal Impacts of Early Release Restrictions



As noted above, this measure requires that criminal sentences imposed by the courts be carried out without being substantially reduced by early releases in order to address overcrowding. This provision could have a significant fiscal impact on both the state and counties depending upon the circumstances related to early release and how this provision is interpreted by the courts.



State Prison. The state does not now generally release inmates early from prison. Thus, under current law, the measure would probably have no fiscal effect on the state prison system. However, the measure could have a significant fiscal effect in the future in the event that it prevented the Legislature or the voters from enacting a statutory early release program to address prison overcrowding problems. Under such circumstances, this provision of the measure could prevent early release of inmates, thereby resulting in the loss of state savings on prison operations that might otherwise amount to hundreds of millions of dollars annually.



County Jails. As mentioned above, early releases of jail inmates now occur in a number of counties, primarily in response to inmate population limits imposed on county jail facilities by federal courts. Given these actions by the federal courts, it is not clear how, and to what extent, the enactment of such a state constitutional measure would affect jail operations and related expenditures in these counties. For example, it is possible that a county may comply with a population cap by expanding its use of GPS home monitoring or by decreasing the use of pretrial detention of suspects, rather than by releasing inmates early. In other counties not subject to federal court-ordered population caps, the measure’s restrictions on early release of inmates could affect jail operations and related costs, depending upon the circumstances related to early release and how this provision was interpreted by the courts. Thus, the overall cost of this provision for counties is unknown.



Potential Net State Savings From Changes in Parole Board Procedures



The provisions of this measure that reduce the number of parole hearings received by inmates serving life terms would likely result in state savings amounting to millions of dollars annually. Additional savings in the low tens of millions of dollars annually could result from the provisions changing parole revocation procedures, such as by limiting when counsel would be provided by the state. However, some of these changes may run counter to the federal Valdivia court order related to parole revocations and therefore could be subject to legal challenges, potentially eliminating these savings. In addition, both the provisions related to parole consideration and revocation could ultimately increase state costs to the extent that they result in additional offenders being held in state prison longer than they would otherwise. Thus, the overall fiscal effect from these changes in parole revocation procedures is likely to be net state savings in the low tens of millions of dollars annually unless the changes in the process were found to conflict with federal legal requirements contained in the Valdivia court order.



Changes in Restitution Funding and Other Fiscal Impacts



Restitution Funding. The changes to the restitution process contained in this measure could affect state and local programs. Currently, a number of different state and local agencies receive funding from the fines and penalties collected from criminal offenders. For example, revenues collected from offenders go to counties’ general funds, the state Fish and Game Preservation Fund for support of a variety of wildlife conservation programs, the Traumatic Brain Injury Fund to help adults recover from brain injuries, and the Restitution Fund for support of crime victim programs. Because this initiative requires that all monies collected from a defendant first be applied to pay restitution orders directly to the victim, it is possible that the payments of fine and penalty revenues to various funds, including the Restitution Fund, could decline.



However, any loss of Restitution Fund revenues may be offset to the extent that certain provisions of this initiative increase the amount of restitution received directly by victims, thereby reducing their reliance on assistance from the Restitution Fund. Similarly, this initiative may also generate some savings for state and local agencies to the extent that increases in payments of restitution to crime victims cause them to need less assistance from other state and local government programs, such as health and social services programs.



Legal Rights of Criminal Victims. Because the measure gives crime victims and their families and representatives a greater opportunity to participate in and receive notification of criminal justice proceedings, state and local agencies could incur additional administrative costs. Specifically, these costs could result from lengthier court and parole consideration proceedings and additional notification of victims by state and local agencies about these proceedings.


The net fiscal impact of these changes in restitution funding and legal rights of criminal victims on the state and local agencies is unknown.


Criminal Justice.
Proposition 8
Election:
Primary

1982

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 56.4%)
Topic Areas:
Criminal Justice

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends Constitution and enacts several statutes concerning procedural treatment, sentencing, release, and other matters for accused and convicted persons. Includes provisions regarding restitution to victims from persons convicted of crimes, right to safe schools, exclusion of relevant evidence, bail, use of prior felony convictions for impeachment purposes or sentence enhancement, abolishing defense of diminished capacity, use of evidence regarding mental disorder, proof of insanity, notification and appearance of victims at sentencing and parole hearings, restricting plea bargaining, Youth Authority commitments, and other matters.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact; As the fiscal effect would depend on many factors that cannot be predicted, the net fiscal effect of this measure cannot be determined with any degree of certainty. However, approval of the measure would result in major state and local costs. The measure could: increase local administration costs; increase state administrative costs; increase claims against the state and local governments relating to enforcement of the right to safe schools; increase school security costs to provide safe schools; increase the cost of operating county jails by increasing the jail populations; increase court costs; and increase the cost of operating the state’s prison system by increasing the prison population (estimated to be about $47 million increased annual prison operating costs and $280 million prison construction costs based on various assumptions).

[S/CA]


Criminal Law. Prohibition on Slaughter of Horses and Sale of Horsemeat for Human Consumption. Initiative Statute.
Proposition 6
Election:
General

1998

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 59.4%)
Topic Areas:
Animal Rights/Hunting & Fishing | Business & Commerce | Criminal Justice

Summary: Click for Summary
Makes possession, transfer, or receipt of horses for slaughter for human consumption a felony. Makes sale of horsemeat for human consumption a misdemeanor.

[S]


Criminal Law. Initiative Constitutional Amendment And Statute
Proposition 115
Election:
Primary

1990

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 57.0%)
Topic Areas:
Criminal Justice

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends state Constitution regarding criminal and juvenile cases: affords accused no greater constitutional rights than federal Constitution affords; prohibits post-indictment preliminary hearings; establishes People’s right to due process and speedy, public trials; provides reciprocal discovery; allows hearsay in preliminary hearings. Makes statutory changes, including: expands first degree murder definition; increases penalty for specified murders; expands special circumstance murders subject to capital punishment; increases penalty for minors convicted of first degree murder to life imprisonment without parole; permits probable cause finding based on hearsay; requires court to conduct jury examination.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact: The net fiscal effect of this measure is unknown. The measure makes several significant changes to the criminal justice system. How the measure will be implemented and interpreted is unknown. There may be only a minor fiscal impact on state and local governments, or there may be a major fiscal impact.

[CA/S]


Criminal Sentences. Misdemeanor Penalties.
Proposition 47
Election:
General

2014

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 58.4% unofficial)
Topic Areas:
Criminal Justice

Summary: Click for Summary
Requires misdemeanor sentence instead of felony for petty theft, receiving stolen property, and forging/writing bad checks when value or amount involved is $950 or less. Requires misdemeanor sentence instead of felony for certain drug possession offenses. Allows felony sentence for these offenses if person has previous conviction for crimes such as rape, murder or child molestation or is a registered sex offender. Requires resentencing for persons serving felony sentences for these offenses unless court finds unreasonable public safety risk. Applies savings to mental health and drug treatment programs, K-12 schools, and crime victims. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Net state criminal justice system savings that could reach the low hundreds of millions of dollars annually, which would be spent on truancy prevention, mental health and substance abuse treatment, and victim services. Net county criminal justice system savings that could reach the low hundreds of millions of dollars annually. (13-0060.)


Daylight Saving Time
Proposition 12
Election:
Special

1949

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 55%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[S]


Daylight Saving Time. Amendment to Daylight Saving Time Initiative Act
Proposition 6-P
Election:
Primary

1962

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 72.2%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law

Summary: Click for Summary
Extends period of Daylight Saving Time from last Sunday in September until last Sunday in October.


Daylight Savings
Proposition 5
Election:
General

1940

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 30.0%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law

Summary: Click for Summary
Provides Daylight Saving Time as standard time in California between last Sunday in April and last Sunday in September annually. Declares purpose of Act to provide maximum utilization of daylight hours. Fixes standard time for remainder of year as United States Standard Pacific Time; designates Daylight Saving Time as one hour in advance thereof. Declares that in all laws, orders, decrees, regulations, concerning performance of public or other specified acts, accrual or determination of rights, and in public institutions, contracts and choses in action, the time shall be as provided in Act. Repeals conflicting legislation.

[S]


Daylight Savings Act
Proposition 7
Election:
General

1930

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 24.3%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law

Summary: Click for Summary
Provides that annually at 2 a.m. on last Sunday in April standard time be advanced one hour, and at 2 a.m. on last Sunday in September retarded one hour, so that between those times in each year standard time in California be one hour in advance of United States Standard Pacific Time. Declares that in all laws, orders, decrees and regulations, relating to performance of public or private acts, or accrual or determination of rights, and in public schools and institutions, contracts or choses in action, standard time as so changed shall be intended.

[S]


Death Penalty
Proposition 17
Election:
General

1972

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 67.5%)
Topic Areas:
Criminal Justice

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends California Constitution to provide that all state statutes in effect February 17, 1972 requiring, authorizing, imposing, or relating to death penalty are in full force and effect, subject to legislative amendment or repeal by statute, initiative or referendum; and that death penalty provided for under those state statutes shall not be deemed to be, or constitute, infliction of cruel or unusual punishments within meaning of California Constitution, article I, section 6, nor shall such punishment for such offenses be deemed to contravene any other provision of California Constitution. Financial impact: None.

[CA]


Death Penalty Repeal. Initiative Statute.
Proposition 34
Election:
General

2012

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 47.4% (unofficial))
Topic Areas:
Criminal Justice

Summary: Click for Summary
Repeals death penalty as maximum punishment for persons found guilty of murder and replaces it with life imprisonment without possibility of parole. Applies retroactively to persons already sentenced to death. Requires persons found guilty of murder to work while in prison, with their wages to be applied to any victim restitution fines or orders against them. Creates $100 million fund to be distributed to law enforcement agencies to help solve more homicide and rape cases.


Death Penalty Revision
Proposition 66
Election:
General

2016

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 50.9% unofficial)
Topic Areas:
Criminal Justice

Summary: Click for Summary
Changes procedures governing state court appeals and petitions challenging death penalty convictions and sentences. Designates superior court for initial petitions and limits successive petitions. Imposes time limits on state court death penalty review. Requires appointed attorneys who take noncapital appeals to accept death penalty appeals. Exempts prison officials from existing regulation process for developing execution methods. Authorizes death row inmate transfers among California state prisons. States death row inmates must work and pay victim restitution. States other voter approved measures related to death penalty are null and void if this measure receives more affirmative votes.


Decisions by Administrative Officers
Proposition 16
Election:
General

1942

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 22.7%)
Topic Areas:
State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Adds section 1b to Article IV, Constitution. Legislature may empower administrative officers to decide law or facts establishing jurisdiction; forbid court annulling findings supported by substantial evidence; authorize judicial review, prescribing court’s jurisdiction, Supreme Court’s jurisdiction subject to section 4c, Article IV; only Supreme Court reviewing Railroad Commission’s decisions, only appellate court Industrial Accident Commission’s decisions. Forbids court annulling decisions of fact, supported by sufficient evidence, by administrative agencies on municipal affairs, when declared final by city or county charter or ordinance thereunder. Like powers in other cities or counties unaffected.


Declaration of Rights
Proposition 7
Election:
General

1974

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 70.5%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law | Criminal Justice | Land Use/Property Rights

Summary: Click for Summary
Reorganizes and substantively amends various provisions of Article I and relocates portions of Articles IV and XX of California Constitution. Amendments include, among others, right to interpreter at state expense for criminal defendant who cannot understand English, provision that court may grant release on own recognizance, provision that property rights of noncitizens to be the same as for citizens, and revision of eminent domain provisions. Deletes, among others, provisions respecting criminal libel actions, provisions regarding right to sell or rent real property, provisions concerning acquisition of lands for public improvements. Financial impact: No increase in government costs.


Declaring Effective Dates of Acts of Legislature
Proposition 7
Election:
Special

1933

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 74.4%)
Topic Areas:
Legislatures

Summary: Click for Summary
Adds Section 1a to Article IV. Declares all acts passed by Legislature at fiftieth (present) regular session on or before July 16, 1933, effective ninety days after May 22, 1933, except acts effective immediately under Constitution. Declares all such acts not effective immediately subject to referendum, requiring referendum petitions be presented to Secretary of State within ninety days after May 22, 1933. Constitutional provisions not conflicting herewith made applicable to all acts of said regular session of Legislature.


Decreasing Property Taxes for New Home Purchases by Homebuyers 55 and Older Amendment and Initiative
Proposition 5
Election:
General

2018

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 40.2%)
Topic Areas:
Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
According to the California Legislative Analyst’s Office of the California Legislature: the measure would decrease the amount of property taxes collected, which means that state funds would need to be raised to replace those dollars since state law requires schools to receive a minimum of funding each year. And often a home’s market value (what it can be sold for) is lower than the amount that the property is assessed at for tax purposes (since most property value increase higher than the 2% set in law for assessing purposes). Thus, someone who buys a new home often finds they have to pay higher property taxes. Currently a homeowners 55 and older may purchase a home in the same county and transfer their existing assessed value to the new home. Counties also adminster the property tax. This measure would expand the ability of homeowners 55 and older to transfer their existing home value. They could do so across county lines and to more expensive homes. For more expensive homes at the market rate value, the assessed property tax value for the 55 and older homebuyer would be adjusted up from that of the previous home but would not equal the potential assessed value of the new more expensive home. If the market rate of the new home is less than the current home, the assessed value of the prior home would be adjusted downward. There are no limits to the number of times a person can move and use the measure’s provisions. Estimated effects include a likely increase in home sales but a decrease in property tax revenue and thus an increase in state revenue for schools.


Deddeh Transportation Bond Act
Proposition 74
Election:
Primary

1988

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 49.99%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Transportation

Summary: Click for Summary
This act provides for a bond issue of one billion dollars ($1,000,000,000) to provide funds for capital improvements for local streets and roads, state highways, and exclusive public mass transit guideways.


Dentistry
Proposition 21
Election:
General

1918

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 38.9%)
Topic Areas:
Health

Summary: Click for Summary
Initiative Act amending dental law. Requires dentist, hereafter appointed member of Board of Dental Examiners, have degree of Doctor of Dental Surgery or Dental Medicine, and some other degree from recognized institution; limits member to one four-year term in six years; as exception to present requirements, declares any applicant of good moral character, with five years practice, and examined and licensed by any state dental board, shall receive license without examination upon paying twenty-five dollars; forbids administering anesthetic, in practicing dentistry, except when adult third person present; declares advertising or charging low fees not unprofessional conduct.

[S]


Deposit of Public Moneys
Proposition 15
Election:
General

1914

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 42.2%)
Topic Areas:
Banking & Financial Services | Budgets

Summary: Click for Summary
Initiative amendment to section 16 1/2 of article XI of constitution. Present section unchanged except in following particulars: Authorizes banks in which public moneys are deposited to furnish, as security, bonds of districts within municipalities, or of a corporation qualified to act as sole surety on bonds or undertakings, to an amount in value, or with a penalty, of at least ten per cent over amount of deposit; provides that no deposit under section shall exceed at any time fifty per cent of paid up capital and surplus of depository bank.

[CA]


Deposit of Public Moneys
Proposition 6
Election:
Special

1915

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 38.0%)
Topic Areas:
Banking & Financial Services | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
[Summary from Hastings Law Library California Ballot Measures Database]

Senate Constitutional Amendment 19 amending section 16 1/2 of article XI of constitution. Provides that state, county or municipal moneys may be deposited in bank under such conditions as may be provided by law adopted by initiative or by two-thirds vote of each house of legislature approved by governor and subject to referendum; continues in force laws now governing deposit of such moneys until same are changed as in this section authorized.

[Constitutional Amendment]


Deposit of Public Moneys
Proposition 15
Election:
General

1932

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 62.7%)
Topic Areas:
Banking & Financial Services | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends Section 16 1/2 of Article XI of Constitution. Extends to any public or municipal corporation within this State provisions of said section permitting deposit in national or state banks within this State of moneys belonging to or in custody of the State, or any county or municipality thereof; also extends to such public or municipal corporation provisions of said section permitting deposit in banks outside this State of moneys for payment of principal or interest of bonds issued by such corporation and payable at places outside this State.


Deposit of Public Moneys
Proposition 23
Election:
General

1922

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 59.2%)
Topic Areas:
Banking & Financial Services | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Assembly Constitutional Amendment 26. Amends Section 16 1/2 of Article XI of Constitution by extending the provisions permitting the deposit in banks in this state of moneys belonging to the state, county or municipality, to include moneys in the custody thereof; also extends to other political subdivisions the provisions permitting the state or any county, city and county, city, town or municipality issuing bonds, to deposit moneys in banks outside this state for payment of such bonds at place where payable.


Deposit of Public Moneys
Proposition 3
Election:
General

1924

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 64.8%)
Topic Areas:
Banking & Financial Services | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Assembly Constitutional Amendment 46. Amends Section 16 1/2 of Article XI of Constitution by extending to any political subdivision, the provisions permitting the deposit in banks of this state of moneys belonging to or in the custody of the state or any political subdivision.


Deposit of Public Moneys
Proposition 2
Election:
General

1918

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 56.9%)
Topic Areas:
Banking & Financial Services | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Senate Constitutional Amendment 34. Amends Section 16 1/2 Article XI of Constitution. Authorizes state, county or municipality to deposit moneys in national banks within state, or banks organized under laws thereof, as permitted by any law adopted by initiative or by two-thirds vote of each house of legislature approved by governor and subject to referendum, and, when issuing bonds, in banks outside state to pay principal or interest thereof where payable; eliminates provisions requiring security for deposits, interest thereon and limiting amounts thereof, continuing present laws governing deposits until amended or repealed.


Deposit Of Public Moneys In Credit Union.
Proposition 45
Election:
Primary

1986

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 65.8%)
Topic Areas:
Banking & Financial Services | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
The California Constitution currently provides that Legislature may provide for the deposit of public moneys in any bank or savings and loan association in this state. This measure authorizes the Legislature to also provide for the deposit of public moneys in any credit union in this state. Summary of Legislative Analyst’s estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact: By itself, this measure has no direct fiscal effect. Legislation already approved to implement this measure could result in greater interest income to state and local governments by increasing competition for the deposit of public moneys.


Deposit of Public Moneys in Savings and Loan Associations
Proposition 8
Election:
Primary

1976

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 74.2%)
Topic Areas:
Banking & Financial Services | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
This amendment to Article XI, section 11(b) authorizes the Legislature to provide for deposit of public moneys in savings and loan associations in California as well as in banks in California. Financial impact: No direct fiscal effect–depends upon adoption of implementing legislation which could result in increased earnings on public deposits.


Deposit Of Public Moneys.
Proposition 88
Election:
General

1988

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 74.8%)
Topic Areas:
Banking & Financial Services | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Currently, the State Constitution authorizes the Legislature to provide for the deposit of public moneys in any bank, savings and loan association, or in any credit union in California. This measure amends the State Constitution to authorize the Legislature to provide for the deposit of public moneys in any federally insured industrial loan company in California.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact: No direct fiscal effect. However, adoption could result in greater interest income to the state and local governments by increasing competition for the deposit of public moneys.


Description of Property for Assessment
Proposition 23
Election:
General

1952

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 45.0%)
Topic Areas:
Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
This constitutional amendment will eliminate an existing requirement that every tract of land containing more than 640 acres which has been sectionized by the Federal Government shall be assessed for property tax purposes by sections or fractions of sections. It will also delete a direction to the Legislature that it provide for the assessment, in small tracts, of land which has not been sectionized by the United States Government. The effect will be to invest the Legislature with general authority to provide by law for the description of land for tax assessment purposes.


Direct Primary Law
Proposition 4
Election:
General

1916

Type:
Popular Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 47.7%)
Topic Areas:
Elections

Summary: Click for Summary
Submitted to electors by referendum. Amends provisions of Direct Primary Law of 1913 governing nominations at primary elections so as to permit declaration of party affiliation by elector at polls instead of when registering; prescribes official ballot containing names of all candidates; electors declaring at polls affiliation with party to vote for candidates of that party only and for present non-partisan offices, electors not so declaring to vote for non-partisan offices only; requires election officer, before delivering ballot to elector, to cancel such portion thereof as elector is not entitled to vote.


Direct Primary Law
Proposition 1
Election:
Special

1915

Type:
Popular Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 41.8%)
Topic Areas:
Elections

Summary: Click for Summary
[Summary from Hastings Law Library California Ballot Measures Database]

Submitted to electors by referendum. Defines political parties; declares that office of United States senator, representative in congress, congressional party committeeman, delegate to national party convention and presidential elector shall be partisan, and all other offices non-partisan; regulates primary elections, nomination of candidates, form of ballot and voting at such elections, canvassing returns thereof, contests and fees; defines lawful campaign expenses and requires statement thereof; provides for election and organization of congressional party committees by political parties; provides penalties for violation of act, and repeals primary law of 1913.


Disability of the Governor to Act
Proposition 14
Election:
General

1946

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 80.9%)
Topic Areas:
State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends Section 16, Article V of the Constitution. Provides that Secretary of State, Attorney General, Treasurer and Controller in order named shall assume powers and duties of Governor in the event of the disability of the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, President pro tempore of the Senate, or Speaker of the Assembly to act.


Disabled Veterans Tax Exemption
Proposition 12
Election:
General

1972

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 89.7%)
Topic Areas:
Military & Veterans Affairs | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Permits Legislature to extend disabled veterans tax exemption to totally disabled persons suffering service-connected loss of both arms, loss of arm and leg, or blindness in both eyes and loss of either arm or leg. Extends exemption to either surviving spouse. Financial impact: Nominal decrease in local government revenues.


Disabled Veterans’ Tax Exemption
Proposition 3
Election:
General

1960

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 80.6%)
Topic Areas:
Military & Veterans Affairs | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Permits totally disabled veteran entitled to $5,000 exemption on a home to transfer it to subsequently acquired home.


Disaster Assistance
Proposition 7P
Election:
Primary

1980

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 82.9%)
Topic Areas:
Energy & Electric Utilities | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Not available.


Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act of 2006
Proposition 1E
Election:
General

2006

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 64.3%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Natural Resources

Summary: Click for Summary
– This act rebuilds and repairs California’s most vulnerable flood control structures to protect homes and prevent loss of life from flood-related disasters, including levee failures, flash floods, and mudslides.

– Protects California’s drinking water supply system by rebuilding delta levees that are vulnerable to earthquakes and storms.

– Authorizes a $4.09 billion dollar bond act.

– Appropriates money from the General Fund to pay off bonds.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:

– State cost of about $8 billion over 30 years to pay off both the principal ($4.1 billion) and interest ($3.9 billion) costs on the bonds. Payments of about $266 million per year.

– Reduction in local property tax revenues of potentially up to several million dollars annually.

– Additional unknown state and local government costs to operate or maintain properties or projects acquired or developed with these bond funds.

[S]


Disclosures To Consumers, Voter, Investors.
Proposition 105
Election:
General

1988

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 54.5%)
Topic Areas:
Business & Commerce | Environmental Protection | Ethics/Lobbying/Campaign Finance | Health | Insurance

Summary: Click for Summary
Measure requires, as specified, the following disclosures:

(1) advertisers’ warnings regarding disposal of toxic household products with exceptions;

(2) notices regarding coverage limits and insurance offeror’s identity on insurance policies to supplement Medicare;

(3) disclosures in nursing home contracts and advertisements regarding access to State Ombudsman and facility violation information;

(4) disclosures by initiative and referendum campaign committees as to contributors; and

(5) disclosures by corporations selling stocks in state whether or not they are doing business in South Africa or with any person or group located there. Provides fines for violations.

Summary of Legislative Analyst’s estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact:

The net annual state costs could be up to $550,000 when the measure is fully implemented for toll-free telephone lines, development of regulations, and recordkeeping. Costs would be offset by unknown amount of fines from violators.

[S]


Discounts on Prescription Drugs. Initiative Statute.
Proposition 78
Election:
General

2005

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 41.5%)
Topic Areas:
Health

Summary: Click for Summary
Considered at the November 8, 2005 Special Statewide Election



– Establishes discount prescription drug program, overseen by California Department of Health Services.

– Enables certain low- and moderate-income California residents to purchase prescription drugs at reduced prices.

– Authorizes Department: to contract with participating pharmacies to sell prescription drugs at agreed-upon discounts negotiated in advance; to negotiate rebate agreements with participating drug manufacturers.

– Imposes $15 annual application fee.

– Creates state fund for deposit of drug manufacturers’ rebate payments.

– Requires Department’s prompt determination of residents’ eligibility, based on listed qualifications.

– Permits outreach programs to increase public awareness.

– Allows program to be terminated under specified conditions.

[S]


District Courts of Appeal: Appellate Jurisdiction
Proposition 13
Election:
General

1960

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 66.5%)
Topic Areas:
Judiciary

Summary: Click for Summary
Provides District Courts of Appeal shall have appellate jurisdiction of municipal and justice court cases as provided by law.


Diverting Gasoline Tax Funds for Biennium Ending June 30, 1933
Proposition 9
Election:
Special

1933

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 27.8%)
Topic Areas:
Budgets | Tax & Revenue | Transportation

Summary: Click for Summary
Shall the Legislature divert $8,779,750 from the gasoline tax funds to the general fund for payment of bond interest and redemption on outstanding highway bonds for the biennium ending June 30, 1933?


Diverting Gasoline Tax Funds for Biennium Ending June 30, 1935
Proposition 10
Election:
Special

1933

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 25.7%)
Topic Areas:
Budgets | Tax & Revenue | Transportation

Summary: Click for Summary
Shall the Legislature divert $8,449,326 from the gasoline tax funds to the general fund for payment of bond interest and redemption on outstanding highway bonds for the biennium ending June 30, 1935?


DNA Samples. Collection. Database. Funding. Initiative Statute.
Proposition 69
Election:
General

2004

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 62.1%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law | Criminal Justice

Summary: Click for Summary
– Requires collection of DNA samples from all felons, and from adults and juveniles arrested for or charged with specified crimes, and submission to state DNA database; and, in five years, from adults arrested for or charged with any felony.

– Authorizes local law enforcement laboratories to perform analyses for state database and maintain local database.

– Specifies procedures for confidentiality and removing samples from databases.

– Imposes additional monetary penalty upon certain fines/forfeitures to fund program.

– Designates California Department of Justice to implement program, subject to available moneys: Authorizes $7,000,000 loan from Legislature for implementation.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:

– Net state costs to collect and analyze DNA samples of potentially several million dollars initially, increasing to nearly $20 million annually when the costs are fully realized in 2009-10.

– Local costs to collect DNA samples likely more than fully offset by revenues, with the additional revenues available for other DNA-related activities.


Drug and Alcohol Testing of Doctors. Medical Negligence Lawsuits.
Proposition 46
Election:
General

2014

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 32.8% unofficial)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law | Health

Summary: Click for Summary
Requires drug and alcohol testing of doctors and reporting of positive test to the California Medical Board. Requires Board to suspend doctor pending investigation of positive test and take disciplinary action if doctor was impaired while on duty. Requires doctors to report any other doctor suspected of drug or alcohol impairment or medical negligence. Requires health care practitioners to consult state prescription drug history database before prescribing certain controlled substances. Increases $250,000 cap on pain and suffering damages in medical negligence lawsuits to account for inflation. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: State and local government costs associated with higher net medical malpractice costs, likely at least in the low tens of millions of dollars annually, potentially ranging to over one hundred million dollars annually. Potential net state and local government costs associated with changes in the amount and types of health care services that, while highly uncertain, potentially range from minor to hundreds of millions of dollars annually. (13-0016.)


Drug Enforcement and Prevention. Taxes. Prison Terms. Initiative Statute.
Proposition 133
Election:
General

1990

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 37.9%)
Topic Areas:
Criminal Justice | Drug/Alcohol/Tobacco Policy

Summary: Click for Summary
– Establishes Safe Streets Fund in State Treasury.

– Appropriates funds in account for Anti-Drug Education (42%); Anti-Drug Law Enforcement (40%); Prisons and Jails (10%); Drug Treatment (8%).

– Increases state sales and use taxes 1/2 cent for four years starting July 1, 1991; increased funds transferred to Safe Streets Fund.

– Limits state administrative expenses to 1%.

– Prohibits early release of persons convicted twice of: murder; manslaughter; rape or sexual assault; mayhem; sale, possession for sale, drugs to minors on schoolgrounds or playgrounds; using minors to sell or transport drugs.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:

– The Safe Streets Fund will receive a total of $7.5 billion in sales tax revenue for distribution during four-year period rate increase is in effect.

– Interest earnings received by the General Fund for the four-year period will be $80 million, with education programs receiving up to $33 million.

– Minor General Fund costs beginning in 1997-98 increasing to more than $30 million annually, by 2012-13 as a result of increased prison population due to elimination of sentence credits for specified offenders; potential one-time costs of more than $140 million for construction of new prison facilities.

– Increased law enforcement funding could result in additional criminal arrests and convictions, increasing state and local costs, which may be reduced by the increased funding of drug education and prevention programs.

[S]


Drug Enforcement, Prevention, Treatment, Prisons. Bonds. Initiative Constitutional Amendment And Statute
Proposition 129
Election:
General

1990

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 27.6%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Criminal Justice | Drug/Alcohol/Tobacco Policy

Summary: Click for Summary
– Statutory changes: commencing 1991, appropriates up to $1.9 billion over next eight years to state, county, city governments for drug enforcement, treatment, and gang related purposes.

– Authorizes issuance of $740,000,000 of general obligation bonds for drug abuse, confinement, and treatment facilities.

– Amends state Constitution to provide that specified provisions relating to rights of criminal defendants do not abridge right to privacy as it affects reproductive choice.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:

– No additional revenues result from this measure.

– Total General Fund costs of $1.2 billion for transfers to the Anti-Drug Superfund between 1990-91 through 1993-94.

– From 1994-95 through 1997-98 it is not clear whether any funds would be transferred from the General Fund to the Superfund.

– If all bonds proposed by this measure are sold at an interest rate of 7.5 percent, cost would be approximately $1.3 billion to pay off principal ($740 million) and interest ($585 million), with average annual payment being approximately $55 million.

– Additional annual costs of tens of millions of dollars for state and local governments could arise for operation of new correctional facilities.

– Additional costs resulting from increased criminal arrests and convictions could be offset by increased funding for drug education and prevention.

[CA/S]


Drugless Practice
Proposition 46
Election:
General

1914

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 32.6%)
Topic Areas:
Health

Summary: Click for Summary
[Summary from Hastings Law Library California Ballot Measures Database]

Initiative act creating state board for drugless physicians, with office in Oakland, creating fund from fees for members’ and employees’ salaries and expenses, regulating examinations and issuance of certificates. Authorizes holders thereof to treat all physical or mental ailments of human beings without drugs or medicine, use “Doctor,” “Dr.” or “D. P.” in connection with “Drugless Physician,” and sign birth and death certificates. Exempts from examination any person practicing any drugless system for six months prior to effective date of act. Prescribes penalties for violations of act; and repeals all inconsistent provisions of medical act.

[S]


Drugs. Probation and Treatment Program. Initiative Statute.
Proposition 36
Election:
General

2000

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 61%)
Topic Areas:
Criminal Justice | Drug/Alcohol/Tobacco Policy

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary by Attorney General: Requires probation and drug treatment program, not incarceration, for conviction of possession, use, transportation for personal use or being under influence of controlled substances and similar parole violations, not including sale or manufacture. Permits additional probation conditions except incarceration. Authorizes dismissal of charges when treatment completed, but requires disclosure of arrest and conviction to law enforcement and for candidates, peace officers, licensure, lottery contractors, jury service; prohibits using conviction to deny employment, benefits, or license. Appropriates treatment funds through 2005-2006; prohibits use of these funds to supplant existing programs or for drug testing.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact: Net savings to the state of between $100 million and $150 million annually, within several years of implementation. Potential one-time avoidance of capital outlay costs to the state of between $450 million and $550 million in the long term. Net savings to local government of about $40 million annually, within several years of implementation.

[S]


Earthquake Relief and Seismic Retrofit Bond Act of 1994.
Proposition 1A
Election:
General

1994

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Human Services | Transportation

Summary: Click for Summary
This act provides for a bond issue of two billion dollars ($2,000,000,000) to provide funds for an earthquake relief and seismic retrofit program.



The bond proceeds are to be used for the Northridge earthquake of January 17, 1994, as follows:

1) $145,000,000 for transportation;

2) $265,000,000 for public infrastructure;

3) $65,000,000 for earthquake hazard mitigation projects of public facilities in specific counties;

4) $950,000,000 for seismic retrofit of state-owned highways and bridges; and

5) $575,000,000 for loans to owners of owner-occupied dwellings.



Appropriates money from State General Fund to pay off bonds.

[S/BOND]


Earthquake Safety And Public Buildings Rehabilitation Bond Act Of 1990
Proposition 122
Election:
Primary

1990

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 55.0%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
This act provides for a bond issue of three hundred million dollars ($300,000,000) to provide funds for the reconstruction, seismic retrofitting, repair, replacement, and relocation of state and local government buildings which are unsafe primarily due to earthquake-related dangers.

[S/BOND]


Earthquake Safety. Property Tax Exclusion. Legislative Constitutional Amendment
Proposition 127
Election:
General

1990

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 61.7%)
Topic Areas:
Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
– Amends California Constitution to authorize Legislature to exclude from property tax assessment construction or installation of earthquake safety improvements in existing buildings.

– Authorizes Legislature to define improvements eligible for the exclusion.

– Existing 15 year exclusion applicable to earthquake safety reconstruction or improvements for specified existing unreinforced masonry buildings not affected by this amendment.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:

– If Legislature fully implements measure, it would reduce annual property tax collections from assessment of earthquake safety modifications beginning 1990-91.

– Revenue loss could be millions of dollars annually. Cities, counties, and special districts would bear approximately two-thirds of the loss; school and community college districts one-third.

– State may have to replace lost school district revenues, depending on formula used to determined K-14 education funding guarantee under existing state Constitution requirements.

[CA]


Education
Proposition 6
Election:
General

1928

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 43.6%)
Topic Areas:
Education: PreK-12

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends Sections 2, 3 and 7, Article IX, of Constitution. Provides for State Board of Education, composed of ten members with ten-year terms, appointed by Governor with concurrence of Senate, Superintendent of Public Instruction to be Executive Secretary thereof with salary fixed by law; Board to provide, under legislative regulations, text-books for elementary schools; empowers Legislature to transfer jurisdiction of such Superintendent to Director of Education whenever hereafter it creates latter office, vacating other office while latter exists; authorizes regulations whereby holders of State credentials may teach without county certificates.


Education Facilities: Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2006
Proposition 1D
Election:
General

2006

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 57.0%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Education: Higher Ed | Education: PreK-12

Summary: Click for Summary
– This ten billion four hundred sixteen million dollar ($10,416,000,000) bond issue will provide needed funding to relieve public school overcrowding and to repair older schools.

– It will improve earthquake safety and fund vocational educational facilities in public schools. Bond funds must be spent according to strict accountability measures.

– Funds will also be used to repair and upgrade existing public college and university buildings and to build new classrooms to accommodate the growing student enrollment in the California Community Colleges, the University of California, and the California State University.

– Appropriates money from the General Fund to pay off bonds.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:

– State costs of about $20.3 billion to pay off both the principal ($10.4 billion) and interest ($9.9 billion) on the bonds. Payments of about $680 million per year.

[S]


Education Facilities: Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Acts of 2002 and 2004
Proposition 47
Election:
General

2002

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 58.9%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Education: Higher Ed | Education: PreK-12

Summary: Click for Summary
Background



Public education in California consists of two distinct systems. One system includes local school districts that provide elementary and secondary (kindergarten through 12th grade, or K-12) education to about 6.1 million pupils. The other system (commonly referred to as “higher education”) includes local community colleges, the California State University (CSU), and the University of California (UC). The three segments of higher education provide education programs beyond the 12th grade to about 2.3 million students.



K-12 Schools

School Facilities Funding. The K-12 schools receive funding for construction and renovation of facilities from two main sources–the state and local general obligation bonds.

– State Funding.

The state, through the School Facility Program (SFP), provides money for school districts to buy land and to construct, renovate, and modernize K-12 school buildings. Districts receive funding for construction and renovation based on the number of pupils who meet the eligibility criteria of the program. The cost of school construction projects is shared between the state and local school districts. The state pays 50 percent of the cost of new construction projects and 60 percent of the cost for approved modernization projects. (Local matches are not necessary in so-called “hardship” cases.) The state has funded the SFP by issuing general obligation bonds. Over the past decade, voters have approved a total of $11.5 billion in state bonds for K–12 school construction. About $550 million of these funds remain available for expenditure.

– Local General Obligation Bonds.

School districts are authorized to sell general obligation bonds to finance school construction projects with the approval of 55 percent of the voters in the district. These bonds are paid off by taxes on real property located within the district. Over the last ten years, school districts have received voter approval to issue more than $23 billion of general obligation bonds.



Although school facilities have been funded primarily from state and local general obligation bonds, school districts also receive significant funds from:

– Developer Fees. State law authorizes local governments to impose developer fees on new construction. These fees are levied on new residential, commercial, and industrial developments. Statewide, school districts report having received an average of over $300 million a year in developer fees over the last ten years.

– Special Local Bonds (Known as “Mello-Roos” Bonds). School districts may form special districts in order to sell bonds for school construction projects. (These special districts generally do not encompass the entire school district.) The bonds, which require two-thirds voter approval, are paid off by charges assessed to property owners in the special district. Statewide, school districts have received on average about $150 million a year in special local bond proceeds over the past decade.



K-12 School Building Needs.

Under the SFP, K-12 school districts must demonstrate the need for new or modernized facilities. Through May 2002, the districts have identified a need to construct new schools to house 1.2 million pupils and modernize schools for an additional 1.2 million pupils. We estimate the state cost to address all of these needs to be roughly $20 billion.



Higher Education

California’s system of public higher education includes 140 campuses in the three segments listed below, serving about 2.3 million students:

– The California Community Colleges provide instruction to 1.7 million students at 108 campuses operated by 72 locally governed districts throughout the state. The community colleges grant associate degrees and also offer a variety of vocational skill courses.

– The CSU system has 23 campuses, with an enrollment of about 395,000 students. The system grants bachelor and master degrees, and a small number of joint doctoral degrees with UC.

– The UC has eight general campuses and one health sciences campus with a total enrollment of about 184,000 students. This system offers bachelor, master, and doctoral degrees, and is the primary state-supported agency for research.



Over the past decade, the voters have approved nearly $4.4 billion in general obligation bonds for capital improvements at public higher education campuses. The state also has provided almost $1.5 billion in lease revenue bonds for this same purpose.



In addition to these state bonds, the higher education segments have other sources of funding for capital projects.

– Local General Obligation Bonds. Community college districts are authorized to sell general obligation bonds to finance school construction projects with the approval of 55 percent of the voters in the district. These bonds are paid off by taxes on real property located within the district. Over the last decade, community college districts have received local voter approval to issue about $5 billion of bonds for construction and renovation of facilities.

– Gifts and Grants. The CSU and UC in recent years together have received on average over $100 million annually in gifts and grants for construction of facilities.

– UC Research Revenue. The UC finances the construction of new research facilities by selling bonds and pledging future research revenue for their repayment. Currently, UC uses about $125 million a year of research revenue to pay off these bonds.



Higher Education Building Plans.

Each year the institutions of higher education prepare capital outlay plans in which they identify project priorities over the next few years. Higher education capital outlay projects in the most recent plans total $4.4 billion for the period 2003-04 through 2006-07.



Proposal



This measure allows the state to issue $13.05 billion of general obligation bonds for construction and renovation of K-12 school facilities ($11.4 billion) and higher education facilities ($1.65 billion). General obligation bonds are backed by the state, meaning that the state is obligated to pay the principal and interest costs on these bonds. General Fund revenues would be used to pay these costs. These revenues come primarily from state income and sales taxes.



K-12 School Facilities

The measure would permit changes in the allocation with
the approval of the Legislature and Governor.



New Construction. A total of $6.35 billion would be available to buy land and construct new school buildings. Of this amount, $2.9 billion would be set aside for “backlog” projects–that is, projects for which districts had submitted applications on or before February 1, 2002, but that have not yet been funded. The remaining funds–$3.45 billion–would be available for new construction projects submitted after February 1, 2002. Districts would be required to pay for 50 percent of costs with local resources. The measure also provides that up to $100 million of the $3.45 billion in new construction funds is available for charter school facilities. (Charter schools are public schools that operate independently of many of the requirements of regular public schools.)



Modernization. The proposition makes $3.3 billion available for the reconstruction or modernization of existing school facilities. Of this amount, $1.9 billion would be available for backlog projects and $1.4 billion for new proposals. Districts would be required to pay 40 percent of project costs from local resources.



Critically Overcrowded Schools. This proposition directs a total of $1.7 billion to districts with schools which are considered critically overcrowded. These funds would go to schools that have a large number of pupils relative to the size of the school site.



Joint-Use Projects. The measure makes a total of $50 million available to fund joint-use projects. (An example of a joint-use project is a facility constructed for use by both a K-12 school district and a local library district.)



Higher Education Facilities

The measure includes $1.65 billion to construct new buildings and related infrastructure, alter existing buildings, and purchase equipment for use in these buildings for California’s public higher education systems. The Governor and the Legislature would select the specific projects to be funded by the bond monies.



Related Bond Funding. The legislation which placed this proposition on the ballot provides $651.3 million in lease revenue bonds to fund specific projects. Lease revenue bonds are similar to state general obligation bonds except they do not require voter approval and are not backed by the full faith and credit of the state. This would fund $279 million for UC (7 projects), $191.3 million for CSU (4 projects), $170.5 million for the community colleges (11
projects), and $10.5 million for the California State Library (1 project).



Future Education Bond Act

The legislation which placed this proposition on the ballot authorizes a $12.3 billion bond measure to be placed on the 2004 primary election ballot. (If the voters do not approve this measure, the same bond issue would be placed on the November 2004 ballot.)



The bond measure would provide:

– $10 billion for K-12 school facilities (with roughly half for new construction and a fourth each for modernization and critically overcrowded schools).

– $2.3 billion for higher education (with $920 million for community colleges and $690 million each for UC and CSU).



Fiscal Effect



The cost of these bonds would depend on their interest rates and the time period over which they are repaid. If the $13.05 billion in bonds authorized by this proposition are sold at an interest rate of 5.25 percent (the current rate for this type of bond) and repaid over 30 years, the cost over the period would be about $26.2 billion to pay off both the principal ($13.05 billion) and interest ($13.15 billion). The average payment for principal and interest would be about $873 million per year.

[S/BOND]


Education Funding. Payment Plan.
Proposition 1B
Election:
Special

2009

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 38.1%)
Topic Areas:
Budgets | Education: PreK-12

Summary: Click for Summary
Appeared on May 19, 2009 special election ballot.

Proposition 1B amends the California Constitution related to Proposition 98, as described below.



Creates $9.3 Billion “Supplemental Education” Obligation. This measure requires the state to make a total of $9.3 billion in supplemental payments to K–14 education. The payments would be made in annual installments, beginning in 2011–12. They would become part of the base budget when calculating the following year’s Proposition 98 minimum guarantee.



Supplemental Payments in Place of Maintenance Factor Payments. These payments would replace any payments that the state would otherwise be required to make under current law for maintenance factor obligations created in 2007–08 and 2008–09. The measure, however, does not clarify the uncertainty regarding maintenance factor in Test 1 years for the future.



Distribution of Funds. The measure gives discretion to the Legislature and the Governor regarding how these payments would be distributed between K–12 education and community colleges. For any funds provided to K–12 education, the measure requires that the payments be made for revenue limits. Of the 2011–12 payment, up to $200 million can be provided to school districts with low per-pupil revenue limit amounts to equalize revenue limit payments among districts. All other K–12 payments would be distributed based on districts’ per-pupil revenue limit rates. The measure makes no specific requirements on how any money provided to community colleges is to be used.



Measure Linked to Proposition 1A. The funding mechanism for making the supplemental payments established in this measure is provided in Proposition 1A, also on this ballot. That measure establishes a Supplemental Education Payment Account and requires the state to annually deposit 1.5 percent of General Fund revenues into the account, beginning in 2011–12. These funds would be put into the account annually until the entire $9.3 billion in supplemental payments had been provided. If Proposition 1A is not approved by the voters, the provisions of this measure would not go into effect, and there would be no obligation to make $9.3 billion in supplemental payments.


Education Funding. Real Property Parcel Tax. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Proposition 88
Election:
General

2006

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 23.3%)
Topic Areas:
Education: PreK-12 | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
– Provides additional public school funding for kindergarten through grade 12.

– Funded by $50 tax on each real property parcel.

– Exempts certain elderly and disabled homeowners.

– Funds must be used for class size reduction, textbooks, school safety, Academic Success facility grants, and data system to evaluate educational program effectiveness.

– Provides for reimbursement to General Fund to offset anticipated decrease in income tax revenues due to increased deductions attributable to new parcel tax.

– Requires school district audits, penalties for fund misuse.

– Revenue excluded from minimum education funding (Proposition 98) calculations.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:

– State parcel tax revenue of roughly $450 million annually, allocated to school districts for specified education programs.

[CA/S]


Education. Vouchers. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Proposition 174
Election:
Special

1993

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 30.4%)
Topic Areas:
Education: PreK-12

Summary: Click for Summary
– Amends California Constitution to enable parents to choose a child’s school by requiring State to provide a voucher for every school-age child equal to at least 50 percent of prior fiscal year per pupil spending for K-12 public schools.

– Requires Legislature to establish procedures whereby public schools may become independent voucher-redeeming schools. Vouchers may be redeemed by such schools and by qualifying private schools.

– Authorizes required academic testing.

– Limits new regulation of private and voucher-redeeming schools.

– Voucher expenditures and specified savings count toward education’s existing constitutional minimum funding guarantee.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:

– Long-term (by the fifth year) net fiscal effect on state funding of K-12 schools is largely unknown. Annual impact likely to range from costs of about $800 million to savings of about $1 billion, depending on the number of pupils who shift from public schools to schools that accept vouchers and legislative decisions on funding of public schools.

– Short-term (first few years) state costs averaging hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

– Debt service savings to the state and school districts potentially in excess of $100 million annually after 10-20 years, resulting from reduced need for construction of public schools.

[CA]


Effective Date of 1933 Statutes
Proposition 6
Election:
Special

1949

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 71.7%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law

Summary: Click for Summary
Repeals Section 1a of Article IV of Constitution, as adopted in 1933, relating to the effective date of statutes enacted at the 1933 Regular Session of the Legislature.


Effective Date of Ballot Measures Amendment
Proposition 71
Election:
Primary

2018

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 77.9%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law | Elections | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Changes the date for when voter-approved ballot measures take effect. Existing law requires the secretary of state to compile the results of all statewide measures, and to prepare, certify, and file a statement of the vote from the compiled results no alter than the 38th day after the election. This measure would instead provide that an approved measure takes effect 5 days after the secretary of state files the statement of the vote for the election when the measure was voted on.


Eight Hour Law
Proposition 3
Election:
General

1914

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 33.5%)
Topic Areas:
Criminal Justice | Labor & Employment

Summary: Click for Summary
Any employer who shall require or permit, or who shall suffer or permit any overseer, superintendent, foreman, or other agent of such employer, to require or permit any person in his employ to work more than eight hours in one day, or more than forty- eight hours in one week, except in case of extraordinary emergency caused by fire, flood, or danger to life or property, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be fined not less than $50 nor more than $500, or imprisoned in the county jail not less than 10 nor more than 90 days, or both so fined and imprisoned.

[S]


Elected County Assessor
Proposition 66
Election:
Primary

1988

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 73.5%)
Topic Areas:
Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Presently, the State Constitution requires the offices of district attorney and sheriff to be elective in both charter and noncharter counties. This measure amends the Constitution to provide the office of assessor shall also be an elective office in charter and noncharter counties. Summary of Legislative Analyst’s estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact: This measure would have no direct state or local fiscal effect.


Elected District Attorney
Proposition 59
Election:
General

1986

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 82.3%)
Topic Areas:
Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Presently the State Constitution does not provide for elected district attorneys. State statutory law provides for elected district attorneys but provides that office may be made appointive office by local popular vote. This measure amends the Constitution to require the Legislature provide for an elected district attorney in all counties. Summary of Legislative Analyst’s estimate of state and local government fiscal impact: This measure would have no direct state or local fiscal effect.


Elected Officials’ Salaries. Prevents Pay Increases During Budget Deficit Years.
Proposition 1F
Election:
Special

2009

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 74.3%)
Topic Areas:
Budgets | Labor & Employment | Legislatures | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Appeared on May 19, 2009 special election ballot.

This proposition amends the Constitution to prevent the commission from approving increases in the annual salary of elected state officials in certain cases when the state General Fund is expected to end the year with a deficit.



Official Certification of a Deficit Would Be Required. On or before June 1 of each year, the state Director of Finance (who is appointed by the Governor) would be required to notify the commission in certain cases when the state’s finances have weakened. Specifically, the Director would notify the commission if the Special Fund for Economic Uncertainties (SFEU) is expected to have a negative balance equal to or greater than 1 percent of the annual revenues of the state General Fund on June 30 (the last day of the state’s fiscal year). As described in the analysis of Proposition 1A (also on this ballot), the SFEU is the state’s traditional rainy day reserve fund. Currently, 1 percent of General Fund revenues is almost $1 billion.



Certification of the Deficit Would Prevent Raises for Elected State Officials. In years when the commission chooses to adjust state officers’ pay and benefits, it already is required to pass a resolution to do this before June 30. These pay and benefit adjustments take effect beginning in December. Under this measure, if the Director of Finance certifies that the SFEU will end the month of June with a deficit of 1 percent or more of General Fund revenues, state officials will not be eligible to receive a salary increase to take effect in December of that year.


Elected Officials. Disqualification for Libelous or Slanderous Campaign Statements.
Proposition 20
Election:
Primary

1984

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 51.9%)
Topic Areas:
Ethics/Lobbying/Campaign Finance

Summary: Click for Summary
Adds a section to the Constitution providing that no person who is found liable in a civil action for making libelous or slanderous statements against an opposing candidate during an election campaign shall retain the seat to which elected where it is judicially found that: (1) the libel or slander was a major contributing cause in the defeat of an opposing candidate and (2) the statement was made with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or true. Contains other provisions. Summary of Legislative Analyst’s estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact: Adoption of this measure would have no direct fiscal effect on the state or local governments. If, however, a successful candidate were disqualified from assuming or holding office as a result of the measure, local governments could incur additional costs if an election had to be held to fill the vacancy. These costs could be significant if the election did not coincide with a regularly scheduled election.


Election at Primary
Proposition 23
Election:
General

1926

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 73.8%)
Topic Areas:
Elections

Summary: Click for Summary
Adds Section 2 3/4 to Article II of Constitution. Declares candidate for judicial, school, county, township, or other non-partisan office, receiving at primary election votes on majority of all ballots cast for such office shall be elected thereto; where two or more candidates are to be elected to an office and more candidates receive a majority than are to be elected, those securing highest votes of those receiving such majority, and equaling number to be elected, shall be elected; declares freeholder’s charter governs whenever it provides different method of election.


Election Campaigns. Contributions and Spending Limits. Public Financing. Disclosures. Initiative Statute.
Proposition 25
Election:
Primary

2000

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 34.7%)
Topic Areas:
Ethics/Lobbying/Campaign Finance

Summary: Click for Summary
This measure revises state laws on political campaigns for candidates and ballot measures beginning in 2001. Specifically, the measure:



– Limits financial contributions to support candidates for state or local elective office and prescribes when fund-raising for state candidates can occur.

– Establishes voluntary campaign spending limits for state candidates and ballot initiative campaigns.

– Provides public funding for broadcast advertising and voter information packets mailed to voters for certain state candidates and ballot initiative campaigns that have accepted voluntary campaign spending limits.

– Requires establishment of Internet web sites to display information on state political campaigns and some local political campaigns, finances, and advertising authorized by campaigns.

– Establishes new advertising and financial disclosure requirements for state and local campaigns.

– Requires state verification of contributions from major donors.

– Makes it illegal under any circumstances to provide or offer compensation to someone to vote.



Some provisions of this measure are similar to those enacted in 1996 by Proposition 208 which have not gone into effect because of an ongoing lawsuit.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:



State costs of more than $55 million annually, potentially offset to an unknown extent. Local government costs of potentially several million dollars annually.

[S]


Election Day Voter Registration. Initiative Statute.
Proposition 52
Election:
General

2002

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 40.7%)
Topic Areas:
Elections

Summary: Click for Summary
Allows persons who are legally eligible to vote and have valid identification to register to vote on election day at their polling place. Increases criminal penalty for voter and voter registration fraud. Makes conspiracy to commit voter fraud a crime. Requires trained staff at polling places to manage election day registration. Creates fund to implement measure, including training and providing personnel for election day registration. Allows persons to register or re-register during 28 days preceding election day at their local elections office. Provides more time to county election officials to prepare voter registration lists. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Direct of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: This measure would result annually in about $6 million in state costs and no net costs to counties.

[S]


Election of United States Senators
Proposition 32
Election:
General

1914

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 67.9%)
Topic Areas:
Elections

Summary: Click for Summary
United States senators shall be elected by the people of the state in the manner provided by law.

[Constitutional Amendment]


Election Returns for Governor and Lieutenant Governor
Proposition 4
Election:
General

1940

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 64.0%)
Topic Areas:
Elections

Summary: Click for Summary
Repeals section 4 of Article V and adds section 4.5 to Article V of Constitution. Declares Legislature may regulate by law the manner of making returns of elections for Governor and Lieutenant Governor. Ratifies legislation enacted at Fifty-third Session of Legislature regulating manner of making returns of elections for Governor and Lieutenant Governor.


Election Rights of Political Parties. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.
Proposition 60
Election:
General

2004

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 67.6%)
Topic Areas:
Elections

Summary: Click for Summary
– Provides the right for political party participating in a primary election for partisan office to also participate in the general election for that office.

– Candidate receiving most votes from among that party’s candidates in primary election for state partisan office cannot be denied placement on general election ballot.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact: No fiscal effect.


Elections and Presidential Primary
Proposition 7
Election:
General

1972

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 68.3%)
Topic Areas:
Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Requires Legislature to provide for primary elections for partisan offices, including an open presidential primary. Provides that a United States citizen 18 years of age and resident of this state may vote in all elections. Declares certain offices nonpartisan. Provides for secret ballot. Requires Legislature to define residence, provide for registration and free elections, prohibit improper election practices, and remove election privileges of certain persons. Financial impact: None.


Elections by Plurality, Preferential Vote and Primary
Proposition 23
Election:
General

1914

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 45.0%)
Topic Areas:
Elections

Summary: Click for Summary
[Summary from Hastings Law Library California Ballot Measures Database]

Declares plurality of votes at any primary or election constitutes choice unless constitution otherwise provides; permits charters framed under constitution for counties or municipalities and general laws for other counties and municipalities to provide otherwise, or for nomination or election, or both, of all or any portion of candidates at a primary, or for preferential system of voting at any county or municipal primary or other election; authorizes general laws providing preferential system of voting at any other primary.

[Constitutional Amendment]


Elections. Increase Right to Participate in Primary Elections.
Proposition 14
Election:
Primary

2010

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 53.8%)
Topic Areas:
Elections

Summary: Click for Summary
Scheduled for the June 8, 2010 primary

Changes the primary election process for congressional, statewide, and legislative races. Allows all voters to choose any candidate regardless of the candidate’s or voter’s political party preference. Ensures that the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes will appear on the general election ballot regardless of party preference. Fiscal Impact: No significant net change in state and local government costs to administer elections.



Background

Primary and General Elections. California generally holds two statewide elections in even-numbered years to elect candidates to state and federal offices-—a primary election (in June) and a general election (in November). These elections (such as those for Governor and Members of Congress) are partisan, which means that most candidates are associated with a political party. For these partisan offices, the results of a primary election determine each party’s nominee for the office. The candidate receiving the most votes in a party primary election is that party’s nominee for the general election. In the general election, voters choose among all of the parties’ nominees, as well as any independent candidates. (Independent candidates-—those not associated with a party-—do not participate in primary elections.) The winner of the general election then serves a term in that office.



Ballot Materials Under Current Primary System. For every primary election, each county prepares a ballot and related materials for each political party. Those voters affiliated with political parties receive their party’s ballot. These party ballots include partisan offices, nonpartisan offices, and propositions. Voters with no party affiliation receive ballots related only to nonpartisan offices and propositions. Parties, however, may allow voters with no party affiliation to receive their party’s ballot.



Partisan Statewide Elections in California. Partisan elections for state office include those for the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Controller, Secretary of State, Treasurer, Insurance Commissioner, Attorney General, the 120 members of the Legislature, and four members of the State Board of Equalization. (The Superintendent of Public Instruction is a nonpartisan state office.) Partisan elections also are held for federal offices including President, Vice President, and Members of Congress.



Proposal

This measure, which amends the State Constitution, changes the election process for most state and federal offices. Its provisions and related legislation would take effect for elections after January 1, 2011.



Creates a Top-Two Primary Election. This measure creates a single ballot for primary elections for those congressional and state elective offices. Candidates would indicate for the ballot either their political party (the party chosen on their voter registration) or no party preference. All candidates would be listed-—including independent candidates, who now would appear on the primary ballot. Each voter would cast his or her vote using this single primary ballot. A voter registered with the Republican Party, for example, would be able to vote in the primary election for a candidate registered as a Democrat, a candidate registered as a Republican, or any other candidate. The two candidates with the highest number of votes in the primary election—-regardless of their party preference—-would advance to compete in the general election. In fact, the two candidates in the general election could have the same party preference.



Does Not Affect Presidential Elections and Political Party Leadership Positions. Under this measure, there would still be partisan primary elections for presidential candidates and political party offices (including party central committees, party officials, and presidential delegates).


Elections. Primaries. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Proposition 62
Election:
General

2004

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 46.1%)
Topic Areas:
Elections

Summary: Click for Summary
– Requires primary elections where all voters may vote for any state or federal candidate regardless of how a voter or candidate is registered.

– Exempts presidential nominations and elections of party central committees.

– Only the two primary-election candidates receiving most votes for an office, whether they are candidates with “no party” or members of same or different party, would be listed on general election ballot.

– In special primary election, candidate receiving majority vote is elected.

– Requires political party’s consent for identification of candidates’ party registration on ballot and in other official election publications.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact: No significant net fiscal effect on state and local governments.


Elections. Term Limit Declarations for Congressional Candidates. Initiative Statute.
Proposition 27
Election:
Primary

2000

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 40.4%)
Topic Areas:
Federal Government | Term Limits

Summary: Click for Summary
This measure allows all candidates for the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives from California to sign a declaration saying that, if elected, they either will or will not voluntarily limit their years of service. Candidates who agree to term limits would indicate that they will voluntarily serve no more than two terms in the Senate (or 12 years) or three terms in the House of Representatives (or 6 years).



In addition, a candidate can ask the Secretary of State to place on election ballots a statement that the candidate either did or did not sign such a declaration to voluntarily limit his or her terms of service.



The measure does not require a candidate to sign any declaration, nor does it require him or her to ask the Secretary of State to provide information regarding the declarations on the ballot.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:



Unknown, but probably not significant, election costs to the state and counties.

[S]


Elections: Ballot Designation of Party Affiliations
Proposition 7
Election:
General

1952

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 72.8%)
Topic Areas:
Elections

Summary: Click for Summary
This measure will require that the political party affiliation of each candidate for a partisan political office be printed following his name on the direct primary ballots of all parties the nomination of which he seeks. It applies to candidates for the offices of Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Controller, Treasurer, Attorney General, Member of the State Board of Equalization, United States Senator, Representative in Congress, State Senator, and Member of the Assembly. It does not apply to candidates for judicial, school, county, township, and municipal offices, since these are nonpartisan.



Therefore, if this measure is approved, the name of a candidate affiliated, for example, with the Republican Party, who has “cross-filed” so as to run on the Democratic ballot as well, would be followed on the ballots of both parties by the abbreviation “Rep.,” to indicate that he is affiliated with the Republican Party.



This measure would also require the party affiliation of candidates for election to a partisan political office at a special election to be similarly shown.



It makes a technical change in the ballot forms set forth in Section 3946 of the Elections Code to insert a statement at the top of such ballot forms that absentee ballots may be marked with a pen or pencil rather than with a rubber stamp. This portion of the measure makes no change in the law, since Section 3944 of the Elections Code already provides that such a statement must be printed on the ballots.



This measure was proposed as an alternative to Proposition No. 13 by the Legislature under paragraph 3 of Section 1 of Article IV of the Constitution, following the Legislature’s rejection of that measure (the anti-cross-filing initiative). To the extent to which a court may hold these measures to be in conflict, the measure receiving the highest affirmative vote will prevail if both are approved.


Elections: Prohibiting Cross-Filing
Proposition 13
Election:
General

1952

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 49.96%)
Topic Areas:
Elections

Summary: Click for Summary
Under the present election laws of California, any qualified candidate for a partisan political office may seek the nomination of more than one political party by causing his name to appear as a candidate for nomination on the primary election ballots of one or more political parties in addition to the party with which he is registered. This is commonly known as “cross-filing.” It applies to candidates for the offices of Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Controller, Treasurer, Attorney General, Member of the State Board of Equalization, United States Senator, Representative in Congress, State Senator, and Member of the Assembly. It does not apply to candidates for judicial, school, county, township, and municipal offices, since these are nonpartisan.



This initiative measure (the anti-cross-filing initiative) will abolish “cross-filing” by prohibiting any person from becoming a candidate for the nomination of any political party unless he has been continuously registered as a member of that party for at least three months immediately prior to the filing of nomination papers for the partisan office he seeks, so that no candidate can run on the primary ballot of any party other than the one with which he is registered.



This measure was submitted to the Legislature for approval or rejection and was rejected. See Proposition No. 7, which is a measure proposed by the Legislature as an alternative to this measure under Paragraph 3 of Section 1 of Article IV of the Constitution. To the extent to which a court may hold these measures to be in conflict, the measure receiving the highest affirmative vote will prevail if both are approved.

[S]


Electric Service Providers. Regulation. Initiative Statute.
Proposition 80
Election:
General

2005

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 34.3%)
Topic Areas:
Energy & Electric Utilities | Environmental Protection

Summary: Click for Summary
Considered at the November 8, 2005 Special Statewide Election



– Subjects electric service providers, as defined, to control and regulation by California Public Utilities Commission.

– Imposes restrictions on electricity customers’ ability to switch from private utilities to other electric providers.

– Provides that registration by electric service providers with Commission constitutes providers’ consent to regulation.

– Requires all retail electric sellers, instead of just private utilities, to increase renewable energy resource procurement by at least 1% each year, with 20% of retail sales procured from renewable energy by 2010, instead of current requirement of 2017.

– Imposes duties on Commission, Legislature and electrical providers.

[S]


Electric Utilities. Assessments. Bonds. Initiative Statute.
Proposition 9
Election:
General

1998

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 26.5%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Energy & Electric Utilities

Summary: Click for Summary
Prohibits assessment of taxes, bonds, surcharges to pay costs of nuclear power plants. Limits recovery by electric companies for costs of non-nuclear power plants. Prohibits issuance of rate reduction bonds.

[S]


Eligibility to Vote
Proposition 4
Election:
General

1950

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 85.2%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law | Elections

Summary: Click for Summary
county for 90 days, and in the election precinct for 54 days, immediately preceding the election, except that an otherwise qualified elector who moves from the precinct where he is registered to another precinct in the same county within 54 days prior to an election is eligible to vote in the precinct from which he moved.



This constitutional amendment would make a similar exception with respect to otherwise qualified electors who move from one county in the State to another county in the State within 90 days preceding an election, and would make a qualified elector so moving eligible to vote in the precinct in which he is registered within the county from which he moved.


Eligibility to Vote
Proposition 15
Election:
General

1966

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 43.9%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law | Elections

Summary: Click for Summary
Legislative Constitutional Amendment. Provides that educational requirement for eligibility to vote shall not apply to any person who on June 27, 1952, was at least 50 years of age and a resident of the United States at least 20 years.


Eligibility to Vote
Proposition 8
Election:
General

1960

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 44.8%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law | Criminal Justice | Elections

Summary: Click for Summary
Changes prohibitions of eligibility to vote from those convicted of infamous crime to those convicted of felony during punishment therefor and those convicted of treason.


Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Proposition 8
Election:
General

2008

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 52.3%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law

Summary: Click for Summary
BACKGROUND



In March 2000, California voters passed Proposition 22 to specify in state law that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. In May 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that the statute enacted by Proposition 22 and other statutes that limit marriage to a relationship between a man and a woman violated the equal protection clause of the California Constitution. It also held that individuals of the same sex have the right to marry under the California Constitution. As a result of the ruling, marriage between individuals of the same sex is currently valid or recognized in the state.



PROPOSAL



This measure amends the California Constitution to specify that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. As a result, notwithstanding the California Supreme Court ruling of May 2008, marriage would be limited to individuals of the opposite sex, and individuals of the same sex would not have the right to marry in California.



FISCAL EFFECTS



Because marriage between individuals of the same sex is currently valid in California, there would likely be an increase in spending on weddings by same-sex couples in California over the next few years. This would result in increased revenue, primarily sales tax revenue, to state and local governments.



By specifying that marriage between individuals of the same sex is not valid or recognized, this measure could result in revenue loss, mainly from sales taxes, to state and local governments. Over the next few years, this loss could potentially total in the several tens of millions of dollars. Over the long run, this measure would likely have little fiscal impact on state and local governments.


Eliminates State Commission on Redistricting. Consolidates Authority for Redistricting with Elected Representatives. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Proposition 27
Election:
General

2010

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 40.5%)
Topic Areas:
Redistricting

Summary: Click for Summary
PROPOSAL

This measure amends the Constitution and other state laws to change the way that district boundaries are determined for the State Assembly, State Senate, BOE, and California’s seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.



Legislative and BOE Redistricting Returns to Legislature. This measure returns authority to draw district boundaries for the State Assembly, State Senate, and BOE to the Legislature. The responsibility to determine congressional districts would remain with the Legislature. Under this measure, therefore, district boundaries for all of these congressional and state offices would be determined in bills passed by the Legislature. The Citizens Redistricting Commission that was created by Proposition 11 would be eliminated. As a result, the process currently underway for appointing members of that commission would end, and the Legislature would undertake the redistricting resulting from the 2010 and future censuses.



New Requirements for Redistricting Boundaries and Process. Proposition 27 creates certain requirements for district boundaries. Under this measure, the population of each district would be almost equal with other districts for the same office (with a difference in population of no greater than one person). This measure further requires the Legislature to hold hearings before and after district boundary maps are created, as well as provide the public access to certain redistricting data.



Deletes Some Existing Requirements. This measure also deletes some existing rules on what must be considered during the redistricting process, such as requirements related to:

– Not favoring or discriminating against political parties, incumbents, or political candidates.

– Developing geographically compact districts.

– Placing two Assembly districts together within one Senate district and placing ten Senate districts together within one BOE district.



Two Redistricting–Related Measures on This Ballot. In addition to this measure, another measure on the November 2010 ballot—Proposition 20—concerns redistricting issues. Key provisions of these two propositions, as well as current law, are summarized in Figure 1. If both of these measures are approved by voters, the proposition receiving the greater number of “yes” votes would be the only one to go into effect.



BACKGROUND

In a process known as “redistricting,” the State Constitution requires that the state adjust the boundary lines of districts once every ten years following the federal census for the State Assembly, State Senate, State Board of Equalization (BOE), and California’s congressional districts for the U.S. House of Representatives. To comply with federal law, redistricting must establish districts which are roughly equal in population.



Recent Changes to State Legislature and BOE Redistricting. In the past, district boundaries for all of the offices listed above were determined in bills that became law after they were approved by the Legislature and signed by the Governor. On some occasions, when the Legislature and the Governor were unable to agree on redistricting plans, the California Supreme Court performed the redistricting.



In November 2008, voters passed Proposition 11, which created the Citizens Redistricting Commission to establish new district boundaries for the State Assembly, State Senate, and BOE beginning after the 2010 census. To be established once every ten years, the commission will consist of 14 registered voters—5 Democrats, 5 Republicans, and 4 others—who apply for the position and are chosen according to specified rules.



When the commission sets district boundaries, it must meet the requirements of federal law and other requirements, such as not favoring or discriminating against political parties, incumbents, or political candidates. In addition, the commission is required, to the extent possible, to adopt district boundaries that:

– Maintain the geographic integrity of any city, county, neighborhood, and “community of interest” in a single district. (The commission is responsible for defining “communities of interest” for its redistricting activities.)

– Develop geographically compact districts.

– Place two Assembly districts together within one Senate district and place ten Senate districts together within one BOE district.



Current Congressional Redistricting Process. Currently, California is entitled to 53 of the 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. Proposition 11 did not change the redistricting process for these 53 congressional seats. Currently, therefore, redistricting plans for congressional seats are included in bills that are approved by the Legislature.



Proposition 11, however, did make some changes to the requirements that the Legislature must meet in drawing congressional districts. The Legislature—like the commission—now must attempt to draw geographically compact districts and maintain geographic integrity of localities, neighborhoods, and communities of interest, as defined by the Legislature. Proposition 11, however, does not prohibit the Legislature from favoring or discriminating against political parties, incumbents, or political candidates when drawing congressional districts.


Emergency and Medical Services. Funding. Telephone Surcharge. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Proposition 67
Election:
General

2004

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 28.4%)
Topic Areas:
Budgets | Drug/Alcohol/Tobacco Policy | Health | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
– Provides funding to physicians for uncompensated emergency care, hospitals for emergency services, community clinics for uncompensated care, emergency personnel training/equipment, and emergency telephone system improvements.

– Funded by addition of 3% to existing surcharge rate on telephone use within California, portions of tobacco taxes, and criminal and traffic penalties.

– Limits surcharge collected by residential telephone service providers to 50 cents per month. Monthly cap does not apply to cell phones or business lines.

– Excludes funding from government appropriations limitations, and telephone surcharge from Proposition 98’s school spending requirements.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:

– Increased state revenues of about $500 million annually from an increased surcharge on telephone bills that would be used (1) to reimburse physicians and hospitals for uncompensated emergency medical care and (2) for other specified purposes. This amount would probably grow in future years.

– Continued funding of about $32 million annually in Proposition 99 tobacco tax funds to reimburse physicians and community clinics for uncompensated medical services.


Emergency Reserve. Dedication Of Certain Taxes To Transportation. Appropriation Limit Change.
Proposition 72
Election:
Primary

1988

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 38.5%)
Topic Areas:
Budgets | Tax & Revenue | Transportation

Summary: Click for Summary
Requires three percent of total state General Fund budget be included in reserve for emergencies and economic uncertainties. Provides net revenues derived from state sales and use taxes on motor vehicle fuels be used only for public streets, highways, and mass transit guideways. (Three-year phase-in.) Requires two-thirds vote of Legislature or majority vote of voters before taxes on motor vehicle fuels may be raised. Reserve and fuel tax revenues excluded from appropriation limit. Prohibits Legislature from lowering local sales tax rates in effect January 1, 1987.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact:

Measure has two major fiscal effects. First, changes in state’s appropriation limit will result in increased state appropriations authority of up to $1.6 billion in 1988-89, $1.5 billion in 1989-90, and slightly larger amounts in future years. As a result, the state may be able to spend or retain tax proceeds which otherwise would be returned to the taxpayers. State’s ability to appropriate additional funds as a result of increased state limit is dependent on receipt of sufficient revenue. Based on estimates contained in Governor’s Budget, state revenues will not be sufficient in 1988-89 to fund any additional appropriations allowed by this measure. In future years, economy’s performance will determine whether and to what extent state revenues will be available to fund such additional appropriations. Second, the requirement that certain sales tax revenues be expended only for transportation purposes results in an increase in the amount of revenues available for transportation purposes while reducing the amount available for education, health, welfare and other General Fund expenditures. This shift in funding will amount to about $200 million in 1988-89, about $430 million in 1989-90, and about $725 million in 1990-91, and increasing amounts thereafter.

[CA]


Eminent Domain
Proposition 25
Election:
General

1918

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 37.7%)
Topic Areas:
Land Use/Property Rights

Summary: Click for Summary
Senate Constitutional Amendment 16. Adds Section 20 to Article XI of Constitution. Declares that the state, any county, city and county or municipality may acquire, by eminent domain, title in fee simple to property, in excess of that actually needed for use in an improvement, such property to be deemed acquired for a public use, and that the procedure for such acquisition and the use and sale, lease or other disposition thereof shall be prescribed by general law.


Eminent Domain
Proposition 13
Election:
General

1936

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 20.1%)
Topic Areas:
Land Use/Property Rights

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends section 14 of Article I of Constitution. Grants power of eminent domain to State agency or corporation operating, managing and controlling any exposition or fair in aid of which the granting of public moneys or other things of value has been authorized by the Constitution of this State. Authorizes in eminent domain proceedings the taking of immediate possession of right of way, property, or lands acquired for public use upon deposit in court of money to pay subsequent award of compensation.


Eminent Domain
Proposition 17
Election:
General

1924

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 62.5%)
Topic Areas:
Land Use/Property Rights

Summary: Click for Summary
Assembly Constitutional Amendment 31. Amends Section 23a of Article XII of Constitution, which now empowers railroad commission to exercise such power as Legislature confers upon it to fix compensation to be paid for taking property of public utility in eminent domain proceedings by the state or any county, municipality or municipal water district, so as to authorize that commission to exercise such power when such proceedings are taken by an irrigation district or other public corporation or district.


Eminent Domain
Proposition 21
Election:
General

1934

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 67.8%)
Topic Areas:
Land Use/Property Rights

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends Constitution, Article I, section 14. Declares no right of way, or lands to be used for reservoir purposes, shall be appropriated to use of any corporation until full compensation therefor is first made in money or paid into court for owner; provided that the State, counties, municipal corporations, and other public corporations of character therein stated, may in eminent domain proceedings take immediate possession of such rights of way or such lands upon depositing such money as court directs to secure to owner immediate payment of just compensation for such taking.


Eminent Domain. Acquisition of Owner-Occupied Residence. Constitutional Amendment.
Proposition 99
Election:
Primary

2008

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 62.0%)
Topic Areas:
Land Use/Property Rights

Summary: Click for Summary
To be considered in the June 3, 2008 state primary.

– Bars state and local governments from using eminent domain to acquire an owner-occupied residence, as defined, for conveyance to a private person or business entity.

– Creates exceptions for public work or improvement, public health and safety protection, and crime prevention.

[CA]


Eminent Domain: Airports and Schools
Proposition 10
Election:
General

1958

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 31.0%)
Topic Areas:
Land Use/Property Rights

Summary: Click for Summary
After commencement of condemnation action, permits court order for taking immediate possession of property to be used for airport purposes by public agency or for school purposes by school district, after 90 days’ notice to the owner and after putting up money deposit as directed by the court to secure payment of just compensation to the owner.


Employer-Employee Relations
Proposition 18
Election:
General

1958

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 40.4%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment

Summary: Click for Summary
This initiative measure would add Section 1-A to Article I of the Constitution. The measure states that all men should be free to elect voluntarily whether to join or not to join a labor organization. It declares it to be the public policy of California that the right of persons to work shall not be denied or abridged because of membership or nonmembership in any labor organization.



Any agreement or combination between an employer and a labor organization whereby non-members of the labor organization are denied the right to work for the employer, or whereby membership in the labor organization is a condition of employment or continuation of employment, would be against public policy.



Employers would be prohibited from requiring any person, as a condition of employment or continuation of employment, (1) to become or remain a member of a labor organization, or (2) to refrain from membership in a labor organization, or (3) to pay dues, fees, or any other charges to any labor organization. Any person denied employment, or deprived of continuation of employment, in violation of this prohibition would be entitled to recover from his employer and from any other person, firm, corporation, association, or labor organization acting in concert with the employer, such damages as he might have sustained plus reasonable attorney fees.



All persons, firms, associations, corporations, and labor organizations would be prohibited from causing, or attempting to cause, an employer to violate any provision of the measure.



Any employer, person, firm, association, corporation, or labor organization injured as a result of any violation or threatened violation of any provision of the initiative measure, or threatened with such violation, would be entitled to injunctive relief against the violators or persons threatening violation, and also would be entitled to recover all damages resulting therefrom.



The initiative measure would not be applicable to lawful contracts in force on the effective date of the measure, but would be applicable to any renewal or extension of an existing contract.



The measure provides that its provisions are not to be construed as denying the right of an employee to be represented in collective bargaining by a labor organization.



The measure would permit the enactment of legislation not in conflict with the measure to facilitate its operation.



A “labor organization” is defined as any organization, agency, or employee representation committee or plan, in which employees participate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work.

[CA]


Ends Taxation of Certain Food Products. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Proposition 163
Election:
General

1992

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 66.6%)
Topic Areas:
Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
– Amends Constitution to prohibit state and local governments from imposing sales or use taxes on food products which are exempt from such taxation under existing statutes or this initiative.

– Adds statute exempting candy, bottled water, and snack foods from sales and use taxes.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:



Reduces sales and use tax revenue to the state by $210 million in the current year (1992-93) and $330 million annually thereafter. Reduces sales and use tax revenue to local governments by $70 million in the current year and $120 million annually thereafter.

[CA/S]


English Language Education
Proposition 58
Election:
General

2016

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 72.4% unofficial)
Topic Areas:
Education: PreK-12

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends and repeals various provisions of Proposition 227. Deletes sheltered English immersion requirements and waivers. Provides that school districts and county offices of education shall provide English learners with a structured English immersion program. Authorizes parents and guardians to choose a language acquisition program best suited for their child. Requires solicitation of input for appropriate instructional methods.


English Language in Public Schools. Initiative Statute.
Proposition 227
Election:
Primary

1998

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 60.9%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law | Education: PreK-12

Summary: Click for Summary
Background



California’s public schools serve 5.6 million students in kindergarten through twelfth (K-12) grades. In 1996-97, schools identified 1.4 million, or 25 percent, of these students as “limited English proficient” (LEP). These are students who cannot understand English well enough to keep up in school. Eighty-eight percent of the state’s schools had at least one LEP student, and 71 percent had at least 20 LEP students.



Under current law, schools must make their lessons understandable to LEP students. To help schools address the needs of these students, the State Department of Education created guidelines for the development of local LEP programs. These guidelines state:



– The main goal of all programs is to make LEP students fluent in English.

– Programs must allow LEP students to do well in all school work. In some cases, this means teaching some subjects to LEP students in their home languages.

– Schools must allow all LEP students the option of being in bilingual programs. A bilingual program is one in which students are taught both in their home language and in English.

– Schools must allow parents to choose whether or not their children are in bilingual programs.



How Are Students Currently Served?



Schools currently use a range of services to help LEP students (1) learn how to speak, read, and write English; and (2) learn academic subjects (such as math, reading, writing, history, and science).



Services to Help Students Learn English.

Almost all LEP students get special services to help them learn English. These services are often provided during a part of the school day, separate from lessons on regular academic subjects.



Services to Help Students Learn Academic Subjects.

Most LEP students receive special help in their academic subjects in one of two basic ways:



1. Lessons That Use Special Materials. About 40 percent of all LEP students are taught their academic subjects in English. The class materials and teaching methods for these students, however, are specially designed for students who do not speak English well.



2. Lessons That Are Taught in Students’ Home Language. About 30 percent of all LEP students are taught some or all of their academic subjects in their home languages. These are what people usually refer to as bilingual classes.
The remaining 30 percent of LEP students do not receive special help in their academic subjects. This is either because they do not need it or because the school does not provide it. These students are taught their academic subjects in regular classrooms.



How Long Do Students Receive LEP Services?

State guidelines say that schools should give LEP students special services until (1) they can read, write, and understand English as well as average English speakers in their grade; and (2) they can participate equally with fluent speakers in the classroom. Schools report that LEP students often receive special services for many years.



How Are LEP Services Funded?

The state currently provides over $400 million in special funds for students–both LEP and non -LEP–who need extra help to succeed in school. These funds are known as “compensatory” funds. Schools report that the majority of this money is spent for LEP students. In addition, schools may spend federal and local funds for special services for LEP students.



Proposal



This proposition significantly changes the way that LEP students are taught in California. Specifically, it:



– Requires California public schools to teach LEP students in special classes that are taught nearly all in English. This would eliminate “bilingual” classes in most cases.

– Shortens the time most LEP students would stay in special classes. The initiative states that: (1) LEP students should move from special classes to regular classes when they have acquired a good working knowledge of English and (2) these special classes should not normally last longer than one year. This would eliminate most programs that provide special classes to LEP students over several years.



Exceptions.

Schools would be permitted to provide classes in a language other than English if the child’s parent or guardian asks the school to put him or her in such a class and one of the following happens:



– The child is at least ten years old and the school principal and teachers agree that learning in another language would be better for the child.

– The child has been in a class using English for at least 30 days and the principal, teachers, and head of the school district agree that learning in another language would be better for the student.

– The child already is fluent in English and the parents want the child to take classes in another language.



If a school lets 20 or more LEP students in a grade choose to take their lessons in a language other than English, then the school must give such a class. If there are not 20 students or more, then the school must let the students go to other schools that have classes in those languages.



Funding Provisions.

The initiative requires the state to provide $50 million every year for ten years for English classes for adults who promise to tutor LEP students. In addition, the measure requires that any special funding currently spent on LEP students be maintained, if possible.



Fiscal Effect



School Costs and Savings

This proposition would result in several fiscal impacts on schools.



Savings.

By limiting the time LEP students can be in special classes generally to one year, the initiative would reduce the number of special classes schools would have to offer. This could result in major savings for schools.



Costs.

The proposition could also result in new costs to schools, for a number of reasons. For instance, the one-year special classes could be more expensive than existing classes if schools provide more intensive services. Schools may also need to give LEP students extra help in academic subjects once they are moved to regular classes if they fall behind other students.



Distribution of “Compensatory” Funds.

The state provides “compensatory” funds to schools based in part on the number of LEP students. The proposition would likely reduce the number of students who are considered LEP at any given time. As a result, state funds would be allocated differently–some schools would get more compensatory funds and others would get less.



Net Impact on Schools.

We cannot predict the proposition’s net impact on schools. It would depend in large part on how people respond to its passage, including:



– Parents’ decisions on the types of services they want for their children.

– Schools’ decisions on the types and levels of services provided to LEP students.

– State decisions on the allocation of “compensatory” funds it currently provides to schools with LEP students.



The net impact could vary significantly by individual school.



State Fiscal Effects

Under the proposition, the state would spend $50 million each year for ten years for English classes for adults who promise to tutor LEP students. This provision, however, probably would not change total state spending for schools. (This is because the level of state spending for K-12 schools is generally based on a formula in the Constitution.) As a result, the costs to the state of this provision would likely reduce spending on other school programs by a like amount.

[S]


Environment. Public Health. Bonds. Initiative Statute
Proposition 128
Election:
General

1990

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 35.7%)
Topic Areas:
Agriculture | Bond Measures | Environmental Protection | Health

Summary: Click for Summary
– Requires regulation of pesticide use to protect food and agricultural worker safety.

– Phases out use on food of pesticides known to cause cancer or reproductive harm, chemicals that potentially deplete ozone layer.

– Requires reduced emissions of gases contributing to global warming. Limits oil, gas extraction within bay, estuarine and ocean waters. Requires oil spill prevention, contingency plans.

– Creates prevention, response fund from fees on oil deliveries.

– Establishes water quality criteria, monitoring plans. Creates elective office of Environmental Advocate.

– Appropriates $40,000,000 for environmental research.

– Authorizes $300,000,000 general obligation bonds for ancient redwoods acquisition, forestry projects.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:

– Annual state administrative and program costs of approximately $90 million, decreasing in future years; partially offset by $10 million increased annual fee revenue.

– Local governments would incur $8 million one-time cost; $5 million to $10 million annually, decreasing in future years.

– State General Fund to incur one-time $750,000 appropriation in 1992-93 for Office of Environmental Advocate, future office administrative costs unknown; $40 million for environmental research grants.

– If all bonds authorized for ancient redwood acquisition, forestry projects were sold at 7.5 percent interest and paid over the typical 20-year period, General Fund would incur approximately $535 million in costs to pay off principal ($300 million) and interest ($235 million).

– Estimated average annual costs of bond principal and interest would be $22 million.

– Per-barrel fee on oil would increase revenues by $500 million by 1996-97, used to pay oil spill prevention/clean-up costs. Indefinite deferral of potentially $2 billion in future state oil and gas revenues resulting from limits on oil and gas leases in marine waters.

– Indirect fiscal impact could increase or decrease state and local government program costs and revenues from general and special taxes in an unknown amount. The overall impact is unknown.

[S]


Environmental Fund from Reusable Bag Fees
Proposition 65
Election:
General

2016

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 44.7% unofficial)
Topic Areas:
Environmental Protection | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Redirects money collected by grocery and certain other retail stores through sale of carry-out bags, whenever any state law bans free distribution of a particular kind of carry-out bag and mandates the sale of any other kind of carry-out bag. Requires stores to deposit bag sale proceeds into a special fund administered by the Wildlife Conservation Board to support specified categories of environmental projects. Provides for Board to develop regulations implementing law.


Environmental Pollution Bond Authorization
Proposition 3
Election:
General

1972

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 51.5%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Environmental Protection

Summary: Click for Summary
Authorizes Legislature to provide for issuance of revenue bonds, not secured by taxing power of state, to finance acquisition, construction, and installation of environmental pollution control facilities, and for lease or sale of same to persons, associations, or corporations, other than municipal corporations. Financial impact: No direct cost.


Establishes $18 Annual Vehicle License Surcharge to Help Fund State Parks and Wildlife Programs and Grants Free Admission to All State Parks to Surcharged Vehicles.
Proposition 21
Election:
General

2010

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 42.7%)
Topic Areas:
Budgets | Natural Resources | Tax & Revenue | Transportation

Summary: Click for Summary
PROPOSAL

Imposition of an $18 Surcharge on Vehicle Registrations. This measure places an $18 annual surcharge on all vehicles registered on or after January 1, 2011, except for commercial vehicles, trailers, and trailer coaches. The surcharge would be collected when annual vehicle registration fees are paid. These surcharge revenues would be deposited into the newly created State Parks and Wildlife Conservation Trust Fund. The measure expressly prohibits these funds from being used for purposes other than state parks and wildlife conservation.



Free Day–Use Entry to All State Parks for Surcharge Payers. Typically, most state parks charge a vehicle day–use fee that covers entry into the park and parking. Currently, this single fee is in the range of $5 to $15 per day depending on the park and the time of year. Under this measure, all California vehicles subject to the surcharge would have free vehicle admission, parking, and day–use at all units of the state parks system, including state parks currently operated by local entities, as well as to other specified state lands and wildlife areas. State parks would still be able to charge fees for camping, tours, and other activities.



Allocation of Funds. This measure allows up to 1 percent of the revenues deposited into the trust fund to be used for certain administrative and oversight activities, discussed further below. The remaining funds in the trust fund would be allocated each year, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to various park and wildlife conservation–related programmatic purposes. These surcharge revenues would be allocated as follows:



Operations, Maintenance, and Development of State Parks. Eighty–five percent of the funds would be allocated to DPR for the operations, maintenance, and development of the state parks system. From this amount, the department would award grants to local entities to replace the loss of day–use fees at locally operated state park units. (As we discuss below, some fee revenues would no longer be collected because this measure would now allow certain vehicles free access to these parks.) From this amount, the department would also provide grants to public agencies for urban river parkways to provide recreational benefits to underserved urban communities. The measure requires DPR to develop a strategic plan to improve access to the state parks system for underserved groups and regions of the state.

Management and Operation of DFG Lands. Seven percent of the funds would be allocated to DFG for the management and operation of wildlife refuges, ecological reserves, and other DFG lands.
Other Wildlife Conservation Activities. Additional funds would be allocated to other wildlife conservation activities, in some cases for state–operated programs but in other cases for grants to local agencies. Four percent would be allocated to the Ocean Protection Council, 2 percent to state conservancies, and 2 percent to the Wildlife Conservation Board.



Administration and Oversight. As discussed above, this measure allows for up to 1 percent of annual revenues to be used for collection, administration, auditing, and oversight of the trust fund. The DMV would collect the surcharge and would deposit it into the trust fund. The measure requires the State Auditor to conduct annual audits of expenditures from the fund to be reported to the Legislature and made publicly available. It also directs the Secretary for Natural Resources to establish a Citizens Oversight Committee that would review the audits and issue reports on how the measure is being implemented and its effectiveness in protecting state parks and natural resources.



BACKGROUND

The State Park System and State Wildlife Conservation Agencies. California has 278 state parks, of which 246 are operated and maintained by the California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) and 32 by local entities. Other state departments, such as the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) and various state conservancies, own and maintain other lands for wildlife conservation purposes. The State Wildlife Conservation Board acquires property and provides grants for property acquisition to state and local entities for wildlife conservation purposes. The Ocean Protection Council is a state agency responsible for coordinating state activities to protect ocean resources.



Funding for State Parks and Wildlife Conservation. Over the last five years, state funding for the operation of state parks has been around $300 million annually. Of this amount, about $150 million has come from the General Fund, with the balance coming largely from park user fees (such as admission, camping, and other use fees) and state gasoline tax revenues. The development of new state parks and capital improvements to existing parks are largely funded from bond funds that have been approved in the past by voters. There is a significant backlog of maintenance projects in state parks, which have no dedicated annual funding source. The DPR also administers grant programs for local parks, funded largely through bond funds.



Wildlife conservation programs in various other state departments, such as DFG, are funded through a combination of the General Fund, regulatory fees, and bond funds. State funding for wildlife conservation program operations is around $100 million per year. Bond funds are the primary funding source for land acquisitions and other capital projects for wildlife conservation purposes.



Annual Vehicle Registration Fees. The state collects a number of charges annually when a person registers a vehicle. The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) collects these revenues on behalf of the state.


Exempt State Civil Service Position.
Proposition 22
Election:
Primary

1984

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 48.0%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends Constitution to add the following positions to the list of officers and employees of the state that are exempt from civil service: the chief investment officer, the assistant chief investment officer, and principal fund managers of the Public Employces’ Retirement System and the State Teachers’ Retirement System. Summary of Legislative Analyst’s estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact: This constitutional amendment would have no direct fiscal impact on the state. The measure could have an indirect fiscal impact, however, if the additional flexibility granted to the two systems in selecting investment personnel affected the performance of the retirement systems’ investment programs.


Exempting Cemeteries from Taxation
Proposition 11
Election:
General

1918

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 36.0%)
Topic Areas:
Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Assembly Constitutional Amendment 10. Adds Section 1b to Article XIII of Constitution. Exempts from assessment and taxation the grounds, buildings and equipment within same, securities and income of any cemetery used exclusively for human burial and cemetery purposes and not conducted for profit.


Exempting Educational Institutions from Taxation
Proposition 43
Election:
General

1914

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 53.0%)
Topic Areas:
Education: PreK-12 | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 15, a resolution to propose to the people of the State of California an amendment to the Constitution of the State of California by adding a new section to said constitution to be numbered section one a of article thirteen thereof, relating to exempting certain property of educational institutions of collegiate grade from taxation.

[Constitutional Amendment]


Exempting Educational Institutions from Taxation
Proposition 4
Election:
Special

1933

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 40.2%)
Topic Areas:
Education: PreK-12 | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends Section 1a of Article XIII. Exempts from taxation the buildings and equipment of any educational institution not conducted for profit, and its securities and income used exclusively for educational purposes; if such institution be of collegiate grade, also exempts its grounds within which its buildings are located, not exceeding one hundred acres in area. If such institution be a private institution of less than collegiate grade, the exemption of such grounds is limited to ten acres.


Exempting Forest Trees from Taxation
Proposition 22
Election:
General

1926

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 69.1%)
Topic Areas:
Natural Resources | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends Section 12 3/4 of Article XIII of Constitution. Exempts from taxation immature forest trees planted on lands not previously bearing merchantable timber, or planted or of natural growth, upon lands from which seventy per cent of merchantable original growth timber over sixteen inches in diameter has been removed; declares maturity of forest trees or timber shall be determined, after forty years from planting or removal of original timber, by a board comprising assessor of county wherein same are located and representatives from state boards of forestry and equalization.


Exempting Hospitals and Sanitoriums from Taxation
Proposition 8
Election:
General

1930

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 38.8%)
Topic Areas:
Health | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Adds Section 1 5/8 to Article XIII of Constitution. Exempts from taxation property and income of any charitable or other hospital or sanatorium, not organized or conducted for private profit, when such property and income are used exclusively for hospital or sanatorium purposes; requires Legislature prescribe method of determining from time to time tax exempt status of all hospitals and sanatoriums.


Exempting Orphanages from Taxation
Proposition 18
Election:
General

1920

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 51.5%)
Topic Areas:
Human Services | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Exempts from taxation all buildings and so much real property connected therewith as may be required for the occupation of institutions sheltering more than twenty orphan or half-orphan children receiving state aid, but provides that no building, or real or personal property, so used which may be rented and the rent received by the owner thereof shall be exempt from taxation.


Exempting Property Damaged by Earthquake in Los Angeles and Orange Counties
Proposition 5
Election:
Special

1933

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 70.6%)
Topic Areas:
Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Adds Section 8a to Article XIII. Requires assessors of Los Angeles and Orange Counties to assess real and personal property damaged or destroyed by earthquakes of March 10, 1933, and hereafter and prior to first Monday of July, 1933, according to condition and value after damage or destruction rather than according to condition and value on first Monday of March, of said year.


Exempting Property from Taxation
Proposition 10
Election:
Special

1915

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 36.0%)
Topic Areas:
Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 15, a resolution to propose to the people of the State of California, an amendment to the constitution of said state by amending section one and one-half of article thirteen thereof, relating to the exemption of churches from taxation.

[Constitutional Amendment]


Exempting Secondary Schools from Taxation
Proposition 11
Election:
General

1926

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 35.9%)
Topic Areas:
Education: PreK-12 | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends Section 1a of Article XIII of Constitution. Exempts from taxation the buildings and equipment, the grounds within which such buildings are located, not exceeding one hundred acres in area, and the securities and income used exclusively for educational purposes, of any educational institution in California of secondary grade, not conducted for profit, and accredited to the University of California.


Exempting Vessels from Taxation
Proposition 8
Election:
General

1914

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 54.3%)
Topic Areas:
Tax & Revenue | Transportation

Summary: Click for Summary
All vessels of more than fifty tons burden registered at any port in this state and engaged in the transportation of freight or passengers, shall be exempt from taxation except for state purposes, until and including the first day of January, nineteen hundred thirty-five.

[Constitutional Amendment]


Exempting Vessels from Taxation
Proposition 14
Election:
General

1932

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 60.0%)
Topic Areas:
Tax & Revenue | Transportation

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends Section 4 of Article XIII of Constitution. Declares all vessels of more than fifty tons burden registered at any port in this state and engaged in the transportation of freight or passengers shall be exempt from taxation except for state purposes until and including the first day of January 1955.


Exempting Veterans from Taxation
Proposition 7
Election:
General

1922

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 51.6%)
Topic Areas:
Military & Veterans Affairs | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Assembly Constitutional Amendment 24 amending Section 1 1/4 of Article XIII of Constitution. Extends tax exemption provisions of present section to include those veterans who have been released from active duty under honorable conditions.


Expand Required Number of Square Feet for Farm Animal Production Initiative
Proposition 12
Election:
General

2018

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 62.7%)
Topic Areas:
Agriculture | Animal Rights/Hunting & Fishing | Business & Commerce

Summary: Click for Summary
The measure bans the sale of veal from calves, eggs from hens, and the confinement of pregnant pigs in areas below a specified number of square feet. The measure follows Proposition 2 from 2008 which banned the sale of the above if raised in a manner that did not allow the animals to move around freely.


Exposition Contribution by Alameda County
Proposition 17
Election:
General

1914

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 65.9%)
Topic Areas:
Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Provides that the county of Alameda may, upon the assent of two thirds of the qualified electors thereof voting at an election to be held for that purpose, incur a bonded indebtedness of not to exceed one million dollars, and the legislative authority of said county of Alameda shall issue bonds therefor and grant and turn over to the Panama-Pacific International Exposition Company, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of California, March 22, 1910, the proceeds of said bonds for stock in said company or under such other terms and conditions as said legislative authority may determine, the same to be used and disbursed by said exposition company for the purposes of an exposition to be held in the city and county of San Francisco to celebrate the completion of the Panama canal; said bonds, so issued, to be of such form and to be redeemable, registered and converted in such manner and amounts, and at such times not later than forty years from the date of their issue as the legislative authority of said county of Alameda shall determine; the interest on said bonds not to exceed five per centum per annum, and said bonds to be exempt from all taxes for state, county and municipal purposes, and to be sold for not less than par at such times and places, and in such manner, as shall be determined by said legislative authority; the proceeds of said bonds, when sold, to be payable immediately under such terms or conditions as said legislative body may determine, to the treasurer of said Panama-Pacific International Exposition Company, upon demands of said treasurer of said exposition company, without the necessity of the approval of such demands by other authority, than said legislative authority of Alameda county, the same to be used and disbursed by said Panama-Pacific International Exposition Company for the purposes of such exposition, under the direction and control of said exposition company; and, the legislative authority of said county of Alameda is hereby empowered and directed to levy a special tax on all taxable property in said county each year after the issue of said bonds to raise an amount to pay the interest on said bonds as the same become due, and to create a sinking fund to pay the principal thereof when the same shall become due.

[Constitutional Amendment]


Extension of Temporary Personal Income Tax Increase Amendment
Proposition 55
Election:
General

2016

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 62.1% unofficial)
Topic Areas:
Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Extends by twelve years the temporary personal income tax increases enacted in 2012 on earnings over $250,000 (for single filers; over $500,000 for joint filers; over $340,000 for heads of household). Allocates these tax revenues 89% to K-12 schools and 11% to California Community Colleges. Allocates up to $2 billion per year in certain years for healthcare programs. Bars use of education revenues for administrative costs, but provides local school governing boards discretion to decide, in open meetings and subject to annual audit, how revenues are to be spent.


Extra Sessions of District Courts of Appeal
Proposition 40
Election:
General

1914

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 38.7%)
Topic Areas:
Judiciary

Summary: Click for Summary
[Summary from Hastings Law Library California Ballot Measures Database]

Authorizes governor to call extra sessions of district courts of appeal; requires such call when requested by chief justice of supreme court or presiding justice of district court of appeal; provides that governor, chief justice and presiding justice shall each select one of the three judges of such sessions from judges of any district court of appeal or superior court who shall serve without further compensation; provides for assignment of causes thereto, jurisdiction thereof, and termination of such sessions.

[Constitutional Amendment]


Fair Employment Practices Act
Proposition 11
Election:
General

1946

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 28.7%)
Topic Areas:
Labor & Employment

Summary: Click for Summary
Declares State policy that all persons have the right of equal opportunity to secure employment. To effect such policy makes it unlawful to refuse to hire, to discharge, or to discriminate in conditions of employment against any person because of race, religion, color, national origin or ancestry. Establishes a commission to prevent such unlawful practices by conciliation or order and by education. Provides for judicial review of commission’s orders. Appropriates sum for commission.

[S]


Fees. Vote Requirements. Taxes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Proposition 37
Election:
General

2000

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 48%)
Topic Areas:
Legislatures | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary by Attorney General: Requires two-thirds vote of State Legislature, or either majority or two-thirds of local electorate, to impose on any activity fees used to pay for monitoring, studying, or mitigating the environmental, societal or economic effects of that activity when the fees impose no regulatory obligation upon the payor. Redefines such fees as taxes. Excludes certain real property related fees, assessments and development fees. Excludes damages, penalties, or expenses recoverable from a specific event. Does not apply to fees enacted before July 1, 1999, or increased fees due to inflation or greater workload, as specified.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact: Unknown, potentially significant, reduction in future state and local government revenues from making it more difficult to approve certain regulatory charges.

[CA]


First-Time Home Buyers Bond Act Of 1982
Proposition 5
Election:
General

1982

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 53.8%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Human Services

Summary: Click for Summary
This act provides for a bond issue of two hundred million dollars ($200,000,000) to provide funds for financing housing.


Fish and Game
Proposition 11
Election:
General

1930

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 40.4%)
Topic Areas:
Animal Rights/Hunting & Fishing | Natural Resources | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends Constitution. Article IV, Section 25 1/2, and adds thereto three sections. Creates Fish and Game Commission of five members appointed by Governor; empowers Commission to establish fish and game districts, determine what animals, birds and fish, are within its jurisdiction, regulate by ordinance approved by Governor, the taking, sale or possession thereof, and issue licenses therefor, fix seasons and limits within maximums prescribed by Legislature, establish refuges, public shooting grounds and fishing waters, conduct investigations of persons, and their books, within its jurisdiction; prescribes penalties; declares provisions effective January 15, 1931.

[CA]


Fish and Game Commission
Proposition 19
Election:
General

1948

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 74.5%)
Topic Areas:
Natural Resources | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends Section 25 1/2 of Article IV of the Constitution, which presently contains no provision permitting members of the Fish and Game Commission to hold office after the expiration of their respective six-year terms and until their successors take office. Amendment provides that each Commissioner shall continue in office after the expiration of his term and until the appointment and qualification of his successor.


Fish and Game Commission
Proposition 8
Election:
General

1940

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 63.6%)
Topic Areas:
Animal Rights/Hunting & Fishing | Natural Resources | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends Constitution, Article IV, section 25 1/2. Creates Fish and Game Commission of five members, appointed by Governor subject to confirmation by Senate, with six year terms, removable by majority vote of Legislature; rotates terms by requiring terms of those first appointed shall expire one each year. Empowers Legislature to delegate to Commission powers relating to protection, propagation and preservation of fish and game.


Fish and Game Funds Restricted
Proposition 8
Election:
General

1942

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 73.4%)
Topic Areas:
Budgets | Natural Resources

Summary: Click for Summary
Adds section 25 5/8 to Article IV of Constitution. Requires all moneys collected under any State law relating to protection, conservation, propagation or preservation of fish, game, mollusks or crustaceans, and fines and forfeitures imposed for violation of such laws, be used exclusively for such purposes. Empowers Legislature to provide for division of money derived from such fines and forfeitures.


Fish And Wildlife Habitat Enhancement Act Of 1984
Proposition 19
Election:
Primary

1984

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 64.0%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Natural Resources

Summary: Click for Summary
This act provides for a bond issue of eighty-five million dollars ($35,000,000) to be available for appropriation to the Wildlife Conservation Board and the State Coastal Conservancy for specified acquisition, enhancement, and development of habitat areas.


Fish Nets
Proposition 15
Election:
General

1948

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: Unknown)
Topic Areas:
Animal Rights/Hunting & Fishing | Business & Commerce | Natural Resources

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[S]


Fishing Control
Proposition 5
Election:
General

1938

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 62.2%)
Topic Areas:
Animal Rights/Hunting & Fishing | Business & Commerce | Natural Resources

Summary: Click for Summary
Initiative measure presented to, and not acted on by, Legislature. Adds new section to Fish and Game Code. Prohibits operation in State waters of fishing boats which deliver fish, mollusks or crustaceans, wherever caught, to points beyond State waters, unless such delivery is permitted by State Fish and Game Commission. Authorizes Commission to issue revocable permits for such delivery; declaring it shall issue no permits which will tend to deplete the species or result in waste thereof or obstruct the operation of any law. Provides for penalties, seizures and forfeitures for violation.

[S]


Foreclosure of Mortgages and Trust Deeds
Proposition 3
Election:
General

1932

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 25.9%)
Topic Areas:
Banking & Financial Services

Summary: Click for Summary
Defines mortgage as contract, trust deed, or instrument, hereafter executed, making specific real property security for performance without changing possession; forbids power of sale therein; declares same enforceable solely by Court action; requires action dismissed, and mortgage reinstated, upon mortgagor paying, before judgment, amount delinquent (other than by acceleration), costs and three months advance interest; prescribes notice before execution or foreclosure sale, and twelve months redemption period during which person in possession must pay rental specified by Court or surrender possession to execution purchaser, crediting same on judgment upon redemption; permits Legislative amendments.

[S]


Forest Acquisition. Timber Harvesting Practices. Bond Act. Initiative Statute
Proposition 130
Election:
General

1990

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 47.9%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Business & Commerce | Environmental Protection | Natural Resources

Summary: Click for Summary
– Authorizes 10-year state acquisition program, limited logging moratorium, to permit public acquisition of designated ancient forests providing wildlife habitat.

– Requires wildlife surveys, mitigation measures. Limits logging sites, including those near waterways.

– Requires state-funded compensation, retraining program for loggers displaced by new regulations, acquisitions.

– Authorizes general obligation bond issue of $742,000,000 to fund acquisition, other provisions.

– Limits timber cutting practices, burning of forest residues, on California timberlands.

– Mandates sustained yield standards.

– Imposes new timber harvesting permit fees.

– Revises Board of Forestry membership.

– Discourages foreign export of forest products. Imposes penalties for violations.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:

– If all authorized bonds are sold at 7.5 percent interest and paid over the typical 20-year period, General Fund will incur approximately $1.3 billion in costs to pay off bond principal ($742 million) and interest ($585 million).

– Estimated average annual cost of bond principal and interest is $55 million.

– State administrative costs of up to $10 million annually for state forestry review and enforcement programs, fully offset by revenues from timber harvesting fees.

– Such fees would also offset current state logging-related regulatory costs, thus resulting in state savings of about $6.4 million annually.

– Unknown effect on revenues from other state taxes, possible decreased revenue to local governments to extent lands acquired under measure would no longer be assessed property taxes.

[S]


Forestry Programs. Timber Harvesting Practices. Initiative Statute.
Proposition 138
Election:
General

1990

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 28.8%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Business & Commerce | Environmental Protection | Natural Resources

Summary: Click for Summary
– Authorizes $300,000,000 general obligation bond issue to fund, subject to Legislature approval, program for loans, grants to public entities, others for forest and park restoration, urban forestry projects, reforestation of private timberlands under 5,000 acres.

– Limits timber cutting practices, requires state-approved timber and wildlife management plans, on certain private timberlands exceeding 5,000 acres.

– Mandates timberland, wildlife, global warming studies.

– Authorizes state acquisition of designated timberlands, suspends state’s eminent domain power for 10-year period over other timberlands.

– Urges Congress ban foreign timber exports.

– Provides between competing timber initiative(s) this measure overrides other(s).



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:

– If all authorized bonds are sold at 7.5 percent interest and paid over the typical 20-year period, state General Fund will incur about $535 million in costs to pay off bond principal ($300 million) and interest ($235 million).

– Estimated average annual costs of bond principal and interest is $22 million.

– Annual costs of approximately $3.2 million, funded through sales of state-owned timber, to administer grants program. Initial, increased annual state costs of over $1 million to review timber management plans, which could over time be more than offset by savings resulting from reduced periodic state regulatory reviews.

– One-time state costs of about $1.1 million for climatological studies, fully offset by revenues from new regulatory fees. Unknown effect on revenues from other state taxes.

[S]


Form of Ballot Law
Proposition 2
Election:
Special

1915

Type:
Popular Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 41.3%)
Topic Areas:
Elections

Summary: Click for Summary
Submitted to electors by referendum. Provides for the size, form and manner of printing of ballots to be used at general elections, including gubernatorial and presidential elections, for the determination of the order in which state, district and county offices shall appear thereon, for the preparation of ballot titles for measures submitted to the electors, and for the manner in which such titles, offices and names of candidates therefor, and instructions to voters shall be printed upon such ballots.


Framing County Charters
Proposition 11
Election:
General

1956

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 73.8%)
Topic Areas:
Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
This constitutional amendment would amend the provision governing the adoption of county charters (the first paragraph of Section 7 1/2 of Article XI of the Constitution). It would extend the period within which the board of freeholders must prepare and propose the county charter, after the declaration of the result of the election of the members of the board of freeholders, from six months to one year.


Framing County Charters
Proposition 20
Election:
General

1954

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 68.2%)
Topic Areas:
Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Under the present constitutional provisions, county charters are drafted by a board of freeholders who are elected by the people of the county. Candidates for the board are nominated by petitions which must be signed by at least 5 percent of the registered voters in the county. This constitutional amendment, affecting the first paragraph of Section 7 1/2 of Article XI, would eliminate the requirement for nomination by petition. It would substitute the method of nomination used in nominating candidates for county office generally, that is, the filing of nomination papers signed by not less than 20 nor more than 30 registered votes as sponsors. This amendment would also extend the time for preparing the charter after the declaration of the results of the election of the board of freeholders from 120 days to six months.


Franchises
Proposition 30
Election:
General

1922

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 21.4%)
Topic Areas:
Business & Commerce

Summary: Click for Summary
Initiative measure adding section 23c to Article XII of Constitution. Gives Railroad Commission exclusive power to grant determinate or indeterminate franchises for street, interurban and suburban railways, and motor vehicle transportation for compensation upon streets and highways, prescribe terms and conditions thereof, regulate rates thereunder, and accept surrender of all such franchises now or hereafter outstanding; franchises granted hereunder to terminate whenever the state, or its political subdivisions, acquires the property owned or operated thereunder, and to have no pecuniary value in rate fixing or condemnation proceedings thereby; publicly owned public utilities unaffected by provisions hereof.

[CA]


Free School Textbooks
Proposition 2
Election:
General

1912

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 66.7%)
Topic Areas:
Education: PreK-12

Summary: Click for Summary
A resolution to propose to the people of the State of California an amendment to the constitution of the state by amending section 7 of article IX thereof, relating to boards of education, free text-books, and minimum use of such text-books.


Freedom of Press.
Proposition 5P
Election:
Primary

1980

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 75.3%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law

Summary: Click for Summary
Not available.


Funds for Elementary Schools
Proposition 9
Election:
General

1944

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 64%)
Topic Areas:
Budgets | Education: PreK-12

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends Constitution, section 15 of Article XIII, to increase the amount of revenue required to be raised and apportioned by the Legislature for public elementary schools from one hundred per cent to one hundred and sixty-six and two-thirds per cent of the entire amount otherwise required to be raised by counties for the support of public day and evening elementary schools. Leaves unchanged the amount to be raised and apportioned for public day and evening secondary and technical schools. Amendment effective from June 30, 1945.

[CA]


Gambling on Tribal Lands. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.
Proposition 1A
Election:
Primary

2000

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 64.5%)
Topic Areas:
Gambling & Lotteries | State-Tribal Relations

Summary: Click for Summary
This proposition amends the State Constitution to permit Indian tribes to conduct and operate slot machines, lottery games, and banked and percentage card games on Indian land. These gambling activities could only occur if (1) the Governor and an Indian tribe reach agreement on a compact, (2) the Legislature approves the compact, and (3) the federal government approves the compact. (Although this proposition authorizes lottery games, Indian tribes can currently operate lottery games–subject to a gambling compact. This is because the State Constitution permits the State Lottery, and Indian tribes can operate any games already permitted in the state.)



State and Local Revenue Impact



This measure would likely result in an increase in economic activity in California. The magnitude of the increase would depend primarily on (1) the extent to which tribal gambling operations expand and (2) the degree to which new gambling activity in California is from spending diverted from Nevada and other out-of-state sources (as compared to spending diverted from other California activities).



While the measure would likely result in additional economic activity in California, its impact on state and local revenues is less clear. This is because, as sovereign governments, tribal businesses and members are exempt from certain forms of taxation. For example, profits earned by gambling activities on tribal lands would not be subject to state corporate taxes. In addition, gambling on tribal lands is not subject to wagering taxes that are currently levied on other forms of gambling in California (horse race wagers, card rooms, and the Lottery). Finally, wages paid to tribal members employed by the gambling operation and living on Indian land would not be subject to personal income taxes.



Even with these exemptions, tribal operations still generate tax revenues. For example, wages paid to nontribal employees of the operations are subject to income taxation. In addition, certain nongambling transactions related to the operations are subject to state and local sales and use taxes. However, on average, each dollar spent in tribal operations generates less tax revenue than an equivalent dollar spent in other areas of the California economy.



Given these factors, the net impact of this measure on state and local government revenues is uncertain. For example, revenues could increase significantly if the measure were to result in a large expansion in gambling operations and a large portion of the new gambling was spending that would have otherwise occurred outside of California (such as in Nevada). On the other hand, if the expansion of gambling were relatively limited or if most of the new gambling represented spending diverted from other areas in the state’s economy that are subject to taxation, the fiscal impact would not be significant.

[CA]


Gasoline Tax
Proposition 4
Election:
General

1926

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 48.1%)
Topic Areas:
Tax & Revenue | Transportation

Summary: Click for Summary
Requires every distributor of gasoline, distillate and other motor vehicle fuels, to pay license tax of one cent per gallon, in addition to two-cent license tax now required by law; said additional tax to be applied toward paying one-third of refunds now required by law; said additional tax to be applied toward paying one-third of refunds now required by law, and balance credited to State Highway Construction Fund and used for acquiring rights of way for, and construction of, highways under jurisdiction of California Highway Commission; declares act effective January 1, 1927, and subject to amendment or repeal by the Legislature after January 1, 1939.

[S]


General Legislative Session
Proposition 9
Election:
General

1958

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 50.5%)
Topic Areas:
Legislatures

Summary: Click for Summary
This constitutional amendment would affect that portion of Section 2 of Article IV of the California Constitution which relates to the duration of general sessions of the Legislature. These sessions occur only in odd-numbered years and presently, no general session of the Legislature may exceed 120 calendar days. This is computed by including the Saturdays and Sundays that fall within the period, and by excluding the duration of the constitutional recess which is required and which must last for at least 30 calendar days.



This amendment would change the duration of the general sessions by excluding Saturdays and Sundays in computing the 120 calendar day period. It would also eliminate the constitutional recess during the general sessions. Thus, under the amendment, the general sessions would run continuously from the time of commencement until the expiration of the 120 calendar day period, not counting the Saturdays and Sundays that fall within that period. The date and time of the commencement of the general sessions, 12 o’clock noon on the first Monday after the first day of January, would not be affected. In 1959, for example, the Legislature would convene on January 5, 1959 and would adjourn the general session on June 19, 1959.



Under the present wording of the Constitution, after the required constitutional recess during the general session, no bills may be introduced in either house without the consent of three-fourths of the members, and a member may not introduce more than two bills. The proposed measure would provide instead that, during the general session, no bill other than the Budget Bill may be heard by any committee or acted upon by either house until 30 calendar days after the date of its introduction. This 30 calendar day period could be dispensed with, however, by the consent of three-fourths of the members of the house.



Finally, the measure changes the maximum period for which legislators may be reimbursed for expenses incurred while attending a general session to conform to the increased duration of the general session. It also deletes an obsolete provision relating to the budget sessions of the Legislature, held in even-numbered years, which was superseded in 1956 by the addition of subdivision (c) to Section 2 of Article IV.


General Legislative Sessions
Proposition 8
Election:
General

1962

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 39.2%)
Topic Areas:
Legislatures

Summary: Click for Summary
Permits legislative bills to be heard by committees 20 rather than 30 days after introduction at a general session. Allows Legislature to take a recess not to exceed 10 calendar days, which shall not be counted in computing duration of general session.


General Obligation Bonds
Proposition 9
Election:
General

1962

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 63.9%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Budgets

Summary: Click for Summary
Authorizes Legislature to establish “General Obligation Bond Proceeds Fund” and to place proceeds of all general obligation bond issues in said fund. Requires separate account for proceeds of each issue and permits payment only in accordance with law authorizing the issuance. Authorizes Legislature to abolish any general bond fund in the State Treasury if transferred into “General Obligation Bond Proceeds Fund” and it may later re-establish such fund.


Genetically Engineered Foods. Mandatory Labeling. Inititative Statute.
Proposition 37
Election:
General

2012

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 47.2% (unofficial))
Topic Areas:
Business & Commerce

Summary: Click for Summary
Requires labeling on raw or processed food offered for sale to consumers if made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways. Prohibits labeling or advertising such food as “natural.” Exempts foods that are: certified organic; unintentionally produced with genetically engineered material; made from animals fed or injected with genetically engineered material but not genetically engineered themselves; processed with or containing only small amounts of genetically engineered ingredients; administered for treatment of medical conditions; sold for immediate consumption such as in a restaurant; or alcoholic beverages.


Gift and Inheritance Taxes
Proposition 6
Election:
Primary

1982

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 64.4%)
Topic Areas:
Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Repeals existing statutes governing gift and inheritance taxes. Prohibits imposition of such taxes by state or local government. Reenacts state “pickup” tax on decedents’ estates measured by maximum credit against federal estate taxes allowed by federal law and provides that combined estate tax liability to California and United States cannot exceed tax liability to United States for property located in California if state tax not imposed. Requires Legislature provide for collection and administration of this tax. See analysis of Legislative Analyst in Ballot Pamphlet for discussion of effective date of this measure.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact: Reduce state inheritance and gift tax revenues by about $130 million in 1982-83, by about $365 million in 1983-84, and by higher amounts thereafter. Save state approximately $6 million annually in administrative costs. Under existing law, reductions in state revenue would result in corresponding reductions in amount of fiscal relief provided by state to local governments and schools.

[S]


Gift and Inheritance Taxes.
Proposition 5
Election:
Primary

1982

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 61.8%)
Topic Areas:
Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Repeals existing statutes governing gift and inheritance taxes. Prohibits imposition of gift or inheritance taxes. Reenacts state “pickup” tax on decedents’ estates at rate set by schedule of credits for state death taxes under specified provisions of the United States Internal Revenue Code. Requires Legislature to provide for collection and administration of this tax. See analysis of Legislative Analyst in Ballot Pamphlet for discussion of effective date of this measure.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact: Reduce state inheritance and gift tax revenues by about $130 million in 1982-83, by about $365 million in 1983-84, and by higher amounts thereafter. Save state approximately $6 million annually in administrative costs. Under existing law, reductions in state revenue would result in corresponding reductions in amount of fiscal relief provided by state to local governments and schools.

[S]


Giving Appellate Courts Trial Court Powers
Proposition 26
Election:
General

1926

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 69.4%)
Topic Areas:
Judiciary

Summary: Click for Summary
Adds Section 1b to Article XIII of Constitution. Declares that all property used or held exclusively for the burial or other permanent deposit of the human dead or for the care, maintenance or upkeep of such property or such dead, except as used or held for profit, shall be free from taxation and local assessment.


Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property. Constitutional Amendment.
Proposition 98
Election:
Primary

2008

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 38.5%)
Topic Areas:
Land Use/Property Rights

Summary: Click for Summary
To be considered in the June 3, 2008 state primary election.

– Bars state and local governments from taking or damaging private property for private uses.

– Prohibits rent control and similar measures.

– Prohibits deference to government in takings cases.

– Defines “just compensation.”

– Requires an award of attorneys fees and costs if a property owner obtains a judgment for more than the amount offered by the government.

– Requires government to offer to original owner of condemned property the right to repurchase property at condemned price when property is put to substantially different use than was publicly stated.

[CA]


Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Proposition 90
Election:
General

2006

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 47.6%)
Topic Areas:
Land Use/Property Rights

Summary: Click for Summary
– Bars state and local governments from condemning or damaging private property to promote other private projects or uses.

– Limits government’s authority to adopt certain land use, housing, consumer, environmental and workplace laws and regulations, except when necessary to preserve public health or safety.

– Voids unpublished eminent domain court decisions.

– Defines “just compensation.”

– Government must occupy condemned property or lease property for public use.

– Condemned private property must be offered for resale to prior owner or owner’s heir at current fair market value if government abandons condemnation’s objective.

– Exempts certain governmental actions.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:

– Increased annual state and local government costs to pay property owners for (1) losses to their property associated with certain new laws and rules, and (2) property acquisitions. The amount of such costs is unknown, but potentially significant on a statewide basis.

[CA]


Government Functions: Wartime Disaster
Proposition 7
Election:
General

1958

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 78.3%)
Topic Areas:
State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
This proposed constitutional amendment would affect Section 16 of Article V, which provides for the succession to the Office of Governor. It would also add Section 38 to Article IV, vesting in the Legislature the power to provide for the preservation of state and local government in the event of war-caused or enemy-caused disaster.



Section 16 of Article V now provides for the following officers to succeed to the Office of Governor in event of a vacancy:

Lieutenant Governor

President Pro Tempore of the Senate

Speaker of the Assembly

Secretary of State

Attorney General

Treasurer

Controller



Section 16 of Article V now provides that only the Lieutenant Governor “becomes” Governor in the event of a vacancy in the governorship. In the case of the other officers listed, the powers and duties of Governor “devolve” upon them, and their status would be that of Acting Governor while still retaining the office to which they were elected. The proposed amendment would provide that each of the enumerated officers would become Governor in the event of succession to that office, so that all the officers would have the same status now specified with respect to the Lieutenant Governor in such event.



The amendment to Section 16 would further provide that, if a vacancy occurs in the governorship by reason of a war-caused or enemy-caused disaster and if none of the specifically listed officers are available to serve as Governor, then such person as has been designated by legislative action shall succeed to the office.



The proposed new Section 38, to be added to Article IV, would provide that nothing in the Constitution limits the power of the Legislature to provide for:

(a) Filling of offices of members of the Legislature or the office of Governor if at least one-fifth of the incumbent members of either house, or the incumbent Governor, are killed, missing or so seriously injured as to be unable to perform their duties as the result of war-caused or enemy-caused disaster. The offices may be filled only until the incumbent or incumbents are able to perform such duties or until successors are chosen.

(b) Convening of the Legislature in general or extraordinary session during or after a war-caused or enemy-caused disaster occurring in the State, and specifying the subjects which may be considered and acted upon at such extraordinary or general session.

(c) Calling and holding of elections to fill offices which are elective under the Constitution where there are vacancies resulting from such disaster, or where the offices are being filled by persons not elected thereto as a result of such disaster.

(d) Selection and changing of a temporary seat of state government and temporary county seats to be used if made necessary by enemy attack.



Statutes implementing the proposed Section 38 were enacted at the 1958 session of the Legislature, and are to become operative upon the adoption of this amendment by the people. (See Statutes of 1958, 1st Ex. Sess., Chapters 60, 61, 75 and 87.)


Governor’s Council
Proposition 20
Election:
General

1930

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 40.6%)
Topic Areas:
State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Adds Section 21 to Article V of Constitution. Empowers Legislature to include in any department of executive branch of state government any office, board or commission established by Constitution and appointed by Governor, and to provide representation therefor in Governor’s Council, through the director of the department. Declares section not applicable to officers and boards filled, by constitutional provision, through elections by the people, and Legislature not empowered thereby to impair any jurisdiction conferred by Constitution upon such office, board or commission, except as Legislature is now or may hereafter be so authorized.


Governor’s Parole Review.
Proposition 89
Election:
General

1988

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 55.0%)
Topic Areas:
Criminal Justice

Summary: Click for Summary
Provides that no decision of the parole authority which grants, denies, revokes, or suspends the parole of a person sentenced to an indeterminate term upon conviction of murder shall become effective for a period of 30 days. Permits Governor to review the decision during this period subject to statutory procedures. States that the Governor may only affirm, modify, or reverse a parole authority decision on the basis of the same factors which the parole authority may consider. Requires Governor to report to the Legislature the pertinent facts and reasons for each parole action. Summary of Legislative Analyst’s estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact: The fiscal impact of this measure is unknown and depends on the actions of the Governor. Grants of parole would result in relatively minor savings. Denials of parole could result in relatively minor costs.


Governor’s Review Of Legislation. Legislative Deadlines. Legislative Constitutional Amendment
Proposition 109
Election:
Primary

1990

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 55.4%)
Topic Areas:
Legislatures | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Extends Governor’s time to review bills in Governor’s possession after adjournment in first year of legislative session, except reapportionment measures, from 12 up to an additional 29 days. Statutes subject to referenda petitions filed prior to January 1 take effect January 1 or 91 days from enactment, whichever is later. Extends, to next working day, 12-day period for Governor to consider bills if 12th day falls on Saturday, Sunday or holiday. Changes legislative deadline for consideration of bills introduced in first year of legislative session to January 31 of second year.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact: No direct state or local fiscal impact.

[CA]


Grade Separation Bonds
Proposition 17
Election:
General

1928

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 38.8%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Transportation

Summary: Click for Summary
Adds Section 6 to Article XVI of Constitution. Authorizes issuance and sale of $10,000,000 State bonds, proceeds to be expended by California Highway Commission to pay such portion of cost of acquisition of rights of way for railroad grade separations and acquisition, construction and improvement of railroad grade separations upon State highways within State highway system as may be apportioned to State by State Railroad Commission; defines railroad grade separation as any crossing, and approaches thereof, between state highway and tracks of commercial interurban or other railway by whatsoever power operated.


Grand Juries
Proposition 19
Election:
General

1952

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 48.4%)
Topic Areas:
Judiciary

Summary: Click for Summary
Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution now provides that a grand jury shall be drawn and summoned at least once a year in each county. While the question has not been definitely settled by the courts, this provision is susceptible of the interpretation that an entire new grand jury must be drawn and summoned each year, thus prohibiting the enactment of a law providing that some members of a grand jury drawn and empaneled in one year should serve as members of the grand jury for the succeeding year.



This measure would fix the grand jury membership at nineteen and require not less than three nor more than nine members empaneled in one year to serve during the next year.



No person would serve as a grand juror more than two consecutive years or act as foreman for more than one year.



The new provisions would be self-executing but Legislature would be authorized to enact laws to facilitate their operation.


Greene-Hughes School Building Lease-Purchase Bond Law of 1986
Proposition 53
Election:
General

1986

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 60.7%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Education: PreK-12

Summary: Click for Summary
This act provides for a bond issue of eight hundred million dollars ($800,000,000) to provide capital outlay for construction or improvement of public schools to be sold at a rate not to exceed four hundred million dollars ($400,000,000) per year.


Greenhouse Gas Reduction Reserve Fund Amendment
Proposition 70
Election:
Primary

2018

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 37.3%)
Topic Areas:
Business & Commerce | Energy & Electric Utilities | Environmental Protection | Natural Resources

Summary: Click for Summary
Creates the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Reserve Fund, in which all moneys collected by the State Air Resources Board are part of a market-based compliance mechanism.


Greyhound Dog Racing – Initiative Statute
Proposition 13
Election:
General

1976

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 24.6%)
Topic Areas:
Animal Rights/Hunting & Fishing | Gambling & Lotteries

Summary: Click for Summary
Establishes California Greyhound Racing Commission to license and regulate the conduct of greyhound races by qualified greyhound racing associations. Applicants for a first license shall pay a fifty thousand-dollar non-refundable application fee. Once issued, licenses shall automatically be renewable for three-year periods unless revoked for just cause. The pari-mutuel method of wagering shall be permitted on greyhound races. A specified percentage of proceeds from pari-mutuel wagering shall be deposited in a Greyhound Racing Fund in the State Treasury, which fund shall be available for specified public purposes when appropriated by the Legislature. Financial impact: Indeterminable.

[S]


Greyhound Racing
Proposition 2
Election:
General

1946

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 23.0%)
Topic Areas:
Animal Rights/Hunting & Fishing | Gambling & Lotteries | Military & Veterans Affairs

Summary: Click for Summary
Permits greyhound racing and pari-mutuel wagering thereon in counties having population over 175,000. Establishes board to license racing and wagering in accordance with this measure and regulations the board may prescribe. Authorizes 74 racing days per year in Los Angeles County and in San Francisco Metropolitan area, 25 days in other counties. Provides 8 per cent of all sums wagered be retained by pari-mutuel pool operator, 4 per cent be paid to fund for pursuing claims of veterans against the United States or this State, and for veterans’ rehabilitation. Provides penalties for violating act.

[S]


Handgun Registration
Proposition 15
Election:
General

1982

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 37.2%)
Topic Areas:
Business & Commerce | Civil & Constitutional Law

Summary: Click for Summary
Adds and amends statutes concerning ownership, registration, and sale of guns. Requires that all concealable firearms (handguns) be registered by November 2, 1983. Makes registration information confidential. Specifies procedures concerning sale and transfer of handguns by dealers and private parties. Restricts Legislature from banning ownership of shotguns, long rifles, or registered handguns and from requiring registration of shotguns or long rifles. Limits number of handguns to number in circulation in California on April 30, 1983. Specifies violation penalties, including imprisonment for certain violations. Provides specified civil damage liability upon unlawful transfer of concealable firearms. Contains other provisions.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact: Would have an indeterminable impact on state and local governments. Administrative costs: There would be major state and local administrative costs reimbursed in whole or in part by fees charged to affected handgun owners. Program costs: This measure would have an unknown impact on the costs of maintaining the criminal justice system. Revenues: This measure could impact sales and income tax revenues. Variables involved for each are discussed in more depth in Analyst’s estimate.

[S]


Harbor Development Bonds
Proposition 4
Election:
General

1958

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 56.5%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Economic Development | Transportation

Summary: Click for Summary
This constitutional amendment would add Section 8 1/2 to Article XVI of the Constitution, to authorize the issuance and sale of state bonds in the sum of $60,000,000 to provide for the construction, improvement, and development of harbors in this State.



The proceeds of the sale of such bonds are to be used as provided in the Harbor Development Bond Law of 1958 (Ch. 103 of the Statutes of 1958, 1st Ex. Sess.), which would be validated and made operative by this amendment. That law provides that not to exceed $50,000,000 of the proceeds of the bonds can be used for the purpose of providing funds for the improvement of San Francisco Harbor and its facilities, and to redeem outstanding bonds. Not to exceed $10,000,000 of the proceeds of the bonds can be used to provide loans to cities, cities and counties, counties, and districts for the planning, acquisition, construction, improvement, maintenance or operation of small craft harbors and their facilities.



The Harbor Development Bond Law of 1958 appropriates money for the payment of the principal and interest of the bonds. The money is to be paid, first, from available revenues of San Francisco Harbor, and, in the case of small craft harbors, from funds repaid on loans. If those funds are not sufficient, then money is made available from the General Fund in the State Treasury, but it is to be repaid to the General Fund, with interest, from such revenues and from the repayments on loans.



The constitutional amendment permits the Legislature to amend the Harbor Development Bond Law of 1958 in any manner germane to that law, without increasing the amount of bonds or permitting the use of the proceeds for purposes unrelated to the purposes described in that law.



The amendment further provides that nothing in the Constitution shall invalidate or restrict its provisions.


Hazardous Substance Cleanup Bond Act of 1984
Proposition 27
Election:
General

1984

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 72.0%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Environmental Protection

Summary: Click for Summary
This act provides for a bond issue of one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000) to provide funds for hazardous substance cleanup.


Health Care. Consumer Protection. Initiative Statute.
Proposition 214
Election:
General

1996

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 42.0%)
Topic Areas:
Business & Commerce | Health

Summary: Click for Summary
– Prohibits health care businesses from: discouraging health care professionals from informing patients or advocating for treatment; offering incentives for withholding care; refusing services recommended by licensed caregiver without examination by business’s own professional.

– Requires health care businesses to: make tax returns and other financial information public; disclose certain financial information to consumers including administrative costs; establish criteria for authorizing or denying payment for care; provide for minimum safe and adequate staffing of health care facilities.

– Authorizes public/private enforcement actions. Provides penalties for repeated violations. Defines ‘health insurer.”



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:



Increased state and local government costs for existing health care programs and benefits, probably in the range of tens of millions to hundreds of millions of dollars annually, depending on several factors.

[S]


Health Care. Consumer Protection. Taxes on Corporate Restructuring. Initiative Statute.
Proposition 216
Election:
General

1996

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 38.7%)
Topic Areas:
Business & Commerce | Health | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
– Prohibits health care businesses from: discouraging health care professionals from informing patients/advocating for treatment; offering incentives for withholding care; refusing services recommended by licensed caregiver without examination by business’s own professional; increasing charges without filing required statement; conditioning coverage on arbitration agreement.

– Requires health care businesses to: make tax returns public; establish criteria written by licensed health professionals for denying payment for care; establish staffing standards for health care facilities.

– Authorizes public/private enforcement actions.

– Establishes nonprofit public corporation for consumer advocacy.

– Assesses taxes for certain corporate structure changes.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:

– Increased revenues from new taxes on health care businesses–potentially in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually–to fund a corresponding amount of expenditures for specified health care services.

– Additional state and local costs for existing health care programs and benefits, probably in the range of tens of millions to hundreds of millions of dollars annually, depending on several factors.

– Reduced state General Fund revenue of up to tens of millions of dollars annually because the new taxes would reduce businesses’ taxable income.

[S]


Health Insurance
Proposition 20
Election:
General

1918

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 27.2%)
Topic Areas:
Health | Human Services | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Senate Constitutional Amendment 26. Adds Section 22 to Article XX of Constitution. Authorizes legislature to establish health insurance system applicable to persons, and their dependents, whose incomes it deems insufficient to meet hazards of sickness and disability; provide support for such system by contributions, voluntary or compulsory, from such persons, from employers and by state appropriation; and confer upon any commission or court, now or hereafter created, power and authority necessary to effectuate provisions of this section. Declares this section not controlled or limited by other than the referendum provisions of constitution.


Health Services Tax. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Proposition 186
Election:
General

1994

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 26.6%)
Topic Areas:
Health | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
– Establishes health services system with defined medical, prescription drug, long-term, mental health, dental, emergency, other benefits; available to California residents, replacing existing health insurance, premiums, programs.

– Services funded by tax upon employers, individuals, with stated exemptions, cigarette/tobacco products surtax, existing federal, state, county health care funds, if authorized; proceeds deposited into Health Security Fund. Health benefit providers, authorized costs, paid from fund.

– Elected Health Commissioner administers fund/system, coordinates with federal law.

– Provides cost controls; annual expenditure limits based on prior year expenditures, unless adjusted.

– Creates advisory Policy Board, Consumer Council.

[CA/S]


Higher Education Facilities Bond Act Of 1986
Proposition 56
Election:
General

1986

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 59.4%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Education: Higher Ed

Summary: Click for Summary
This act provides for a bond issue of four hundred million dollars ($400,000,000) to provide capital for construction or improvement of facilities at California’s public higher education institutions, including the University of California’s nine campuses, the California State University’s 19 campuses, the California Community College’s 106 campuses, and the California Maritime Academy, to be sold at a rate not to exceed two hundred fifty million dollars ($250,000,000) per year.


Higher Education Facilities Bond Act Of 1988
Proposition 78
Election:
General

1988

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 57.7%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Education: Higher Ed

Summary: Click for Summary
This act provides for a bond issue of six hundred million dollars ($600,000,000) to provide funds for the construction or improvement of facilities of California’s public higher education institutions, including the University of California’s nine campuses, the California State University’s 19 campuses, the 70 districts of the California community colleges, and the California Maritime Academy. The use of funds authorized under this act includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the construction or improvement of classrooms, laboratories, and libraries, and the implementation of earthquake and other health or safety improvements.


Higher Education Facilities Bond Act Of June 1990
Proposition 121
Election:
Primary

1990

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 55.0%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Education: Higher Ed

Summary: Click for Summary
This act provides for a bond issue of four hundred fifty million dollars ($450,000,000) to provide funds for the construction or improvement of facilities of California’s public higher education institutions, which include the University of California’s nine campuses, the California State University’s 20 campuses, the 71 districts of the California Community Colleges, the Hastings College of the Law, the California Maritime Academy, and off-campus facilities of the California State University approved by the Trustees of the California State University on or before July 1, 1990. The use of funds authorized under this act includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the construction or improvement of classrooms, laboratories, and libraries, and the implementation of earthquake and other health or safety improvements.

[S/BOND]


Higher Education Facilities Bond Act of June 1992
Proposition 153
Election:
Primary

1992

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 50.8%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Education: Higher Ed

Summary: Click for Summary
– This act authorizes a bond issue of nine hundred million dollars ($900,000,000) to fund the construction or improvement of California’s public college and university facilities.

– Authorized projects for the 138 public campuses shall include, but are not necessarily limited to, earthquake and other health safety improvements, modernization of laboratories to keep up with scientific advances, and construction of classrooms and libraries.

[S/BOND]


Higher Education Facilities Bond Act of June 1994.
Proposition 1C
Election:
General

1994

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Education: Higher Ed

Summary: Click for Summary
This act provides for a bond issue of nine hundred million dollars ($900,000,000) to provide funds for the strengthening, upgrading and constructing of public colleges and universities throughout the state. Appropriates money from State General Fund to pay off bonds.

[S/BOND]


Higher Education Facilities Bond Act of November 1990
Proposition 143
Election:
General

1990

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 48.8%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Education: Higher Ed

Summary: Click for Summary
This act provides for a bond issue of four hundred fifty million dollars ($450,000,000) to provide funds for the construction or improvement of facilities of California’s public higher education institutions, which include the University of California’s nine campuses, the California State University’s 20 campuses, the 71 districts of the California Community Colleges containing 107 campuses, the Hastings College of the Law, the California Maritime Academy, and off-campus facilities of the California State University approved by the Trustees of the California State University on or before July 1, 1990.



The use of funds authorized under this act includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the construction or improvement of classrooms, laboratories, and libraries, and the implementation of earthquake and other health or safety improvements.

[S/BOND]


Highway and Traffic Safety Commission
Proposition 4
Election:
General

1938

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 40.0%)
Topic Areas:
State Government | Transportation

Summary: Click for Summary
Creates, and provides for organization of a Highway and Traffic Safety Commission of five members appointed by Governor with consent of Senate. Prescribes terms of office and salaries of members. Provides Commission shall succeed to powers and duties of certain existing State agencies relating to highways and enforcement of vehicle laws except registration and tax collections. Abolishes present State Highway Commission and transfers California Highway Patrol to new Commission. Preserves existing civil service rights. Authorizes Legislature to change existing laws and enlarge powers and duties of Commission concerning highways and vehicular traffic.

[CA]


Highway Bonds
Proposition 9
Election:
General

1920

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 58.3%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Transportation

Summary: Click for Summary
Creates State Highway Finance Board to serve without compensation. Directs cancellation of unsold forty thousand bonds authorized by Section 2 of same article; authorizes other bonds to same amount, to be issued as provided in said section, but at times and interest rate, not exceeding six per cent, determined by said board under then prevailing market conditions; makes provisions of said section otherwise govern said bonds and proceeds thereof. Beginning July 1, 1921, relieves counties from payments to state on account of highway construction.

[CA]


Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, Port Security Bond Act of 2006
Proposition 1B
Election:
General

2006

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 61.5%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Environmental Protection | Transportation

Summary: Click for Summary
– Makes safety improvements and repairs to state highways; upgrades freeways to reduce congestion; repairs local streets and roads; upgrades highways along major transportation corridors.

– Improves seismic safety of local bridges.

– Expands public transit.

– Helps complete the state’s network of car pool lanes.

– Reduces air pollution.

– Improves anti-terrorism security at shipping ports.

– Provides for a bond issue not to exceed nineteen billion nine hundred twenty-five million dollars ($19,925,000,000).

– Appropriates money from the General Fund to pay off bonds.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:

– State costs of about $38.9 billion over 30 years to pay off both the principal ($19.9 billion) and interest ($19.0 billion) costs of the bonds. Payments of about $1.3 billion per year.

– Additional unknown state and local government costs to operate and maintain transportation infrastructure (such as roads, bridges, and buses and railcars) funded with bonds. A portion of these costs would be offset by revenues generated by the improvements, such as fares and tolls.



BACKGROUND

California spends about $20 billion a year from a combination of state, federal, and local funds to maintain, operate, and improve its highways, streets and roads, passenger rail, and transit systems. These expenditures are primarily funded on a pay-as-you-go basis from taxes and user fees.



There are two primary state tax sources that fund state transportation programs. First, the state’s 18 cent per gallon excise tax on gasoline and diesel fuel (generally referred to as the gas tax) generates about $3.4 billion annually. Second, revenues from the state sales tax on gasoline and diesel fuel currently provide about $2 billion a year. Additionally, the state imposes weight fees on commercial vehicles (trucks), which generate roughly $900 million a year. Generally, these revenues must be used for specific transportation purposes, including improvements to highways, streets and roads, passenger rail, and transit systems. These funds may also be used to mitigate the environmental impacts of various transportation projects. Under specified conditions, these revenues may be loaned or used for nontransportation uses.



Since 1990, voters have approved roughly $5 billion in state general obligation bonds to fund transportation. These bond proceeds have been dedicated primarily to passenger rail and transit improvements, as well as to retrofit highways and bridges for earthquake safety. As of June 2006, all but about $355 million of the authorized bonds have been spent on projects.


In addition to state funds, California’s transportation system receives federal and local money. The state receives about $4.5 billion a year in federal gasoline and diesel fuel tax revenues for various transportation purposes. Collectively, local governments invest roughly $9.5 billion annually into California’s highways, streets and roads, passenger rail, and transit systems. This funding comes mainly from a mix of local sales and property taxes, as well as transit fares. Local governments have also issued bonds backed mainly by local sales tax revenues to fund transportation projects.



PROPOSAL

This measure authorizes the state to sell about $20 billion of general obligation bonds to fund transportation projects to relieve congestion, improve the movement of goods, improve air quality, and enhance the safety and security of the transportation system. (See “An Overview of State Bond Debt” on page 96 for basic information on state general obligation bonds.)



Figure 1 summarizes the purposes for which the bond money would be used. The bond money would be available for expenditure by various state agencies and for grants to local agencies and transit operators upon appropriation by the Legislature:

Congestion Reduction, Highway and Local Road Improvements—$11.3 billion—for capital improvements to reduce congestion and increase capacity on state highways, local roads, and public transit for grants available to locally funded transportation projects, as well as for projects to rehabilitate state highways and local roads.
Public Transportation—$4 billion—to make capital improvements to local transit services and the state’s intercity rail service. These improvements would include purchasing buses and railcars, as well as making safety enhancements to existing transit facilities.

Goods Movement and Air Quality—$3.2 billion—for projects to improve the movement of goods—through the ports, on the state highway and rail systems, and between California and Mexico—and for projects to improve air quality by reducing emissions related to goods movement and replacing or retrofitting school buses.

Safety and Security—$1.5 billion—for projects to increase protection against a security threat or improve disaster response capabilities on transit systems; as well as for grants to improve the safety of rail crossings to seismically retrofit local bridges, ramps, and overpasses; and to improve security and disaster planning in publicly owned ports, harbors, and ferry terminals.

[S/BOND]


Highways and Mass Transit Guideways
Proposition 5
Election:
Primary

1974

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 60.3%)
Topic Areas:
Transportation

Summary: Click for Summary
Extends present use of revenues from motor vehicle fuel taxes and license fees for highway construction to permit use for research, planning, and construction of mass transit guideways and mitigation of environmental effects of each. Unless approved by majority vote of area affected, funds may only be used for research and planning. Continues existing statutory formula for allocation of revenues to cities, counties, and areas of state until altered by Legislature. Permits up to 25% of area revenues available to be used to pay for voter-approved bond issues. Deletes obsolete provisions. Financial Impact: This measure involves no significant cost or revenue considerations.


Home Rule Taxation
Proposition 8
Election:
General

1912

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 41.0%)
Topic Areas:
Local Government | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Any county, city and county, city, town, district or township in this state is hereby empowered to raise revenues for its local purposes and to provide for the time or times of collecting taxes for such purposes in such manner as it may determine, by ordinance or resolution, adopted by a majority vote of the qualified electors thereof, voting thereon at an election held on the question of establishing a new revenue system, or of altering or amending any system of taxation now or hereafter existing for raising such local revenue. Such proposed system or amendment thereof may be submitted at any general or special election held in such county, city and county, city, town, district or township, by initiative petition as provided by law or by resolution of the legislative body of such county or other political subdivision above enumerated.

[CA]


Homeowners’ Property Tax Exemption
Proposition 1A-G
Election:
General

1968

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 53.4%)
Topic Areas:
Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Provides for minimum exemption of $750.00 assessed valuation for owner occupied dwelling, if owner not granted veteran’s or other exemption. Legislature shall provide for grants to counties, cities and counties, cities, and districts for revenue lost by such exemption. Legislature may establish maximum tax rates and bonding limitations for local government. Legislature may effect exemption for fiscal year 1968-1969 by direct payment of $70.00 to taxpayers entitled thereto. Declares there is a conflict between this measure and Proposition No. 9 and one passed by greater vote shall prevail.


Horse Racing
Proposition 3
Election:
Special

1933

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 62.9%)
Topic Areas:
Animal Rights/Hunting & Fishing | Gambling & Lotteries

Summary: Click for Summary
Adds Section 25a to Article IV. Ratifies Act of present Legislature which creates California Horse Racing Board empowered to regulate and license horse racing, horse race meetings, and wagering on results thereof by pari mutuel method conducted only by licensees within race track enclosure on racing days; basing license fees on percentage of wagering pools; classifies counties by population and regulates racing periods therein; allocates portion of net receipts for California State Fair and other fairs and expositions. Legislature apportioning balance biennially to State institutions therein mentioned or for unemployment relief.


Hospital Loans
Proposition 5
Election:
General

1968

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 54.7%)
Topic Areas:
Health

Summary: Click for Summary
Authorizes Legislature to insure or guarantee loans to nonprofit corporations and public agencies for construction, improvement, or repair of any public or nonprofit hospital and other specified facilities, and for purchase of original equipment therefor.


Housing
Proposition 14
Election:
General

1948

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: Unknown)
Topic Areas:
Human Services

Summary: Click for Summary
Summary not available.

[S]


Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2002
Proposition 46
Election:
General

2002

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 57.5%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Human Services

Summary: Click for Summary
Background



About 150,000 houses and apartments are built in California
each year. Most of these units are built entirely with private dollars. Some, however, receive subsidies from federal, state, and local governments. For some of the units that receive state funds, the state provides low-interest loans or grants to developers (private, nonprofit, and local governments). Typically, there is a requirement that the housing built be sold or rented to Californians with low incomes. Other state programs provide homebuyers with direct financial assistance to help with the costs of a down payment.



The amount of funds that the state has provided to these types of housing programs has varied considerably over time. In 1988 and 1990, voters approved a total of $600 million of general obligation bonds to fund state housing programs (these funds have been spent). Since that time, the state typically has spent less than $20 million annually in General Fund revenues on state housing programs. On a one-time basis, however, the state recently provided more than $350 million in General Fund revenues for these purposes.



Proposal



This measure allows the state to sell $2.1 billion of general obligation bonds to fund 21 housing programs. General obligation bonds are backed by the state, meaning that the state is required to pay the principal and interest on these bonds. General Fund revenues would be used to pay these costs over about 30 years. Most of the funds would go to existing state housing programs. A number of the programs, however, are new, with details to be established by subsequent legislation. The major allocations of the bond proceeds are as follows:

– Multifamily Housing Programs ($1.11 Billion).

This measure would fund a variety of housing programs aimed at the construction of rental housing projects, such as apartment buildings. These programs generally provide local governments, nonprofit organizations, and private developers with low-interest (3 percent) loans to fund part of the construction cost. In exchange, a project must reserve a portion of its units for low-income households for a period of 55 years. This measure gives funding priority to projects in already developed areas and near existing public services (such as public transportation).

– Homeownership Programs ($405 Million).

A number of the programs funded by this measure would encourage homeownership for low- and moderate-income homebuyers. Most of the funds would be used to provide down payment assistance to homebuyers through low-interest loans or grants. Typically, eligibility for this assistance would be based on the household’s income, the cost of the home being purchased, and whether it is the household’s first home purchase.

– Farmworker Housing ($200 Million).

These funds would be used to provide loans and grants to the developers of housing for farmworkers. Program funds would be used for both rental and owner-occupied housing.

– Other Programs ($385 Million).

Additional funds would be allocated for the construction of homeless shelters, payments to cities and counties based on their approval of housing units, provision of mortgage insurance for high-risk homebuyers, and capital needs of local code enforcement departments.



Most of the program funds probably would be allocated over a
three- to five-year period. For many of the programs, the measure limits the length of time available for the funds to be spent. If after a specified length of time–between 18 and 48 months–a program’s funds are unspent, they would be reallocated to a different housing program.



The measure provides the Legislature broad authority to make
future changes to the programs funded by the measure. The measure also requires the State Auditor to perform periodic audits of the agencies administering the funds and the recipients of the funds.



Impact of Funds.

The funds from this measure typically would be used together with other government monies to provide housing assistance. In total, the bond funds would provide annual subsidies for about 25,000 multifamily and 10,000 farmworker households. The funds would also provide down payment assistance to about 60,000 homebuyers and help provide space for 30,000 homeless shelter beds.



Fiscal Effect



Bond Costs.

The cost of these bonds would depend on their interest rates and the time period over which they are repaid. Generally, the interest on bonds issued by the state is exempt from both state and federal income taxes, lowering the payment amounts for the state. Historically, the type of bonds proposed by this measure have not received the federal tax exemption, resulting in a higher interest rate for the bonds. If the bonds were sold at an average interest rate of 6.25 percent (the current rate for this type of bond) and repaid over 30 years, the cost would be about $4.7 billion to pay off both the principal ($2.1 billion) and interest ($2.6 billion). The average payment would be about $157 million per year.



Administrative Costs.

Several agencies would experience increased costs to administer the various housing programs funded by this measure. Under existing law, a portion of the programs’ allocations from the bond funds–up to about $100 million–could be used for these administrative costs. The measure also authorizes some recipients to be charged for administrative costs, thus increasing funds available for this purpose.

[S/BOND]


Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2006
Proposition 1C
Election:
General

2006

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 57.8%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Human Services | Military & Veterans Affairs

Summary: Click for Summary
– Funds may be used for the purpose of providing shelters for battered women and their children, clean and safe housing for low-income senior citizens; homeownership assistance for the disabled, military veterans, and working families; and repairs and accessibility improvements to apartment for families and disabled citizens.

– The state shall issue bonds totaling two billion eight hundred fifty million dollars ($2,850,000,000) paid from existing state funds at an average annual cost of two hundred and four million dollars ($204,000,000) per year over the 30 year life of the bonds.

– Requires reporting and publication of annual independent audited reports showing use of funds, and limits administration and overhead costs.

– Appropriates money from the General Fund to pay off bonds.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:

– State cost of about $6.1 billion over 30 years to pay off both the principal ($2.85 billion) and interest costs ($3.3 billion) on the bonds. Payments of about $204 million per year.



BACKGROUND

About 200,000 houses and apartments are built in California each year. Most of these housing units are built entirely with private dollars. Some units, however, receive subsidies from federal, state, and local governments. For instance, the state provides low-interest loans or grants to developers (private, nonprofit, and governmental) to subsidize housing construction costs. Typically, the housing must be sold or rented to Californians with low incomes. Other state programs provide homebuyers with direct financial assistance to help with the costs of a downpayment.



While the state provides financial assistance through these programs, cities and counties are responsible for the zoning and approval of new housing. In addition, cities, counties, and other local governments are responsible for providing infrastructure-related services to new housing—such as water, sewer, roads, and parks.



In 2002, voters approved Proposition 46, which provided a total of $2.1 billion of general obligation bonds to fund state housing programs. We estimate that about $350 million of the Proposition 46 funds will be unspent as of November 1, 2006.



PROPOSAL

This measure authorizes the state to sell $2.85 billion of general obligation bonds to fund 13 new and existing housing and development programs. (See “An Overview of State Bond Debt” for basic information on state general obligation bonds.) Figure 1 describes the programs and the amount of funding that each would receive under the measure. About one-half of the funds would go to existing state housing programs. The development programs, however, are new—with details to be established by the Legislature. The major allocations of the bond proceeds are as follows:

Development Programs ($1.35 Billion). The measure would fund three new programs aimed at increasing development. Most of the funds would be targeted for development projects in existing urban areas and near public transportation. The programs would provide loans and grants for a wide variety of projects, such as parks, water, sewage, transportation, and housing.

Homeownership Programs ($625 Million). A number of the programs funded by this measure would encourage homeownership for low- and moderate-income homebuyers. The funds would be used to provide downpayment assistance to homebuyers through low-interest loans or grants. Typically, eligibility for this assistance would be based on the household’s income, the cost of the home being purchased, and whether it is the household’s first home purchase.

Multifamily Housing Programs ($590 Million). The measure also would fund programs aimed at the construction or renovation of rental housing projects, such as apartment buildings. These programs generally provide local governments, nonprofit organizations, and private developers with low-interest (3 percent) loans to fund part of the construction cost. In exchange, a project must reserve a portion of its units for low-income households for a period of 55 years. This measure gives funding priority to projects in already developed areas and near existing public services (such as public transportation).

Other Housing Programs ($285 Million). These funds would be used to provide loans and grants to the developers of homeless shelters and housing for farmworkers. In addition, funds would be allocated to pilot projects aimed at reducing the costs of affordable housing.


The funds would be allocated over a number of years. The measure provides the Legislature broad authority to make future changes to these programs to ensure their effectiveness.

[S/BOND]


Housing And Homeless Bond Act Of 1988
Proposition 84
Election:
General

1988

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 58.2%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Human Services

Summary: Click for Summary
This act provides for a bond issue of three hundred million dollars ($300,000,000) to provide funds for a housing program that includes: (1) emergency shelters and transitional housing for homeless families and individuals, (2) new rental housing for families and individuals including rental housing which meets the special needs of the elderly, disabled, and farmworkers, (3) rehabilitation and preservation of older homes and rental housing, and (4) home purchase assistance for first-time homebuyers.


Housing And Homeless Bond Act Of 1990
Proposition 107
Election:
Primary

1990

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 52.4%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Human Services

Summary: Click for Summary
This act provides for a bond issue of one hundred fifty million dollars ($150,000,000) to provide funds for a housing program that includes:



(1) emergency shelters and transitional housing for homeless families and individuals,housing program that includes:



(2) new rental housing for families and individuals including rental housing which meets the special needs of the elderly, disabled, and farmworkers,housing program that includes:



(3) rehabilitation and preservation of older homes and rental housing, andhousing program that includes:



(4) home purchase assistance for first-time homebuyers.

[S/BOND]


Housing Finance Bond Law of 1975
Proposition 1
Election:
General

1976

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 42.8%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | Human Services

Summary: Click for Summary
This Act provides for a bond issue of five hundred million dollars ($500,000,000) to provide funds for financing housing.


Human Trafficking. Penalties. Sex Offender Registration. Initiative Statute.
Proposition 35
Election:
General

2012

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 81.2% (unofficial))
Topic Areas:
Criminal Justice

Summary: Click for Summary
Increases criminal penalties for human trafficking, including prison sentences up to 15-years-to-life and fines up to $1,500,000. Fines collected to be used for victim services and law enforcement. Requires person convicted of trafficking to register as sex offender. Requires sex offenders to provide information regarding Internet access and identities they use in online activities. Prohibits evidence that victim engaged in sexual conduct from being used against victim in court proceedings. Requires human trafficking training for police officers.


Hunger And Homelessness Funding.
Proposition 95
Election:
General

1988

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 45.2%)
Topic Areas:
Human Services | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Creates public corporation to disburse funds to counties, other political subdivisions of the state, and nonprofit organizations pursuant to countywide plans, to provide emergency and transitional services for hungry and homeless persons, and for low-income housing as specified. Funding to come from new fines for the violation of existing laws and regulations relating to housing and food preparation, and bonds secured by the revenue from these fines. Includes other provisions.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact:

The revenue to be collected from new fines is unknown because (1) the measure does not specify the amount of each fine and (2) the measure lets cities and counties decide the number of fines given out. Possibly, several millions of dollars could be collected each year.

[S]


Huntington Library and Art Gallery
Proposition 15
Election:
General

1930

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 60.9%)
Topic Areas:
Arts & Culture | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Adds Section 15 to Article IX of Constitution. Confirms trusts and estates created for Henry E. Huntington Library and Art Gallery by Henry E. and Arabella D. Huntington August 30, 1919, and subsequently. Authorizes such institution, or trustees thereof, to receive for its benefit any real or personal property upon same trusts unless otherwise provided. Exempts from taxation all property as of July 1, 1929, held in trust for said institution and all personal property received in exchange therefor, authorizing Legislature to modify, suspend and revive such exemption.


Illegal Aliens. Ineligibility for Public Services. Verification and Reporting. Initiative Statute.
Proposition 187
Election:
General

1994

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 58.8%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law | Education: Higher Ed | Education: PreK-12 | Health | Human Services | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
– Makes illegal aliens ineligible for public social services, public health care services (unless emergency under federal law), and public school education at elementary, secondary, and post-secondary levels.

– Requires various state and local agencies to report persons who are suspected illegal aliens to the California Attorney General and the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service. Mandates California Attorney General to transmit reports to Immigration and Naturalization Service and maintain records of such reports.

– Makes it a felony to manufacture, distribute, sell or use false citizenship or residence documents.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact: Annual savings of roughly $200 million.

[S]


Impeachment of State Officers and Judges.
Proposition 21
Election:
General

1911

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Undecided
Topic Areas:
Judiciary | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Assembly Constitutional Amendment 46


Imposes Additional Tax on Cigarettes for Cancer Research
Proposition 29
Election:
Primary

2012

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 49.8%)
Topic Areas:
Drug/Alcohol/Tobacco Policy | Health | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Scheduled for June 2012 primary.

Imposes additional five cent tax on each cigarette distributed ($1.00 per pack), and an equivalent tax increase on other tobacco products, to fund cancer research and other specified purposes. Requires tax revenues be deposited into a special fund to finance research and research facilities focused on detecting, preventing, treating, and curing cancer, heart disease, emphysema, and other tobacco-related diseases, and to finance prevention programs. Creates nine-member committee charged with administering the fund. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Increase in new cigarette tax revenues of about $855 million annually by 2011- 12, declining slightly annually thereafter, for various health research and tobacco-related programs. Increase of about $45 million annually to existing health, natural resources, and research programs funded by existing tobacco taxes. Increase in state and local sales taxes of about $32 million annually.


Imposes New Two-Thirds Voter Approval Requirement for Local Public Electricity Providers. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Proposition 16
Election:
Primary

2010

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 47.2%)
Topic Areas:
Elections | Energy & Electric Utilities

Summary: Click for Summary
June 8, 2010 primary ballot

Requires two-thirds voter approval before local governments provide electricity service to new customers or establish a community choice electricity program using public funds or bonds.



Background
Californians generally receive their electricity service from one of three types of providers: investor-owned utilities (IOUs), local publicly owned electric utilities, or electric service providers (ESPs). These provide 68 percent, 24 percent, and 8 percent, respectively, of retail electricity service in the state.



Community Choice Aggregation. In addition to the ESP arrangements discussed above, state law allows a city or a county, or a combination of the two, to arrange to provide electricity within their jurisdiction through a contract with an electricity provider other than the IOU that would otherwise serve that local area. This is referred to as “community choice aggregation.” Although only one community choice aggregator (CCA) currently exists to provide electricity in California, several communities are exploring this option. A CCA could get its electricity from an ESP, using the transmission and distribution system of the IOU serving that local area. Electricity customers within that area would automatically get their electricity from the CCA unless they elected to continue to receive service from the IOU.



Proposals to Create and Expand Public Electricity Providers. In recent years, a limited number of local governments in the state have explored the idea of creating new public providers of electricity or expanding publicly owned utilities into new territory currently served by an IOU. For example, the City and County of San Francisco has considered creating a CCA that would include territory currently served by PG&E. As another example, Yolo County explored having SMUD provide electricity service to territory within the county currently served by PG&E. In some cases, these proposals have been put before the voters for their approval, under provisions of state law discussed below.



Voter Approval Requirements for Publicly Owned Electricity Providers. As noted above, publicly owned utilities can be organized under several different types of government structures. Each type of local government entity that is authorized to provide electricity service, and that is considering either the start-up of electricity service or the expansion of existing service beyond its current service area, is subject to certain state requirements.



Various statutes specify whether voter approval is required for the start-up of electricity service by authorized local government entities. Under state law, if a local government intends to expand its electricity service into a new territory, that new area must be annexed and, in certain cases, a majority of the voters in the area proposed for annexation must approve the expansion. In such cases, however, no vote of the public is generally required within the existing service territory of the local governmental entity that is proposing the expansion. (In some cases, a local commission requires such a vote as a condition of approving the annexation.) In contrast, local agency action to create and begin implementation of a CCA may be undertaken upon a vote of the local agency governing board and does not require local voter approval.



Proposal

The measure places new voter approval requirements on local governments before they can use “public funds”—defined broadly in the measure to include tax revenues, various forms of debt, and ratepayer funds-—to start up electricity service, expand electricity service into a new territory, or implement a CCA.

– First, before an authorized local government entity can start up electricity service, it must receive approval by two-thirds of the voters in the area proposed to be served.

– Second, before an existing publicly owned utility can expand its electric delivery service into a new territory, it must receive approval by two-thirds of the voters in the area currently served by the utility and two-thirds of the voters in the new area proposed to be served.

– Third, the measure requires two-thirds voter approval for a local government to implement a CCA.
The measure provides three exemptions to local governments from these voter approval requirements:



– If the use of public funds has been previously approved by the voters both within the existing local jurisdiction and the territory proposed for expansion.

– If the public funds would be used solely to purchase, provide, or supply specified types of electricity from renewable sources, such as wind or solar power.

– If the public funds would be used only to provide electric delivery service for the local government’s own use.


Improving California Olympiad Bond Act
Proposition 2
Election:
General

1928

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 72.9%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Adds Section 5 to Article XVI of Constitution. Approves and validates California Olympiad Bond Act, passed by Legislature in 1927 and approved by Governor; authorizes and directs the issuance and sale of $1,000,000 State bonds, and the use of the proceeds thereof, all as provided in said act, to provide a fund to be used for purpose of an Olympiad to be held in California in 1932; declares section self-executing but permits legislation in furtherance thereof.


Income Tax Indexing.
Proposition 7
Election:
Primary

1982

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 63.5%)
Topic Areas:
Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Graduated state personal income tax brackets are adjusted annually by applying an “inflation adjustment factor” determined by use of the percent that the California Consumer Price Index has changed. This is referred to as “indexing.” Under existing statutes, the full percentage change in the Index is being used for 1980 and 1981 taxable years. Beginning in 1982 and for later taxable years the Index percentage changes which exceed 3 percent will be used. This measure changes existing statutes by providing for the continued use during 1982 and taxable years thereafter of the full percentage Index changes.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact: Reduce state personal income tax revenues by about $230 million in 1982-83, by about $445 million in 1983-84, and by increasing amounts thereafter. Under existing law reductions in state revenue would result in corresponding reductions in amount of fiscal relief provided by state to local governments and schools.

[S]


Incorporation of Municipalities
Proposition 29
Election:
General

1914

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 57.1%)
Topic Areas:
Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
[Summary from Hastings Law Library California Ballot Measures Database]

Present section unchanged except in following particulars: Legislature may provide that county officers shall perform municipal functions of municipalities incorporated under general laws when electors thereof so determine; municipalities hereafter organized under charters, and those heretofore so organized, when empowered by charter amendment, may legislate respecting municipal affairs, subject only to charter restrictions; in other matters they are subject to general laws; municipal charters may require county officers to perform municipal functions whenever general laws or county charter authorize such performance.

[Constitutional Amendment]


Increased Sentences. Repeat Offenders. Initiative Statute.
Proposition 184
Election:
General

1994

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 71.8%)
Topic Areas:
Criminal Justice

Summary: Click for Summary
– Increases sentences for defendants convicted of any felony who have prior convictions for violent or serious felonies such as rape, robbery or burglary.

– Convicted felons with one such prior conviction would receive twice the normal sentence for the new offense. Convicted felons with two or more such prior convictions would receive a life sentence with a minimum term three times the normal sentence or 25 years, whichever is greater.

– Includes as prior convictions certain felonies committed by juveniles 16 years of age, or older.

– Reduces sentence reduction credit which may be earned by these convicted felons.

[S]


Indebtedness of Local Agencies
Proposition 4
Election:
General

1966

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 46.9%)
Topic Areas:
Budgets | Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Provides that instead of a two-thirds vote to incur an indebtedness at an election held for that purpose, any local general obligation bonds for library purposes or public school purposes, may be approved by sixty percent of the qualified electors voting on such proposition at a primary or general election, including this election.


Ineligibility to Office
Proposition 6
Election:
General

1916

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 64.3%)
Topic Areas:
Legislatures

Summary: Click for Summary
Initiative measure amending Section 19 of Article IV of Constitution. Declares that no Senator or Member of Assembly shall, during the term for which he shall have been elected, hold or accept any office, trust, or employment under this State; provided that this provision shall not apply to any office filled by election by the people.

[CA]


Inferior Court Judges
Proposition 18
Election:
General

1956

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 31.4%)
Topic Areas:
Judiciary

Summary: Click for Summary
Article VI, Section 23, of the Constitution now restricts eligibility for municipal court judgeships to persons who have been admitted to the practice of law for at least five years. The inferior court reorganization plan, which was adopted by the electors on November 7, 1950, contemplated that some justice’s courts and other inferior courts, whose judges were not required to be lawyers, would be superseded by new municipal courts. To protect the status of non-lawyer judges whose courts were superseded by new municipal courts, an exception to the requirement of admission to the practice of law was made so that any person who was an elected judge or justice of a court existing on November 7, 1950, and who had served as such for five years prior to that date, was eligible to be a judge of the new municipal court which superseded such court. This exception does not protect a non-lawyer judge in the case where his court was superseded under the 1950 reorganization, either by a justice court or by a municipal court of which he continued to be judge, if such justice or municipal court is in turn subsequently superseded by a new municipal court. Such nonlawyer judge would not be eligible to continue as judge of the new municipal court.


Inferior Court Judges
Proposition 19
Election:
General

1954

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 49.8%)
Topic Areas:
Judiciary

Summary: Click for Summary
Article VI, Section 23, of the Constitution at present requires a municipal judge to have been admitted to practice law before the State Supreme Court for at least five years immediately preceding his election or appointment to such office. When the inferior court reorganization plan was approved by the electors on November 7, 1950, an exception to this requirement was made for an elected judge or justice who had served for 5 years prior to that date. Such a judge, although not admitted to practice law, was made eligible to become the judge of any municipal court which superseded the then-existing court of which he was judge. This amendment would permit a non-lawyer judge who had served for 5 years prior to November 7, 1950, and who has served continuously since that date as judge of a superseding justice court, to become the judge of a municipal court whenever such a court supersedes his justice court.


Inferior Court Reorganization
Proposition 3
Election:
General

1950

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 80.7%)
Topic Areas:
Judiciary

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends Article VI of Constitution. Establishes a uniform system of municipal and justice courts throughout the State. Provides for municipal courts in cities or judicial districts exceeding 40,000 population, and justice courts in judicial districts of lesser population, judges of these courts being elective. Directs that there shall be only one kind of court in a district. Authorizes Legislature to prescribe jurisdiction and procedure of such courts and powers and duties of judges thereof.


Inferior Courts
Proposition 4
Election:
General

1924

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 66.1%)
Topic Areas:
Judiciary

Summary: Click for Summary
Assembly Constitutional Amendment 2 amending Section 11 of Article VI of Constitution. Changes provision therein which confers on inferior courts created by Legislature concurrent jurisdiction with superior courts in cases of forcible entry and detainer where rental value does not exceed twenty-five dollars per month, and where whole amount of damages claimed does not exceed two hundred dollars by declaring such concurrent jurisdiction shall exist where such rental value does not exceed seventy-five dollars per month and the whole amount of damages claimed does not exceed three hundred dollars.


Infrastructure: Finance. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.
Proposition 53
Election:
Special

2003

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 36.1%)
Topic Areas:
Budgets | Education: PreK-12 | Natural Resources | Transportation

Summary: Click for Summary
Scheduled for the October 7, 2003 special election.



This constitutional amendment establishes the Twenty-First Century Infrastructure Investment Fund and requires a specified percentage of General fund revenues to be transferred annually to this fund beginning in 2006-07.
These funds would be used to finance infrastructure projects related to transportation, education, natural
resource preservation, parks, and water, of which 50
percent would be continuously appropriated to local government and 50 percent would be available for state
projects. Specifically, it would transfer one percent of
General Fund revenue in 2006-07 and increase to three
percent in 2013-14.



This constitutional amendment requires the State Department of Finance to prepare an annual plan to expend these funds
unless the Governor directs another state agency to prepare the plan.


Initiative
Proposition 27
Election:
General

1922

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 40.5%)
Topic Areas:
Elections-Initiative Process

Summary: Click for Summary
Initiative measure amending Article IV, Section 1 of Constitution. Inserts proviso therein increasing the number of signatures of qualified electors necessary to initiative petition presented to Secretary of State under that section when such petition relates to assessment or collection of taxes, or provides for modification or repeal of this proviso; requires such number to be fifteen per cent of all votes cast for all gubernatorial candidates at last preceding election at which governor was elected, instead of eight per cent thereof as now required. Makes no other substantial change in section.

[CA]


Initiative
Proposition 4
Election:
General

1920

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 41.4%)
Topic Areas:
Elections-Initiative Process

Summary: Click for Summary
Inserts proviso therein increasing the number of signatures of qualified electors necessary to initiative petition presented to Secretary of State under that section when such petition relates to assessment or collection of taxes, or provides for modification or repeal of this proviso; requires such number to be twenty-five per cent of all votes cast for all gubernatorial candidates at last preceding election at which Governor was elected, instead of eight per cent thereof as now required. Makes no other substantial change in section.

[CA]


Initiative
Proposition 17
Election:
General

1938

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 54.2%)
Topic Areas:
Elections-Initiative Process

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends second paragraph of section 1 of Article IV of Constitution by providing that after presentation to Secretary of State of properly certified petition proposing a law or amendment to the Constitution, Secretary of State shall submit said proposed law or constitutional amendment to the electors at next succeeding general election occurring subsequent to 130 days (instead of 90 days as at present) after said presentation, or at any special election called by the Governor in his discretion prior to such general election.


Initiative and Referendum
Proposition 7
Election:
Special

1915

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 48.8%)
Topic Areas:
Elections-Initiative Process

Summary: Click for Summary
[Summary from Hastings Law Library California Ballot Measures Database]

Senate Constitutional Amendment 22 amending section I of article IV of constitution. Present section unchanged except in following particulars: provides that no law creating a bonded indebtedness shall be enacted by initiative by electors without assent of two-thirds of qualified electors voting thereon; authorizes legislature to protect initiative and referendum petitions from fraud and misrepresentation.

[Constitutional Amendment]


Initiative and Referendum
Proposition 8
Election:
General

1932

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 61.8%)
Topic Areas:
Elections-Initiative Process

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends Section 1 of Article IV of Constitution. Requires proponents of any initiative or referendum petition, before circulating same for signatures, submit draft thereof to attorney general with written request that he prepare therefor a title and summary in not to exceed one hundred words, such request to be preserved by him until after next election. Reserves to such proponents the right to file original petition; requires county clerk and registrar of voters disregard any section thereof or supplement thereto not presented by such proponents or by persons authorized by them in writing.


Initiative and Referendum Process. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Proposition 137
Election:
General

1990

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 45.0%)
Topic Areas:
Elections-Initiative Process

Summary: Click for Summary
– Prohibits legislative enactment from becoming effective without voter approval of any statute that provides the manner in which statewide or local initiative or referendum petitions are circulated, presented, certified or submitted to the electors.

– Also requires voter approval of statutes that establish procedures or requirements for statewide or local initiatives or referendums.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:

– The measure could result in unknown increased state and local administrative costs for preparation, printing and mailing of ballot information and verifying election results to extent that changes in requirements for initiatives and referendums are submitted to voters.

– State General Fund costs could range from insignificant to $200,000 per measure for each statewide election.

– Counties’ costs could range from insignificant to $100,000 per measure for each statewide election.

[CA]


Initiative and Referendum.
Proposition 7
Election:
General

1911

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Undecided
Topic Areas:
Elections-Initiative Process

Summary: Click for Summary
Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 22. A resolution to propose to the people of the State of California an amendment to the constitution of said state, by amending section 1 of article 4 thereof, relating to legislative powers, and reserving to the people of the State of California the power to propose laws, statutes and amendments to the constitution and to enact the same at the polls, independent of the legislature and also reserving to the people of the State of California the power to approve or reject at the polls any act or section or part of any act of the legislature.


Initiatives
Proposition 10
Election:
General

1948

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 67.2%)
Topic Areas:
Elections-Initiative Process

Summary: Click for Summary
Adds Section 1c to Article IV of the Constitution. Provides that every constitutional amendment or statute proposed by the initiative shall relate to but one subject. Prohibits submission to the electors of initiative constitutional amendments or statutes embracing more than one subject and declares that any such initiative hereafter submitted or approved shall not go into effect.


Institutions for Felons
Proposition 3
Election:
General

1940

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 50.1%)
Topic Areas:
Criminal Justice

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends Constitution, Article X, section 7. Declares Legislature may provide for establishment, government and superintendence of all institutions for persons convicted of felonies, and for that purpose may delegate the government and superintendence of such institutions to any public governmental agency, officer or board; and may provide for punishment, treatment and custody of females differently from men similarly convicted. Until Legislature otherwise provides declares effective existing statutes and constitutional provisions purporting to cover such matters.


Instructors’ Tenure
Proposition 11
Election:
General

1936

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 25.8%)
Topic Areas:
Education: PreK-12

Summary: Click for Summary
Adds section 16 to Article IX of Constitution. Creates State Tenure Board of three members, each elected from a district, boundaries of which are defined, prescribing qualifications, terms, salary, powers and duties of members. Specifies instructors affected by amendment. Provides two-year probationary period therefor excepting those having permanent tenure. Specifies causes of dismissal of instructors. Vests State Tenure Board and local school boards with jurisdiction to hear and decide charges against instructor, prescribing procedure therefor, permitting instructors to appear and defend, and empowering State Tenure Board to sustain or overrule such decisions of local school board.

[CA]


Insurance Act
Proposition 14
Election:
General

1920

Type:
Popular Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 48.4%)
Topic Areas:
Insurance

Summary: Click for Summary
Prohibits any subsidiary corporation, agent, or employee of, or person or corporation controlled by, any bank organized under laws of California or of any state in the United States, from acting as general agent or department manager of any insurance company transacting business in California, and prescribes conditions under which they may act as local agent therefor; declares appointment of life, health and accident, title or county mutual insurance agents, or of any insurance agent in or for any place having population not exceeding five thousand, unaffected hereby; and prescribes penalties.


Insurance Claims Practices. Civil Remedy Amendments. Referendum Statute.
Proposition 31
Election:
Primary

2000

Type:
Popular Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 28.3%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law | Insurance

Summary: Click for Summary
A “yes” vote approves and a “no” vote rejects statutory amendments limit right of injured party to sue another’s insurer for unfair claims practices and exempting specified insurers under certain circumstances.
[s]


Insurance Claims Practices. Civil Remedies. Referendum Statute.
Proposition 30
Election:
Primary

2000

Type:
Popular Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 31.5%)
Topic Areas:
Civil & Constitutional Law | Insurance

Summary: Click for Summary
A “yes” vote approves, and a “no” vote rejects legislation restoring the right to sue another person’s insurer for unfair claims settlement practices following a judgment or award against the other person; barring lawsuit if insurer agrees to arbitrate original claim against insured party.

[S]


Insurance Companies: Gross Premium Tax
Proposition 6
Election:
General

1968

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 44.5%)
Topic Areas:
Insurance | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Permits Legislature to exclude from base of gross premium tax on insurance companies premiums on contracts providing retirement benefits for persons employed by public schools, public or nonprofit educational institutions of collegiate grade, or school or nonprofit organization engaged in scientific research.


Insurance Company Home Office Tax Deductin
Proposition 6
Election:
Primary

1976

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 67.0%)
Topic Areas:
Insurance | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Repeals and amends portions of Article XIII, section 28, to eliminate income tax deduction presently given insurance companies for real property taxes paid on insurers’ home or principal office in California. Financial impact: The adoption of this measure will increase state General Fund revenues by approximately $19 million during the first year and this increase will probably grow thereafter.


Insurance Guarantee Funds. Tax Offset
Proposition 3G
Election:
General

1980

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 27.7%)
Topic Areas:
Insurance

Summary: Click for Summary
Authorizes enactment of statutes by the Legislature to establish insurance guarantee funds or associations for the purpose of paying claims against insolvent insurers. Such legislation could also provide that contributions to such funds or associations by insurers may be allowed as a deductible offset against their annual gross premium tax. Fiscal impact on state or local governments: If offset allowed by legislation, could result in State General Fund loss of as much as $30 million per year.


Insurance Rates, Regulation, Commissioner.
Proposition 103
Election:
General

1988

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 51.1%)
Topic Areas:
Insurance | State Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Requires minimum 20-percent rate reduction from November 8, 1987, levels, for automobile and other property/casualty insurance. Freezes rates until November 8, 1989, unless insurance company is substantially threatened with insolvency. Thereafter requires every insurer offer any eligible person a good-driver policy with 20-percent differential. Requires public hearing and approval by elected Insurance Commissioner for automobile, other property/casualty insurance rate changes. Requires automobile premiums be determined primarily by driving record. Prohibits discrimination, price-fixing, unfair practices by insurance companies. Requires commissioner provide comparative pricing information. Authorizes insurance activities by banks.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s estimate of net state and local government impact:

Would increase Department of Insurance administrative costs by $10 to $15 million in first year, varying thereafter with workload, to be paid by additional fees on the insurance industry. State and some local governments would have unknown savings from lower insurance rates. Gross premium tax reduction of approximately $125 million for first three years offset by required premium tax rate adjustment. Thereafter, possible state revenue loss if rate reductions and discounts continue but gross premium tax is not adjusted.

[S]


Insurance Rates, Regulation.
Proposition 100
Election:
General

1988

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 40.9%)
Topic Areas:
Insurance

Summary: Click for Summary
Provides minimum 20 percent reduction in certain rates for good drivers from January 1, 1988, levels. Requires companies insure any good driver in counties where company sells automobile insurance. Requires ongoing minimum 20 percent good-driver differential. Funds automobile insurance fraud investigations, prosecutions. Provides consumers comparative automobile insurance prices. Applies laws prohibiting discrimination, price-fixing, and unfair practices to insurance companies. Requires hearing, Insurance Commissioner approval for automobile, other property/casualty, health insurance rate changes. Establishes Insurance Consumer Advocate. Increases enforcement, penalties for fraudulent health insurance sales to seniors. Cancels conflicting provisions of Propositions 101, 104, and 106 including attorney contingent fee limits and prohibits future laws setting attorney fees unless approved by voters or Legislature. Authorizes insurance activities by banks.



Summary of Legislative Analyst’s estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact:

Would increase state administrative costs by $8 million for Department of Insurance and $2 million for Department of Justice in 1988-89, varying thereafter with workload, to be paid by additional fees on the insurance industry. Would increase costs for Department of Motor Vehicles by $100,000. Would reduce state revenues from the gross premiums tax by about $20 million in first year if no other changes are made in insurance rates. Would increase revenues for Department of Insurance by over $500,000 annually from fees paid by insurance companies for fraud investigations.

[S]


Interest Rate
Proposition 12
Election:
Primary

1976

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 43.7%)
Topic Areas:
Banking & Financial Services

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends Constitution, Article XX, section 22, to permit increase in maximum permissible contract rate of interest collectible by nonexempt lender for loan or credit advance for nonpersonal, nonfamily, nonhousehold purpose to the higher of 10% per annum or 7% plus prevailing interest rate on certain designated dates. Financial impact: None.


Interest Rate – Judgments
Proposition 9
Election:
Primary

1978

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 51.2%)
Topic Areas:
Judiciary

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends Constitution, article XV, section 1, to provide that Legislature shall set interest rate on state court judgments at not more than 10% per annum. Rate may be variable and based upon rates charged by federal agencies or economic indicators, or both. In absence of such rate setting by Legislature, judgment rate shall be 7% per annum. Financial impact: Depends on legislative action. Interest costs and revenues on judgments would increase if Legislature raised rate.

[CA]


Interest Rate Limitation
Proposition 10
Election:
General

1970

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 44.9%)
Topic Areas:
Banking & Financial Services | Business & Commerce

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends and renumbers Section 23 of Article XX of the State Constitution to provide, subject to limitations the Legislature may impose, that loans over one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) may be made to corporations or partnerships without regard to restrictions of such section.


Interest Rate on State Bonds
Proposition 7-P
Election:
Primary

1970

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 56.2%)
Topic Areas:
Bond Measures

Summary: Click for Summary
If general obligation bonds of State heretofore or hereafter authorized are offered for sale and not sold Legislature may by two-thirds vote raise maximum rate of interest on all unsold bonds. Ratifies legislation increasing maximum rate of interest on bonds from 5% to 7% and eliminating maximum rate on bond anticipation notes.


Interest Rates
Proposition 12
Election:
General

1934

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 535.7%)
Topic Areas:
Banking & Financial Services

Summary: Click for Summary
Prescribes seven per cent per annum as interest rate upon loan or forbearance of money, goods or things in action, accounts after demand and judgments; permits written contract for rate not exceeding ten per cent per annum, but forbids any charges whereby borrower pays over ten per cent. Exempts from such restrictions building and loan associations, industrial loan companies, credit unions, pawnbrokers, personal property brokers, banks, and various nonprofit cooperative associations, and others, of character therein mentioned. Permits Legislature regulate said exempted classes, prescribe their maximum interest rate per annum and regulate their charges on loans.


Interest Rates Allowable
Proposition 5
Election:
General

1976

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 47.0%)
Topic Areas:
Legislatures | Tax & Revenue

Summary: Click for Summary
Except as to specified exempt lenders, such as banks, credit unions and savings and loan associations, the Constitution permits interest charges of no more than 10% per annum. This amendment would retain the 10% limit on loans made primarily for personal, family or household purposes but would, as to other loans by nonexempt lenders, increase the maximum permissible rate of interest to the higher of (a) 10% or (b) 7% plus the prevailing rate charged to member banks for monies advanced by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco for monies advanced to member banks. Financial impact: No fiscal effect on state or local government.


Intoxicating Liquors
Proposition 2
Election:
General

1934

Type:
Initiative

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 63.9%)
Topic Areas:
Business & Commerce | Drug/Alcohol/Tobacco Policy

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends Constitution, Article XX, section 22. Prohibits consumption, sale, or disposition for consumption on premises, of intoxicating liquors, except beer, in public saloons or barrooms; permits possession, sale, consumption or disposition of all liquors in bona fide hotels, restaurants, public eating places, and in bona fide clubs after one year’s lawful operation; fixes license fees therefor, giving Board of Equalization exclusive power to change same, issue liquor licenses, collect license fees and occupation taxes, requiring Legislature apportion proceeds therefrom between State, counties and cities. Continues State Liquor Control Act provisions, consistent herewith, until Legislature provides otherwise.

[CA]


Intoxicating Liquors. Local Option.
Proposition 9
Election:
General

1936

Type:
Initiative

Status: Fail (Yes votes: 32.8%)
Topic Areas:
Business & Commerce | Drug/Alcohol/Tobacco Policy | Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Adds section 26 to Article XX, California Constitution. Repeals section 22, Article XX, California Constitution, relating to intoxicating liquors. Provides that every city, town, county, city and county or territory outside of incorporated cities or towns, shall have the power to regulate, zone or prohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages within its limits.

[CA]


Investment Companies Act
Proposition 5
Election:
General

1914

Type:
Popular Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 54.4%)
Topic Areas:
Banking & Financial Services | Business & Commerce

Summary: Click for Summary
[Summary from Hastings Law Library California Ballot Measures Database]

Creates state corporation department. Authorizes governor to appoint commissioner of corporations who shall employ necessary deputies, fix their compensation, have control over investment companies and investment brokers and power of examination thereof as in state banks; prohibits issuance of securities before investigation by commissioner, regulates issuance and sale thereof, taking subscriptions therefor, advertisements and circulars respecting same; creates fund from official fees and declares salaries and expenses payable therefrom; provides for broker’s permit and agent’s certificate, reports by companies and brokers, appeal to court from commissioner’s decision, and penalties for violations.


Irrigation District Act
Proposition 15
Election:
General

1920

Type:
Popular Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 52.8%)
Topic Areas:
Agriculture | Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
Amends sections 1, 2 and 9 of act approved March 31, 1897, as subsequently amended, providing for organization of irrigation districts. Permits organization of an irrigation district by majority vote of electors instead of by two-thirds vote thereof as now provided. Rearranges existing provisions relating to petition for formation of an irrigation district and duties of State Engineer and board of supervisors in connection therewith.


Irrigation District Bonds
Proposition 1
Election:
General

1912

Type:
Legislative Referendum

Status: Pass (Yes votes: 70.5%)
Topic Areas:
Agriculture | Bond Measures | Local Government

Summary: Click for Summary
A resolution to propose to the people of the State of California an amendment to section 16 1/2 of article eleven of the constitution, relating to the deposits of moneys belonging to the state, or to any county or municipality within the state.


Irrigation Districts Controlling International Water Systems
Propos