Category: Endorsements

Posted on

JULY MEETING RECAP: RESULTS OF VOTES TAKEN ON PROPS. 51-67

 

Legend: CA = Constitutional Amendment; SA = Statutory Amendment; S = Statute;
# TITLE TYPE Summary Description ECDC Position
52 State Fees on Hospitals, Federal Medi-Cal Matching Funds CA Increases required vote to two-thirds for the Legislature to amend a certain existing law that imposes fees on hospitals (for purpose of obtaining federal Medi-Cal matching funds) and that directs those fees and federal matching funds to hospital-provided Medi-Cal health care services, to uncompensated care provided by hospitals to uninsured patients, and to children’s health coverage. Eliminates law’s ending date. Declares that law’s fee proceeds shall not be considered revenues for purposes of applying state spending limit or determining required education funding.

 

 Yes
51 School Bonds. Funding for K-12 School and Community College Facilities. SA Authorizes $9 billion in general obligation bonds: $3 billion for new construction and $3 billion for modernization of K-12 public school facilities; $1 billion for charter schools and vocational education facilities; and $2 billion for California Community Colleges facilities. YES
53 Revenue Bonds. Statewide Voter Approval. CA Requires statewide voter approval before any revenue bonds can be issued or sold by the state for projects that are financed, owned, operated, or managed by the state or any joint agency created by or including the state, if the bond amount exceeds $2 billion. Prohibits dividing projects into multiple separate projects to avoid statewide voter approval requirement. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government:  NO
54 Legislature. Legislation and Proceedings. CA & S SCA 14 is a better version of this; we can authorize to support the legislature’s replacement if we want to No Position #
55 Tax Extension to Fund Education and Healthcare. CA Extends Prop 30 YES #
56 Cigarette Tax to Fund Healthcare, Tobacco Use Prevention, Research, and Law Enforcement. CA & S Increases cigarette tax by $2.00 per pack, with equivalent increase on other tobacco products and electronic cigarettes containing nicotine. Allocates revenues primarily to increase funding for existing healthcare programs; also for tobacco use prevention/control programs, tobacco-related disease research and law enforcement, University of California physician training, dental disease prevention programs, and administration. YES
57 Criminal Sentences. Juvenile Criminal Proceedings and Sentencing. CA & S Allows parole consideration for persons convicted of nonviolent felonies upon completion of full prison term for primary offense, as defined. Authorizes Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to award sentence credits for rehabilitation, good behavior, or educational achievements. Requires Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to adopt regulations to implement new parole and sentence credit provisions and certify they enhance public safety. Provides juvenile court judges shall make determination, upon prosecutor motion, whether juveniles age 14 and older should be prosecuted and sentenced as adults. YES
# TITLE TYPE Summary Description ECDC Position
60 Adult Films. Condoms. Health Requirements. S Requires performers in adult films to use condoms during filming of sexual intercourse

 

 NO
61 State Prescription Drug Purchases. Pricing Standards. S Prohibits state agencies from paying more for a prescription drug than the lowest price paid for the same drug by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs. Applies to any program where the state is the ultimate payer for a drug, even if the state does not purchase the drug directly. Exempts certain purchases of prescription drugs funded through Medi-Cal. Yes *
62 Death Penalty. S Repeals death penalty as maximum punishment for persons found guilty of murder and replaces it with life imprisonment without possibility of parole. YES
63 Firearms. Ammunition Sales. S The Governor signed a package of gun safety bills that does what this does Yes *
64 Marijuana Legalization. S Legalizes marijuana and hemp under state law YES
65 Carry-Out Bags. Charges. S Redirects money collected by grocery and certain other retail stores through sale of carry-out bags, whenever any state law bans free distribution of a particular kind of carry-out bag and mandates the sale of any other kind of carry-out bag.

Initiative sponsored by the plastic bag industry to undermine the plastic bag ban.

If voters uphold the state’s current carryout bag law, redirected revenues from retailers to the state, potentially in the several tens of millions of dollars annually.

 NO
66 Death Penalty. Procedures. S Exempts prison officials from existing regulation process for developing execution methods. Authorizes death row inmate transfers among California state prisons. State’s death row inmates must work and pay victim restitution. States other voter approved measures related to death penalty are null and void if this measure receives more affirmative votes. NO
67 Overturn Ban on Single-Use Plastic Bags Referendum Vote YES to sustain the ban on plastic bags.  VERY CONFUSING LANGUAGE!  This was put on the ballot by the plastic bag industry, and the wording is deliberately misleading.  To sustain the legislature’s ban on single use plastic bags vote YES.  Do NOT be fooled by the chicanery of corporate maneuvering! Yes
BART BOND Local BART Capital Reinvestment Bond Yes

*The following two propositions were not on the consent calendar; we tried to recruit people to speak for and against each of them, but were only able to secure a speaker in favor of Proposition 61.

  1. Proposition 61, State Prescription Drug Purchases Pricing Standards – Aref Aziz from the campaign to pass Proposition 61 provided informative hand outs and presented a summary of the advantages of this proposition.  President Hilary Crosby read aloud from an email opposing the proposition, but was unable to rebut Mr. Aziz’s points.  Mr. Aziz rebutted the points raised in the email that President Crosby read.  Our members voted 24 in favor, 1 in opposition and three for “no endorsement”; with 86% in favor, the Club will take a YES position.
  2. Proposition 63, Firearms Ammunition Sales – The ECDC Executive Board did not take a position on this proposition since the timing of compiling and sending out the paper newsletter prevented us from waiting for the Governor’s final decision on the gun safety bills recently passed by the California legislature.  Present Crosby presented a brief overview of the bills that the Governor signed and compared them to the proposition.  Our members voted 30 in favor, no opposed and one for “no endorsement”; with 97% in favor, the Club will take a YES position.

# The following two propositions were pulled from the consent calendar by members:

  1. Proposition 54, Legislature, Legislation and Proceedings – Member Al Miller pulled this one from the consent calendar; the ECDC Executive Board had followed the California Democratic Party (CDP) recommendation to support SCA 14 instead of this proposition.  Mr. Miller described the process known as “gut and amend” which can drastically change and weaken legislation.  He did not think it was wise to rely on SCA 14 to provide the transparency and accountability that this proposition, a constitutional amendment, would provide.  Our members voted 15 in favor, 5 opposed and 7 “no endorsement”; the Club will take No Position since there were only 55% in favor of supporting this proposition.
  2. Proposition 55, Tax Extension to Fund Education and Healthcare – Member Sue Goldberg pulled this one from the consent calendar; the ECDC Executive Board had followed the CDP recommendation to support this 12 year extension of Proposition 30.  Ms. Goldberg raised concerns that having this voter approved tax increase in effect would dampen support for reforms for Proposition 13.  Our members voted 26 in favor, no opposed and 2 ”no endorsement”; with 93% in favor, the Club will take a YES position.

We also had two matters to resolve in our standing rules.  The first one was to remove the words “and by June 1” from Definition 3 in the Endorsement Rules.  This was a carryover from changes made to the by-laws that required a June 1 deadline for payment of membership dues. (During odd numbered years, our club roster is submitted to the Contra Costa County Democratic Party Central Committee by June 30 to establish how many voters our club will have in the CDP pre-endorsement caucuses, which determine the consent calendar for the CDP’s primary endorsements. The June 1 date for membership dues allows us time to process members and submit the roster in time.)  The July ECDC vote to strike “and by June 1” was 49 in favor, 0 opposed and 0 abstentions.

The second matter focused on an improper addition made to the standing rules in January, 2016 to include the following language in Article 4 of the Endorsement Rules:

“except endorsements for El Cerrito City Council or El Cerrito Municipal ballot measures. Only members who are El Cerrito residents are eligible to vote on endorsements for El Cerrito City Council and El Cerrito ballot measures”

The proposed language was voted on as “old Business” since it was discussed in November 2015 and tabled for a later meeting.  Notice of a vote had not been included in the January meeting announcement. The January vote did not observe our Bylaws, which require 10 days prior notice of a pending vote. Additionally,  changes to our standing rules require a two-thirds majority. The proposed addition received only a narrow majority of those present and voting at the January meeting and the language should not have been added to the Standing Rules.  

Since inclusion of that language did not meet the requirements of our Bylaws regarding notice, the language is subject to removal from the Standing Rules. President Crosby, wishing to respect the will of the Club, provided the required notice to discuss the matter and conduct a July vote addressing the January vote (confirmation or reversal of the January vote).  In order for the language to be officially added to the Endorsement Rules, the July vote would need to have a two-thirds majority confirming the January vote. In order to make the vote as comprehensible as possible, President Crosby conducted the vote as “in favor of the El Cerrito for El Cerrito language” (a vote to confirm the January vote) and “opposed to the language” (a vote nullifying the January vote).  

The vote was 35 opposed to the language, 19 in favor of the language, with 2 abstentions, which failed to reach the required two-thirds majority to confirm the January vote.  The revised endorsement rules have been posted to the website and include recent changes.

One last vote was taken late in the meeting to waive the 10-day notification rule and move to a new motion to postpone the Club’s endorsement forum for local candidates and measures which is scheduled for Saturday August 27..  The motion to waive notice to conduct that votes failed by a vote of 7 in favor and 20 opposed. President Crosby is working with other Democratic Clubs to accommodate candidate schedules.  Please see the article about the Endorsement Forum.  

There is currently a “Pre August Meeting Preview” which has as much information as is currently available.  There will be a new article once filing has closed for all the relevant races which will include statements the candidates and measure campaigns provide.  

 

Posted on

AUGUST 27, 2016 MEETING PRE-PREVIEW

Our next meeting is probably our most important of this election cycle – the meeting when we vote on our Club endorsements in local races.
Because this is such an important meeting, we hold it on a Saturday (this year on SATURDAY, AUGUST 27), and in a bigger venue. These are the particulars:
TIME: 10 AM – 3 PM
DATE: SATURDAY, AUGUST 27
LOCATION: El Cerrito High School Cafeteria (fully accessible, great location, lots of free, on-street parking)
FORMAT: Each candidate will have 2 minutes for an opening statement; we will provide cards and pencils for the audience members to pose questions which our moderator will read. Candidates will have 30 seconds to a minute to respond to each question. We will group the presentations so all candidates for any given seat will present as a group.
VOTING: We have voting cards for all members eligible to vote, comprising anyone who was a member by July 13 (mail-in membership) or July 15 (online membership). Members will sign in and, if eligible, pick up a ballot. The voting card for each member who signs in will be moved from the “pending” group to the “registered” group. We will thus insure that no one receives more than one ballot, which will be pre-numbered with a unique number. To preserve the confidentiality of the vote, we will NOT RECORD which number a member receives. We will use the numbered ballots to cross-reference the total number of ballots issued to the total number of voting cards retained.
Members may complete and submit their ballots at any time during the meeting. In order to be counted, ballots must be submitted within 5 minutes of the close of all presentations.
Craig Cheslog, CDP Regional Director for Region 2 (Assembly district 4, 11, 14 and 16) has graciously agreed to serve as our Elections Judge. He will monitor the registration and ballot distribution and oversee the ballot counting. Per our newly amended standing rules, once the results are announced, any member may challenge to the results. If there is a challenge, our election judge will recount the votes in the challenged race.
THE RACES:
We will vote on several propositions and measures, including Propositions 57 and 58, as well as a bond measure for California Parks (AB 2444) which were not finalized by our July meeting, and measures for AC Transit, West Contra Costa School District, and the El Cerrito Library,
As of today (July 29), there are candidates running in the following districts:
West Contra Costa Unified School District Board – 3 candidates for 2 seats
El Cerrito City Council – 4 candidates for 3 seats
AC Transit At Large – 2 candidates for 1 seat
AC Transit Ward 1 – 1 candidate for 1 seat
East Bay Regional Parks – 1 candidate for 1 seat
Contra Costa Board of Education District 1 – 1 candidate for 1 seat
BART District 3 – 2 candidates for 1 seat
BART District 7 – 2 candidates for 1 seat
Kensington Police Protection Community Services – 1 candidate for 2 seats
Kensington Fire Protection – 1 candidate for 2 seats
West Contra Costa County Health District – No candidates for 2 seats
We will only have presentations and votes to endorse in races where there are more candidates running than vacant seats. We will ask candidates in uncontested races to present at a later “Meet the Electeds” meeting.
As we have in the past, the ECDC will provide coffee, tea, and water. We will invite the candidates to bring finger foods.
Although this description makes it sound complicated, our annual endorsement meeting has generally been informative and even fun. This is local retail politics in action, and an experience you will want to enjoy.

Posted on

JULY 26 ENDORSEMENT MEETING: STATE PROPOSITIONS 51 TO 67

At our July meeting, we will vote on our endorsements for the ballot measures that will be presented to West Contra Costa County voters in the November, 2016 election.  As of this writing, there are 17 qualifying propositions.  The Executive Board of the El Cerrito Democratic Club has agreed to place 15 of these on a consent calendar, and recruit speakers for and against the other two.

Our process for voting will be to present the consent calendar to the members attending our July meeting.  Any member can request that any proposition be removed (“pulled”) from the consent calendar for specific additional debate.  

We will vote to endorse the consent calendar, then engage in debate on the measures removed from the consent calendar.  We will then hear presentations on the two measures not originally on the consent calendar. The member who requests to remove the proposition from the consent calendar will be responsible for presenting the position opposite to the executive board; a member of the executive board will present the reasons the board reached consensus on presenting to support or oppose the measure.  

At the close of debate on each debated measure we will vote to support, to oppose, or to take no position.

Below is a summary of the measures approved by the Secretary of State for the November ballot and the executive committee’s recommendation for each.

 

Num-ber TITLE TYPE Secretary of State Description Eboard Recommenda-tion
52 State Fees on Hospitals, Federal Medi-Cal Matching Funds Constitutional Amendment Increases required vote to two-thirds for the Legislature to amend a certain existing law that imposes fees on hospitals (for purpose of obtaining federal Medi-Cal matching funds) and that directs those fees and federal matching funds to hospital-provided Medi-Cal health care services, to uncompensated care provided by hospitals to uninsured patients, and to children’s health coverage. Eliminates law’s ending date. Declares that law’s fee proceeds shall not be considered revenues for purposes of applying state spending limit or determining required education funding.
Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: State savings from increased revenues that offset state costs for children’s health coverage of around $500 million beginning in 2016-17 (half-year savings) to over $1 billion annually by 2019-20, likely growing between 5 percent to 10 percent annually thereafter. Increased revenues to support state and local public hospitals of around $90 million beginning in 2016-17 (half-year) to $250 million annually by 2019-20, likely growing between 5 percent to 10 percent annually thereafter. 		 Yes
51 School Bonds. Funding for K-12 School and Community College Facilities. . Initiative Statutory Amendment Authorizes $9 billion in general obligation bonds: $3 billion for new construction and $3 billion for modernization of K-12 public school facilities; $1 billion for charter schools and vocational education facilities; and $2 billion for California Community Colleges facilities. Bars amendment to existing authority to levy developer fees to fund school facilities, until new construction bond proceeds are spent or December 31, 2020, whichever is earlier. Bars amendment to existing State Allocation Board process for allocating school construction funding, as to these bonds. Appropriates money from the General Fund to pay off bonds. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: 
State General Fund costs of $17.6 billion to pay off principal ($9 billion) and interest ($8.6 billion) on bonds over a period of 35 years. Annual payments would average $500 million. Annual payments would be relatively low in the initial and final few years and somewhat higher in the intervening years. 		 YES
53 Revenue Bonds. Statewide Voter Approval. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.  Requires statewide voter approval before any revenue bonds can be issued or sold by the state for projects that are financed, owned, operated, or managed by the state or any joint agency created by or including the state, if the bond amount exceeds $2 billion. Prohibits dividing projects into multiple separate projects to avoid statewide voter approval requirement. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: 
The fiscal effect on state and local governments is unknown and would vary by project. It would depend on (1) the outcome of projects brought before voters, (2) the extent to which the state relied on alternative approaches to the projects or alternative financing methods for affected projects, and (3) whether those methods have higher or lower costs than revenue bonds		 NO
54 Legislature. Legislation and Proceedings. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute. Prohibits Legislature from passing any bill unless it has been in print and published on the Internet for at least 72 hours before the vote, except in cases of public emergency. Requires the Legislature to make audiovisual recordings of all its proceedings, except closed session proceedings, and post them on the Internet. Authorizes any person to record legislative proceedings by audio or video means, except closed session proceedings. Allows recordings of legislative proceedings to be used for any legitimate purpose, without payment of any fee to the State. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: 
Increased costs to state government of potentially $1 million to $2 million initially and about $1 million annually for making additional legislative proceedings available in audiovisual form on the Internet.		 NO
55 Tax Extension to Fund Education and Healthcare. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. Extends by twelve years the temporary personal income tax increases enacted in 2012 on earnings over $250,000 (for single filers; over $500,000 for joint filers; over $340,000 for heads of household). Allocates these tax revenues 89% to K-12 schools and 11% to California Community Colleges. Allocates up to $2 billion per year in certain years for healthcare programs. Bars use of education revenues for administrative costs, but provides local school governing boards discretion to decide, in open meetings and subject to annual audit, how revenues are to be spent. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: 
Increased state revenues annually from 2019 through 2030—likely in the $5 billion to $11 billion range initially—with amounts varying based on stock market and economic trends. Increased revenues would be allocated under constitutional formulas to schools and community colleges, budget reserves and debt payments, and health programs, with remaining funds available for these or other state purposes. 		 YES
56 Cigarette Tax to Fund Healthcare, Tobacco Use Prevention, Research, and Law Enforcement. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute. Increases cigarette tax by $2.00 per pack, with equivalent increase on other tobacco products and electronic cigarettes containing nicotine. Allocates revenues primarily to increase funding for existing healthcare programs; also for tobacco use prevention/control programs, tobacco-related disease research and law enforcement, University of California physician training, dental disease prevention programs, and administration. Excludes these revenues from Proposition 98 funding requirements. If tax causes decreased tobacco consumption, transfers tax revenues to offset decreases to existing tobacco-funded programs and sales tax revenues. Requires biennial audit.
Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Net increase in excise tax revenues in the range of $1.1 billion to $1.6 billion annually by 2017-18, with revenues decreasing slightly in subsequent years. The majority of funds would be used for payments to health care providers. The remaining funds would be used for a variety of specified purposes, including tobacco-related prevention and cessation programs, law enforcement programs, medical research on tobacco-related diseases, and early childhood development programs.		 YES
57 Criminal Sentences. Juvenile Criminal Proceedings and Sentencing. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute. Allows parole consideration for persons convicted of nonviolent felonies upon completion of full prison term for primary offense, as defined. Authorizes Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to award sentence credits for rehabilitation, good behavior, or educational achievements. Requires Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to adopt regulations to implement new parole and sentence credit provisions and certify they enhance public safety. Provides juvenile court judges shall make determination, upon prosecutor motion, whether juveniles age 14 and older should be prosecuted and sentenced as adults. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: 
Net state savings that could range from the tens of millions of dollars to the low hundreds of millions of dollars annually primarily due to a reduction in the prison population from additional paroles granted and credits earned. Net county costs that could range from the millions to tens of millions of dollars annually, declining to a few million dollars after initial implementation of the measure.		 YES
60 Adult Films. Condoms. Health Requirements. Initiative Statute.  Requires performers in adult films to use condoms during filming of sexual intercourse. Requires producers of adult films to pay for performer vaccinations, testing, and medical examinations related to sexually transmitted infections. Requires producers to obtain state health license at beginning of filming and to post condom requirement at film sites. Imposes liability on producers for violations, on certain distributors, on performers if they have a financial interest in the violating film, and on talent agents who knowingly refer performers to noncomplying producers. Permits state, performers, or any state resident to enforce violations. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: 
Potentially reduced state and local tax revenue of millions or tens of millions of dollars per year. Likely state costs of a few million dollars annually to administer the law. Possible ongoing net costs or savings for state and local health and human services programs. 		 NO
61 State Prescription Drug Purchases. Pricing Standards. Initiative Statute Prohibits state agencies from paying more for a prescription drug than the lowest price paid for the same drug by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs. Applies to any program where the state is the ultimate payer for a drug, even if the state does not purchase the drug directly. Exempts certain purchases of prescription drugs funded through Medi-Cal.
Fiscal impact: It is the opinion of the Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance that the measure, if adopted, may result in a substantial net change in state or local finances. 		 NO POSITION
62 Death Penalty. Initiative Statute. Repeals death penalty as maximum punishment for persons found guilty of murder and replaces it with life imprisonment without possibility of parole. Applies retroactively to persons already sentenced to death. States that persons found guilty of murder and sentenced to life without possibility of parole must work while in prison as prescribed by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Increases to 60% the portion of wages earned by persons sentenced to life without the possibility of parole that may be applied to any victim restitution fines or orders against them. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: 

Net reduction in state and local government costs of potentially around $150 million annually within a few years due to the elimination of the death penalty.

 YES
63 Firearms. Ammunition Sales. Initiative Statute. Prohibits possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines, and requires their disposal by sale to dealer, destruction, or removal from state. Requires most individuals to pass background check and obtain Department of Justice authorization to purchase ammunition. Requires most ammunition sales be made through licensed ammunition vendors and reported to Department of Justice. Requires lost or stolen firearms and ammunition be reported to law enforcement. Prohibits persons convicted of stealing a firearm from possessing firearms. Establishes new procedures for enforcing laws prohibiting firearm possession by felons and violent criminals. Requires Department of Justice to provide information about prohibited persons to federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Increased state costs in the tens of millions of dollars annually related to regulating ammunition sales, likely offset by various regulatory fees authorized by the measure. Increase in court and law enforcement costs, not likely to exceed the tens of millions of dollars annually, related to removing firearms from prohibited persons as part of court sentencing proceedings. These costs could be offset to some extent by fees authorized by the measure. Potential increase in state and local correctional costs, not likely to exceed the low millions of dollars annually, related to new and increased penalties.

 NO POSITION
64 Marijuana Legalization. Initiative Statute Legalizes marijuana and hemp under state law. Designates state agencies to license and regulate marijuana industry. Imposes state excise tax on retail sales of marijuana equal to 15% of sales price, and state cultivation taxes on marijuana of $9.25 per ounce of flowers and $2.75 per ounce of leaves. Exempts medical marijuana from some taxation. Establishes packaging, labeling, advertising, and marketing standards and restrictions for marijuana products. Allows local regulation and taxation of marijuana. Prohibits marketing and advertising marijuana to minors. Authorizes resentencing and destruction of records for prior marijuana convictions. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: 

Net reduced costs ranging from tens of millions of dollars to potentially exceeding $100 million annually to state and local governments related to enforcing certain marijuana-related offenses, handling the related criminal cases in the court system, and incarcerating and supervising certain marijuana offenders. Net additional state and local tax revenues potentially ranging from the high hundreds of millions of dollars to over $1 billion annually related to the production and sale of marijuana. Most of these funds would be required to be spent for specific purposes such as substance use disorder education, prevention, and treatment.

 YES
65 Carry-Out Bags. Charges. Initiative Statute Redirects money collected by grocery and certain other retail stores through sale of carry-out bags, whenever any state law bans free distribution of a particular kind of carry-out bag and mandates the sale of any other kind of carry-out bag. Requires stores to deposit bag sale proceeds into a special fund administered by the Wildlife Conservation Board to support specified categories of environmental projects. Provides for Board to develop regulations implementing law. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: 

If voters uphold the state’s current carryout bag law, redirected revenues from retailers to the state, potentially in the several tens of millions of dollars annually. Revenues would be used for grants for certain environmental and natural resources purposes. If voters reject the state’s current carryout bag law, likely minor fiscal effects. 

 NO
66 Death Penalty. Procedures. Initiative Statute. Changes procedures governing state court appeals and petitions challenging death penalty convictions and sentences. Designates superior court for initial petitions and limits successive petitions. Imposes time limits on state court death penalty review. Requires appointed attorneys who take noncapital appeals to accept death penalty appeals. Exempts prison officials from existing regulation process for developing execution methods. Authorizes death row inmate transfers among California state prisons. States death row inmates must work and pay victim restitution. States other voter approved measures related to death penalty are null and void if this measure receives more affirmative votes. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government:

 Increased state costs that could be in the tens of millions of dollars annually for several years related to direct appeals and habeas corpus proceedings, with the fiscal impact on such costs being unknown in the longer run. Potential state correctional savings that could be in the tens of millions of dollars annually.

 NO
67 Overturn Ban on Single-Use Plastic Bags Referendum In 2015, the State Legislature approved and the Governor signed a state law prohibiting grocery and certain other retail sotres from providing single-use plastic bags, but permits the sale of recycled paper bags and reusuable bags.  This proposition would ratify that law by a popular vote, and insure that the ban on single use plastic bags would go into effect.  A no vote on this proposition would overturn the ban.  The plastic bag industry collected enough signatures to put this referendum on the ballot. Yes

BART Capital Reinvestment Bond – please see article from our April newsletter http://ecdclub.dev.haveabyte.com/?p=1204, IT’S TIME TO REBUILD — WHY WE NEED THE BART SYSTEM RENEWAL BOND