Prop. 14: State costs of $7.8 billion to pay off principal ($5.5 billion) and interest ($2.3 billion) on the bonds. Associated average annual debt payments of about $310 million for 25 years. The costs could be higher or lower than these estimates depending on factors such as the interest rate and the period of time over which the bonds are repaid. The state General Fund would pay most of the costs, with a relatively small amount of interest repaid by bond proceeds.  
  
Prop. 15 estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Net increase in annual property tax revenues of $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).  
  
Prop. 25: The Fiscal Effect of SB 10 was provided in the Assembly Floor Analysis as follows: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, 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. According to budget staff, pretrial reform legislation is estimated to have an annual cost of $200 million, which is planned for in the multi-year state spending projections. For example, AB 1828 (Committee on Budget) includes $15 million for the judicial branch in the 2018-19 fiscal year for start-up activities to implement the new pretrial release system. AB 1828 also references the long-term funding estimate of $200 million and states that this amount is reflected in the most recent longer-term state spending plan.  
  

At its July 13, 2020 meeting, the Legislation Committee (Chair Mitchoff/Vice Chair Burgis) considered the 12 measures that have qualified for the November 30, 2020 statewide general election ballot. A summary of their actions on the 12 ballot measures is as follows:  
  

November 3, 2020 Statewide Ballot Measures

1. Proposition 14

1880. (19-0022A1)  
  
AUTHORIZES BONDS TO CONTINUE FUNDING STEM CELL AND OTHER MEDICAL RESEARCH. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

Authorizes $5.5 billion in state general obligation bonds to fund grants from the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine to educational, non-profit, and private entities for: (1) stem cell and other medical research, therapy development, and therapy delivery; (2) medical training; and (3) construction of research facilities. Dedicates $1.5 billion to fund research and therapy for Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, stroke, epilepsy, and other brain and central nervous system diseases and conditions. Limits bond issuance to $540 million annually. Appropriates money from General Fund to repay bond debt, but postpones repayment for first five years. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: State costs of $7.8 billion to pay off principal ($5.5 billion) and interest ($2.3 billion) on the bonds. Associated average annual debt payments of about $310 million for 25 years. The costs could be higher or lower than these estimates depending on factors such as the interest rate and the period of time over which the bonds are repaid. The state General Fund would pay most of the costs, with a relatively small amount of interest repaid by bond proceeds. (19-0022A1.)  
  

2. Proposition 15

1870. (19-0008A1)  
  
INCREASES FUNDING FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS, COMMUNITY COLLEGES, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES BY CHANGING TAX ASSESSMENT OF COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

Increases funding for K-12 public schools, community colleges, and local governments by requiring that commercial and industrial real property be taxed based on current market value. Exempts from this change: residential properties; agricultural properties; and owners of commercial and industrial properties with combined value of $3 million or less. Increased education funding will supplement existing school funding guarantees. Exempts small businesses from personal property tax; for other businesses, exempts $500,000 worth of personal property. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Net increase in annual property tax revenues of $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). (19-0008.)  
  
See Attachment A for the Government Finance & Administration Committee July 14, 2020 agenda item.  

3. Proposition 16

ACA 5 (Resolution Chapter 23), Weber. Government preferences. (PDF)  
  

4. Proposition 17

ACA 6 (Resolution Chapter 24), McCarty. Elections: disqualification of electors. (PDF)  
  

5. Proposition 18

ACA 4 (Resolution Chapter 30), Mullin. Elections: voting age. (PDF)  
  

6. Proposition 19

ACA 11 (Resolution Chapter 31), Mullin. The Home Protection for Seniors, Severely Disabled, Families, and Victims of Wildfire or Natural Disasters Act. (PDF)  
  

7. Proposition 20

1840. (17-0044, Amdt.#1)  
RESTRICTS PAROLE FOR NON-VIOLENT OFFENDERS. AUTHORIZES FELONY SENTENCES FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES CURRENTLY TREATED ONLY AS MISDEMEANORS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

Imposes restrictions on parole program for non-violent offenders who have completed the full term for their primary offense. Expands list of offenses that disqualify an inmate from this parole program. Changes standards and requirements governing parole decisions under this program. Authorizes felony charges for specified theft crimes currently chargeable only as misdemeanors, including some theft crimes where the value is between $250 and $950. Requires persons convicted of specified misdemeanors to submit to collection of DNA samples for state database. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: 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. Increased state and local court-related costs of around a few million dollars annually related to processing probation revocations and additional felony theft filings. Increased state and local law enforcement costs not likely to exceed a couple million dollars annually related to collecting and processing DNA samples from additional offenders. (17-0044.)  
  
  

8. Proposition 21

1862. (19-0001)  
EXPANDS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS' AUTHORITY TO ENACT RENT CONTROL ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

Amends state law to allow local governments to establish rent control on residential properties over 15 years old. Allows rent increases on rent-controlled properties of up to 15 percent over three years from previous tenant’s rent above any increase allowed by local ordinance. Exempts individuals who own no more than two homes from new rent-control policies. In accordance with California law, provides that rent-control policies may not violate landlords’ right to a fair financial return on their property. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: 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. (19-0001.)  
  
  

9. Proposition 22

1883. (19-0026A1)  
CHANGES EMPLOYMENT CLASSIFICATION RULES FOR APP-BASED TRANSPORTATION AND DELIVERY DRIVERS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

Establishes different criteria for determining whether app-based transportation (rideshare) and delivery drivers are “employees” or “independent contractors.” Independent contractors are not entitled to certain state-law protections afforded employees—including minimum wage, overtime, unemployment insurance, and workers’ compensation. Instead, companies with independent-contractor drivers will be required to provide specified alternative benefits, including: minimum compensation and healthcare subsidies based on engaged driving time, vehicle insurance, safety training, and sexual harassment policies. Restricts local regulation of app-based drivers; criminalizes impersonation of such drivers; requires background checks. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Increase in state personal income tax revenue of an unknown amount. (19-0026A1)  
  
  

10. Proposition 23

1882. (19-0025A1)  
AUTHORIZES STATE REGULATION OF KIDNEY DIALYSIS CLINICS. ESTABLISHES MINIMUM STAFFING AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

Requires at least one licensed physician on site during treatment at outpatient kidney dialysis clinics; authorizes Department of Public Health to exempt clinics from this requirement due to shortages of qualified licensed physicians if at least one nurse practitioner or physician assistant is on site. Requires clinics to report dialysis-related infection data to state and federal governments. Requires state approval for clinics to close or reduce services. Prohibits clinics from discriminating against patients based on the source of payment for care. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Increased state and local health care costs, likely in the low tens of millions of dollars annually, resulting from increased dialysis treatment costs. (19-0025A1.)  
  

11. Proposition 24

1879. (19-0021A1)  
AMENDS CONSUMER PRIVACY LAWS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

Permits consumers to: (1) prevent businesses from sharing personal information; (2) correct inaccurate personal information; and (3) limit businesses’ use of “sensitive personal information”—such as precise geolocation; race; ethnicity; religion; genetic data; union membership; private communications; and certain sexual orientation, health, and biometric information. Changes criteria for which businesses must comply with these laws. Prohibits businesses’ retention of personal information for longer than reasonably necessary. Triples maximum penalties for violations concerning consumers under age 16. Establishes California Privacy Protection Agency to enforce and implement consumer privacy laws, and impose administrative fines. Requires adoption of substantive regulations. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Increased annual state costs of roughly $10 million for a new state agency to monitor compliance and enforcement of consumer privacy laws. Increased state costs, potentially reaching the low millions of dollars annually, from increased workload to DOJ and the state courts, some or all of which would be offset by penalty revenues. Unknown impact on state and local tax revenues due to economic effects resulting from new requirements on businesses to protect consumer information. (19-0021A1.)  
  

12. Proposition 25

1856. (18-0009)  
REFERENDUM TO OVERTURN A 2018 LAW THAT REPLACED MONEY BAIL SYSTEM WITH A SYSTEM BASED ON PUBLIC SAFETY RISK.

If this petition is signed by the required number of registered voters and timely filed, a referendum will be placed on the next statewide ballot requiring a majority of voters to approve a 2018 state law (SB 10) before it can take effect. The 2018 law replaces the money bail system with a system for pretrial release from jail based on a determination of public safety or flight risk, and limits pretrial detention for most misdemeanors. (18-0009)  
  
When Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. signed SB 10 on August 28, 2018, the law was intended to take effect on January 1, 2020. The law was intended to establish a new system for determining a defendant's custody status while they await trial based on an assessment of risk to public safety and probability of missing a court date rather than their ability to pay cash bail. This bill delivered on a commitment made in August 2017 by Governor Brown, California Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye and the bill's authors, Senator Robert Hertzberg and Assemblymember Rob Bonta, to work together on reforms in the second year of the two-year legislative session. Quotations in media reports at the time included:  
  
“This is a transformative day for our justice system. Our old system of money bail was outdated, unsafe, and unfair. It took a three-branch solution with Governor Brown, the Legislature led by Senator Hertzberg and Assemblymember Bonta, and the Judicial Council’s Administrative Director Martin Hoshino working with judges in my Pretrial Detention Reform Work Group to bring about a fair and just solution for all Californians,” said Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye.  
  
“Our path to a more just criminal justice system is not complete, but today it made a transformational shift away from valuing private wealth and toward protecting public safety. Thanks to the collaboration of the Governor, Chief Justice, and the Legislature, we are creating a system that is fairer for all Californians. Today’s signing is historic, and California will continue to lead the way toward a safer and more equitable system,” said Senator Hertzberg.  
  
“Today, California takes a transformational step forward to correct a fundamental injustice. Abolishing money bail and replacing it with a risk-based system will enhance justice and safety. For too long, our system has allowed the wealthy to purchase their freedom regardless of their risk, while the poor who pose no danger languish in jail. No more. Freedom and liberty should never be pay to play,” said Assemblymember Bonta.  
  
“Wealth is not the measure of any woman or man. By eliminating cash bail, we are saying that those with the least ability to pay should not be released or incarcerated solely on the basis of their wealth or poverty. SB 10 is only one leg of the long journey toward perfecting our justice system, but it is an important one,” said Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon.  
  
“Money bail has promoted a system of separate and unequal justice. SB 10 puts all Californians on equal footing before the law and makes public safety the only consideration in pre-trial detention. This critical reform is long overdue. I’m grateful to the author and the broad coalition of advocates who worked tirelessly to make it happen,” said Senate President pro Tempore Toni Atkins.  
  
The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) released a report in December 2019, Pretrial Risk Assessment in California. This report presents an overview of pretrial risk assessment in California and offers considerations for using, evaluating, and improving the effectiveness of local pretrial risk assessment systems.

• Forty-nine of California’s 58 counties use pretrial risk assessment tools alongside bail. These tools rely on criminal history, demographic, and/or socioeconomic information to make “risk predictions” of whether individuals are likely to be arrested during the pretrial period or to miss their court date.
• A risk assessment tool is only one component of informed pretrial decision making. A comprehensive pretrial policy framework also includes an explanation of why a particular tool was chosen and how it should be used—as well as guidance regarding how risk assessment results should translate into decisions about release with or without supervisory conditions, or detention, in individual cases.
• Equity is an ongoing concern. Critics argue that risk assessment tools that use criminal history could propagate preexisting inequities in the criminal justice system for racial minorities and homeless, unemployed, and impoverished individuals. However, proponents maintain that these tools offer new opportunities for monitoring and evaluating accuracy—which could ultimately help mitigate inequities.
• Counties may face data challenges in testing a tool’s accuracy and equity. Local testing is critical, in part because many tools were not developed with populations that include Latinos and Asian Americans. Since the criminal history data used in these tools may be housed in different agencies and many counties may not process enough cases to properly test their tool on their own, data-sharing agreements and cross-county collaboration may be necessary.
• Transparent decision making is essential. By carefully tracking the risk predictions made by their assessment tool—as well as how these predictions are translated into release or detention decisions—counties can identify any patterns of inconsistency, inaccuracy, and inequity. To promote transparent decision making, judges and pretrial services officers should explicitly state their reasoning if they override the prescribed recommendation.

  
Note that there has been a significant policy shift by the Pretrial Justice Institute (PJI) regarding the use of risk assessment instruments in pretrial decision-making. Here is a link to the PJI statement: https://www.pretrial.org/wp-content/uploads/Risk-Statement-PJI-2020.pdf  
  
Additional information about the subject of bail reform was presented at the CSAC Administration of Justice Committee meeting of May 17, 2017, included as Attachment B.  
  
Additional information about Prop. 25 can be found at: https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_25,_Replace_Cash_Bail_with_Risk_Assessments_Referendum_(2020)

Speakers:  Debra Thompson, resident of Contra Costa; Auditor-Controller Robert Campbell.

Propositions 14, 16, and 18:  AYES: Gioia, Andersen, Burgis, Mitchoff, Glover    NOES: None   ABSENT:  None  ABSTAIN:   None Propositions 15 and 25:  AYES: Gioia, Burgis, Mitchoff, Glover    NOES:  Andersen        ABSENT: None    ABSTAIN: None