California Proposition 51, Public School Facility Bonds

A "yes" vote supports the state issuing $9 billion in bonds to fund improvement and construction of
school facilities for K-12 schools and community colleges.
Main point: Our schools are in need of immediate attention and if we dont do a state-wide
bond, then the burden to pay for the upgrades will fall back locally, raising local taxes and
property taxes. When that happens, we create inequalities between schools in different
communities. The schools need the money now, lets pass this now and address the problem.

A "no" vote opposes the state issuing $9 billion in new debt to fund the improvement and construction
of education facilities.
Main point: While it is true that the schools need repairs, paying for it through bonds is the
governmental equivalent of borrowing. This is too expensive of a way to go about it, and this
legislation actually exacerbates inequity between school districts because the money is not
given out with any needs testing, it is given out on a first come, first serve basis. Because of
this, larger, wealthier schools can dedicate more staff to the application processes, shutting out
the ones too lean on resources to compete in filing the various pieces of paperwork.

Mechanics of the bill:

If passed, the money will be deposited in a fund and dispersed in the following ways: $3 billion for the
building of new facilities, $500 million for charter school facilities, $3 billion for the remodeling of
existing facilities, $500 million for facilities for technical education programs and $2 billion for
renovating and constructing community college facilities.

Extended arguments:
The yes people would argue that a lot of our schools are in pretty dire need, so the time to act is now.
The no people would say that they agree the schools are in need, but that this measure is not the best
way to go about it. One key issue is whether the funding for schools is better done on a local level, or on
a state level. People urging the no vote would contend keeping it local makes for better local controls
over how the money is spent and, that when funding is needed for school construction, local bond
measures work better than statewide bonds, citing last June when voters approved over 90% of local
school bonds on the ballot, providing over $5.5 billion for school construction. The counter is that due
to the fact this is a state-wide issue, using state bonds makes sense, and that without matching dollars
from a statewide school bond, taxpayers will face higher local property taxes to pay for school repairs
and upgradesand some school districts may never be able to afford fixing schools on their own. Plus,
the supporters say, that this provides needed funds to augment where the property tax dollars may not
cover all of the schools needs. But opponents of 51 point out the high amounts of interest the state is
left with when these bonds are sold. Gov. Jerry Brown called it a wall of debt because, if passed, this

proposition is expected to cost the state nearly $17.6 billion to repay, with $8.6 billion in interest in
total, and we would be paying it off for the next 35 years. Opponents point out that school enrollments
are actually expected to decline in the next 10 years, so this is a lot of money, and a long time to be
paying it off. They say spend as you go makes more sense, pointing out that interest payments double
the cost of the bond, and, even after adjusting for inflation, bond funding is roughly 30 percent to 40
percent more expensive than pay-as-you-go financing. Supporters contend that it doesnt make sense
to wait even a moment longer. They point out that California hasnt passed a statewide school bond in
ten years, and we face a massive backlog of local school projects. Our schools are in immediate need of
upgrades and repairs. While opponents recognize that is true, they have issues with the bill that go
beyond just the finances. Opponents also have some problems with the wording of the legislation,
pointing out that the money is allocated on a first come, first serve basis, rather than by any sort of
needs testing. In other words, Proposition 51 funding would go to those first in line, which opponents
believe will lead to larger, wealthier districts receiving the lion's share because they have dedicated staff
to fill out paperworkshutting out smaller, poorer districts that need help most. Supporters of the
legislation would say that getting money to the schools is urgent and this legislation addresses that
need.

California Proposition 52, Continued Hospital Fee Revenue Dedicated to Medi-Cal Unless Voters
Approve Changes

A "yes" vote supports requiring voter approval to change the dedicated use of certain fees from
hospitals used to draw matching federal money and fund Medi-Cal services. A "yes" vote also supports
continuing the hospital fee program beyond January 1, 2018, and requiring a two-thirds majority vote of
the California Legislature to end the program.
Main point: keep a good idea working. This is something that is currently in place and
supporters are mainly asking Californians to simply keep the program going.

A "no" vote opposes this initiative, allowing the fee to end on January 1, 2018, and permitting the
legislature to change, extend, or eliminate the hospital fee program with a majority vote.
Main point: the bill doesnt address other problems like hospital CEO compensation and we
should address that also.

Mechanics of the bill:

By way of some background, Medicai is a Federal program that provides health insurance services to
low income Americans. The California version of this program is called Medi-Cal. In order for a state to
receive federal funds, it needs to put up its own money. In 2009, California passed a law that had most
private hospitals voluntarily paying a fee which was used to add to the State amount and to have the
Federal government match. They pay this to the state quarterly and the reason they pay it voluntarily is
because ultimately they get more than they pay in, as the fee money serves to draw in additional
funding from the Federal government made available to help states offset the costs of more people
turning to Medicaid for care. Last year, this generated an extra $4 billion in Federal funds that the state
was able to receive to help California pay for Medi-Cal services.

Extended Arguments:
Supporters would point out that the primary opposition came from SEIU who has since withdrawn their
opposition and now states they are neutral on the legislation, meaning there is now actually no
organized opposition to it at all. They would also cite the overwhelming number of supporters this has
drawn together including the CA Democratic Party, the CA Republican Party, the California Hospital
Association as well as an incredibly long list of elected officials, newspapers across the state, doctors,
hospitals and many others, calling this a rare initiative that draws little debate or dissention.
Opponents of the bill however say that there is not enough strong language in the bill to establish
exactly how hospitals will spend the money when the Federal government does provide the matches,
claiming that there is nothing in the bill to stop the hospitals from using the Federal governments
money to bonus CEOs.

California Proposition 53: Voter Approval Requirement for Revenue Bonds above $2 Billion

A "yes" vote supports requiring voter approval before the state could issue more than $2 billion in public
infrastructure bonds that would require an increase in taxes or fees for repayment.
Main Points: Prop 53 would give voters control over whether or not the state can implement
extremely large, expensive projects. Additionally, the measure aims to protect the state's longterm fiscal health by discouraging spending that would be added to the state's debt.

A "no" vote opposes this measure requiring voter approval before the state could issue more than $2
billion in public infrastructure bonds that would require an increase in taxes or fees for repayment.
Main Points: Prop 53 would take away local control by requiring a statewide vote for many local
projects, even if the projects would be funded by local users and ratepayers. This vote
requirement would prevent or delay necessary maintenance on infrastructure projects and
systems, and there is no emergency exemption. The measure is being financed by an unnamed
multimillionaire in an attempt to disrupt a single water infrastructure project.

Mechanics of the bill:

The law would apply to all projects financed, owned, operated or managed by the state, as well as all
projects financed, owned, operated or managed by joint agencies formed between the state and local
city or county governments, another state or a federal government agency.

Extended Arguments:
Opponents point out that Prop. 53 is opposed by a broad, bipartisan coalition of organizations including
California Professional Firefighters, California Chamber of Commerce, California Hospital Association,
firefighters, paramedics, family farmers, environmentalists, nurses, law enforcement, and local
governments. They claim it would erode local control and jeopardize vital infrastructure improvements
in communities across California. Groups representing California's cities, counties and local water
agencies, including League of California Cities and Association of California Water Agencies, all oppose
Prop. 53 because under this measure, cities and towns that come together to form a joint powers
agency or similar body with the state to build needed infrastructure would have to put their local project
on a statewide ballot. They say that this means voters in faraway regions could veto some local projects
that a community may think it needs and that community supports. Supporters of the bill claim that
they are simply interested in ending what they call blank checks in government. They point out that
many projects are presented to the tax payers at 1 price and, after approval, turn out much more
expensive without the tax payer being able to have a say on the increase. Supporters of the bill say that
they are trying to put more power back in the hands of the voters, and that California and its many
governments have taken on too many different kinds of debts, so to prevent more of this, the
supporters want to slow down the governments ability to take on more big projects. While opponents

say that forcing state-wide votes on issues that would otherwise be a local decision is a bad idea.
Furthermore, the opponents point out that having no exemption for emergencies could be disastrous
because it would leave us waiting on a state-wide vote before funds could be allocated to deal with
urgent situations.

California Proposition 54: Public Display of Legislative Bills

A "yes" vote supports prohibiting the legislature from passing any bill until it has been in print and
published on the Internet for 72 hours prior to the vote.
Main points: Last-minute changes and rushed middle-of-the-night votes can and have led to
votes on bills that have radically changed from inception, with little knowledge of what is
actually being voted on -- certainly by the public and the press, but even by the legislators. Prop
54 would give elected representatives a chance to read and understand what they are voting on,
and give the public and the press an opportunity to do the same.

A "no" vote opposes this measure prohibiting the legislature from passing any bill until it has been in
print and published on the Internet for 72 hours prior to the vote.
Main points: While it sounds good, requiring the legislature to wait three days before voting on
a bill will give powerful lobbyists and well-funded special interests time to launch campaigns to
attack bipartisan compromises. The 72 hours will not be used by the public to figure out their
support of the legislation, it will be used by special interests to ensure the only things that pass
are things they like.

Mechanics of the bill:

Prop 54 prohibits the Legislature from passing any bill unless published on Internet for 72 hours before
vote. It also requires Legislature to record its proceedings and post on Internet.

Extended Arguments:
Supporters of Prop 54 claim that special interests at the State Capitol routinely make last-minute
changes to legislation to push through political favors without public comment or discussion. They say
that hundreds of pages of legislation are drafted behind closed doors, dropped onto lawmakers desks,
and put to an immediate vote before anyone can read it, which, they believe, creates reckless legislation
benefiting a few special interests at the expense of voters. Because of this, the supporters think it is
reasonable enough to require the meetings to all take place in a recorded session that will be posted to
the internet, as well as to require all bills spend 72 hours online before they can be voted upon.
Opponents of this say that rather than promoting accountability, Prop 54 will slow down the ability for
legislators to develop bipartisan solutions to our states most pressing problems. The opponents of the
bill say that there are times where they cannot wait 72 hours to pass a bill and this will lead to even
more government slow-downs. In addition, from a transparency standpoint, the opponents of this bill
point out that we already have a system of transparency where bills are posted on the internet and the
information is free and available for the public to view on a live video stream that is recorded and stored
within an accessible web database/archive. The Supporters of the legislation point to the many
organizations, business groups, tax payer associations and newspapers that also support the measure

and point out that, although the State Constitution says legislative meetings are supposed to be open to
the public, few people are able to attend those meetings in person. Many proceedings go completely
unobserved by the public and press, often leaving no record of what was said.

California Proposition 55, Extension of the Proposition 30 Income Tax Increase

A "yes" vote supports extending the personal income tax increases on incomes over $250,000 approved
in 2012 for 12 years in order to fund education and healthcare.
Main arguments: Proposition 55 prevents billions in budget cuts without raising taxesit simply
leaves the tax rates where they are today. We can't afford to go back to the days of devastating
cuts and teacher layoffs, and without increasing taxes, we can get money to schools with a bill
that has strict transparency and accountability requirements to ensure education funds get to
the classroom.

A "no" vote opposes extending the personal income tax increases on incomes over $250,000 approved
in 2012 for 12 years, allowing the tax increase to expire in 2019.
Main arguments: California has a balanced budget, we've reduced debt, increased school
spending, put billions into California's "rainy day fund" and still have a $2.7 billion budget
surplustemporary should mean temporary and we can allow these to expire as planned now
that we have recovered.

Mechanics of the bill:

Prop 55 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). It allocates these tax revenues 89% to K12 schools and 11% to California Community
Colleges, as well as allocates up to $2 billion per year in certain years for healthcare programs. It also
bars use of education revenues for administrative costs, but provides local school boards discretion to
decide, in open meetings and subject to annual audit, how revenues are to be spent.

Extended Arguments:
Opponents of the bill say that an extension of Proposition 30 would make the tax virtually permanent,
even when the states budget is balanced. In fact, opponents have noted that the state currently has in
excess of $3 billion in reserves and the Governor has proposed a balanced budget that pays down debt
and saves even more for future economic downturns. They claim that the state should be able to
manage financially without extending big tax hikes on entrepreneurs and small-business owners, who
could put up with heavy taxes for four years when they were sold as temporary but might well flee if
they felt permanent. On the flip side, supporters point out that California public school funding was cut
to the bone during the recession, forcing more than 30,000 teacher layoffs, huge class sizes, and the
elimination of programs like music and art that they say make our kids well-rounded. The supporters
claim that public schools and colleges are just starting to come back from these cuts, and unless we pass
Prop. 55 to maintain the current income tax rates on the wealthiest Californians, our schools will lose $4
billion a year. Furthermore, say the supporters, California is facing a severe teacher shortage where

there is a need to hire more than 22,000 teachers next year alone, and there is still a need to hire
education support professionals like library aides, bus drivers and custodians. The supporters say that
funding from Prop. 55 will give local school districts the money they need to hire quality teachers and
school employees, and to reduce class sizes. Opponents however counter that revenue from the
personal income tax is highly volatile, and any anticipated revenue from this initiative might be
significantly reduced if California is faced with future recessions. Plus, the opponents say, passing an
extension now is premature, because Proposition 30 taxes do not expire for another two-and-a-half
yearsgiving Californians more time to look at budget needs, adjust overall tax code, and review this
again at that time.

California Proposition 56: Tobacco Tax Increase

A "yes" vote favors increasing the cigarette tax by $2.00 per pack, with equivalent increases on other
tobacco products and electronic cigarettes.
Main arguments: If you dont smoke, you dont pay, because Prop 56 works like a user fee,
taxing tobacco users to help pay for the tobacco-related costs they create. California taxpayers
spend $3.5 billion each year on tobacco-related diseases. The majority of funds generated by
this tobacco tax will be used to improve existing health care programs, prevent smoking, and
fund research into cancer and other tobacco-related diseases.

A "no" vote opposes increasing the cigarette tax by $2.00 per pack, with equivalent increases on other
tobacco products and electronic cigarettes.
Main arguments: The initiative does not allocate funds in manner consistent with its promise to
save lives.

Mechanics of the bill:

California has a tobacco excise tax of $0.87 per pack of cigarettes. The mean or average state tobacco
tax is $1.65. Fourteen states have lower tobacco taxes than California, while 34 states and D.C. have
higher taxes. The federal government levies a $1.01 tobacco tax in 2016. Revenue from the current
state tax on tobacco goes to the General Fund, tobacco prevention, healthcare services for low-income
persons, environmental protection, breast cancer screenings and research, and early childhood
development programs. Proposition 56 would increase the tobacco tax by $2.00, bringing the total
tobacco tax up to $2.87 per pack of cigarettes. The tobacco tax would be levied on other tobacco
products and e-cigarettes as well. Revenue from the additional $2.00 tax would be allocated to
physician training, prevention and treatment of dental diseases, Medi-Cal, tobacco-use prevention,
research into cancer, heart and lung diseases, and other tobacco-related diseases, and school programs
focusing on tobacco-use prevention and reduction.

Extended arguments:
Supporters of the bill point out that higher tobacco taxes are proven to reduce youth smoking, yet
California's tobacco tax is among the lowest in the nation. Nearly every major newspaper and hundreds
of other organizations, including the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, American Lung
Association in California, and the American Heart Association support this initiative because taxing
tobacco saves lives by getting people to quit or never start this deadly and costly habit. Opponents
argue that this bill isnt fair because California law mandates that when new taxes are created, a portion
of new taxes are supposed to go to schools, but none of these funds would go to schools. The bills
supporters counter that it is a usage fee and take issue with the implication that they are taking money
away from schoolspointing out that failing to give to schools is not the same as actually taking away

from schools. The supporters point out that the money raised in this bill is incredibly well regulated
because this initiative prohibits politicians from using the funds raised through this tobacco tax for any
purposes other than those explicitly laid out in the proposition. It strictly limits administrative spending
to no more than 5 percent of the revenue generated by the tax and it also requires biennial audits by
the nonpartisan State Auditor and that reports be made available to the public. Opponents of the
measure say that while the allocation of who gets what percentage of the money is indeed clear, if we
are going to tax smokers another $1.4 billion per year, then more should be dedicated to helping them
and keeping kids from starting. The opponents of the measure point to the percentage of money they
say are going to special interests. Supporters of the bill counter by pointing out that the primary
opposition is funded by the tobacco companies and the special interests they are talking about are
cancer research funds and other health care funds to combat the costs of tobacco related diseases.

California Proposition 57, Parole for Non-Violent Criminals and Juvenile Court Trial Requirements

A "yes" vote supports increasing parole and good behavior opportunities for felons convicted of
nonviolent crimes and allowing judges, not prosecutors, to decide whether to try certain juveniles as
adults in court.
Main arguments: The proposition would provide a sustainable way to reduce California's
overcrowded prison population while rehabilitating juvenile and adult inmates, it would still
keep dangerous offenders in prison and would save taxpayers millions of dollars. Additionally it
address a need to shift how we determine if a juvenile is tried as an adultmoving that
responsibility to judges and not prosecutors.

A "no" vote opposes this measure increasing parole and good behavior opportunities for felons
convicted of nonviolent crimes and favors keeping the current system of having prosecutors decide
whether to try certain juveniles as adults in court
Main arguments: The proposition was poorly drafted and would allow criminals convicted of
crimes like rape, lewd acts against a child, and human trafficking to be released early from
prison. The proposition would allow career criminals to be treated as first offenders. Moreover,
California has already reduced its prison population by some 50,000 inmates since 2009, nearing
its target goal. Its not clear whether such a drastic change in the states sentencing laws is
needed, let alone desired.

Mechanics of the bill:

Those convicted of nonviolent felony crimes who have served full sentences for their primary offense
and passed screening for public security would be eligible for parole. That would make about 7,000
inmates immediately eligible. Additionally, Proposition 57 would allow inmates to earn credits for good
behavior and educational or rehabilitative achievements. Inmates use credits to reduce time spent in
prison. By way of some background, in 2009 the Supreme Court found Californias jails so overcrowded
that it mandated California address that problem. To that end, California voters approved Proposition
47 in 2014, which reduced nonviolent, non-serious crimes to misdemeanors and gave more inmates a
higher chance for parole consideration, and prison numbers dropped. Proposition 57 is partly another
response to the 2009 federal order mandating that California reduce its prison population numbers. As
of the beginning of 2016, there were about 25,000 nonviolent state felons that could seek early release
and parole under Proposition 57. Additionally, instead of prosecutors, judges would decide whether to
try juveniles as young as 14 years old in adult court. Prosecutors were given the right to directly file
charges against juvenile offenders in adult court when voters approved Proposition 21 in 2000

Extended arguments:

Many in the law enforcement community have come out saying that this legislation has a real chance to
increase crime rates. Not only that, opponents argue, but the proposition would force victims to relive
their experience more often with more parole hearings. Supporters of the legislation say that it will give
inmates a new incentive to change their behavior, both in prison and after releaseclaiming that, for
many inmates, prisons may at last become instruments of rehabilitation. The opponents counter that
this proposition would overturn provisions of victims' rights legislation like Marsy's Law, the Victim's Bill
of Rights, and the Californians Against Sexual Exploitation Act. However, in rebuttal, the supporters of
the bill point to the need to reduce prison populations, admitting that, yes, there are risks, but with or
without this initiative, its possible we face a need to release felons due to overcrowding. Better that
they earn their freedom by bettering themselves, supporters claim. The opponents point out that
Proposition 57 is seriously lacking important specificsmost notably that its authors did not even define
what a nonviolent crime, telling the public that this glaring lack of precision is reason enough to vote
no. The supporters counter claiming that violent criminals are already defined in Penal Code 667.5(c),
that those offenders are already excluded from parole and this legislation does not change that.
Supporters go on to say that not only does it save tens of millions in tax payer dollars, but it actually tries
to reduce the prison population long term but attempting rehabilitation techniques in an effort to lower
re-offending. The supporters claim it can help fix a broken system where inmates leave prison without
rehabilitation, reoffend and cycle back into the system, pointing to evidence that shows that the more
inmates are rehabilitated, the less likely they are to reoffend, and further evidence which shows that
minors who remain under juvenile court supervision are less likely to commit new crimes. Opponents
say we are already on track to reducing our prison population and this bill will likely result in higher
crime rates as at least 16,000 dangerous criminals would be eligible for early release.

California Proposition 58, Non-English Languages Allowed in Public Education

A "yes" vote supports repealing most of the 1998 Proposition 227, the "English in Public Schools"
Initiative, thus effectively allowing non-English languages to be used in public educational instruction.
Main arguments: Kids who dont speak English as a first language benefit from being taught in
schools with a mix of English and also their native language. Additionally, kids who do speak
English as a first language benefit from being in a school where other languages might be more
encouraged.

A "no" vote opposes repealing most of Proposition 227, which was designed to prohibit non-English
languages from being used in public schools.
Main arguments: Kids who are not native English speakers actually get better faster when they
are totally immersed in the language and speaking to them in other languages will actually
hinder the how well they take to the English language.

Mechanics of the bill:

Proposition 58 would no longer require English-only education for English learners. Schools would be
allowed to utilize multiple programs, including bilingual education. In bilingual programs, students learn
from teachers who speak both their native language and English. Furthermore, parental waivers would
no longer be needed to take non-English-only classes. If requested by enough parents, schools would be
required to offer specific English learner programs. School districts and county offices of education
would ask for annual feedback on English learner programs from parents and community members.

Extended Arguments:
Opponents say that for decades, millions of Latino children were forced into Spanish-Almost-Only
classes, and those classes were an educational disaster and never worked. The opponents of this
measure claim that many Latinos never learned how to read, write, or even speak English properly as a
result of being spoken to too much in their native language. They point out that after 1998s EnglishOnly legislation passed, test scores went up and English-Learners became fluent much quicker.
Supporters of the bill say that the 1998 legislation is decades old, that is it too restrictive, and it is time
to repeal much of it. The supporters claim that Proposition 58 allows local school districts to choose the
most up-to-date language instruction methods to improve student outcomes, free from legal
restrictions imposed on them by the 1998 legislation, and while they admit that the English-immersion
system may help students learn English, they claim that they lag behind in other classes. Opponents of
the measure counter by saying that it is being pushed primarily by teachers unions trying to preserve
jobs of language teachers who lead bilingual classes.

It has been nearly two decades since California imposed significant restrictions on bilingual education
and mandated English-only instruction for the state's English-language learners (ELLs). Schools classified
about 1.4 million of these students as ELLs, meaning they were not yet fluent in English. English learners
make up 22 percent of all public school students in California, and more than 80 percent of English
learners in California are native Spanish speakers.

California Proposition 59, Overturn of Citizens United Act Advisory Question

A "yes" vote supports advising the state's elected officials to use their authority to overturn the Citizens
United v. Federal Election Commission decision, potentially through an amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
Main arguments: The People should have the right to set reasonable limits on the raising and
spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections. Voting yes on Prop 59 will
help tell Congress to pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that puts an end to this
corrosive political spending. California voters have used ballot measures to instruct and
improve our state and local governments before, and Prop 59 allows us to do this on this critical
issue.

A "no" vote opposes this measure advising the state's elected officials to use their authority to overturn
the Citizens United v. FEC decision.
Main arguments: The proposition is a non-binding advisory question, and therefore would clog
the November ballot and act as a "feel-good" measure. Furthermore, when you are asking
Congress to make amendments that pertain to speech, you are encroaching on the 1st
amendment, and that is so sacred that we need to strike Prop 59 down.

Mechanics of the bill:

Proposition 59 would call on Californias elected officials to work on overturning Citizens United v.
Federal Election Commission and other similar judicial precedents, whether though a constitutional
amendment or other means. Furthermore, the initiative would ask officials to allow for the full
regulation or limitation of campaign contributions and spending and make clear that corporations
should not have the same constitutional rights as human beings. As an advisory question, Proposition
59 would not legally require officials to act as the measure advises them to.

Extended Arguments:
Opponents of this bill take issue with Proposition 59s arguement that "corporations aren't people." The
problem, they say is that is a blanket statement and many Churches are incorporated, Newspapers and
Television networks are incorporated, Facebook, Google, and Twitter are incorporated, even
organizations like Common Cause, the League of Women Voters, and the American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU) are incorporated, and the opponents of this measure say that people shouldn't lose their
Constitutional rights just because they choose to become involved in a company or organization that is
incorporated. Supporters of the measure counter that Citizens United is clearly a bad thing. They say
the Citizens United decision, which in part classifies corporations as 'citizens,' giving them the ability to
contribute to political campaigns, is credited with pouring special interest money into campaigns. They
contend that we need to send a clear message that corporations are not people and use the phrase

They dont vote. They dont get sick. They dont fight and die in wars. when talking about how they
should not be granted the same rights as people. Opponents counter by pointing out that this is just an
advisory measure that technically doesnt force our legislation to do anything. Opponents take issue
with this saying that the real message to send is: in a state with so much to vote on already, our ballots
should not be clogged with pointless non-binding measures, so stop wasting tax payer dollars with these
measures. And there are some supporters of the bill who agree with that point, but say even though
they werent thrilled about cluttering the ballot with an advisory measure, now that Proposition 59 is
before voters, it is worth supporting, if only to avoid sending the wrong message about our feelings on
the idea of money in politics.

California Proposition 60, Condoms in Pornographic Films

A "yes" vote supports requiring the use of condoms and other protective measures during the filming of
pornographic films, as well as requiring pornography producers to pay for certain health requirements
and checkups.
Main arguments: Nobody should have to risk their health in order to keep their job. Currently
producers will blacklist and fire workers who want to use a condom and the actors have to pay
for their own testing. Its been the law since 1992 anyways in California and this proposition
simply seeks to close some of the loopholes that prevent it from being enforced properly.
A "no" vote opposes this measure requiring the use of condoms and other safety measures during the
filming of pornographic films.
Main arguments: The initiative creates a new private right of action authorizing the Proponent
and all 38 million residents of California to file lawsuits directly against adult film performers,
on-set crew, and even cable and satellite television companies who distribute the films. Even
injured performers can be sued directly- by anyone. No other worker in California can be sued
this way. This 13-page measure is so poorly drafted it is the only initiative this year opposed by
the CA Democratic and the CA Republicaneven the California Libertarian Party opposes Prop
60.
Mechanics of the bill:
Proposition 60 would require adult film producers to provide condoms and ensure that performers use
them during performances in which "performers actually engage in vaginal or anal penetration by a
penis." While condoms would not need to be visible in films distributed to consumers, producers would
need to prove that condoms were used. The costs of performers' workplace-related medical
examinations, sexually-transmitted infections (STI) tests, and STI vaccines would be covered by film
producers under the measure. Adult film producers would be required to be licensed by Cal/OSHA every
two years. Furthermore, producers would be required to contact Cal/OSHA whenever they make an
adult film

Extended Arguments:
Supporters say that the assumption that film producers will just pick up and leave California for a more
regulatory-friendly state is wrong saying that the reason California is the major producer of adult and
pornographic films is exactly because most other states have laws restricting the industry. They say that
Proposition 60 clarifies the laws requiring adult or pornographic film actors must wear condoms or other
safety device and claim that it is no different than requiring oilfield workers to wear hard hats,
healthcare workers to wear latex gloves, or machinery operators to wear goggles. While the opponents
of the measure agree with the idea of workplace safety in general, a major criticism is the language of
the bill. Opponents say the proposition would, in effect, make every Californian a potential condom cop
by both mandating condom use and creating a private right of action so that any resident who spots a
violation in a pornographic film shot in the state could sue and collect cash from the producers and

purveyors if they prevail in court. They say this is an extreme approach and demonstrably
counterproductive, pointing out that we really dont want to offer bounties and invite even more
frivolous lawsuits. Supporters counter that porn producers refuse to provide a safe workplace for their
performer, and as a result, thousands of workers have been exposed to serious and life-threatening
diseases. They say that it is time to hold the pornographers accountable for worker safety and health in
Californias adult film industry.

California Proposition 61, California Drug Price Standards

A "yes" vote supports regulating drug prices by requiring state agencies to pay no more than the U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) pays for prescription drugs.
Main arguments: Right now the state has to negotiate on its own for the prescriptions that it
gets. Currently while the VA pays about 42 percent of market prices for their prescriptions,
those in the California Medicaid system pay about 51 percent. Lets stop pharmaceutical price
gauging and ensure that if they want the state of Californias business, they give us the same
discounting they seem to be able to afford for the VA.

A "no" vote opposes this measure to require state agencies to pay no more than the VA pays for
prescription drugs.
Main arguments: There is nothing in this measure to control pharmaceutical companies. We
dont know if this legislation will lead to them saying that they cannot offer the drugs at those
prices and then tens of millions of Californians lose access to their drugs. We also dont know if,
in order to keep Californias business and keep in line with the legislation, they wont simply
raise the costs that the VA pays. There are a lot of unknowns here with what the consequences
might be and messing around with peoples access to pills is not something you embark on with
this many unknowns.

Mechanics of the bill:

In California, state agencies negotiate drug prices with manufacturers in attempts to receive discounts
and lower prices. In some situations, state agencies independently negotiate drug prices, leading to
different agencies of the state paying different prices for the same drug. In other situations, state
agencies jointly negotiate drug prices. This initiative was designed to restrict the amount that any state
agency could pay for drugs, tying it to the price paid by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
Specifically, it would forbid state agencies to enter into any purchasing agreement with drug
manufacturers unless the net cost of the drug is the same or less than that paid by the VA.

Extended Arguments:
Opponents of this measure point out that it sounds good on the surface, but that The US Department of
Veterans Affairs receives special discounts on prescription drugs for veterans. They claim that this
measure could result in eliminating these discounts, and increasing prescription drug prices for veterans.
They highlight the fact that the measure is opposed by more than a dozen veteran groups for this
reason. Furthermore, opponents say, that risking this damage to our veterans prescriptions doesnt
make sense in this bill because the proposition only covers what they call an arbitrary group of patients
in certain state government programs, including some government employees and state prisoners
pointing out that more than 88% of Californians are excluded. Supporters of the measure question the

high sums of money that the pharmaceutical industry has spent to fight this bill, and ask voters to
consider that as an indicator of what the measure has the power to accomplish. Supporters say that
pharmaceutical companies are throwing huge cash to defeat 61, arguing that the proposition is riddled
with unknowns, but, the supporters contend, thats not reason enough to vote against it, and it is time
to send a message that could kick-start drug-price reform. The opponents of the measure counter that
it is not just the pharmaceutical companies who are against it, but almost every major newspaper in the
state, as well as veterans, medical associations and countless doctors who all believe the net impact will
be a negative one. In fact, opponents say, most of those opposing this measure are not doing so out of
any support for the pharmaceutical industry. The opponents say that the main reason for being against
the bill is that a link between Medi-Cal and the VA is not necessarily a good corollary because their
respective patient bases have different demographics and medical needs. Also, the opponents say, the
fear of reduced access to certain drugs is legitimate, concluding that the ideal outcome for Prop. 61
would be a one-vote loss, which would send a message to the industry and the politicians who cater to it
that the status quo is not acceptable.(but the) measure contains too much risk, with too many lives
dependent on access to life-sustaining drugs. Supporters come back with the idea that we have to start
somewhere and that sending a message to the drug companies is a vital step in addressing our health
care costs and that it is unacceptable that the exact drugs that we buy in our country are sold in Canada,
Britain and other countries for a fraction of the price.

California Proposition 62, Repeal of the Death Penalty

A "yes" vote supports repealing the death penalty and making life without the possibility of parole the
maximum punishment for murder.
Main arguments: California's death penalty system has failed. Taxpayers have spent more than
$5 billion since 1978 to carry out 13 executions. This proposition would save taxpayer money by
replacing a costly, inefficient system that is unworkable. It would also provide criminals the
opportunity to work and pay restitution to victims' families, give victims' families closure, and
most importantly, the proposition would eliminate the risk of executing an innocent person.

A "no" vote opposes this measure repealing the death penalty.

Main arguments: We know the system is broken and there is another measure on the ballot to
amend it. Fixing it and not eliminating it is the way to go. Proposition 62 says the most heinous
crimes should have no higher level of punishment. We disagree.

Mechanics of the bill:

The measure would repeal the state death penalty and replace the maximum punishment for murder
with life in prison without possibility of parole. It would apply retroactively to those already sentenced
to death. The measure would also require all persons found guilty of murder to work while in state
prison in order to pay debts to victims of the crime committed. Current law requires 20 to 50 percent of
an inmate's earnings to be deducted from his or her wages to pay these debts. Proposition 62 would
change this range to 20 to 60 percent

Extended Arguments:
Opponents of Proposition 62 take issue with the fact that, under the bill, the worst of the worst get to
stay alive, at the taxpayers' expense, decades after committing their horrible crimes, and mocking the
pain of their victims' families. They point out that the death penalty is reserved for only the worst
murderers like child killers, rape/torture murderers, and serial murderers, which equates to just 1- 2% of
about 2,000 murders in California annually who end up with a death sentence. Opponents of the
measure say that we all know California's death penalty system is brokendeath row inmates are now
able to file one frivolous appeal after another, denying justicebut, they say, the answer is to mend,
not end, California's death penalty laws. The supporters say that simply isnt a reality. They point out
that California has not executed anyone in 10 years because of the systems serious problems. For
nearly 40 years, every attempted fix has failed to make the death penalty system work. It's simply
unworkable, supporters of the measure claim. Furthermore, the supporters point to the times we have
seen new advances in technology exonerate innocent people. They remind us that DNA technology and
new evidence have proven the innocence of more than 150 people on death row after they were
sentenced to death. In California, 66 people had their murder convictions overturned because new

evidence showed they were innocent. Statistics that the supporters of this bill say should be reason
enough to vote yes. The opponents counter by pointing out specific people who are currently on death
row that this bill would apply topeople that have done horrible, horrible things, and whos guilt is not
even in question. The opponents claim that we owe it to the victims and their families to amend the
process and carry out these peoples sentences.

By way of some background Proposition 62 and Proposition 66 are not compatible measures. Therefore,
if both are approved by a majority of voters, then the one with the most "yes" votes would supersede
the other.

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

A "yes" vote supports prohibiting the possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines and requiring
certain individuals to pass a background check in order to purchase ammunition.
Main arguments: The proposition would protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to own guns
for self-defense, hunting, and recreation, but work to keep guns and ammunition out of the
wrong hands by closing loopholes in existing law.

A "no" vote opposes this proposal to prohibit the possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines
and require certain individuals to pass a background check in order to purchase ammunition.
Main arguments: Prop 63 is overwhelmingly opposed by the law enforcement community and
civil rights groups because it will burden law abiding citizens without keeping violent criminals
and terrorists from accessing firearms and ammunition. In fact, New York recently abandoned
its enforcement of a similar proposal after it was passed, finding that it was impossible to
implement and effectively maintain.

Mechanics of the bill:

Proposition 63 would require individuals who wish to purchase ammunition to first obtain a permit.
Dealers would be required to check this permit before selling ammunition. The measure would
eliminate several exemptions to the large-capacity magazines ban and increase the penalty for
possessing them. Proposition 63 would also enact a court process that attempts to ensure prohibited
individuals do not continue to have firearms. Proposition 63 would also make stealing a gun, including
one valued at less than $950, a felony punishable by up to three years in prison.

Extended Arguments:
Supporters of the measure believe that Proposition 63s limits are reasonable and while they admit that
these measures may not stop the next determined lawbreakers shooting spree, they contend that
limiting easy access to bullets and boosting efforts to take guns from those who shouldnt have them
should help reduce the number gun deaths seen across America each year. Opponents of this measure
point out that this measure mainly just duplicates existing laws and that all it is really doing is moving
them from the law book into the State Constitution where is just makes is that much harder of a process
to tweak them in the future. They claim that certain politicians are doing this simply to get their names
on the constitutional amendments, but warn that we are just making it harder on ourselves to change
aspects of this is we find out that some of the pieces had unintended consequences that need to be
adjusted. They say that making laws more permanent is precisely the problem, because an initiative
can't be changed to correct problems without going back to voters. They claim that Constitutional
Amendments should be a last resort when lawmakers refuse to deal with an important issue, and this

particular bill mainly duplicates existing laws. Supporters counter that the restrictions in Prop. 63 are
sensible, practical, respectful of the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Californians, and in the
interest of public safety, and indeed should be moved to our constitution.

California Proposition 64, California Marijuana Legalization

A "yes" vote supports legalizing recreational marijuana for persons aged 21 years or older under state
law and establishing certain sales and cultivation taxes.
Main arguments: The proposition has specific safeguards that would protect children while
allowing responsible adult use of marijuana. The proposition would incorporate best practices
from other states that already legalized marijuana use, and it would generate tax revenue and
decrease law enforcement costs, providing funding for things like afterschool programs, drug
prevention education and drug/alcohol addiction treatment, law enforcement training and
research on impaired driving, and other programs.
A "no" vote opposes this proposal to legalize recreational marijuana under state law and to establish
certain sales and cultivation taxes.
Main arguments: The proposition could result in more highway fatalities and more impaired
driving, it could increase black market and drug cartel activity, and even allows for marijuana
growing near schools and parks. Additionally troubling is the fact that while Tobacco ads have
been banned from television for decades, Proposition 64 will allow marijuana smoking ads in
prime time, and on programs with millions of children and teenage viewers.

Mechanics of the bill:

Proposition 64 would legalize the recreational use of marijuana for adults aged 21 years or older.
Smoking would be permitted in a private home or at a business licensed for on-site marijuana
consumption. Smoking would remain illegal while driving a vehicle, anywhere smoking tobacco is, and in
all public places. Up to 28.5 grams of marijuana and 8 grams of concentrated marijuana would be legal
to possess. However, possession on the grounds of a school, day care center, or youth center while
children are present would remain illegal. An individual would be permitted to grow up to six plants
within a private home, as long as the area is locked and not visible from a public place.
Revenue from the two taxes would be deposited in a new California Marijuana Tax Fund. First, the
revenue would be used to cover costs of administrating and enforcing the measure. Next, it would be
distributed to drug research, treatment, and enforcement, including:
$2 million per year to the UC San Diego Center for Medical Cannabis Research to study medical
marijuana.
$10 million per year for 11 years for public California universities to research and evaluate the
implementation and impact of Proposition 64. Researchers would make policy-change
recommendations to the California Legislature and California Governor.
$3 million annually for five years to the Department of the California Highway Patrol for developing
protocols to determine whether a vehicle driver is impaired due to marijuana consumption.

$10 million, increasing each year by $10 million until settling at $50 million in 2022, for grants to local
health departments and community-based nonprofits supporting "job placement, mental health
treatment, substance use disorder treatment, system navigation services, legal services to address
barriers to reentry, and linkages to medical care for communities disproportionately affected by past
federal and state drug policies."
The remaining revenue would be distributed as follows:
60 percent to youth programs, including drug education, prevention, and treatment.
20 percent to prevent and alleviate environmental damage from illegal marijuana producers.
20 percent to programs designed to reduce driving under the influence of marijuana and a grant
program designed to reduce negative impacts on health or safety resulting from the proposition.

Extended Arguments:
Supporters claim that in addition to the positive benefits we would enjoy with newly generated revenue
that legalizing the use of recreational marijuana would also go a long way in helping to solve some deepseated inequities, particularly toward people of color in the criminal justice system. Some of the worst
casualties of Americas drug war have been those found in possession of marijuana, with bizarre prison
sentences being doled out seemingly at the presiding judges discretion. Opponents of the measure
admit that full legal marijuana use likely is in Californias future, but say that voters shouldnt bring it
about via Proposition 64. They say that as a ballot initiative, the measure has deficiencies that will be
difficult to correct without a subsequent statewide public vote later, claiming that time should be taken
to craft a strong measure that helps ensure legal pot doesnt become a state-sanctioned source of new
societal ills. The supporters counter that on balance, the proposition deserves a yes vote. It is
ultimately better for public health, for law and order and for society if marijuana is a legal, regulated and
controlled product for adults, they claim. Proposition 64 while not perfect offers a logical,
pragmatic approach to legalization that also would give lawmakers and regulators the flexibility to
change the law to address the inevitable unintended consequences say supporters.

California Proposition 65, Dedication of Revenue from Disposable Bag Sales to Wildlife Conservation
Fund

A "yes" vote supports redirecting money collected from the sale of carry-out bags by grocery or other
retail stores to a special fund administered by the Wildlife Conservation Board.
Main arguments: The proposition would stop the deal made between legislators and lobbyists
that allowed grocery stores to keep plastic bag fee revenue as extra profits, giving voters an
additional opportunity to voice how they want revenue from bag bans to be spent.

A "no" vote opposes this measure redirecting money collected from the sale of carry-out bags by
grocery or other retail stores to a special fund administered by the Wildlife Conservation Board.
Main arguments: The proposition would create an unnecessary bureaucracy to deal with a small
amount of revenue. The reality is that Plastic bag manufacturers are doing this in hopes of
undermining businesses support for Prop 67 by making them bear the full cost of more
expensive, recycled paper bags. It would also erode the publics support, by turning the 10-cent
fee into a government tax, because taxes are unpopular.

Mechanics of the bill:

Proposition 65 was designed to require all revenue generated by state-mandated sale of carryout bags
to be earmarked for a new environmental fund called the Environmental Protection and Enhancement
Fund (EPEF). The EPEF would be housed in the California Treasury and managed by the Wildlife
Conservation Board. The Wildlife Conservation Board would utilize the fund for environmental
protection and grants to environmental conservation organizations. Grants could be used for drought
mitigation; clean drinking water supplies; recycling; litter removal; wildlife habitat restoration; beach
cleanup; and state, regional, and local parks. Organizations receiving grants would not be permitted to
use more than 5 percent of the grant to cover administrative costs. The California state auditor would
conduct a biennial financial audit of organizations receiving grants. Proposition 65 would also authorize
local governments to mandate that revenue generated from local laws requiring carryout bags be
deposited into the EPEF.

Extended Arguments:
Opponents of the bill say that Prop 65 promises a lot however, in reality, will deliver little for the
environment. The say that it was placed on the ballot by four out-of-state plastic bag companies who
keep interfering with California's efforts to reduce plastic pollution. The opponents of the measure
claim that 65 is designed to distract from the issue at hand: phasing out plastic shopping bags. All 65
would do is direct funding from the sale of paper bags (an option under the plastic bag ban) to a new
state fund. The money for this fund is a drop in the bucket and will shrink over time as people adjust to
bringing reusable bags. They say to actually protect the environment, to vote yes on 67. Supporters of

the legislation claim that Proposition 65 is needed to STOP grocery stores from keeping all the money
collected from carryout bag taxes as profit instead of helping the environment. They say that grocery
stores stand to gain up to $300 million in added profits each and every year unless you vote yes on Prop
65, and they believe that money should be dedicated to the environment, not more profits for
corporate grocery chains. They claim it is a sweetheart deal with the grocery stores and that we
should dedicate bag fees to worthy environmental causes. The opponents of the measure point out that
all of the major newspapers in the state oppose the measure, and many of them have blatantly called it
a dirty trick by the plastic bag industry, saying that Proposition 65 was placed on the ballot by the plastic
bag industry either to confuse voters or to punish grocery stores for supporting the ban, noting that
even environmental groups think Proposition 65 is a bad idea.
By way of some background, if both 65 and 67 were to pass, the one receiving the most votes will decide
who keeps the bag fees.

California Proposition 66, Death Penalty Procedures

A "yes" vote supports changing the procedures governing state court appeals and petitions that
challenge death penalty convictions and sentences.
Main arguments: The proposition would keep the death penalty system, which California needs,
but it would speed up the appeals process, saving tax payers millions of dollars. The proposition
would mean that the worst criminals receive the strongest sentence, providing closure to
victims' families.

A "no" vote opposes changing the procedures governing state court appeals and petitions that challenge
death penalty convictions and sentences and favors keeping the current system for governing death
penalty appeals and petitions.
Main arguments: The proposition would stop the deal made between legislators and lobbyists
that allowed grocery stores to keep plastic bag fee revenue as extra profits, giving voters an
additional opportunity to voice how they want revenue from bag bans to be spent.

Mechanics of the bill:

Instead of the California Supreme Court, Proposition 66 would put trial courts in charge of initial
petitions, known as habeas corpus petitions, challenging death penalty convictions. The judge who
handled the original murder case would hear the habeas corpus petition, unless good cause can be
shown for another judge or court. Petitions would be appealed to California Courts of Appeal and then
finally to the California Supreme Court. The measure would require the habeas corpus petition process
and appeals to be completed within five years after the death sentence. Qualifications required to
represent convicted inmates would change in order to "ensure competent representation" and "expand
the number of attorneys." Trial courts would replace the Supreme Court as the judicial body that
appoints attorneys for habeas corpus petitions. Inmates on death row would be required to work,
subject to state regulations, under Proposition 66. The measure would require 70 percent of earnings
from work be allocated to debts owed to the inmate's victims. The state would be allowed to house
death row inmates in any prison, rather than the one death row prison for men and one death row
prison for women

Extended Arguments:

Supporters of this legislation agree that the current system is flawed and say that the endless appeals
are the problem. The supporters say that just because the system is in need of fixing, does not mean we
should eliminate the death penalty all togetherthe solution is to mend, not end, they claim.
Opponents of the measure counter that evidence shows innocent people have been put to death in the

past, and it is time to rid our state of the ultimate punishment. They say that this has the possibility to
increase California's risk of executing an innocent person by removing important legal safeguards, calling
Proposition 66 a flawed attempt to salvage the death penalty by speeding up its imposition. Supporters
of the measure say is was written well, pointing out that it was actually drafted by frontline death
penalty prosecutors, who know the system inside and out. The supporters point out that of the nearly
2,000 murders in California annually, only about 15 death penalty sentences are imposed. The
supporters of the legislation believe that when these horrible crimes occur, and a jury unanimously finds
a criminal guilty and separately, unanimously recommends death, then the appeals should be heard
within five years, and the killer executed. Opponents of the measure say that there is likely to be a cost
to tax payers and, more importantly, the risk of putting an innocent person to death is reason enough to
vote this measure down and to support Prop 62.

By way of some background Proposition 62 and Proposition 66 are not compatible measures. Therefore,
if both are approved by a majority of voters, then the one with the most "yes" votes would supersede
the other.

California Proposition 67, Plastic Bag Ban Veto Referendum

A "yes" vote supports upholding the contested legislation banning certain plastic bags that was enacted
by the California State Legislature as Senate Bill 270.
Main arguments: The proposition would continue California's success in phasing out plastic
bagsnearly half the state has already banned plastic bags. Recycling plastic bags isnt enough
in California, because less than 5 percent get recycled.
A "no" vote opposes banning certain plastic bags and enacting Senate Bill 270.
Main arguments: The proposition would keep the death penalty system, which California needs,
but it would speed up the appeals process, saving tax payers millions of dollars. The proposition
would mean that the worst criminals receive the strongest sentence, providing closure to
victims' families.

Mechanics of the bill:

If Proposition 67 is approved by the state's voters, it would ratify Senate Bill 270. The measure would
prohibit large grocery stores and pharmacies from providing plastic single-use carryout bags and ban
small grocery stores, convenience stores, and liquor stores from doing so the following year. It would
allow single-use plastic bags for meat, bread, produce, bulk food, and perishable items. Stores would be
required to charge 10 cents for recycled, compostable, and reusable grocery bags. Revenue from the
charge would be spent on covering the costs of non-plastic bags and educating consumers. Proposition
67 would exempt consumers using a payment card or voucher issued by the California Special
Supplemental Food Program from being charged for bags. The measure would provide $2 million to
state plastic bag manufacturers for the purpose of helping them retain jobs and transition to making
thicker, multi-use, recycled plastic bags.

Extended Arguments:
Supporters of the bill point out that single-use plastic shopping bags create some of the most visible
litter and claim that a yes vote will help keep discarded plastic bags out of our communities. They also
say that the law will save our state and local communities tens of millions of dollars in litter clean-up
costs. Opponents counter that plastic-bag bans are an unscientific, political solution to a difficult
problem and that it will actually cost California consumers more because they will be forced to pay a
minimum 10 cents for every paper and thick plastic grocery bag they are given at the checkout. The
opponents say that Prop 67 is a deal cooked up by special interest lobbyists in Sacramento to grow
profits for grocery stores. Supporters rebuttal to that is to highlight that this law is funded by four large
out-of-state plastic bag companies who, supporters say, dont want California to take leadership on
plastic bag waste, and are trying to defeat this measure to protect their profits. Supporters point out
that nearly 150 local cities and counties have banned single-use plastic bags, believing that these laws

have already been a successpointing to some communities that have seen a nearly 90 percent
reduction in single-use bags, as well as strong support from consumers.
By way of some background, if both 65 and 67 were to pass, the one receiving the most votes will decide
who keeps the bag fees.