Below you will find information on the upcoming ballot propositions, videos of our candidates forums, Measure M presentations from Metro, Gold Line, and the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments and more.
This information is provided to you so you are aware of the issues and can make an informed decision on November 8. The Glendora Chamber has been working hard to gather as much information as possible to help in this process.
2016 Glendora Chamber Candidate Forums
San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments
Measure M Presentation
[su_custom_gallery source="media: 3664,3665,3666,3667,3668,3669,3670,3671,3672,3673,3674,3675,3676,3677,3678,3679,3680,3681,3682,3683,3684,3685,3686" limit="25" link="lightbox" width="130" height="130" title="never"]
Gold Line Presentation
[su_custom_gallery source="media: 3695,3696,3697,3698,3699,3700,3701,3702,3703,3704,3705,3706,3707,3708,3709,3710,3711,3712,3713,3714,3715,3716,3717,3718,3719,3720,3721,3722,3723,3724,3725,3726,3727" limit="38" link="lightbox" width="130" height="130" title="never"]
Metro Presentation[su_custom_gallery source="media: 3728,3729,3730,3731,3732,3733,3734,3735,3736,3737,3738,3739,3740,3741,3742,3743,3744" limit="38" link="lightbox" width="130" height="130" title="never"]
League of Women Voters of California Guide
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Ballot Measure information
The information below was gathered from https://ballotpedia.org which is available to the general public.
|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.|
|A "no" vote opposes the state issuing $9 billion in new debt to fund the improvement and construction of education facilities|
Authorizes $9 billion in general obligation bonds for new construction and modernization of K–12 public school facilities; charter schools and vocational education facilities; and California Community Colleges facilities. Fiscal Impact: State costs of about $17.6 billion to pay off both the principal ($9 billion) and interest ($8.6 billion) on the bonds. Payments of about $500 million per year for 35 years.
CON Prop. 51 was created for greedy developers to exploit taxpayers for profit. Prop. 51 stops legislators from providing fair school funding. Disadvantaged schools are left behind. There’s no improvement in taxpayer accountability. It does nothing to fight waste, fraud and abuse. Governor Brown opposes Prop. 51.
PRO Our children deserve safe schools where they can learn, but many schools and community colleges need repairs to meet health and safety standards. Prop. 51 will fix deteriorating schools, upgrade classrooms, and provide job-training facilities for veterans and vocational education. All projects are accountable to local taxpayers.
A NO vote on this measure means: The state would not have the authority to sell new general obligation bonds for K–12 public school and community college facilities.
A YES vote on this measure means: The state could sell $9 billion in general obligation bonds for education facilities ($7 billion for K–12 public school facilities and $2 billion for community college facilities).
California Proposition 52, Voter Approval to Divert Hospital Fee Revenue Dedicated to Medi-Cal, is on the ballot as a combined initiated constitutional amendment and state statute.
|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. The initiative was also designed to require a two-thirds majority vote of the Legislature to end the hospital fee program.|
|A "no" vote opposes this initiative, allowing the legislature to change, extend, or eliminate the hospital fee program with a majority vote.|
Extends indefinitely an existing statute that imposes fees on hospitals to fund Medi-Cal health care services, care for uninsured patients, and children’s health coverage. Fiscal Impact: Uncertain fiscal effect, ranging from relatively little impact to annual state General Fund savings of around $1 billion and increased funding for public hospitals in the low hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
CON removes all accountability and oversight of over $3 billion of taxpayer dollars. Gives $3 billion to hospital CEOs with no independent audit and no requirement the money is spent on health care. Public funds can be spent on lobbyists, perks and salaries for hospital bureaucrats instead of children and seniors.
PRO extends the current state Medi-Cal hospital fee program, which generates over $3 billion a year in federal matching funds that pay for health care services for children, seniors and low-income families. Proposition 52 prohibits the Legislature from diverting this money for other purposes without voter approval.
A NO vote on this measure means: An existing charge imposed on most private hospitals would end on January 1, 2018 unless additional action by the Legislature extended it.
A YES vote on this measure means: An existing charge imposed on most private hospitals that is scheduled to end on January 1, 2018 under current law would be extended permanently. It would be harder for the Legislature to make changes to it. Revenue raised would be used to create state savings, increase payments for hospital services to low income Californians, and provide grants to public hospitals.
The California Legislature would be permitted to amend the hospital fee program via a two-thirds vote, but only when the proposed changes "amend or add provisions that further the purposes of the Act.
The California Voter Approval Requirement for Revenue Bonds above $2 Billion Initiative, also known as Proposition 53, will be on the ballot as an initiated constitutional amendment.
|A "yes" vote will be a vote in favor of 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.|
|A "no" vote will be a vote against the voter approval requirement and in favor of continuing to allow the state to issue new debt without voter approval.|
Supporters of Proposition 53 refer to it as the "No Blank Checks Initiative."
Requires statewide voter approval before any revenue bonds can be issued or sold by the state for certain projects if the bond amount exceeds $2 billion. Fiscal Impact: State and local fiscal effects are unknown and would depend on which projects are affected by the measure and what actions government agencies and voters take in response to the measure’s voting requirement.
CON Prop. 53 erodes local control by requiring statewide vote on some local infrastructure projects. Empowers voters in faraway regions to reject your community’s needs. Prop. 53 jeopardizes water supply, bridge safety, other repairs. No exemption for emergencies/disasters. California Professional Firefighters, cities, counties, Association of California Water Agencies urge No on 53. www.NoProp53.com
PRO Proposition 53 requires voter approval for state megaprojects costing over $2 billion in state revenue bonds—like the bullet train. Doesn’t impact local projects. Increases transparency so taxpayers know the true cost. Holds politicians accountable and stops blank checks. If taxpayers have to pay, they should have a say! ARGUMENTS NO A NO vote on this measure means: State revenue bonds could continue to be used without voter approval. YES A YES vote on this measure means: State revenue bonds totaling more than $2 billion for a project that is funded, owned, or managed by the state would require statewide voter approval.
FOR Yes on 53—Stop Blank Checks 925 University Ave. Sacramento, CA 95825 (916) 500-7040 Info@StopBlankChecks.com www.YESon53.com
AGAINST No on Prop. 53—Californians to Protect Local Control info@NoProp53.com NoProp53.com
California Proposition 54, the Public Display of Legislative Bills Prior to Vote proposition will be on ballot as a combined initiated constitutional amendment and state statute.
|A "yes" vote will be a vote in favor of 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.|
|A "no" vote will be a vote against 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|
Prohibits Legislature from passing any bill unless published on Internet for 72 hours before vote. Requires Legislature to record its proceedings and post on Internet. Authorizes use of recordings. Fiscal Impact: One-time costs of $1 million to $2 million and ongoing costs of about $1 million annually to record legislative meetings and make videos of those meetings available on the Internet.
CON A NO vote continues free Internet & TV access for any California citizen to see how laws are made. A NO vote also prevents special interests like tobacco, oil, and drug companies from delaying passage of state laws. A NO vote also limits political “attack” ads.
PRO Prop. 54 stops special-interest, surprise legislation from passing either legislative house without 72 hours for review. Prop. 54 posts all the Legislature’s public meetings online, so voters can review legislators’ public actions. A bipartisan coalition of good government, taxpayer, minority, business, and environmental groups backs Prop. 54. Requires no new tax money.
A NO vote on this measure means: Rules and duties of the Legislature would not change.
A YES vote on this measure means: Any bill (including changes to the bill) would have to be made available to legislators and posted on the Internet for at least 72 hours before the Legislature could pass it. The Legislature would have to ensure that its public meetings are recorded and make videos of those meetings available on the Internet.
The California Extension of the Proposition 30 Income Tax Increase Initiative, also known as Proposition 55, will be on the ballot as an initiated constitutional amendment.
|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.|
|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|
Extends by twelve years the temporary personal income tax increases enacted in 2012 on earnings over $250,000, with revenues allocated to K–12 schools, California Community Colleges, and, in certain years, healthcare. Fiscal Impact: Increased state revenues—$4 billion to $9 billion annually from 2019–2030—depending on economy and stock market. Increased funding for schools, community colleges, health care for low-income people, budget reserves, and debt payments.
CON VOTE NO ON 55—TEMPORARY SHOULD MEAN TEMPORARY. Voters supported higher taxes in 2012 because Governor Brown said they would be TEMPORARY. State budget estimates show higher taxes are not needed to balance the budget, but the special interests want to extend them to grow government bigger.
PRO helps children thrive! Prop. 55 prevents $4 billion in cuts to California’s public schools, and increases children’s access to healthcare, by maintaining current tax rates on the wealthiest Californians—with strict accountability requirements. We can’t go back to the deep cuts we faced during the last recession. www.YesOn55.com
A NO vote on this measure means: Income tax increases on high-income taxpayers would expire as scheduled at the end of 2018.
A YES vote on this measure means: Income tax increases on high-income taxpayers, which are scheduled to end after 2018, would instead be extended through 2030
The California Proposition 56, Tobacco Tax Increase (#15-0081A1) will be on the ballot as a combined initiated constitutional amendment and state statute.
|A "yes" vote favors increasing the cigarette tax to $2.00 per pack, with equivalent increases on other tobacco products and electronic cigarettes.|
|A "no" vote opposes increasing the cigarette tax to $2.00 per pack, with equivalent increases on other tobacco products and electronic cigarettes.|
Increases cigarette tax by $2.00 per pack, with equivalent increase on other tobacco products and electronic cigarettes containing nicotine. Fiscal Impact: Additional net state revenue of $1 billion to $1.4 billion in 2017–18, with potentially lower revenues in future years. Revenues would be used primarily to augment spending on health care for low-income Californians.
A NO vote on this measure means: No changes would be made to existing state taxes on cigarettes, other tobacco products, and electronic cigarettes.
A YES vote on this measure means: State excise tax on cigarettes would increase by $2 per pack—from 87 cents to $2.87. State excise tax on other tobacco products would increase by a similar amount. State excise tax also would be applied to electronic cigarettes. Revenue from these higher taxes would be used for many purposes, but primarily to augment spending on health care for low-income Californians.
CON Follow the 56 money: This $1.6 billion tax increase gives $1 billion to health insurance companies and special interests. 56 cheats schools out of $600 million a year by circumventing our minimum school funding guarantee. Only 13% of the money helps smokers or prevents kids from starting. No on 56.
PRO Tobacco-related healthcare costs California taxpayers $3.5 billion annually, even if you don’t smoke. Prop. 56 works like a user fee, taxing tobacco to help pay for smoking prevention and healthcare—so smokers pay their fair share for their costs. American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network sponsored Prop. 56 to prevent kids from smoking and save lives.
The California Parole for Non-Violent Criminals and Juvenile Court Trial Requirements Initiative, also known as Proposition 57, will be on the ballot as a combined initiated constitutional amendment and state statute.
|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.|
|A "no" vote opposes 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.|
Allows parole consideration for nonviolent felons. Authorizes sentence credits for rehabilitation, good behavior, and education. Provides juvenile court judge decides whether juvenile will be prosecuted as adult. Fiscal Impact: Net state savings likely in the tens of millions of dollars annually, depending on implementation. Net county costs of likely a few million dollars annually.
CON because it: • Authorizes EARLY RELEASE of violent criminals, including those who RAPE unconscious victims. • Authorizes immediate release for 16,000 dangerous criminals, even convicted murderers. • Amends the California Constitution; takes rights away from victims; grants more rights to criminals.
PRO California public safety leaders and victims of crime support Proposition 57—the Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016—because Prop. 57 focuses resources on keeping dangerous criminals behind bars, while rehabilitating juvenile and adult inmates and saving tens of millions of taxpayer dollars.
A NO vote on this measure means: There would be no change to the inmate release process. The state’s prison system could not award additional sentencing credits to inmates. Certain youths could continue to be tried in adult court without a hearing in juvenile court.
A YES vote on this measure means: Certain state prison inmates convicted of nonviolent felony offenses would be considered for release earlier than otherwise. The state prison system could award additional sentencing credits to inmates for good behavior and approved rehabilitative or educational achievements. Youths must have a hearing in juvenile court before they could be transferred to adult court.
The California Non-English Languages Allowed in Public Education Act (Senate Bill 1174), also known as Proposition 58, will be on the ballot as a legislatively referred state statute.
|A "yes" vote is a vote in favor of 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.|
|A "no" vote is a vote against repealing most of the "English in Public Schools" Initiative, which was designed to prohibit non-English languages from being used in public schools|
Preserves requirement that public schools ensure students obtain English language proficiency. Requires school districts to solicit parent/community input in developing language acquisition programs. Requires instruction to ensure English acquisition as rapidly and effectively as possible. Authorizes school districts to establish dual-language immersion programs for both native and non-native English speakers. Fiscal Impact: No notable fiscal effect on school districts or state government.
A NO vote on this measure means: Public schools would still be required to teach most English learners in English only programs.
A YES vote on this measure means: Public schools could more easily choose how to teach English learners, whether in English-only, bilingual, or other types of programs.
CON Prop. 58 is not about modernizing the way we teach English. It’s about eliminating parental rights to an English-language education for their children. English-language success has been spectacular. Immigrant children are learning English faster than ever before and record numbers of immigrant students are gaining admission to our universities.
PRO Teachers, parents, school principals, local school board members, and Governor Jerry Brown support Proposition 58 to help students learn English as quickly as possible and expand opportunities for English speakers to master a second language. Proposition 58 gives school districts local control to choose the most effective instruction methods for their students.
The California Overturn of Citizens United Act Advisory Question (Senate Bill 254), also known as Proposition 59, will be on the ballot as an advisory question.
|A yes vote supports allowing 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.|
|A no vote opposes this advisory question's proposal to allow the state's elected officials to use their authority to overturn the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision.|
Asks whether California’s elected officials should use their authority to propose and ratify an amendment to the federal Constitution overturning the United States Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Citizens United ruled that laws placing certain limits on political spending by corporations and unions are unconstitutional. Fiscal Impact: No direct fiscal effect on state or local governments. Shall California’s elected officials use all of their constitutional authority, including, but not limited to, proposing and ratifying one or more amendments to the United States Constitution, to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) 558 U.S. 310, and other applicable judicial precedents, to allow the full regulation or limitation of campaign contributions and spending, to ensure that all citizens, regardless of wealth, may express their views to one another, and to make clear that corporations should not have the same constitutional rights as human beings?
59 LEGISLATIVE ADVISORY QUESTION.
CON The Legislature should stop wasting taxpayer dollars by putting do-nothing measures on the ballot that ask Congress to overturn the Supreme Court. Instead of wasting time and money on do-nothing ballot measures, politicians in Sacramento should focus on transparency and bringing jobs to California.
PRO YES on Prop. 59 to tell Congress we want big money out of politics and overturn misguided Supreme Court rulings saying unlimited campaign spending is free speech and that corporations have the same constitutional rights as real people. Send a message to Congress that we’ll hold them accountable.
A NO vote on this measure means: Voters would not be asking their elected officials to seek certain changes in the regulation of campaign spending and contributions.
A YES vote on this measure means: Voters would be asking their elected officials to use their constitutional authority to seek increased regulation of campaign spending and contributions. As an advisory measure, Proposition 59 does not require any particular action by the Congress or California Legislature.
Proposition 60, the Condoms in Pornographic Films Initiative, will be on the ballot as an initiated state statute.
|A "yes" vote would be a vote in favor of 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.|
|A "no" vote would be a vote against requiring the use of condoms and other safety measures during the filming of pornographic films.|
Requires adult film performers to use condoms during filming of sexual intercourse. Requires producers to pay for performer vaccinations, testing, and medical examinations. Requires producers to post condom requirement at film sites. Fiscal Impact: Likely reduction of state and local tax revenues of several million dollars annually. Increased state spending that could exceed $1 million annually on regulation, partially offset by new fees.
A NO vote on this measure means: Adult film productions in California would continue to be subject to current state and local workplace health and safety requirements, including the rules now interpreted to require condom use in adult film productions.
A YES vote on this measure means: There would be additional workplace health and safety requirements placed on adult film productions in California and additional ways to enforce those requirements.
CON Prop. 60 allows ANY Californian to sue adult film performers who distribute or produce adult content, violates their privacy, and weakens workplace safety. A single special interest group has spent millions to disguise Prop. 60’s flaws. Join workers, public health, civil rights organizations, California Democratic Party and California Republican Party, VOTE NO on Prop. 60.
PRO A YES vote on Prop. 60 will stop adult film pornographers from exposing their performers to life-threatening diseases that cost taxpayers millions of dollars. Prop. 60 gives California health official’s new enforcement tools to ensure pornographers finally obey the same workplace protection rules that apply to other California industries.
|A "yes" vote supports regulating drug prices by requiring state agencies to pay the same prices that the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (USDVA) pays for prescription drugs.|
|A "no" vote opposes regulating drug prices by requiring state agencies to pay the same prices that the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (USDVA) pays for prescription drugs|
Prohibits state from buying any prescription drug from a drug manufacturer at price over lowest price paid for the drug by United States Department of Veterans Affairs. Exempts managed care programs funded through Medi-Cal. Fiscal Impact: Potential for state savings of an unknown amount depending on (1) how the measure’s implementation challenges are addressed and (2) the responses of drug manufacturers regarding the provision and pricing of their drugs.
CON Experts say Prop. 61 would: increase prescription prices, reduce patient access to needed medicines, produce more bureaucracy and lawsuits that cost taxpayers millions, and hurt veterans by increasing their prescription costs. Strongly opposed by California Medical Association, California NAACP, California Taxpayers Association, Ovarian Cancer Coalition of Greater California, Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), Department of California. www.NoProp61.com
PRO Prop. 61, The California Drug Price Relief Act, would require all prescription drugs purchased by the State of California to be priced at or below the price paid for the same drug by the U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, which pays by far the lowest price of any federal agency.
A NO vote on this measure means: State agencies would continue to be able to negotiate the prices of, and pay for, prescription drugs without reference to the prices paid by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
A YES vote on this measure means: State agencies would generally be prohibited from paying more for any prescription drug than the lowest price paid by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs for the
California Proposition 62, the Repeal of the Death Penalty Initiative, will be on the ballot as an initiated state statute.
|A "yes" vote supports repealing the death penalty and making life without the possibility of parole the maximum punishment for murder.|
|A "no" vote opposes repealing the death penalty.|
|There is another death penalty related measure, Proposition 66, that will appear on the November 8, 2016, ballot in California. If both measures pass, the one with the most "yes" votes would supersede the other|
Repeals death penalty and replaces it with life imprisonment without possibility of parole. Applies retroactively to existing death sentences. Increases the portion of life inmates’ wages that may be applied to victim restitution. Fiscal Impact: Net ongoing reduction in state and county criminal justice costs of around $150 million annually within a few years, although the impact could vary by tens of millions of dollars depending on various factors.
CON Prop. 62 repeals the death penalty for brutal killers, including child killers, mass murderers, serial killers, and rape/torture murderers. Prop. 62 means these murderers will live the rest of their lives at taxpayers’ expense, with free healthcare, long after their victims are gone. Law enforcement, victims’ families, and DAs oppose Prop. 62.
PRO Prop. 62 replaces the FAILED DEATH PENALTY SYSTEM with a strict life sentence without possibility of parole. Prisoners must work and pay restitution, instead of sitting on death row. Guarantees no innocent person is executed. TAXPAYERS SAVE $150 MILLION/year. Victims’ family members and former death penalty advocates.
A NO vote on this measure means: Certain offenders convicted for first degree murder could continue to be sentenced to death. There would be no change for offenders currently under a sentence of death.
YES A YES vote on this measure means: No offenders could be sentenced to death by the state for first degree murder. The most serious penalty available would be a prison term of life without the possibility of parole. Offenders who are currently under a sentence of death would be resentenced to life without the possibility of parole.
California Proposition 63, the Background Checks for Ammunition Purchases and Large-Capacity Ammunition Magazine Ban Initiative will be on the ballot as an initiated state statute.
|A "yes" vote will be a vote in favor of prohibiting the possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines.|
|A "no" vote will be a vote against prohibiting the possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines|
Requires background check and Department of Justice authorization to purchase ammunition. Prohibits possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines. Establishes procedures for enforcing laws prohibiting firearm possession by specified persons. Requires Department of Justice’s participation in federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Fiscal Impact: Increased state and local court and law enforcement costs, potentially in the tens of millions of dollars annually, related to a new court process for removing firearms from prohibited persons after they are convicted.
CON Law enforcement, anti-terrorism experts, and civil liberties groups overwhelmingly oppose Prop. 63. It was written by a politician seeking to make a name for himself, not the public safety community. It imposes costly burdens on law enforcement and the taxpayer and only affects the law-abiding.
PRO Proposition 63 will improve public safety by keeping guns and ammunition out of the wrong hands. Law enforcement and public safety leaders support Prop. 63 because it will reduce gun violence by preventing violent felons, domestic abusers, and the dangerously mentally ill from obtaining and using deadly weapons and ammo.
A NO vote on this measure means: No new firearm- or ammunition related requirements would be implemented.
A YES vote on this measure means: A new court process would be created for the removal of firearms from individuals upon conviction of certain crimes. New requirements related to the selling or purchasing of ammunition would be implemented.
California Proposition 64, the California Marijuana Legalization Initiative, will be on the ballot as an initiated state statute. Supporters refer to the initiative as the "Adult Use of Marijuana Act".
|A "yes" vote supports legalizing recreational marijuana and hemp under state law and enacting certain sales and cultivation taxes.|
|A "no" vote opposes legalizing recreational marijuana and hemp under state law and enacting certain sales and cultivation taxes, thereby continuing to only allow the use of medical marijuana.|
|Multiple, separate initiatives designed to legalize marijuana were filed for the election ballot in 2016, but this initiative was the only one that qualified for the ballot..|
Legalizes marijuana under state law, for use by adults 21 or older. Imposes state taxes on sales and cultivation. Provides for industry licensing and establishes standards for marijuana products. Allows local regulation and taxation. Fiscal Impact: Additional tax revenues ranging from high hundreds of millions of dollars to over $1 billion annually, mostly dedicated to specific purposes. Reduced criminal justice costs of tens of millions of dollars annually.
A NO vote on this measure means: Growing, possessing, or using marijuana for nonmedical purposes would remain illegal. It would still be legal to grow, possess, or use marijuana for medical purposes.
A YES vote on this measure means: Adults 21 years of age or older could legally grow, possess, and use marijuana for nonmedical purposes, with certain restrictions. The state would regulate nonmedical marijuana businesses and tax the growing and selling of medical and nonmedical marijuana. Most of the revenue from such taxes would support youth programs, environmental protection, and law enforcement.
CON Proposition 64 purposely omits DUI standard to keep marijuana-impaired drivers off our highways. California Association of Highway Patrolmen and Senator Dianne Feinstein strenuously oppose. Legalizes ads promoting smoking marijuana, Gummy candy and brownies on shows watched by millions of children and teens. Shows reckless disregard for child health and safety. Opposed by California Hospital Association. Vote “No”
PRO Prop. 64 creates a safe, legal system for adult use of marijuana. It controls, regulates and taxes marijuana use, and has the nation’s strictest protections for children. It provides billions for afterschool programs, job training, drug treatment, and cracking down on impaired driving. Fix our approach to marijuana.
California Proposition 65, the Dedication of Revenue from Disposable Bag Sales to Wildlife Conservation Fund Initiative, will be on the ballot as an initiated state statute.
|A "yes" vote is a vote in favor of 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.|
|A "no" vote is a vote against 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.|
|Another measure relating to grocery bag consumption, Proposition 67, will appear on the ballot in California. Approval of the measure would uphold the ban on plastic grocery bags in California. Defeat of the measure would overturn the plastic bag ban|
Redirects money collected by grocery and certain other retail stores through mandated sale of carryout bags. Requires stores to deposit bag sale proceeds into a special fund to support specified environmental projects. Fiscal Impact: Potential state revenue of several tens of millions of dollars annually under certain circumstances, with the monies used to support certain environmental programs.
CON Prop. 65 is sponsored by out of-state plastic companies from South Carolina and Texas. They don’t care about California’s environment, they just want to confuse voters and distract from the real issue: the need to phase out plastic grocery bags. 65 is deceptive and doesn’t deserve your vote.
PRO YES ON 65— PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT. In a deal brokered by special interest lobbyists, the Legislature REQUIRED grocery stores to CHARGE and KEEP fees on certain bags at checkout. Grocers get $300 million richer, while shoppers lose $300 million. Prop. 65 redirects those fees to environmental projects, not grocer profits.
A NO vote on this measure means: If charges on carryout bags are required by a state law, that law could direct the use of the resulting revenue toward any purpose.
A YES vote on this measure means: If state law (1) prohibits giving customers certain carryout bags for free and (2) requires a charge for other types of carryout bags, the resulting revenue would be deposited in a new state fund to support certain environmental programs
California Proposition 66, the Death Penalty Procedures Initiative, (#15-0096) will be on the ballot as an initiated state statute. Supporters refer to the measure as the "Death Penalty Reform and Savings" Initiative.
|A "yes" vote supports changing the procedures governing state court appeals and petitions that challenge death penalty convictions and sentences.|
|A "no" vote opposes changing the procedures governing state court appeals and petitions that challenge death penalty convictions and sentences, and would keep the current system for governing death penalty appeals and petitions.|
|There is another death penalty related measure, Proposition 62, that will appear on the ballot. If both measures pass, the one with the most "yes" votes would supersede the other|
Changes procedures governing state court challenges to death sentences. Designates superior court for initial petitions and limits successive petitions. Requires appointed attorneys who take noncapital appeals to accept death penalty appeals. Exempts prison officials from existing regulation process for developing execution methods. Fiscal Impact: Unknown ongoing impact on state court costs for processing legal challenges to death sentences. Potential prison savings in the tens of millions of dollars annually.
A NO vote on this measure means: There would be no changes to the state’s current court procedures for legal challenges to death sentences. The state would still be limited to housing condemned inmates only at certain state prisons.
A YES vote on this measure means: Court procedures for legal challenges to death sentences would be subject to various changes, such as time limits on those challenges and revised rules to increase the number of available attorneys for those challenges. Condemned inmates could be housed at any state prison.
CON Prop. 66 is not real reform. We don’t know all of its consequences, but we do know this: it adds more layers of government bureaucracy causing more delays, costs taxpayer’s money, and increases California’s risk of executing an innocent person. Prop. 66 is a costly experiment that makes matters worse.
PRO Our death penalty system is bogged down by decades of appeals. We need to reform it, not repeal it, by passing Proposition 66. Prop. 66 saves millions, brings closure to victims’ families and justice to brutal murderers. Innocent persons won’t be executed under Prop. 66. Victims’ families, DAs and law enforcement support Proposition 66.
|A "yes" vote is a vote in favor of upholding or ratifying the contested legislation banning plastic bags that was enacted by the California State Legislature under the name Senate Bill 270.|
|A "no" vote is a vote in favor of overturning Senate Bill 270.|
|Another measure relating to grocery bag consumption, Proposition 65, will appear on the November 8, 2016, ballot in California. The measure would allocate revenue generated from the sale of disposable carryout bags, specifically paper bags, for the Wildlife Conservation Fund. If the measure receives more "yes" votes, it would supersede Proposition 67|
A “Yes” vote approves, and a “No” vote rejects, a statute that prohibits grocery and other stores from providing customers single-use plastic or paper carryout bags but permits sale of recycled paper bags and reusable bags. Fiscal Impact: Relatively small fiscal effects on state and local governments, including a minor increase in state administrative costs and possible minor local government savings from reduced litter and waste management costs.
CON DON’T BE FOOLED. Prop. 67 is a $300 million annual HIDDEN TAX on consumers who will be forced to pay $.10 for every grocery bag at checkout. Not one penny goes to the environment. All $300 million goes to grocer profits. Stop the bag tax.
PRO YES on 67 protects California’s successful efforts to PHASE OUT PLASTIC GROCERY BAGS. Plastic bags strangle wildlife, litter communities, raise clean-up costs, and clog recycling machines. Bans on plastic grocery bags are WORKING IN 150 CALIFORNIA COMMUNITIES. Don’t let out-of-state plastic companies stop California.
A NO vote on this measure means: Stores could continue to provide single-use plastic carryout bags and other bags free of charge unless a local law restricts the use of such bags.
A YES vote on this measure means: Most grocery stores, convenience stores, large pharmacies, and liquor stores would be prohibited from providing single-use plastic carryout bags. Stores generally would be required to charge at least 10 cents for any other carryout bag provided to customers at checkout. Stores would keep the resulting revenue for specified purposes.
CalChamber Takes Position on Proposition 58; Recaps Positions on All Ballot Measures
The California Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors recently voted to support Proposition 58, the California Education for a Global Economy Initiative, on the November 2016 ballot.
The CalChamber Board supports Proposition 58 because California’s economic success depends on its ability to prepare a workforce educated to compete in a global economy.
If approved by voters, Proposition 58 would amend and repeal certain portions of Proposition 227 and add a few new provisions regarding English language instruction. Proposition 227, the “English Language in Public Schools” initiative approved by voters in 1998, mandates that all children in California public schools be taught English by being taught in English unless parents have gone through a waiver process.
Proposition 58 would repeal existing law giving parents/guardians standing to sue for enforcement and making public school administrators and teachers personally liable for failing to provide an English only curriculum. This right to sue has had the effect of doing away with most bilingual programs/classes. Before the passage of Proposition 227, 30% of California’s English Learners were taught in bilingual programs. Ten years after the passage of Proposition 227, about 5% of English Learners were taught in bilingual programs. The California Department of Education reports that of the 10,393 schools currently in California, only 312 offer multilingual programs.
Top education systems in the world all require students to learn multiple languages. Yet California, with its natural reserve of diverse linguistic resources has failed to develop a multilingual workforce.
Sixty-six percent of people around the world speak more than one language while only 20% of people in the U.S. speak multiple languages. Students with a strong proficiency in English who also speak another language are better equipped to compete in the global workforce and offer California employers a more prepared and educated workforce.
CalChamber Highlights Positions on All Ballot Initiatives
Below is a recap of CalChamber’s positions on November 2016 Ballot Measures:
Proposition 51 — School Bonds
Proposition 52 — State Fees on Hospitals. Federal Medi-Cal Matching Funds
Proposition 54 — Legislative Transparency
Proposition 58 — English Language Education
Proposition 53 — Revenue Bonds
Proposition 55 — Tax Extension on High Wealth Individuals
Proposition 61 — Prescription Drug Purchases. Pricing
NOT TAKING A POSITION
Proposition 56 — Cigarette Tax to Fund Healthcare, Tobacco Use Prevention, Research, and Law Enforcement
Proposition 57 — Criminal Sentences. Juvenile Criminal Proceedings and Sentencing
Proposition 59 — Campaign Finance. Voter Instruction
Proposition 60 — Adult Films
Proposition 62 — Death Penalty
Proposition 63 — Firearms. Ammunition Sales
Proposition 64 — Marijuana Legalization
Proposition 65 — Carry-Out Bags. Charges
Proposition 66 — Death Penalty. Procedures
Proposition 67 — Referendum to Overturn Ban on Single-Use Plastic Bags