A 2016 California Ballot Cheat Sheet
Well, folks, it looks like we’re back. Another eight years have flown by, and, with it, another presidential administration.
It’s time for another election.
On Nov. 8, eligible U.S. citizens across the country will head for the polls–not just to determine our country’s next president, but also to vote some propositions on the state ballot into law. These laws may or may not affect you; either way, they’re there for you to vote on.
If you’ve just turned 18 and are new to the whole concept of voting, you might feel a little overwhelmed by the idea of voting right now. There are so many categories, so many propositions to vote on. “And what do those propositions all mean, anyway?” you might ask. “All I see are a bunch of numbers.”
To make this year’s voting process a little simpler for you, here is a compiled list of all the propositions (and their effects, should they become laws), all the Californian candidates for state representatives and senators–including each individual’s stance on current issues.
No opinion or bias here. Only information about what’s on the California state ballot, so, if you choose, you can inform yourselves a bit on prospective laws and prospective government officials before you head to the ballots on Nov. 8.
Propositions
This year, there are 18 propositions on the California ballot, a surprisingly large number. Here is a basic briefing on each proposition and what a “yes” or “no” vote will mean in regards to said proposition (all info obtained from ballotpedia.com).
-Details: This proposition would authorize the state of California to issue $9 billion in bonds for education and schools. This breaks down into the following categories: $3 billion for the construction of new schools, $3 billion for the “modernization” of public K-12 schools, $1 billion for Californian charter schools and “vocational education facilities” and a final $2 billion for Community College facilities in California. Money would be appropriated from the General Fund to pay off these bonds.
-Yes: $9 billion in bonds would go toward education and schools in California in the form of construction, maintenance, charter school funding and Community College funding.
-No: $9 billion in bonds would not be given toward education in California.
-Details: This proposition would require the state legislature to receive voters’ approval before making any changes to the state’s hospital fee program. While the legislature could still make changes to the program by way of a two-thirds vote, it would only be permitted to do so if the situation called for it.
-Yes: Voters would be required to vote on any proposed changes to the hospital fee program before the legislature voted on these changes.
-No: The legislature would be allowed to make changes to the fee program simply through a majority vote, without having to consult voters.
-Details: This proposition would require voters’ approval before issuing infrastructure-related bonds totaling $2 billion or more—bonds which might result in higher taxes or fees until the bonds could be repaid.
-Yes: Voters would be required to vote on any bonds dealing with infrastructure and totaling $2 billion or higher before the state could issue these bonds.
-No: The state would not have to consult voters before issuing bonds dealing with infrastructure and totaling $2 billion or higher.
Proposition 54: Accountability
-Details: This proposition would require that any and all bills with the potential to be passed by the legislature must be published both in print and on the Internet at least three days (72 hours) prior to the voting period.
-Yes: Individuals would be allowed to view bills on the legislative ballot three days before the legislature votes on them, and record legislative proceedings through audio and/or visual. These individuals would be allowed to use these recordings for “legitimate purpose.” The legislative branch would also be required to keep and share audiovisual records of its proceedings; these audiovisual records must be published within 24 hours of the proceedings.
-No: The state would not have to publish these bills on the Internet. (The description I read said nothing about whether or not a “no” vote means the legislature would not they be required to make the records of their meetings public within 24 hours.)
-Details: Currently, there is an increased income tax on those who have incomes bringing in $250,000 or more. This proposition would extend this tax for another 12 years.
-Yes: People making $250,000 or more would continue to have an increased income tax for the next 12 years, and the money received from this tax would be directed mostly toward education (89 percent toward K-12 schools, 11 percent toward community colleges. On certain years, $2 billion would go toward Medi-Cal programs.
-No: The tax on those making would $250,000 or more would expire in 2019.
-Details: Currently, there is a $0.87 tax on cigarette packs. This proposition would increase this tax by an additional $2 per pack, with an equivalent tax increase on other tobacco products and electronic cigarettes.
-Yes: Taxes on cigarette packs, other tobacco products and electronic cigarettes would increase. The new total tax amount would be $2.87 on a pack of cigarettes, with the equivalent tax increase on other tobacco products and electronic cigarettes. The extra money from this tax would go toward things such as dental disease treatment and prevention, physician training, research into tobacco-related diseases (like cancer) and school programs focusing on the reduction and prevention of tobacco usage.
-No: The taxes on these items would not increase.
-Details: This proposition would grant more “good behavior opportunities” and increase parole for felons convicted of nonviolent crimes. Judges would decide whether or not to try certain juveniles as adults.
-Yes: Voting “yes” on this proposition supports these measures.
-No: Voting “no” on this proposition opposes these measures and approves the current system wherein prosecutors decide whether or not certain juveniles as adults in court.
-Details: Currently, Proposition 227, the 1998 the “English in Public Schools” Initiative, eradicated “bilingual” class environments, requiring special class environments for English learners (also known as “Limited English Proficient” [LEP] students). These classes were taught mostly in English, shortened the amount of time LEP students spend in class and required the state provide $50 million annually for 10 years to English classes who promise to tutor LEP students. Proposition 58 seeks to repeal Proposition 227.
-Yes: Voting “yes” on this proposition supports the repeal of Proposition 227, which would allow languages other than English to be used in educational and instructional environments.
-No: Voting “no” on this proposition opposes the repeal of Proposition 227 and reinforces English as the dominant language used in educational and instructional environments.
Proposition 59: Campaign Finance
-Details: In 2002, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) prohibited the mentioning of candidates over broadcast, cable or satellite communication within 60 days of an election or within 30 days of the primary, known as “electioneering communications.” In 2010, a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization known as Citizens United released a film within this time frame that was critical of a certain candidate. The Court was asked to decide whether or not this film would count as “electioneering communications.” In a 5-4 vote, the Court decided that it would be unconstitutional to limit corporate funding of such political films because doing so would violate the First Amendment, thus revoking this law on “electioneering communications.” This proposition calls into question whether or not elected officials should be permitted to use their power to overturn the decision in the Citizens United case, which does not allow for limits on corporal funding for political spending by unions and corporations.
-Yes: Voting “yes” on this proposition supports the repeal of the decision in the Citizens United case, encouraging officials to use their authority to overturn this law (which does not allow for limits on corporal funding for political spending by unions and corporations) and others like it.
-No: Voting “no” on this proposition opposes the repeal of the decision in the Citizens United case, encouraging officials to use their authority to overturn this law (which does not allow for limits on corporal funding for political spending by unions and corporations) and others like it.
-Details: The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) requires that participants use condoms/protection during sexual intercourse in pornographic films made in California. However, these rules are often only enforced after complaints have been filed. This proposition would require that condoms be used during sexual intercourse in pornographic films made in California, and would also require that film producers pay for the performers’ “workplace-related medical examinations, sexually-transmitted infections (STI) tests … and STI vaccines.” Producers would also have to get licensed every two years under this measure.
-Yes: Voting “yes” on this proposition supports the use of condoms during sexual intercourse in pornographic films made in California and the requirement that producers cover certain health requirements and check-ups for their performers.
-No: Voting “no” on this proposition opposes the use of condoms during sexual intercourse in pornographic films made in California and the requirement that producers cover certain health requirements and check-ups for their performers.
-Details: This proposition would require state agencies to pay the same amount of money the V.A. pays for prescription drugs, thus regulating drug prices.
-Yes: Voting “yes” on this proposition supports requiring state agencies to pay the same amount of money the V.A. pays for prescription drugs, thus regulating drug prices and possibly reducing them.
-No: Voting “no” on this proposition opposes requiring state agencies to pay the same amount of money the V.A. pays for prescription drugs, thus regulating drug prices and possibly reducing them. A common argument in opposition to this proposition is that drug manufacturers could refuse to offer them at these prices, or even raise drug prices (as this proposition does not apply to the manufacturers themselves).
-Details: This proposition would abolish the death penalty in California, and life in prison without any possibility of parole would become the new maximum punishment for murder.
-Yes: Voting “yes” on this proposition supports abolishing the death penalty in California, and making life in prison without any possibility of parole would the new maximum punishment for murder.
-No: Voting “no” on this proposition opposes repealing the death penalty in California.
IMPORTANT NOTE: Another proposition on this year’s ballot, Proposition 66, also deals with the death penalty. In the event that both measures pass, the proposition with the greater amount of votes would nullify the other.
-Details: Any individual seeking to own a firearm would first be required to pass a background check, and only then would be able to purchase a firearm. “Large-capacity ammunition magazines” would be prohibited, and disposed of in certain cases. Most ammunition sales would be required to occur between licensed individuals and licensed vendors; these sales would subsequently be reported to the Department of Justice, who would give the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System background information on any individuals prohibited from purchasing a firearm. Anyone convicted of stealing a firearm would be on this list, and various measures would be enacted to enforce laws dealing with the prevention of unlawful firearm possession. Under this proposition, all thefts of firearms would be legally required to be reported to law enforcement.
-Yes: Voting “yes” on this proposition supports all of these suggested measures, including limits on firearm magazine capacity, mandatory permits/licenses and background checks for both buyers, and vendors and the sharing of information about potential buyers and businesses between the Department of Justice and the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
-No: Voting “no” on this proposition opposes all of these suggested measures.
-Details: Currently, it is illegal to use marijuana for recreational purposes in California. This proposition would make recreational use of marijuana legal for adults 21 and older, imposing two taxes: one on cultivation, and the other on retail. This revenue would be spent on “drug research, treatment, and enforcement,” “youth programs,” safety and health grants dealing with marijuana and measures to prevent environmental damage caused by illegal marijuana production.
-Yes: Voting “yes” on this proposition supports legalizing marijuana usage for adults 21 and older, and any taxes on it in the state of California.
-No: Voting “no” on this proposition opposes legalizing marijuana usage for adults 21 and older, and any taxes on it in the state of California.
-Details: Under this proposition, any revenue collected from the sale of disposable carryout bags would go to a special wildlife conservation fund administered by the Wildlife Conservation Board.
-Yes: Voting “yes” on this proposition supports using state-collected revenue from the sale of disposable carryout bags for wildlife conservation funding.
-No: Voting “no” on this proposition opposes using state-collected revenue from the sale of disposable carryout bags for wildlife conservation funding.
IMPORTANT NOTE: Another proposition on this year’s ballot, Proposition 67, also deals with disposable bags, but has different “allocation provisions” (meaning it proposes a different plan for how the money collected from selling disposable bags would be spent). In the event that both measures pass, the proposition with the greater amount of votes would would determine which allocation provisions the state follows.
-Details: Under this proposition, the death penalty would stay in place, but the appeals process would be faster, with legal challenges to these sentences shortening to a maximum of only five years.
-Yes: Voting “yes” on this proposition supports a faster appeals process for the death penalty.
-No: Voting “no” on this proposition opposes a faster appeals process for the death penalty.
IMPORTANT NOTE: Proposition 62 abolishes the death penalty, while Proposition 66 shortens the time required to pass before one can contest the penalty. Under Proposition 66, the death penalty still exists. In the event that both measures pass, the proposition with the greater amount of votes would nullify the other.
Proposition 67: Business Regulation
-Details: Under Senate Bill 270, plastic bag usage is prohibited in certain stores, with reusable bags to be used as a substitute. This proposition upholds this bill’s ban on plastic bags in certain stores.
-Yes: Voting “yes” on this proposition supports Bill 270’s ban on plastic bag usage in certain stores.
-No: Voting “no” on this proposition opposes Bill 270’s ban on plastic bag usage in certain stores and calls for the bill to be overturned.
Now that we’ve covered the propositions on the ballot, let’s move on to the people on the state ballot (excluding presidential and vice-presidential nominees). I’m not going to cover the U.S. Representatives who make up the “lower body” of Congress, as those are elected by district, and there’s a chance that you come from a different district than I do.
So let’s move on to the U.S. Senators instead. (Both candidates belong to the Democratic Party.) I will be categorizing their positions on various issues in three (more or less) categories: strongly favors, favors and opposes.
Kamala D. Harris: Seeing as her website does not specify how much she favors/opposes these issues, I will just be listing things on her website that she says she supports.
- +Elimination of wage gap
- +LGBTQ+ rights
- +Immigration reform (protection of immigration rights, granting them an equal voice in the legal system and the workplace)
- +Reforming the criminal justice system
- +Sexual assault prevention (specifically on-campus sexual assault)
- +Various women’s health/reproductive services, including abortion
- +Making voting rights and education more equitable
- +Ending human trafficking
- +Banning assault weapons/Gun control
- +Free tuition at community colleges and lowered tuition at colleges and universities in general
- +Improving early literacy rates
- +Providing affordable childcare
- +Defeating “transcriminal organizations that bring guns and drugs across our borders”
- +Ending human trafficking
- +Fighting against terrorism
- +Better healthcare for veterans
- +Protection against cyber attacks
- +Fighting climate change via water conservation, improved water infrastructure, increased environmental conservation
Loretta L. Sanchez: Her views were listed as “strongly favors,” “favors,” “opposes” and “strongly opposes,” so I will be categorizing them as such here, too. Any links lead to more information about certain issues, and categorize stances on these issues based off of various perspectives people have on these issues. If you would like to see where you fall on these issues, you can click the links to read the statements from each position.
+Strongly Favors:
- -Making it a legal requirement to hire women and minorities
- -Prioritizing “green energy”
- –All government funding necessary to help the economy recover from the recession (including raising minimum wage to $10.10, expanding “lending caps” given to small businesses by credit unions)
- -Abortion as being an “unrestricted” women’s right
- –Same-sex marriage
- -Making it easier for “illegal aliens” to obtain U.S. citizenship
+Favors
- –Expanding Obamacare (partially by granting better funding to Medicare and
- Medicaid)
- -Placing higher taxes on the wealthy
- –Making voter registration easier
- –Expanding the military
- –Staying out of Iran and leaving Afghanistan as soon as possible
-Opposes
- +The idea that gun ownership is an “absolute right.” (This view, in turn, supports tightening gun restrictions.)
- +The idea of “free trade” (as opposed to “fair trade”)
- +Privatizing Social Security
- +Keeping God in the “public sphere”
- +The idea that stricter punishment reduces crime. This view emphasizes the effectiveness of a punishment versus its strictness, calling that the death penalty be used only sparingly.
- +The “never legalize marijuana” movement. According to this resource, Sanchez’s stance concedes that marijuana could be used for medicinal purposes and calls for “regulated decriminalization.”
-Strongly Opposes
- +Vouchers for school choice. According to this resource, Sanchez’s view emphasizes a focus on improving public schools, and only continuing charter schools as a limited experiment. Charter schools would not be provided with vouchers.
- +The idea that there are no “rights” to clean air and water. According to this resource, Sanchez’s view states that animals, too, have rights, and that nature has “inherent value.”
- +“American exceptionalism” in the U.N. This view states that, while the United States holds an influential position in the U.N., the opinions and concerns of other countries hold just as much weight, and the United States should not abuse its position in the U.N.
Now that you have a working knowledge of these propositions/candidates and what they stand for, hopefully you can go to the polls educated and more confident in your vote. All the best to you in your decision-making on Nov. 8!
EDITOR’S NOTE 11/2/16 8:05 p.m. PST: The wording in a previous version of this article made it sound as though Proposition 56 would increase the cigarette tax to $2 per pack instead of by an additional $2 per pack. This was corrected. A previous version also incorrectly stated that Sanchez opposes “keeping God out of the public sphere.” This has been corrected to “keeping God in the public sphere,” which more accurately states Sanchez’s views. Other, smaller typos and errors were also fixed.
Chalese Dunton • Nov 8, 2016 at 8:03 am
Fantastic job! Way to help educate us all on the voting options out there! 🙂
Mr. Montgomery • Nov 7, 2016 at 4:16 pm
Although I already know how I am voting on most of the issues, I would like to express gratitude to Anastasia for this useful and succinct ballot cheat sheet. Great work Anastasia!
Sabina Hahn • Nov 2, 2016 at 10:35 am
This is such a great piece Anastasia!! I’m supposed to be an adult and vote this year and this has made it 110x easier! Awesome job!!