Ballot Measure Voter Guide

With the elections around the corner, below is a list of ballot measures endorsed by SEIU State Council and SEIU 121RN members at town halls. If you are interested in participating in an endorsement town hall or have questions about the upcoming elections, please contact Frank Torres at

* Endorsement made by SEIU
** Endorsement made by SEIU CA

Prop. 51: (Kindergarten – Community College Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2016)

Authorizes $9 billion in general obligation bonds for new construction and modernization of schools.

Fiscal Impact: State General Fund costs of $17.6 billion over a period of 35 years; $500 million average annual payments.

Position: No Recommendation**

Prop. 52: California Medi-Cal Hospital Reimbursement

Increases Legislative vote requirement to two-thirds to amend an existing law that imposes fees on hospitals and which directs those fees and federal matching funds to hospital-provided Medi-Cal health care services, uncompensated care provided by hospitals to uninsured patients, and Children’s health coverage.

Fiscal Impact: State savings of over $1 billion annually to support state and local public hospitals.

Position: No Recommendation**

Prop 53: No Blank Checks Initiative

Requires statewide voter approval before any revenue bonds over $2 billion can be issued or sold by the state.

Fiscal Impact: The fiscal effect on state and local governments is unknown and would vary by project.

Position: No**

Prop. 54: California Legislature Transparency Act (72-hour public notice before a vote)

Prohibits the Legislature from passing any bill unless it has been in print and published on the Internet for at least 72 hours before the vote, and requires the Legislature to make audiovisual recordings of all its proceedings and post them on the Internet.

Fiscal Impact: About $1 million annually

Position: No Recommendation**

Prop. 55: California Children’s Education and Health Care Protection Act of 2016

Extends income tax increases on high income individuals passed in 2012 (Prop. 30) for an additional 12 years.

Fiscal Impact: Increased state revenue between $5 billion to $11 billion annually that will go directly to K-12 schools, community colleges and health care programs.

Position: Yes**

Prop. 56: California Healthcare, Research and Prevention Tobacco Tax Act of 2016

Imposes a $2 per pack tax on cigarettes and other tobacco products and electronic cigarettes to fund existing healthcare programs, tobacco use prevention/control programs, and tobacco-related disease research.

Fiscal Impact: $1.1 billion to $1.8 billion annual revenue by 2017-18 (Revenues will likely decrease slightly over time.)

Position: Yes

Prop. 57: The Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016

Allows parole consideration for persons convicted of nonviolent felonies upon completion of full prison term for primary offense, awards sentence credits for rehabilitation, good behavior or educational achievements, and requires juvenile court judges to determine whether juveniles should be prosecuted and sentenced as adults.

Fiscal Impact: Savings in the tens of millions of dollars to the low hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

Position: Yes**

Prop. 58: Multilingual Education Act

Would require school districts and county offices of education to, at a minimum, provide English learners with a structured English immersion program. Would authorize parents or legal guardians of pupils enrolled in the school to choose a language acquisition program that best suits their child.

Position: Yes**

Prop 59: Overturn of Citizens United Act Advisory Question
Calls on the state’s elected officials to use their authority to overturn the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, potentially through an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Fiscal Impact: No direct fiscal effect on state or local governments.

Position: No Recommendation**

Prop 60: The California Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Act

Requires performers in adult films to use condoms during filming of sexual intercourse.

Fiscal Impact: Loss of production would reduce local revenue, which may be offset by reduced healthcare costs.

Position: No Recommendation**

Prop 61: The California Drug Price Relief Act

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.

Fiscal Impact: Unclear 

Position: No Recommendation**

Prop. 62: The Justice that Works Act of 2016

Repeals death penalty in California, including retroactively to persons already sentenced to death.

Fiscal Impact: Net reduction in state and local government costs of potentially around $150 million annually.

Position: Yes**

Prop. 63: Safety for All Act of 2016

Prohibits possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines, requires most individuals to pass a background check to purchase ammunition, prohibits those convicted of stealing a firearm from possessing firearms.

Fiscal Impact: Costs would likely be offset by new/increased fees.

Position: Yes**

Prop. 64: Control, Regulate, and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act

Legalizes marijuana and hemp under state law. Imposes 15 percent excise tax on sales price as well as a cultivation tax which would be used for specific purposes such as substance abuse education, prevention, and treatment.

Fiscal Impact: Revenues in the hundreds of millions of dollars to over $1 billion annually.

Position: Yes**

Prop 65: Environmental Fee Protection Act

If plastic bag ban is approved by voters, this measure would redirect any fees collected through the sale of carry-out bags into a special fund administered by the Wildlife Conservation Board to support specified categories of environmental projects.

Fiscal Impact: Several tens of millions of dollars annually for grants to environmental programs. 

Position: No**

Prop. 66: Death Penalty Reform and Savings Act of 2016

Expedites the death penalty process in California by imposing time limits on death penalty review, requiring certain attorneys to accept death penalty appeals.

Fiscal Impact: Cost and savings of the initiative are approximately neutral. 

Position: No**

Prop 67: Referendum to Overturn Ban on Single-Use Plastic Bags.

If this referendum is approved by voters, the distribution or sale of single-use plastic bags at grocery stores and similar locations would be prohibited and a fee of $0.10 would be charged for other bags at those locations.

Position: Yes**

Note: A “yes” vote means the single-use plastic bag ban stays in place. A “no” vote means the single-use plastic bag ban would be overturned.

Did you like this? Share it:

Comments are closed.