Elections in California
Federal government Presidential elections 1852 1856 1860 1864 1868 1872 1876 1880 1884 1888 1892 1896 1900 1904 1908 1912 1916 1920 1924 1928 1932 1936 1940 1944 1948 1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 Primary elections Democratic 2000 2004 2008 2016 Republican 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 United States Senate elections 1950 1980 1982 1986 1988 1992 1992 (special) 1994 1998 2000 2004 2006 2010 2012 2016 2018 Congressional elections At-Large (1849-1863) 1864 1867 1868 1871 1872 1875 1876 1879 1880 1882 1884 1886 1888 1890 1892 1894 1896 1898 1900 1902 1904 1906 1908 1910 1912 1914 1916 1918 1920 1922 1924 1926 1928 1930 1932 1934 1936 1938 1940 1942 1944 1946 12th (1946) 1948 1950 1952 1954 1956 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 11th (2006) 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 Special elections to the House 5th (2005) 48th (2005) 36th (2007) 12th (2008) 10th (2009) 32nd (2009) 36th (2011) 34th (2017)
State government (executive) Gubernatorial elections 1849 1851 1853 1855 1857 1859 1861 1863 1867 1871 1875 1879 1882 1886 1890 1894 1898 1902 1906 1910 1914 1918 1922 1926 1930 1934 1938 1942 1946 1950 1954 1958 1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2003 (recall) 2006 2010 2014 2018 Lieutenant gubernatorial elections 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 Attorney General elections 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 Secretary of State elections 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 Treasurer elections 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 Controller elections 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 Insurance Commissioner elections 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 Superintendent of Public Instruction elections 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 State Board of Equalization elections 2018
State government (legislative) State Senate elections 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 Special State Assembly elections 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 Special
State government (judicial) Court of Appeals elections 1994 1998 2002 2006
Propositions 1910–1919 1911 4 7 8 1960–1969 1964 14 1970–1979 1974 9 1978 8 13 Briggs Initiative 1980–1989 1982 8 1986 64 65 1988 98 99 1990–1999 1994 187 1996 196 209 215 218 1998 6 10 227 2000–2009 2000 21 22 36 39 2003 53 54 2004 1A 55 56 57 58 59 60 60A 61 62 63 64 65 66 69 71 2005 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 2006 81 82 83 85 87 89 90 2008 91 92 93 94, 95, 96, and 97 98 and 99 1A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2009 1A 1B 1C 1D 1E 1F 2010–2019 2010 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2012 29 30 32 34 37 38 39 2014 1 2 41 42 45 46 47 48 2016 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 2018 68 69 70 71 72 6 9 Full list
Elections by year State elections Nov 1992 Nov 1994 Nov 1996 Nov 1998 Nov 2000 Nov 2002 Nov 2004 Nov 2005 Nov 2006 Feb 2008 Jun 2008 Nov 2008 May 2009 Jun 2010 Nov 2010 Jun 2012 Nov 2012 2014 Jun 2016 2018
Los Angeles Mayoral elections 1896 1898 1900 1902 1904 1906 1909 (M) 1909 (N) 1911 1913 1915 1917 1919 1921 1923 1925 1929 1933 1937 1938 1941 1945 1949 1953 1957 1961 1965 1969 1973 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005 2009 2013 2017 General elections 2009 2011 City Attorney elections 2009 Board of Supervisors elections 1980 1996 2006 2008 2010 2012
San Diego Mayoral elections 1887 1889 1891 1893 1895 1897 1899 1901 1903 1905 1907 1909 1911 1913 1915 1917 1919 1921 1923 1925 1927 1929 1931 1932 1935 1939 1943 1947 1951 1955 1959 1963 1967 1971 1975 1979 1983 1984 1986 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2005 2008 2012 2013–14 2016 2020 City Council elections 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 Special City Attorney elections 2004 2008 2012 2016 General elections Jun 2010 Nov 2010 Jun 2012 Nov 2012 Jun 2014 Nov 2014 Jun 2016 Nov 2016
San Francisco Mayoral elections 1971 1975 1979 1983 1987 1991 1995 1999 2003 2007 2011 2015 2018 2019 Board of Supervisors elections 1977 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 General elections Mar 2004 Nov 2004 Nov 2005 Jun 2006 Nov 2006 Nov 2007 Feb 2008 Jun 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2009 Jun 2010 Nov 2010 Nov 2011 Jun 2012 Nov 2012 Nov 2013
San Jose Mayoral elections 2014
v t e

California Proposition 19 (also known as the Regulate, Control & Tax Cannabis Act) was a ballot initiative on the November 2, 2010 statewide ballot. It was defeated, with 53.5% of California voters voting "No" and 46.5% voting "Yes."^[1] If passed, it would have legalized various marijuana-related activities, allowed local governments to regulate these activities, permitted local governments to impose and collect marijuana-related fees and taxes, and authorized various criminal and civil penalties.^[2] In March 2010, it qualified to be on the November statewide ballot.^[3] The proposition required a simple majority in order to pass, and would have taken effect the day after the election.^[4] Yes on 19 was the official advocacy group for the initiative and California Public Safety Institute: No On Proposition 19 was the official opposition group.^[5]

A similar initiative, "The Tax, Regulate, and Control Cannabis Act of 2010" (California Cannabis Initiative, CCI) was filed first and received by the Attorney General's Office July 15, 2010 assigned 09-0022 that would have legalized cannabis for adults 21 and older and included provisions to decriminalize industrial hemp, retroactive expunging of criminal records and release of non violent cannabis prisoners. A highly successful grassroots petition drive (CCI) was subsequently overwhelmed by the Taxcannabis2010 groups big budget and paid signature gatherers. Here is the LAO Summary of the Initiative that was defeated by the special interests that ultimately succeeded to put their version on the ballot as "Prop 19" with a subtly different Title: The Regulate, Control & Tax Cannabis Act. Many of the same group of special interests are supporting the 2016 Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA).

Supporters of Proposition 19 argued that it would help with California's budget shortfall, would cut off a source of funding to violent drug cartels, and would redirect law enforcement resources to more dangerous crimes,^[6] while opponents claimed that it contains gaps and flaws that may have serious unintended consequences on public safety, workplaces, and federal funding. However, even if the proposition had passed, the sale of cannabis would have remained illegal under federal law via the Controlled Substances Act.^[7][8][9]

Proposition 19 was followed up by the Adult Use of Marijuana Act in 2016.^[10]

Effects of the bill[edit]

According to the State of California's Legislative Analyst's Office, the law would have had the following effects.^[11]

Legalization of personal cannabis-related activities[edit]

Except as permitted under Proposition 215 and SB 420 laws, persons age 21 and older may:

• possess up to 28.5 grams (1 oz) of cannabis for personal consumption.


• use cannabis in:
  
  
  
  • a non-public place such as a residence
  
  
  • a public establishment licensed for on site cannabis consumption.
  
  
  
  


• grow cannabis at a private residence in a space of up to 25 square feet (2.3 m²) for personal use.

Local government regulation of commercial production and sale[edit]

Local governments may:

• Authorize the retail sale of up to 28.5 grams of cannabis per transaction to persons 21 and older.


• Regulate the location, size, hours of operation, and signs and displays of the establishments authorized to make these sales.


• Authorize larger amounts of cannabis for:
  
  
  
  • personal possession and cultivation, or
  
  
  • commercial cultivation, transportation, and sale.
  
  
  
  

Other permissions[edit]

• Allows for the transportation of cannabis from a licensed premises in one city or county to a licensed premises in another city or county, without regard to local laws of intermediate localities to the contrary.


• Allows the collection of taxes to allow local governments to raise revenue or to offset any costs associated with cannabis regulation.

Maintenance and addition of criminal and civil penalties[edit]

• Maintains existing laws against selling drugs to a minor and driving under the influence.


• Maintains an employer's right to address consumption of cannabis that affects an employee's job performance.


• Maintains existing laws against interstate or international transportation of cannabis.


• Every person 18 years of age or older who hires, employs, or uses a minor in transporting, carrying, selling, giving away cannabis, or knowingly sells or gives away cannabis to someone under the age of 14, shall be imprisoned in state prison for a period of three, five, or seven years.


• Every person 18 years of age or older who knowingly sells or gives away cannabis to someone older than the age of 14 but younger than 18, shall be imprisoned in the state prison for a period of three, four, or five years.


• Every person 21 years of age or older who knowingly sells or gives away cannabis to someone older than the age of 18 but younger than 21, shall be imprisoned in county jail for up to six months and fined up to $1,000 per offense.


• Any person who is licensed, permitted, or authorized to sell cannabis, who knowingly sells or gives away cannabis to someone under the age of 21, will be banned from owning, operating, or being employed by a licensed cannabis establishment for one year.

Fiscal impact[edit]

The State Board of Equalization estimated that imposing a $50 per ounce levy on cannabis sales could generate $1.4 billion a year in new tax revenue, thus generating a large amount of revenue at a time when the state was experiencing financial pressure.^[12][13] This estimate came from the BOE's 2009 analysis of California Assembly Bill 390 based on a 2006 report entitled "Marijuana Production in the United States." These statistics were based on production estimates derived from marijuana eradication efforts from 2003 to 2005.^[14]

According to the States Legislative Analyst's office, passage of the proposition could have a significant fiscal impact, including:^[15]

• Significant savings to state and local governments; potentially up to several tens of millions of dollars annually due to reduction of individuals incarcerated, on probation, or on parole.


• Freeing up cells used to house marijuana offenders, which could be then used for other criminals, many of whom obtained early release because of a lack of jail space.


• Major reduction in state and local costs for enforcement of marijuana-related offenses and the handling of related criminal cases in the court system, providing the opportunity for funds to be used to enforce other existing criminal laws.


• Potential increase in the costs of substance abuse programs due to a projected increase in marijuana usage, possibly resulting in reduced spending on mandatory treatment for some criminal offenders, or in the redirection of these funds for other offenders.


• Potential reduction in both the costs and offsetting revenues of the state's medical marijuana program, as some adults over 21 would be less likely to participate in existing programs if obtaining marijuana were made less difficult.


• Providing the opportunity for significant additional tax revenue stream from businesses engaged in marijuana-related commerce.


• Reduction in fine collection under state law but a potential increase in local civil fines authorized by existing local laws (the cumulative effect on fines was indicated to be largely unknown).

In regard to potential savings from the reduction of incarcerated individuals, according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations, 1,639 state prison inmates were in prison for marijuana-related crimes at a cost of $85 million per year.^[16]

Arguments[edit]

Support[edit]

Several arguments were used in support of passing Proposition 19. Supporters argued that legalizing marijuana in California would help alleviate the drug war in Mexico. Based on the theory espoused by the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy that up to 60% of Mexican drug cartels’ profits come from sales of marijuana, legalizing the drug in nearby California would drastically cut their funding. As a result, supporters of this argument believed that legalization would lead to a decrease in drug-related violent crime in Mexico.^[17]

Also cited were expected financial benefits of passing the measure. Economists lauded an analysis by Jeffrey Miron predicting $7.7 billion in projected savings on law enforcement expenses related to marijuana offenses, as well as expected revenues of up to $6.2 billion annually in taxes. These revenues were calculated based on marijuana sales taxes structured similarly to alcohol and cigarettes.^[18] In 2008, California police made 78,500 arrests related to marijuana.^[19]

Some civil rights groups lauded Proposition 19 as a way to reduce the disproportionate number of arrests of African-Americans and Latinos in California, many of which were related to marijuana possession. A study released by the New York-based Drug Policy Alliance found that despite having lower marijuana consumption rates than young whites,^[20] young Latinos and African Americans were arrested for marijuana possession at much higher rates than whites in the 25 largest California counties.^[21]

Supporters also argued that passing the measure would result in additional benefits including tourism and spinoff industries such as cafes and paraphernalia. Based on California’s wine industry, proponents of this theory anticipated that legalizing marijuana in the state could generate up to $18 billion, including the creation of 60,000-110,000 jobs.^[22]

Some argued that legalization of marijuana could reduce drug-related violence, based on a study conducted by the International Centre for Science in Drug Policy. This study found that drug law enforcement contributes to increased levels of drug-related violence and suggests that "alternative models for drug control" may be necessary.^[23]

Opposition[edit]

Opponents of Prop 19 argued that legalizing marijuana in California using the current proposition would have numerous negative consequences. They cited current Federal laws banning the cultivation, sale, and use of the drug, and claimed that it would create complications with drug trafficking and arrests^[24] as well as challenge Federal authority.^[25] Opponents also argued that Proposition 19 would complicate regulation across the state by allowing local jurisdictions the power to determine their own laws regarding cultivation and possession.^[26] Opponents claimed that this increased government activity would absorb much of the projected tax revenue.^[26]

Opponents of the measure also argued that it posed a public safety risk, based on research showing an association between marijuana use and voluntary treatment admissions for addiction, fatal drugged driving accidents, mental illness, and emergency room visits.^[27] Opponents also compared Prop 19 to current alcohol and tobacco regulation, arguing that the associated potential healthcare and criminal justice costs outweigh the tax revenue generated.^[28]

In response to supporters' claims regarding Prop 19's tax revenue generation, opponents claim the potential benefit is vastly overstated.^[27] Opponents also criticized the measure for failing to include specific accompanying tax proposals.^[29] Opponents also rejected the argument that revenue increases from the measure would improve the state budgetary deficit, dismissing it as a short-term fix.^[30]

Since California essentially decriminalized the possession of marijuana in 1976, opponents reject the idea that legalization would free law enforcement to pursue violent crime in lieu of marijuana-related crime.^[29] A Rand Corporation study found that passage of the measure would likely do little to curtail the drug trade and cartel violence stemming from Latin America.^[31] Opponents also argued that passage would reflect softening attitudes in America toward drug consumption.^[32][33]

Supporters of medicinal marijuana use expressed concern that Prop 19 could burden growers with increased regulations.^[30] Also cited were potential confusion caused by double selling rules and a potential threat to existing protections for medical marijuana users.^[34]

History[edit]

Activist Richard Lee

The first cannabis prohibition laws in California were passed in 1913.^[35] In the 1972 California November elections, a similar initiative to Proposition 19 which would have legalized cannabis was on the ballot, coincidentally also named Proposition 19. It failed to pass, with 66.5% voters voting "No" and 33.5% voting "Yes."^[36][37] In 1976 the passage of the Moscone Act changed small-scale possession of marijuana from a felony to a misdemeanor.^[38] Two decades later in 1996, Proposition 215, which legalized medical marijuana, passed with 56% of the vote. In 2003 the California Senate Bill SB 420 clarified some of Proposition 215 to address critics and issues that arose since it was passed. In 2005, Oakland’s Measure Z, one of the first marijuana taxes, made marijuana possession one of the lowest law enforcement priorities. It was passed by 65% of the voters. In July 2010, Oakland approved a cultivation ordinance.^[39]

Proposition 19's originator is Richard Lee, a marijuana legalization activist and medical marijuana provider based in Oakland. Lee named political consultant Chris Lehane as the head of the campaign to pass the measure.^[40] In order to qualify for the ballot, the initiative needed 433,971 valid petition signatures. The initiative proponents submitted 694,248 signatures, and it qualified through the random sample signature check.^[41]

Stance on initiative[edit]

In response to growing demand for a vote on the legal status of marijuana, California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said in May 2009, "I think it's time for a debate. And I think that we ought to study very carefully what other countries are doing that have legalized marijuana and other drugs, what effect it had on those countries, and are they happy with that decision."^[42] However, in his signing statement for California SB 1449, which decriminalized possession of less than an ounce of marijuana from a misdemeanor to an infraction, Schwarzenegger said he opposed Proposition 19, calling it "deeply flawed" and claiming that its potential for generating tax revenue has been overstated.^[43]

Support[edit]

Opposition[edit]

Polling history[edit]

Color indicates the simple majority in a poll.

Polling differences by poll type[edit]

Analysis of different polling techniques showed significant differentials in support for Proposition 19. Polls conducted by a live interviewer showed substantially less support for Proposition 19 than automated polls. It was suggested that there was a "social desirability bias" causing people to deny their support for Proposition 19 to live interviewers.^[145][156]

Another discrepancy was noted in the Action News/SurveyUSA poll taken in late October. Those interviewed via landlines opposed the initiative 53% to 43%, while those on cell phones supported it 54% to 29%.^[157]

Outcome[edit]

Proposition 19^[158]

Choice	Votes	%
No	5,333,359	53.5
Yes	4,643,751	46.5
Total votes	9,977,110	100.00

Results by major county[edit]

^[159]

See also[edit]

• California Proposition 215 (1996)


• California Proposition 36 (2000)


• California state elections, November 2010


• Cannabis in California


• Drug policy of California


• Legal history of cannabis in the United States


• Legality of cannabis


• Removal of cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act

References[edit]

External links[edit]

• The Full Text of the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010


• State of California Legislative Analysts Analysis of the Initiative


• 
  Ballotpedia page on California Proposition 19


• 
  YES on Proposition 19 - the sponsors of the proposal


• 
  Marijuana Policy Project, California branch - a lobbying group in support


• 
  Public Safety First - a lobbying group in opposition