November 6
This measure would amend the California Constitution to require all government entities within the state to recognize as personal property pet animals, as well as animals used for agriculture, and other purposes owned by citizens. It would prohibit state and local governments from the enactment and enforcement of laws that abridge this requirement.
November 6
This measure amends the State Constitution to recognize marriage only between a man and a woman. In addition it defines a man as possessing a Y chromosome and a woman as not possessing such a chromosome. In addition, the measure prohibits the Legislature, courts, and state and local government agencies from granting the “rights, incidents, or employee benefits of marriage” to any unmarried persons or decreasing the existing marriage rights or benefits. The measure also prohibits government agencies from requiring private entities to extend the rights of marriage to unmarried persons.
November 6
The measure specifies that no state or local governmental entity may “make any law or ordinance that prevents any citizen from owning or acquiring legally, property nor shall there be a limit to the amount of property acquired, grown or produced or owned.” The measure does not specify the types of property subject to the measure’s provisions or define its terms.
November 6
This measure would place new requirements on animal shelters operated by—and under contract with—local governments. It would require these shelters to (1) operate seven days a week for at least six hours per day; (2) hold animals for a minimum of five to seven days, not including the day of impoundment, which is longer than the current period; and (3) implement various programs, such as free and low-cost sterilization services, foster care networks, and comprehensive adoption programs that operate week-end and evening hours. Animal shelter employees would be required to meet specified educational requirements and pass a newly required state-administered exam. This measure would also place restrictions on certain public shelter activities, as well as on the collection and use of shelter revenues. For example, shelters generally would no longer be authorized to euthanize unweaned animals and feral cats. Additionally, shelters would be able to use revenues from dog license fees only as follows: 60 percent for free and low-cost sterilizations of feral cats and other animals owned by low-income persons, and 40 percent for medical assistance of feral cats and other animals owned by low-income persons. The measure establishes new civil penalties for violation of its provisions. It would also require animal rescue groups and other private shelters that adopt out animals transferred from local animal shelters to transfer to the public shelters 10 percent of the revenue generated from adoption activities.
November 6
Effective January 1, 2015, this statutory measure would prohibit with specified exceptions, the prolonged confinement on a farm of pregnant pigs, and calves raised for veal in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, and stand up. This measure would also prohibit the confinement of egg-laying hens in any manner other than one that is consistent with scientifically validated standards of animal care. The California Department of Food and Agriculture would be required to develop and publish standards for the care of egg-laying hens. Under the measure, any person who violates this law is guilty of a misdemeanor and may be punished by a fine of up to $500 or 40 hours of animal welfare instruction at a local educational institution or agricultural extension facility. There is currently no state law regarding the confinement of agricultural farm animals. However, state law requires individuals who keep pet animals in any confined area to provide the animal with an adequate exercise area, and ensure that any leash is affixed in such a manner as to allow the animal access to shelter, food, and water.
November 6
This measure would prohibit local governments from charging individuals more than $50 per animal per year to obtain a pet license or permit. Senior citizens and individuals receiving certain public assistance benefits (Medicare and MediCal) would be entitled to a 50 percent discount on licensing or permit fees.
November 6
Ban on Mandatory Implants for Humans or Animals. Under this proposed measure, the State Constitution would be changed to specify that no governmental or private entities could make or enforce any law or ordinance that mandates the subcutaneous implantation of any type of device or ink in any human or animal. The measure would also prohibit anyone from being denied employment, education, medical services, health plan membership, certification, or licensure for refusing to have such a device implanted. This measure does not prohibit the voluntary use of such devices by government agencies or private parties. In effect, this measure would place in the State Constitution a prohibition on the involuntary use of subcutaneous implants in humans similar to the one that will become law under Chapter 538. Enactment of these provisions in the Constitution means that they could only be changed in the future with the ratification of the voters. This measure also changes state law by extending the ban on subcutaneous RFIDs to animals. Existing local mandates that dogs or cats be implanted by RFID microchips would no longer be legally enforceable should this initiative be enacted. Also, the state would be precluded in the future from requiring the implantation of livestock or poultry with such devices as a means to prevent or mitigate the outbreak of diseases in animals that could also affect the health of the public. The constitutional prohibition on placing microchips in animals also could be changed in the future only with the consent of the voters.
November 21
This measure amends the Constitution to establish the CHSP to expand health care coverage for California residents and to implement the principle of equal health care for all CHSP members. The measure requires that CHSP be administered to achieve the goals of equal outreach, access, treatment, and outcomes for all persons eligible to receive services under the plan. Furthermore, the measure requires CHSP to be evaluated based on data to determine the extent to which these goals are being achieved by the plan. The measure would also require that the privacy of medical records be maintained and that beneficiaries have the right to obtain written copies of their health care records. The measure requires the Legislature and the Governor to implement CHSP within one year, following its approval by the voters and certification of the election results by the Secretary of State (SOS).
October 23
This measure amends the Constitution to declare that the right to health is a fundamental human right and that equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged on account of health. Furthermore, this measure would provide that the Legislature shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the measure’s provisions and that it would not become effective until one calendar year after its enactment.
November 5
This measure amends the Constitution to require, with certain exceptions, a physician (or his or her representative) to notify the parent or legal guardian of a pregnant minor at least 48 hours before performing an abortion involving that minor. (This measure does not require a physician or a minor to obtain the consent of a parent or guardian.) This measure applies only to cases involving an “unemancipated” minor. The measure identifies an unemancipated minor as being a female under the age of 18 who has not entered into a valid marriage, is not on active duty in the armed services of the United States, and has not been declared free from her parents’ or guardians’ custody and control under state law.
October 2
This measure alters existing procedures for selection of presidential electors in certain situations. Under the measure, political parties would nominate an elector in each congressional district and two electors on a statewide basis. If a majority of other states have adopted some form of proportional voting for the presidential election, the elector of the political party which received the highest number of votes in each California congressional district would be certified as the state's presidential elector of that district. Similarly, the two electors of the political party which received the plurality of statewide votes would be certified as the statewide electors. If, however, a majority of other states have not adopted some form of proportional voting, then the current system of certifying all electors from the political party receiving the highest number of statewide votes would continue. This measure also eliminates the authorization for compensation to electors or reimbursement of their travel expenses.
October 1
This measure would require specified employees of foreign and domestic corporations and limited liability companies doing business in California to report to the Attorney General or other appropriate government agency any act(s) by the corporation that violates state or federal laws related to financial fraud, consumer protection, health and safety, the environment, or labor. Failure to report such acts would be punishable by up to one year in county jail and/or a fine of up to $100,000.
September 26
This measure alters existing procedures for selection of presidential electors in certain situations. Under the measure, if other states that collectively hold a majority of electoral votes have agreed to certify presidential electors according to the national popular vote winner, the California electors of the political party which received the highest number of votes nationally would be certified as the state’s electors. The national popular vote winner would receive all of the electoral votes of participating states. (If there is a tie regarding the national popular vote winner, then the state would certify the presidential electoral slate that received the plurality of votes in the state.) If, alternatively, states holding a majority of electoral votes have not agreed to certify presidential electors according to a national popular vote winner methodology, then the current system of certifying all electors from the political party receiving the highest number of statewide votes would continue. This measure also eliminates the authorization for compensation to electors or reimbursement of their travel expenses.
September 26
This measure alters existing procedures for selection of presidential electors in certain situations. Under the measure, if other states that collectively hold a majority of electoral votes have agreed to certify presidential electors according to the national popular vote winner, the California electors of the political party which received the highest number of votes nationally would be certified as the state’s electors. The national popular vote winner would receive all of the electoral votes of participating states. (If there is a tie regarding the national popular vote winner, then the state would certify the presidential electoral slate that received the plurality of votes in the state.) If, alternatively, states holding a majority of electoral votes have not agreed to certify presidential electors according to a national popular vote winner methodology, then the current system of certifying all electors from the political party receiving the highest number of statewide votes would continue. This measure also eliminates the authorization for compensation to electors or reimbursement of their travel expenses.