sign up

California’s November 2020 Ballot Propositions

  • Election Resources, News

California voters will be asked to vote on 12 statewide ballot measures in the 2020 General Election on November 3, 2020.  As faithful citizens we are called to make informed voting decisions based on a clear understanding of our faith and a deep appreciation of life, the common good, solidarity, care for the poor and the other principles of faith and morals that are to guide our life.

Statewide Propositions

 

California voters will be asked to vote on 12 statewide ballot measures in the 2020 General Election on November 3, 2020.  As faithful citizens we are called to make informed voting decisions based on a clear understanding of our faith and a deep appreciation of life, the common good, solidarity, care for the poor and the other principles of faith and morals that are to guide our life.  Below are descriptions of each proposition with clear background, non-partisan analysis and a sampling of the principles of Catholic social teaching to help us in that discernment. 

Proposition Summary                  |               Resumen de las Propuestas

Return to ELECTION RESOURCES main page

Proposition 14 – OPPOSE

Issues $5.5 billion in bonds for the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), a state program created in 2004 to fund stem cell research projects, including research involving embryonic stem cells.  Proposition 14 also makes changes to the governance structure and programs of the CIRM, including increased efforts and new positions to improve patient access to stem cell treatments.

A YES vote on Proposition 14 means the state could sell $5.5 billion in general obligation bonds to fund CIRM operations and additional grants.

A NO vote on Proposition 14 means the state could not sell such bonds.

The California Catholic Conference strongly recommends a NO vote based on moral and ethical objections to using human embryonic stem cells as the raw material for experimentation and inadequate financial accountability and oversight of taxpayer funds.

Background

In 2004, California voters approved Proposition 71, which created a new state program to fund stem cell research projects, research facilities and other related facilities, and established a new entity, the CIRM to administer the program.  Proposition 71 also approved $3 billion in general obligation bonds to fund stem cell grants and the CIRM’s operations. 

In 2004, the Catholic Bishops of California issued their statement urging a “no vote” on Proposition 71, California’s Embryo Cloning and Stem Cell Research Bond Act, saying:

Proposition 71 involves the technology of human embryonic cloning, cannot be justified from an ethical perspective, promises what may not happen, and is a financial boondoggle. . .It should be stated that we are not opposed to stem cell research. We approve and encourage research that uses cells derived from adults and umbilical-cord blood, and we rejoice at the phenomenal cures that some have experienced because of that research

According to the Legislative Analyst Office (LAO), the bonds issued under Proposition 71 have comprised virtually all of the CIRM’s funding, with a smaller amount coming from investment income, private donations and other sources.  CIRM has spent nearly all of these available funds and, as of October 2019, had spent all but $132 million of their funding.

Proposition 14 would do the following:

  • Authorize $5.5 billion in general obligation bonds to fund additional grants and CIRM operations.
  • Limit the amount of bonds the state could sell each year, with the goal of spreading bond sales over at least a 10-year period.
  • Make numerous changes to the CIRM’s programs and governance structure, including refocusing some of the CIRM’s efforts towards “improving patient access to stem cell treatments.”  Under Proposition 14, the CIRM would be allowed to hire up to 15 full-time employees to research and develop ways to “improve access to treatments.”
  • Require the CIRM to provide grants for new research facilities at California universities and nonprofit institutions.

Fiscal Impact:

According to the Legislative Analyst Office (LAO), the cost to taxpayers to repay the bonds would be approximately $7.8 billion to pay off the principal ($5.5 billion) and interest ($2.3 billion) over 25 years.  Annual debt payments would average about $310 million.  The state General Fund would pay most of the costs, with a relatively small amount of interest repaid by bond proceeds.

CCC Position:  OPPOSE

Additional Information:

Reflections on Church Teaching:

“No objective, even though noble in itself, such as a foreseeable advantage to science, to other human beings or to society, can in any way justify experimentation on living human embryos or foetuses, whether viable or not, either inside or outside the mother’s womb….Moreover, experimentation on embryos and foetuses always involves risk, and indeed in most cases it involves the certain expectation of harm to their physical integrity or even their death. To use human embryos or foetuses as the object or instrument of experimentation constitutes a crime against their dignity as human beings having a right to the same respect that is due to the child already born and to every human person.”

Donum Vitae: Instruction on Respect for Human Life, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (February 22, 1987).

“Research in this field has understandably grown in importance in recent years because of the hope it offers for the cure of ills affecting many people. I have on other occasions stated that stem cells for purposes of experimentation or treatment cannot come from human embryo tissue. I have instead encouraged research on adult human tissue or tissue superfluous to normal fetal development. Any treatment which claims to save human lives, yet is based upon the destruction of human life in its embryonic state, is logically and morally contradictory, as is any production of human embryos for the direct or indirect purpose of experimentation or eventual destruction.”

Saint Pope John Paul II, Address to the Members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, (November 10, 2003).

“…[R]esearch, in such cases, irrespective of the efficacious therapeutic results, is not truly at the service of humanity.  In fact, this research advances through the suppression of human lives that are equal in dignity to the lives of other human individuals and to the lives of the researchers themselves.  History itself has condemned such a science in the past and will condemn it in the future, not only because it lacks the light of God but also because it lacks humanity.”

Pope Benedict XVI, “Address to the participants in the Symposium on the topic: ‘Stem Cells: What is the Future for Therapy?’” organized by the Pontifical Academy for Life (September 16, 2006).

Proposition 15

Changes the way commercial property taxes are calculated – When Proposition 13 passed it limited the increase to property tax that a county could require each year.  It did this for both residential and commercial property.  Counties are allowed to raise property taxes to market value if a property is sold.  However, over time, residential property is sold more often than commercial property resulting in residential homeowners assuming a larger percentage of the tax burden compared to commercial property owners.

This proposition requires commercial and industrial properties, as well as vacant land not intended for housing, commercial agriculture, or protected open space to be taxed based on their market value (what it could be sold for today), as opposed to their purchase price (which is the standard under existing law).  Most of the new revenues from this shift would be allocated to cities, counties, special districts and schools.

A YES vote on Proposition 15 means commercial and industrial properties, and the other properties mentioned above, would shift to a “market value” assessment in a phase-in beginning in 2022-23.

A NO vote on Proposition 15 means such properties would continue to be assessed for property tax purposes based on their purchase price.

Background

Under existing law, property taxes are generally based on a property’s purchase price.  Each year, county tax assessors assess property taxes based on a formula that multiplies the taxable value of the property by the property tax rate.

Property tax rates are capped at 1 percent plus smaller voter-approved rates to finance local infrastructure.  A property’s taxable value generally is based on purchase price.  When a property is purchased, it is assigned a value – often its purchase price.  Each year, the property’s taxable value increases by 2 percent or the rate of inflation, whichever is lower.  This process continues each year until the property is sold and again is taxed at its purchase price.

Proposition 15 would change the process of calculating the taxable value of most commercial and industrial property by doing the following:

  • Requires commercial and industrial properties, as well as vacant land not intended for housing, commercial agriculture, or protected open space to be taxed based on their market value, as opposed to their purchase price.
  • This shift to market value assessment is phased in over a number of years beginning in 2022-23. For properties in which the majority of space is occupied by small businesses—defined as businesses that own California property and have 50 or fewer employees—the shift to market value taxation would not begin until 2025-26 or a later date set by the Legislature.
  • Properties owned by individuals or businesses whose property holdings in the state total less than $3 million (adjusted for inflation biannually beginning in 2025) are exempt from market value taxation. These properties would continue to be taxed based on purchase price.
  • Similarly, residential properties would continue to be taxed based on purchase price.

Fiscal Impact:

According to the Legislative Analyst Office (LAO), upon full implementation, Proposition 15’s shift of most commercial and industrial properties to a market value assessment would increase annual property taxes paid for those properties by $7.5 billion to $12. billion in most years, depending on the strength of real estate markets.  After backfilling state income tax losses related to the measure and paying for county administrative costs, the remaining $6.5 billion to 11.5 billion would be allocated to schools (40 percent) and other local governments (60 percent).

CCC Position: None

Additional Information:

Reflections on Church Teaching:

 

“It is the duty of citizens to contribute along with the civil authorities to the good of society in a spirit of truth, justice, solidarity, and freedom.  The love and service of one’s country follow from the duty of gratitude and belong to the order of charity. Submission to legitimate authorities and service of the common good require citizens to fulfill their roles in the life of the political community.  Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one’s country.”  Catechism of the Catholic Church, nos. 2239-2240.

“There were many ‘discarded’ by society. Today we have invented other ways to care for, to feed, to teach the poor, and some of the seeds of the Bible have blossomed into more effective institutions than those of the past. The rationale for taxes also lies in this solidarity, which is negated by tax avoidance and evasion which, over and above being illegal acts, are acts which deny the basic law of life: mutual care.” – Pope Francis, Address to Participants in the Meeting of the Economy of Communion, 2017

“In a system of taxation based on justice and equity it is fundamental that the burdens be proportioned to the capacity of the people contributing.”  Saint Pope John XXIII, Mater et Magistra , Encyclical of Pope John XXIII on Christianity and Social Progress, May 15, 1961 (132). 

Proposition 16

Allows the use of affirmative action – Repeals Proposition 209 (1996), which says that the state cannot discriminate or grant preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, education, or contracting

In 1996, Proposition 209 eliminated affirmative action by amending the California Constitution to prohibit the state from discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting. 

A YES vote on Proposition 16 means the California Constitution would reinstate affirmative action.

A NO vote on Proposition 16 means the provisions of the California Constitution enacted by Proposition 209 in 1996 would remain in effect.

Background

In 1996, California voters approved Proposition 209, which added Section 31 to Article I of the California Constitution.  Proposition 209 was passed by a 55-45 margin.

Those provisions of the California Constitution prohibit the state from discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

Proposition 16 would amend the California Constitution by deleting the provisions added by Proposition 209 in 1996.  In other words, the California Constitution would thereby permit the use of race and sex as factors in public employment, public education, and public contracting.

Fiscal Impact:

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, the California Department of Human Resources would incur one-time General Funds costs, likely in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, to modify hiring practices to accommodate new hiring programs and standards.

CCC Position: No position

Additional Information:

Reflections on Church Teaching:

“You shall love the Lord, your God, with all of your heart, with all of your soul, and with all of your mind.  This is the greatest and first commandment.  The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Mt. 22:37-39).

“[W]here the effects of past discrimination persist, society has the obligation to take positive steps to overcome the legacy of injustice.  Judiciously administered affirmative action programs in education and employment can be important expressions of the drive for solidarity and participation that is the heart of true justice.  Social harm calls for social relief.”

National Conference of Catholic Bishops, “Economic Justice for All: Catholic Social Teaching and the U.S. Economy,” para. 73 (November 18, 1986).

“To work at ending racism, we need to engage the world and encounter others—to see, maybe for the first time, those who are on the peripheries of our own limited view. Knowing that the Lord has taken the divine initiative by loving us first, we can boldly go forward, reaching out to others. We must invite into dialogue those we ordinarily would not seek out. We must work to form relationships with those we might regularly try to avoid.”

USCCB, “Open Wide Our Hearts: The Enduring Call to Love: A Pastoral Letter Against Racism” (November 2018).

“Even in the developed world, the effects of unjust structures and actions are all too apparent.  Our efforts must aim at restoring hope, righting wrongs, maintaining commitments, and thus promoting the well-being of individuals and of peoples.”

Pope Francis, Address to the United States Congress (September 24, 2015).

Proposition 17

Restores the right to vote to people convicted of felonies who are on parole – This proposition amends the California Constitution to permit an otherwise eligible person who is on parole for the conviction of a felony to register to vote and to vote.  Proposition 17 further provides that an individual disqualified from voting while serving a state or federal prison term shall have their right to vote restored upon the completion of their prison term.

A YES vote on Proposition means the California Constitution would be amended to allow a person who is on parole for the conviction of a felony to vote.

A NO vote on Proposition 17 means an individual would continue to not be eligible to vote until they have completed their parole for a conviction of a felony. 

Overview:

This proposition amends the California Constitution to permit an otherwise eligible person who is on parole for the conviction of a felony to register to vote and to vote.  Proposition 17 further provides that an individual disqualified from voting while serving a state or federal prison term shall have their right to vote restored upon the completion of their prison term.

A YES vote on Proposition means the California Constitution would be amended to allow a person who is on parole for the conviction of a felony to vote.

A NO vote on Proposition 17 means an individual would continue to not be eligible to vote until they have completed their parole for a conviction of a felony.

Related on the 2020 Ballot

Proposition 20 – Criminal Penalties and DNA Collection
Proposition 25 – Cash Bail

Background

Article II, Section 4 of the California Constitution states that “[the] Legislature shall prohibit improper practices that affect elections and shall provide for the disqualification of electors while mentally incompetent or imprisoned or on parole for the conviction of a felony.”

Elections Code Section 2101 is the statute that implements Article II, Section 4 of the California Constitution. Section 2101 states that “[a] person entitled to register to vote shall be a United States citizen, a resident of California, not imprisoned or on parole for the conviction of a felony, and at least 18 years of age at the time of the next election.”

As a result, under California law, any person who is imprisoned or on parole for the conviction of a felony is prohibited from voting and elections officials are required to cancel the voter registrations of such individuals. However, a person who is on probation for conviction of a felony is permitted to vote.

Once an individual completes parole, then their right to vote is restored and they can re-register to vote and subsequently vote.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), laws related to this subject vary from state-to-state:

  • In Maine and Vermont, felons never lose their right to vote, even while they are incarcerated.
  • In 16 states and the District of Columbia, felons lose their voting rights only while incarcerated and receive automatic restoration of their voting rights upon release.
  • In 21 states, felons lose their voting rights during incarceration and for a period of time following incarceration. This is typically while on parole and/or probation. Voting rights are automatically restored following this time period. It should be noted that, depending on the state, former felons may have to pay any outstanding fines, fees, or restitution before their voting rights are restored.
  • In 11 states, felons lose their voting rights indefinitely for some crimes, require a governor’s pardon in order for their voting rights to be restored, face an additional waiting period after completion of sentence (including parole and probation), or require some other type of action before voting rights can be restored.

Additionally, according to NCSL, states that provide for “automatic restoration” of voting rights does not mean that voter registration is automatic. Typically, prison officials inform election officials that an individual’s rights have been restored and the person is responsible for re-registering through normal processes. Some states, like California, require that voter registration information be provided to formerly incarcerated people.

Proposition 17 would amend the California Constitution to do the following:

  • Delete the provision that requires the Legislature to provide for the disqualification of individuals from voting while on parole for the conviction of a felony.
  • Provide that an individual disqualified from voting while serving a state or federal prison term shall have their right to vote restored upon the completion of their prison term.

Fiscal Impact:

CCC Position: No Position

Additional Information:

Reflections on Church Teaching:

“We are still a long way from the time when our conscience can be certain of having done everything possible to prevent crime and to control it effectively so that it no longer does harm and, at the same time, to offer to those who commit crimes a way of redeeming themselves and making a positive return to society.  If all those in some way involved in the problem tried to…develop this line of thought, perhaps humanity as a whole could take a great step forward in creating a more serene and peaceful society.”

Saint Pope John Paul II, July 9, 2000

“We believe that both victims and offenders are children of God. Despite their very different claims on society, their lives and dignity should be protected and respected. We seek justice, not vengeance. We believe punishment must have clear purposes: protecting society and rehabilitating those who violate the law.”

USCCB, “Responsibility, Rehabilitation and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice.” (November 15, 2000).

“Crime and corrections are at the intersection of rights and responsibilities. Those who commit crimes violate the rights of others and disregard their responsibilities. But the test for the rest of us is whether we will exercise our responsibility to hold the offender accountable without violating his or her basic rights. Even offenders should be treated with respect for their rights.”

USCCB, “Responsibility, Rehabilitation and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice.” (November 15, 2000).

“Catholics have the duty to vote, to participate in the political arena, and to help shape society in light of social teaching.”

USCCB, The United States Catholic Catechism for Adults (2006), p. 380

Proposition 18

Allows 17-year-olds who will be 18 at the time of the next general election to vote in primaries and special elections ­­- This proposition amends the California Constitution to permit a 17-year-old who will be 18 by the time of the next general election to vote at any primary or special election held prior to that general election.

A YES vote on Proposition 18 means 17-year-olds would be able to vote in primary or special elections if they will be 18 by the time of the general election.

A NO vote on Proposition 18 would maintain the current rule that an individual must be at least 18 years old to vote in any local, state or federal election.

Overview:

This proposition amends the California Constitution to permit a 17-year-old who will be 18 by the time of the next general election to vote at any primary or special election held prior to that general election.

A YES vote on Proposition 18 means 17-year-olds would be able to vote in primary or special elections if they will be 18 by the time of the general election.

A NO vote on Proposition 18 would maintain the current rule that an individual must be at least 18 years old to vote in any local, state or federal election.

Background

Under California law, an individual must be at least 18 years old in order to vote in any local, state or federal election.  However, California law does allow an individual who is at least 16 years old to “preregister” to vote.  This does not authorize them to vote in any election before they reach the age of 18; however, it deems their voting registration “effective” as soon as they are age 18 at the time of the next election.

While no state allows people under the age of 18 to vote in federal general elections, according to information from the National Conference of State Legislatures, at least 18 states (Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia) and the District of Columbia permit a 17-year-old to vote in a primary election if the voter will turn 18 by the time of the general election.

In some other states, 17-year-olds are allowed to participate in presidential caucuses if they will be 18 by the date of the general election, though the eligibility requirements for participating in a presidential caucus generally is determined by the political party conducting the caucus.

In addition, some local jurisdictions in California have (or have proposed) to lower the voting age for certain offices.  For example, in 2016, voters in the City of Berkeley approved a charter amendment that permits the City Council to lower the voting age to 16 years old for school board elections. In 2020, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors introduced a charter amendment that would permit 16- and 17-year-old residents to vote in San Francisco’s municipal elections. In 2016, a similar ballot measure, known as Proposition F, was proposed and subsequently rejected by San Francisco voters. Additionally, in 2020, the Oakland City Council voted to submit a ballot measure to the voters for the November 3, 2020 general election that would amend the city’s charter to authorize the City Council to allow eligible individuals who are at least 16 years old to vote for the office of School Director by ordinance.

Fiscal Impact:

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, the proposition would result in one-time General Funds costs of approximately for the Secretary of State to provide or replenish existing registration cards and for changes to voter registration systems.

CCC Position: No Position

Additional Infromation:

Reflections on Church Teaching:

“It is necessary that all participate, each according to his position and role, in promoting the common good. This obligation is inherent in the dignity of the human person…As far as possible citizens should take an active part in public life.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, (nos. 1913-1915).

“People in every nation enhance the social dimension of their lives by acting as committed and responsible citizens.”

Pope Francis, Evangelii Gaudium, (no. 220).

“In the Catholic Tradition, responsible citizenship is a virtue, and participation in political life is a moral obligation…The obligation to participate in political life is rooted in our baptismal commitment to follow Jesus Christ and to bear Christian witness in all we do.”

USCCB, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A call to Political Responsibility from the Catholic Bishops of the United States” (February 2020).

Proposition 19

Changes tax assessment transfers and inheritance rules – Makes a number of changes to California property tax laws.  Most notably, Proposition 19 allows “base year value transfers” for disabled taxpayers and those over the age of 55, as well as a victim of a wildfire or other natural disaster, regardless of the replacement property’s value or location, so long as the replacement property is purchased or constructed within two years of the date the original property is sold.  Proposition 19 also limits or reduces existing rules that exempt parent-child or grandparent-grandchild exclusions from change in ownership rules affecting property taxes. 

A YES vote on Proposition 19 would enact the above-mentioned (as well as other) changes to California’s property tax laws.

A NO vote on Proposition 19 means the existing property tax rules would remain in place.

Overview:

This proposition makes a number of changes to California property tax laws.  Most notably, Proposition 19 allows “base year value transfers” for disabled taxpayers and those over the age of 55, as well as a victim of a wildfire or other natural disaster, regardless of the replacement property’s value or location, so long as the replacement property is purchased or constructed within two years of the date the original property is sold.  Proposition 19 also limits or reduces existing rules that exempt parent-child or grandparent-grandchild exclusions from change in ownership rules affecting property taxes. 

A YES vote on Proposition 19 would enact the above-mentioned (as well as other) changes to California’s property tax laws.

A NO vote on Proposition 19 means the existing property tax rules would remain in place.

Related on 2020 Ballot

Proposition 15 – Tax Assessment of Commercial and Industrial Property

Background

Base Year Value Transfers

California’s Proposition 13 provided property owners in California with substantial protections from higher property tax rates and annual reassessments. However, because the initiative generally set a property’s taxable value at its purchase price plus growth of up to 2% per year, taxpayers who sold their homes and purchased new ones will likely pay higher property taxes, thereby levying a tax penalty on those seeking to acquire housing that more closely meet their demands.

Over the years, California voters have approved a number of changes to reduce the impact of this “tax penalty” on certain groups.  These special rules allow existing homeowners to move to a different home without paying higher property taxes.  For example, Propositions 60 (1986) and 90 (1988) allowed persons over 55 and the disabled to move without the tax consequence, so long as the value of the replacement home met the definition of “equal or lesser value” in statute.  These are generally referred to as “base year value transfers.”

Proposition 50 (1986) allowed base year value transfers for certain disasters.  Proposition 171 (1993) allowed taxpayers to transfer base year values to other counties when their property is damaged by a major misfortune or calamity and located in an area declared to be in a state of disaster by the Governor.

Proposition 19 would allow base year value transfers for disabled taxpayers and those over the age of 55, as well as a victim of a wildfire or other natural disaster, regardless of the replacement property’s value or location, so long as the replacement property is purchased or constructed within two years of the date the original property is sold.  Disabled taxpayers or those over age 55 would be limited to three transfers, while victims of wildfires and natural disasters would be limited to one transfer.  These changes would apply beginning April 1, 2021.

Parent/Child and Grandparent/Grandchild Transfers

When there is a change in ownership in property, the property is generally reassessed and taxed at its new market value. 

However, special rules exclude certain transfers of property among family members from these “change in ownership” rules, meaning the properties may continue to be taxed at lower tax rates.  Current law excludes transfers from parents to children for (1) primary residences and (2) up to $1 million in aggregate value of all other types of property (such as second homes or business properties).  This rule has been extended to transfers between grandparents and grandchildren when all of the parents are deceased as of the date of the purchase or transfer.

Proposition 19 would limit these rules by providing that, even if the property continues as the primary residence of the transferee, the exclusion can only reduce assessed value by $1 million.  In addition, Proposition 19 would repeal the parent-child and grandparent-grandchild exclusion for up to $1 million in aggregate values of all other types of property that is not the principal residence (effective February 15, 2021).

Fiscal Impact:

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, Proposition 19’s base year value transfer provisions would result in an average revenue loss of $1,560 per replacement property.  However, the Legislative Analyst Office’s analysis of similar proposals indicates that those contained in the measure would result in a net increase in property tax revenue.

CCC Position: No position

Additional Information:

Reflections on Church Teaching:

“It is the duty of citizens to contribute along with the civil authorities to the good of society in a spirit of truth, justice, solidarity, and freedom.  The love and service of one’s country follow from the duty of gratitude and belong to the order of charity. Submission to legitimate authorities and service of the common good require citizens to fulfill their roles in the life of the political community.  Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one’s country.”  Catechism of the Catholic Church, nos. 2239-2240.

“There were many ‘discarded’ by society. Today we have invented other ways to care for, to feed, to teach the poor, and some of the seeds of the Bible have blossomed into more effective institutions than those of the past. The rationale for taxes also lies in this solidarity, which is negated by tax avoidance and evasion which, over and above being illegal acts, are acts which deny the basic law of life: mutual care.” – Pope Francis, Address to Participants in the Meeting of the Economy of Communion, 2017

“In a system of taxation based on justice and equity it is fundamental that the burdens be proportioned to the capacity of the people contributing.”  Saint Pope John XXIII, Mater et Magistra , Encyclical of Pope John XXIII on Christianity and Social Progress, May 15, 1961 (132). 

Proposition 20 – OPPOSE

Makes changes to policies related to criminal sentencing charges, prison release, and DNA collection by repealing Prop 47 (2014) and Prop 57 (2016), both supported by the California Bishops.  This proposition amends state law to (1) increase penalties for certain theft-related crimes, (2) change the existing nonviolent offender release consideration process, (3) change community supervision practices, and (4) require DNA collection from adults convicted of certain misdemeanors.

In the past decade, California voters and lawmakers have enacted more than a dozen bills or ballot initiatives that have prioritized local public safety programs over long prison sentences.  These changes have helped the state comply with the federal lawsuit on prison conditions and reduced the prison population by more than 40,000 people while crime rates have remained historically low. The criminal justice reforms have fueled a policy shift reallocating resources toward rehabilitative programs to prepare people in prison to return to the community and expanded trauma recovery services to help crime victims heal. 

Proposition 20 would repeal this progress and emphasize a more punitive rather than restorative justice system in California.

A YES vote on Proposition 20 means the aforementioned changes to state law would be enacted.

A NO vote on Proposition 20 means existing law would remain unchanged.

The California Catholic Conference strongly recommends a NO vote.  Recent reform such as Propositions 47 and 57 have fueled a successful policy shift reallocating resources toward rehabilitation in the state’s criminal justice system.  Prop 20 attempts to overturn that progress. 

Overview:

Makes changes to policies related to criminal sentencing charges, prison release, and DNA collection by repealing Prop 47 (2014) and Prop 57 (2016), both supported by the California Bishops.  This proposition amends state law to (1) increase penalties for certain theft-related crimes, (2) change the existing nonviolent offender release consideration process, (3) change community supervision practices, and (4) require DNA collection from adults convicted of certain misdemeanors.

In the past decade, California voters and lawmakers have enacted more than a dozen bills or ballot initiatives that have prioritized local public safety programs over long prison sentences.  These changes have helped the state comply with the federal lawsuit on prison conditions and reduced the prison population by more than 40,000 people while crime rates have remained historically low. The criminal justice reforms have fueled a policy shift reallocating resources toward rehabilitative programs to prepare people in prison to return to the community and expanded trauma recovery services to help crime victims heal. 

Proposition 20 would repeal this progress and emphasize a more punitive rather than restorative justice system in California.

A YES vote on Proposition 20 means the aforementioned changes to state law would be enacted.

A NO vote on Proposition 20 means existing law would remain unchanged.

Related on the 2020 Ballot

Proposition 17 – Voting Rights and Parole
Proposition 25 – Cash Bail

Background

Proposition 20 would amend state law to make the following changes related to criminal penalties and DNA collection:

Increased Penalties for Certain Theft-Related Crimes

Under existing law, theft of property or money worth less than $950 is generally charged as petty theft (or shoplifting if the theft is from a commercial establishment such as a store).  Both petty theft and shoplifting are generally misdemeanors, punishable by six months in county jail.

Proposition 20 would provide that certain theft-related crimes (such as forgery, identity theft, and the unauthorized use of a vehicle) cannot be charged as petty theft or shoplifting regardless of the value of the money or property stolen.  Instead, those crimes could still be charged as misdemeanors, or could be charged as felonies (punishable by up to three years in jail or prison).

Proposition 20 also establishes two new crimes: 1) “serial theft”, and 2) “organized retail theft.”  Both of these new crimes could be charged as misdemeanors or felonies.

Changes to Nonviolent Offender Release Consideration Process

In 2016, voters approved Proposition 57, which amended state law to provide that any person convicted of a nonviolent felony offense and sentenced to state prison shall be considered for release after completing the full term for his or her primary offense.  Eligible offenders are reviewed for release by the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH).

Proposition 57 was supported by the California Catholic Conference (CCC) of Bishops.

Proposition 20 would make various changes to the current nonviolent offender release consideration process enacted by Proposition 57.  These changes include:

  • Excluding certain inmates who would otherwise qualify for the release consideration process.  For example, inmates convicted of specified human trafficking crimes and solicitation to commit murder would no longer be eligible.
  • Allowing prosecutors to appeal a release decision made by BPH.
  • Requiring BPH to deny release to inmates who pose an unreasonable risk of creating victims as a result of future felony activity, rather than only those who pose an unreasonable risk of violence.
  • Requiring the state to make reasonable efforts to locate victims and notify them of the review.

Changes to Community Supervision Practices

Proposition 20 makes various changes to how the state and county probation departments supervise offenders in the community.  For example, it requires probation departments to petition the court to revoke an offender’s terms of supervision if he or she has violated them for a third time.

Expansion of DNA Collection

Under current law, any adult arrested or charged with a felony offense, any juvenile found guilty of a felony offense, or any individual required to register as a sex offender or arsonist is required to provide DNA samples for law enforcement purposes.

Proposition 20 requires state and local law enforcement to collect DNA samples from any adult convicted of certain misdemeanor crimes and “wobblers” (crimes that may be charged as either misdemeanors or felonies).  Some of these crimes include shoplifting, forging checks, and certain domestic violence offenses.

Fiscal Impact:

According to the Legislative Analyst Office (LAO), Proposition 20 would result in the following:

Increased state and local correctional costs likely in the tens of millions of dollars annually, primarily related to increases in penalties for certain theft-related crimes and the changes to the nonviolent offender release consideration process. Increases state and local court-related costs of around a few million dollars annually related to processing probation revocations and additional felony theft filings. Increase state and local law enforcement costs not likely to exceed a couple of million dollars annually related to collecting and processing DNA samples from additional offenders.

CCC Position:  OPPOSE

Additional Information:

Reflections on Church Teaching:

“[A] Catholic vision of crime and criminal justice can offer some alternatives.  It recognizes that root causes and personal choices can both be factors in crime by understanding the need for responsibility on the part of the offender and an opportunity for their rehabilitation. A Catholic approach leads us to encourage models of restorative justice that seek to address crime in terms of the harm done to victims and communities, not simply as a violation of law.”

USCCB, “Responsibility, Rehabilitation and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice.” (November 15, 2000).

 “We believe that both victims and offenders are children of God. Despite their very different claims on society, their lives and dignity should be protected and respected. We seek justice, not vengeance. We believe punishment must have clear purposes: protecting society and rehabilitating those who violate the law.”

USCCB, “Responsibility, Rehabilitation and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice.” (November 15, 2000).

“In the broad context of human social relations, when we look to crime and punishment, we cannot help but think of the inhumane conditions in so many prisons, where those in custody are often reduced to a subhuman status in violation of their human dignity and stunted in their hope and desire for rehabilitation. The Church does much in these environments, mostly in silence. I exhort and I encourage everyone to do more, in the hope that the efforts being made in this area by so many courageous men and women will be increasingly supported, fairly and honestly, by the civil authorities as well.”

Pope Francis, World Day of Peace Message, 2014.

Proposition 21

Expands local governments’ power to use rent control – “Rent control” laws limit how much landlords can increase rents for housing from one year to the next.  This proposition allows cities and counties to apply local “rent control” laws to more properties than under current law.

A YES vote on Proposition 21 would allow cities and counties to apply local rent control laws more broadly to more types of properties.

A NO vote on Proposition 21 means existing limitations on local rent control laws would remain in place.

Overview:

“Rent control” laws limit how much landlords can increase rents for housing from one year to the next.  This proposition allows cities and counties to apply local “rent control” laws to more properties than under current law.

A YES vote on Proposition 21 would allow cities and counties to apply local rent control laws more broadly to more types of properties.

A NO vote on Proposition 21 means existing limitations on local rent control laws would remain in place.

Background

“Rent control” laws limit how much landlords can increase rents for housing from one year to the next.  Several California cities (including Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Jose) have enacted such laws, and approximately one-fifth of Californians live in cities with rent control laws.

A state law known as “Costa-Hawkins” limits local rent control laws.  Costa-Hawkins creates three main limitations:

  1. Rent control laws cannot apply to single-family homes.
  2. Rent control laws cannot apply to any newly built housing completed on or after February 1, 1995.
  3. Rent control laws cannot tell landlords what they can charge a new renter when first moving in.

Proposition 21 narrows the limits on local rent control laws under Costa-Hawkins, allowing cities and counties to apply rent control to more properties than under current law.  First, the proposition would allow cities and counties to apply rent control to all housing that is more than 15 years old, with the exception of single-family homes owned by landlords who own no more than two properties.  In addition, Proposition 21 would allow cities and counties to limit how much a landlord can increase rents when a new renter moves in.  Communities that do so must allow a landlord to increase rents by up to 15 percent the first three years after a new renter moves in.

Fiscal Impact:

According to the Legislative Analyst Office (LAO), Proposition 21 would result in a potential reduction in state and local revenues of tens of millions of dollars per year in the long term.  Depending on actions by local communities, revenue losses could be less or more.

CCC Position: No Position

Additional Information:

Reflections on Church Teaching:

“There must be made available to all men everything necessary for leading a life truly human, such as food, clothing, and shelter. . . “

Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (December 1965).

“God intended the earth and all that it contains for the use of every human being and people. . . . Whatever the forms of ownership may be, as adapted to the legitimate institutions of people according to diverse and changeable circumstances, attention must always be paid to the universal purpose for which created goods are meant. In using them, therefore, a man should regard his lawful possessions not merely as his own but also as common property in the sense that they should accrue to the benefit of not only himself but of others.”

Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (December 1965).

“The lack of safe, affordable housing requires a renewed commitment to increase the supply of quality housing and to preserve, maintain, and improve existing housing through public/private partnerships, especially with religious groups and community organizations.”

USCCB, Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship (2011).

‘Lack of housing is a grave problem in many parts of the world, both in rural areas and in large cities, since state budgets usually cover only a small portion of the demand. Not only the poor, but many other members of society as well, find it difficult to own a home. Having a home has much to do with a sense of personal dignity and the growth of families.”

Pope Francis, Encyclical Letter Laudato Sí: On Care for Our Common Home, 152 (2015).

Proposition 22

Considers app-based drivers for companies such as Uber and Lyft to be independent contractors and enacts several labor policies related to app-based companies – This proposition establishes different criteria for determining whether app-based transportation (rideshare) and delivery drivers are “employees” or “independent contractors” under state employment laws, and would classify such drivers as independent contractors where certain criteria are met.

A YES vote on Proposition 22 means that app-based transportation and delivery drivers are independent contractors where certain criteria are met.

A NO vote on Proposition 22 means the determination of whether such drivers are employees or independent contractors would continue to be made under existing law.

Overview:

This proposition establishes different criteria for determining whether app-based transportation (rideshare) and delivery drivers are “employees” or “independent contractors” under state employment laws, and would classify such drivers as independent contractors where certain criteria are met.

A YES vote on Proposition 22 means that app-based transportation and delivery drivers are independent contractors where certain criteria are met.

A NO vote on Proposition 22 means the determination of whether such drivers are employees or independent contractors would continue to be made under existing law.

Background

Under California law, employers must follow certain rules about employee wages, hours and breaks.  These rules set the state minimum wage and when meal and rest periods must be provided.  Employers must also provide certain benefits, including having insurance to cover on-the-job injuries, reimbursing employees for expenses, and contributing to unemployment insurance.  Employees also have certain job protections – relating to protected leave, employment discrimination and similar matters.

By contrast, independent contractors are not covered by most of the laws that apply to employees.

In April 2018, the California Supreme Court decision in Dynamex Operations West v. Superior Court of Los Angeles, established new rules for determining whether an individual is an employee or and independent contractor.  Specifically, the decision presumes that all workers are employees unless the employer can establish that they have been properly classified as independent contractors under the new standard known as the “ABC test.”  In general, it is more difficult under this new standard for employers to classify workers as independent contractors.

(From the California Department of Labor: “Under the ABC test, a worker is considered an employee and not an independent contractor, unless the hiring entity satisfies all three of the following conditions:

  • “The worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact;
  • “The worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and
  • “The worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.”)

In 2019, the Legislature enacted Assembly Bill 5, which codified and expanded the Dynamex decision.  AB 5 also created a number of exemptions from the new “ABC test” for certain industries and categories of workers.

Much of the debate in recent years has focused on whether app-based transportation and delivery drivers are properly classified as independent contractors, or whether they are in reality employees.

Proposition 22 would make app-based drivers independent contractors, as long as certain conditions are met.  In addition to making these drivers independent contractors, Proposition 22 would also require app-based transportation and delivery companies to provide certain benefits:

  • Earnings Minimum: Companies would be required to pay at least 120 percent of the minimum wage for each hour a driver spends driving – but not time waiting for requests.
  • Health Insurance Stipend: Companies would be required to provide a health insurance stipend of about $400 per month to drivers who regularly work more than 25 hours.  Drivers who work less hours would receive about half as much.
  • Medical Expenses and Disability Insurance: Companies would be required to buy insurance to cover medical expenses and provide disability pay when a driver is injured while driving.
  • Rest Policy: Drivers would be prohibited from working more than 12 hours in a 24-hour period for a single rideshare or delivery company.
  • Additional Provisions: The measure would require rideshare and delivery companies have sexual harassment prevention policies and conduct criminal background checks and safety training for all drivers.  It would also prohibit discrimination in hiring and firing.

In addition, Proposition 22 seeks to limit the ability of local jurisdictions to place their own rules on rideshare and delivery companies.

Fiscal Impact:

According to the Legislative Analyst Office (LAO), Proposition 22 would result in an increase in state personal income tax revenue of an unknown amount.

CCC Position: No Position

Additional Information:

Reflections on Church Teaching:

“Human work proceeds directly from persons created in the image of God and called to prolong the work of creation by subduing the earth, both with and for one another. Hence work is a duty: “If anyone will not work, let him not eat.” Work honors the Creator’s gifts and the talents received from him.” Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2427.

“Everyone has the right of economic initiative; everyone should make legitimate use of his talents to contribute to the abundance that will benefit all and to harvest the just fruits of his labor. He should seek to observe regulations issued by legitimate authority for the sake of the common good.”

Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2429.

“The economic sphere is neither ethically neutral, or inherently inhuman or opposed to society. It is part and parcel of human activity and precisely because it is human, it must be structured and governed in an ethical manner. “

Pope Benedict XVI, Charity in Truth (Caritas in Veritate), no. 63 (2009).

“Work is a good thing for man-a good thing for his humanity-because through work man not only transforms nature, adapting it to his own needs, but he also achieves fulfillment as a human being and indeed, in a sense, becomes ‘more a human being’.”

Saint Pope John Paul II, On Human Work (Laborem Exercens), no. 9 (1981) 

 

Proposition 23

Requires physician on-site at dialysis clinics and consent from the state for a clinic to close – This proposition establishes minimum staffing and other requirements for outpatient kidney dialysis clinics. Proposition 8 in 2018 also dealt with dialysis clinics.  The proposition did not pass in 2018 and is being offered again by its proponents.

A YES vote on Proposition 23 means kidney dialysis clinics would be required to operate under the new requirements.

A NO vote on Proposition 23 means kidney dialysis treatments could continue to operate under existing rules and standards.

Overview:

This proposition establishes minimum staffing and other requirements for outpatient kidney dialysis clinics.

A YES vote on Proposition 23 means kidney dialysis clinics would be required to operate under the new requirements.

A NO vote on Proposition 23 means kidney dialysis treatments could continue to operate under existing rules and standards.

Proposition 8 in 2018 also dealt with dialysis clinics.  The proposition did not pass in 2018.)

Background

Persons with kidney failure may receive dialysis treatment at hospitals or in their own homes, but most receive treatment at chronic dialysis clinics.  According to the Legislative Analyst Office (LAO), there are about 600 licensed clinics in California that provided treatment to approximately 80,000 patients each month.  The LAO estimates that these clinics have total revenues of roughly $3 billion annually from Medicare, Medi-Cal, and group and individual health insurance.

Proposition 23 enacts four main provisions related to the regulation of chronic dialysis clinics as follows:

  1. It requires each clinic to have at least one physician onsite during all hours patients receive treatment.
  2. It prohibits clinics from discriminating against patients based on who pays for their treatment.
  3. It requires clinics to report infection-related information to the California Department of Public Health and the federal government, and imposes penalties if they fail to do so.
  4. It requires clinics to notify and obtain consent from the California Department of Public Health before closing or substantially reducing services.

Fiscal Impact:

According to the Legislative Analyst Office (LAO), Proposition 23 will result in increased state and local health care costs, likely in the low tens of millions of dollars annually resulting from increased dialysis treatment costs.

CCC Position: No position

Additional Information:

Reflections on Church Teaching:

The “principle of subsidiarity” must be respected: “A community of a higher order should not interfere with the life of a community of a lower order, taking over its functions.” In case of need it should, rather, support the smaller community and help to coordinate its activity with activities in the rest of society for the sake of the common good. —Pope John Paul II, Centesimus Annus, #48 (1989)

“Profit and capital are not a good over and above the human person; they are at the service of the common good.  When the common good is used only at the service of profit and capital, this has a name: it is called exclusion, and through it the throwaway culture gets stronger and stronger. Throwaway and exclusion.” – Pope Francis, 2017

“Life and physical health are precious gifts entrusted to us by God.  We must take reasonable care of them, taking into account the needs of others and the common good.”  Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2288

”Concern for the health of its citizens requires that society help in the attainment of living conditions that allow them to grow and reach maturity, food and clothing, housing, health care, basic education, employment and social assistance.”  Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2288.

“We must speak of man’s rights.  Man has the right to live.  He has the right to bodily integrity and to the means necessary for the proper development of life, particularly food, clothing, shelter, medical care, rest, and finally, the necessary social services.”  Saint Pope John XXIII, Pacem in terris, no. 11 (1963).

Proposition 24

Expands the provisions of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and creates the California Privacy Protection Agency to implement and enforce the CCPA – This proposition amends existing state law related to the protection of consumer personal information, and creates a new state agency to enforce consumer privacy laws.

A YES vote on Proposition 24 means these changes would be enacted and would generally go into effect in January 2023.

A NO vote on Proposition 24 means existing law related to consumer privacy would remain in effect unchanged.

Overview:

This proposition amends existing state law related to the protection of consumer personal information, and creates a new state agency to enforce consumer privacy laws.

A YES vote on Proposition 24 means these changes would be enacted and would generally go into effect in January 2023.

A NO vote on Proposition 24 means existing law related to consumer privacy would remain in effect unchanged.

Background

Under state law enacted in 2019 and known as the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), certain businesses that operate in California and collect personal information from consumers must follow specific requirements related to consumer privacy.  Most of these provisions of law went into effect on January 1, 2020.

In general, the existing CCPA affords consumers with the right to (1) know what personal information is collected about them, (2) to request that such personal information be deleted, (3) to request that their personal information not be sold to third parties, and (4) to be protected from breaches of their personal information.

Proposition 24 makes a number of changes to the law by (1) modifying existing consumer protections, (2) establishing new consumer privacy rights, (3) changing existing penalties and uses of penalty revenues, and (4) creating a new state agency to monitor compliance and enforcement of consumer data privacy laws.

Among the new consumer privacy rights created by Proposition 24 are the right to correct inaccurate personal information and limit businesses’ use of “sensitive personal information.”  Proposition 24 also requires businesses to minimize their use of consumer personal information by not retaining such information longer than reasonably necessary.

Fiscal Impact:

According to the Legislative Analyst Office (LAO), Proposition 24 will result in increased annual state costs of roughly $10 million for a new state agency to monitor compliance and enforcement, as well as increased state costs in the low millions of dollars annually from increased workload to the Department of Justice and state courts.  In addition, there would be an unknown impact on state and local revenues due to economic effects resulting from the new requirements on businesses.

CCC Position: No position

Additional Information:

Reflections on Church Teaching:

“Everyone should observe an appropriate reserve concerning persons’ private lives. Those in charge of communications should maintain a fair balance between the requirements of the common good and respect for individual rights. Interference by the media in the private lives of persons engaged in political or public activity is to be condemned to the extent that it infringes upon their privacy and freedom.”

Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2492.

“In the name of the common good, public authorities are bound to respect the fundamental and inalienable rights of the human person. Society should permit each of its members to fulfill his vocation. In particular, the common good resides in the conditions for the exercise of the natural freedoms indispensable for the development of the human vocation, such as “the right to act according to a sound norm of conscience and to safeguard . . . privacy, and rightful freedom also in matters of religion.”

Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1907.

Proposition 25

Replaces cash bail with risk assessments for suspects awaiting trial – This proposition is a referendum on legislation passed in 2018 (SB 10) that generally replaced cash bail in California with risk assessments for detained suspects while awaiting trial.  The bail bond industry funded a referendum to overturn the law enacted by the legislature.  Prop 25 is the result of that referendum receiving sufficient signatures to get on the ballot.

A YES vote on Proposition 25 would uphold SB 10 and would replace cash bail with specified risk assessments.

A NO vote on Proposition 25 would repeal SB 10, thus keeping in place the use of cash bail for detained suspects awaiting trial.

Overview:

This proposition is a referendum on legislation passed in 2018 (SB 10) that generally replaced cash bail in California with risk assessments for detained suspects while awaiting trial.

A YES vote on Proposition 25 would uphold SB 10 and would replace cash bail with specified risk assessments.

A NO vote on Proposition 25 would repeal SB 10, thus keeping in place the use of cash bail for detained suspects awaiting trial.

Related on the 2020 Ballot

Proposition 17 – Voting Rights and Parole
Proposition 20 – Criminal Penalties and DNA Collection

Background

The State Constitution grants individuals arrested and booked into county jail—who are not charged with certain felony offenses—with the right to release prior to trial.  Individuals generally obtain pretrial release in one of two ways. First, the Constitution authorizes trial courts at their discretion to release individuals on their own recognizance (OR), a promise to appear at their future required court proceedings. Second, state law allows individuals to be released on bail, a financial guarantee that they will appear at required court proceedings.

State law allows individuals to provide bail in two ways. First, an individual can deposit cash, certain financial instruments (such as a bond issued by the United States), or property with the court that equals the amount of bail required for release. This deposit is generally refundable if the individual appears at all required court proceedings. Second, an individual can pay a nonrefundable fee—typically, no more than 10 percent of the total bail required—to a willing bail agent licensed by the state for a bail bond. The bond is an insurance product in which the bail agent, backed by a state-licensed insurance company, agrees to pay the full bail amount if the individual does not appear at a required court proceeding.

However, in 2018 the Legislature passed, and the Governor signed, SB 10 which establishes a new state pretrial process.

Unlike the existing pretrial process, the new process would not allow individuals to be released on bail. Rather, individuals would solely be released under a new OR process specified in the legislation. Under SB 10, individuals booked for most misdemeanors would be required to be released from county jail within 12 hours of booking. Other individuals arrested for certain offenses would be evaluated by court or county assessment staff using tools to determine their risk of not appearing in court or committing an offense if released. Staff would generally be required to release individuals determined to be low risk on OR prior to arraignment. Depending on rules established by each trial court, certain individuals determined to be medium risk could be released prior to arraignment by assessment staff or a judge. Released individuals could be subject to supervision requirements, such as regular check-ins with county probation or other staff, which could be modified by the court for good cause. Individuals determined to be high risk—as well as individuals who meet certain criteria (such as being accused of certain severe felonies)—would be detained in county jail until arraignment.

At arraignment, individuals would generally be released on OR unless the district attorney requests a hearing seeking to detain them until trial. The court could only order an individual to be detained under certain conditions—such as determining that there are no supervision requirements (such as electronic monitoring) that can be imposed to ensure the individual’s appearance in court and public safety. Under certain conditions, the court could modify OR decisions and conditions after arraignment. Senate Bill 10 would also prohibit the charging of any fees for any supervision requirements that are imposed as a condition of release.

Following the passage and enactment of SB 10, the American Bail Coalition, a nonprofit trade association, organized the political action committee “Californians Against the Reckless Bail Scheme” to lead the effort to repeal SB 10 through a veto referendum. 

Proposition 25 represents that veto referendum.  If Proposition 25 passes, SB 10 will go into effect.  If Proposition 25 does not pass, SB 10 will be rejected and not go into effect.

Fiscal Impact:

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee analysis of SB 10, that legislation would result in unknown costs, likely in the low hundreds of millions of dollars annually upon full implementation of the new pretrial release system for the courts to provide, or contract for, pretrial assessment services.

CCC Position: No position

Additional Information:

Reflections on Church Teaching:

“Another instrument of political participation is the referendum, whereby a form of direct access to political decisions is practiced. The institution of representation in fact does not exclude the possibility of asking citizens directly about the decisions of great importance for social life.”  

Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church [413]

“[A] Catholic vision of crime and criminal justice can offer some alternatives.  It recognizes that root causes and personal choices can both be factors in crime by understanding the need for responsibility on the part of the offender and an opportunity for their rehabilitation. A Catholic approach leads us to encourage models of restorative justice that seek to address crime in terms of the harm done to victims and communities, not simply as a violation of law.”

USCCB, “Responsibility, Rehabilitation and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice.” (November 15, 2000).

 “We believe that both victims and offenders are children of God. Despite their very different claims on society, their lives and dignity should be protected and respected. We seek justice, not vengeance. We believe punishment must have clear purposes: protecting society and rehabilitating those who violate the law.”

USCCB, “Responsibility, Rehabilitation and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice.” (November 15, 2000).

“In the broad context of human social relations, when we look to crime and punishment, we cannot help but think of the inhumane conditions in so many prisons, where those in custody are often reduced to a subhuman status in violation of their human dignity and stunted in their hope and desire for rehabilitation. The Church does much in these environments, mostly in silence. I exhort and I encourage everyone to do more, in the hope that the efforts being made in this area by so many courageous men and women will be increasingly supported, fairly and honestly, by the civil authorities as well.”

Pope Francis, World Day of Peace Message, 2014.

Share this Post