California Flavored Tobacco Products Ban Referendum (2022)

California Flavored Tobacco Products Ban Referendum

Election date
November 8, 2022
Topic
Tobacco and Business regulation
Status
On the ballot
Type
Referendum| Origin
Citizens

* * *

The California Flavored Tobacco Products Ban Referendum is on the ballot in California as a veto referendum on November 8, 2022.

A "yes" vote is to uphold the contested legislation, Senate Bill 793 (SB 793), which would ban the sale of flavored tobacco products.

A "no" vote is to repeal the contested legislation, Senate Bill 793 (SB 793), thus keeping the sale of flavored tobacco legal in the state.

## Contents

* 1 Overview
* 2 Text of measure
* 2.1 Ballot title
* 2.2 Petition summary
* 2.3 Full text
* 3 Support for repealing the ban
* 3.1 Supporters
* 3.2 Arguments
* 4 Support for upholding the ban
* 4.1 Supporters
* 4.2 Arguments
* 5 Campaign finance
* 5.1 Support for "No" vote
* 5.1.1 Donors
* 6 Background
* 6.1 Bans on flavored tobacco product sales
* 6.2 San Francisco Proposition E (2018)
* 6.3 Senate Bill 793
* 6.4 California veto referendum ballot measures
* 7 Path to the ballot
* 7.1 Process in California
* 7.2 Stages of this referendum
* 8 How to cast a vote
* 8.1 Poll times
* 8.2 Registration
* 8.3 Automatic registration
* 8.4 Online registration
* 8.5 Same-day registration
* 8.6 Residency requirements
* 8.7 Verification of citizenship
* 8.8 Verifying your registration
* 8.9 Voter ID requirements
* 8.9.1 Background
* 9 See also
* 10 Footnotes

## Overview[edit]

Proponents of the veto referendum seek to overturn Senate Bill 793 (SB 793), which was signed into law on August 28, 2020. SB 793 was designed to ban the sale of flavored tobacco products and tobacco product flavor enhancers, with exceptions for hookah tobacco, loose leaf tobacco, and premium cigars. Retailers would be fined $250 for each sale violating the law.[1]

The California State Legislature passed SB 793 in August 2020. The legislation received support from most legislative Democrats (84 of 89) and a quarter of legislative Republicans (8 of 30). One legislator voted against the bill, and the remaining legislators were absent or abstained. State Sen. Jerry Hill (D-13), the legislative sponsor of SB 793, said, "Using candy, fruit and other alluring flavors, the tobacco industry weaponized its tactics to beguile a new generation into nicotine addiction while keeping longtime users hooked. SB 793 breaks Big Tobacco’s death grip."[2] The California Fuels & Convenience Alliance, which opposed SB 793, described the flavored tobacco ban as "misguided policy that will do more harm than good" and "hurt small businesses, eliminate necessary tax revenue, and perpetuate dangerous and avoidable police interactions in our communities."[3]

The California Coalition for Fairness is campaigning for the veto referendum to repeal SB 793. Through September 30, 2021, the campaign had received $21.16 million, including $10.33 million from R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and $9.83 million from Philip Morris USA.

## Text of measure[edit]

### Ballot title[edit]

The official ballot title is as follows:[4]

“  |

Referendum Challenging a 2020 Law Prohibiting Retail Sale of Certain Flavored Tobacco Products.[5]

|  ”

|
|

### Petition summary[edit]

The summary provided for inclusion on signature petition sheets is as follows:[4]

“  |

If the required number of registered voters sign this petition and the petition is timely filed, there will be a referendum challenging a 2020 law on the next statewide ballot after the November 3, 2020 general election. The challenged law prohibits the retail sale of certain flavored tobacco products and tobacco flavor enhancers. The referendum would require a majority of voters to approve the 2020 state law before it can take effect.[5]

|  ”

|
|

### Full text[edit]

The full text of SB 793, which proponents of the veto referendum seek to repeal, is as follows:

SECTION 1. Article 5 (commencing with Section 104559.5) is added to Chapter 1 of Part 3 of Division 103 of the Health and Safety Code, to read:

Article 5. Tobacco Sale Prohibition

104559.5. (a) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:

(1) “Characterizing flavor” means a distinguishable taste or aroma, or both, other than the taste or aroma of tobacco, imparted by a tobacco product or any byproduct produced by the tobacco product. Characterizing flavors include, but are not limited to, tastes or aromas relating to any fruit, chocolate, vanilla, honey, candy, cocoa, dessert, alcoholic beverage, menthol, mint, wintergreen, herb, or spice. A tobacco product shall not be determined to have a characterizing flavor solely because of the use of additives or flavorings or the provision of ingredient information. Rather, it is the presence of a distinguishable taste or aroma, or both, as described in the first sentence of this definition, that constitutes a characterizing flavor.

(2) “Constituent” means any ingredient, substance, chemical, or compound, other than tobacco, water, or reconstituted tobacco sheet, that is added by the manufacturer to a tobacco product during the processing, manufacture, or packing of the tobacco product.

(3) “Flavored shisha tobacco product” means any shisha tobacco product that contains a constituent that imparts a characterizing flavor.

(4) “Flavored tobacco product” means any tobacco product that contains a constituent that imparts a characterizing flavor.

(5) “Hookah” means a type of waterpipe, used to smoke shisha or other tobacco products, with a long flexible tube for drawing aerosol through water. Components of a hookah may include heads, stems, bowls, and hoses.

(6) “Hookah tobacco retailer” means a tobacco retailer that is engaged in the retail sale of shisha tobacco products, hookah, and hookah smoking accessories.

(7) “Labeling” means written, printed, pictorial, or graphic matter upon a tobacco product or any of its packaging.

(8) “Loose leaf tobacco” consists of cut or shredded pipe tobacco, usually sold in pouches, excluding any tobacco product which, because of its appearance, type, packaging, or labeling, is suitable for use and likely to be offered to, or purchased by, consumers as tobacco for making cigarettes, including roll-your-own cigarettes.

(9) “Packaging” means a pack, box, carton, or container of any kind, or, if no other container, any wrapping, including cellophane, in which a tobacco product is sold or offered for sale to a consumer.

(10) “Premium cigar” means any cigar that is handmade, is not mass produced by use of mechanization, has a wrapper that is made entirely from whole tobacco leaf, and has a wholesale price of no less than twelve dollars ($12). A premium cigar does not have a filter, tip, or nontobacco mouthpiece and is capped by hand.

(11) “Retail location” means both of the following:

(A) A building from which tobacco products are sold at retail.

(B) A vending machine.

(12) “Sale” or “sold” means a sale as that term is defined in Section 30006 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.

(13) “Shisha tobacco product” means a tobacco product smoked or intended to be smoked in a hookah. “Shisha tobacco product” includes, and may be referred to as, hookah tobacco, waterpipe tobacco, maassel, narghile, and argileh. “Shisha tobacco product” does not include any electronic devices, such as an electronic hookah, electronic cigarette, or electronic tobacco product.

(14) “Tobacco product” means a tobacco product as defined in paragraph (8) of subdivision (a) of Section 104495, as that provision may be amended from time to time.

(15) “Tobacco product flavor enhancer” means a product designed, manufactured, produced, marketed, or sold to produce a characterizing flavor when added to a tobacco product.

(16) “Tobacco retailer” means a person who engages in this state in the sale of tobacco products directly to the public from a retail location. “Tobacco retailer” includes a person who operates vending machines from which tobacco products are sold in this state.

(b) (1) A tobacco retailer, or any of the tobacco retailer’s agents or employees, shall not sell, offer for sale, or possess with the intent to sell or offer for sale, a flavored tobacco product or a tobacco product flavor enhancer.

(2) There is a rebuttable presumption that a tobacco product is a flavored tobacco product if a manufacturer or any of the manufacturer’s agents or employees, in the course of their agency or employment, has made a statement or claim directed to consumers or to the public that the tobacco product has or produces a characterizing flavor, including, but not limited to, text, color, images, or all, on the product’s labeling or packaging that are used to explicitly or implicitly communicate that the tobacco product has a characterizing flavor.

(c) Subdivision (b) does not apply to the sale of flavored shisha tobacco products by a hookah tobacco retailer if all of the following conditions are met:

(1) The hookah tobacco retailer has a valid license to sell tobacco products issued pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 22971.7) of Division 8.6 of the Business and Professions Code.

(2) The hookah tobacco retailer does not permit any person under 21 years of age to be present or enter the premises at any time.

(3) The hookah tobacco retailer shall operate in accordance with all relevant state and local laws relating to the sale of tobacco products.

(4) If consumption of tobacco products is allowed on the premises of the hookah tobacco retailer, the hookah tobacco retailer shall operate in accordance with all state and local laws relating to the consumption of tobacco products on the premises of a tobacco retailer, including, but not limited to, Section 6404.5 of the Labor Code.

(d) Subdivision (b) does not apply to sales of premium cigars sold in cigar lounges where products are purchased and consumed only on the premises.

(e) Subdivision (b) does not apply to loose leaf tobacco or premium cigars.

(f) A tobacco retailer, or agent or employee of a tobacco retailer, who violates this section is guilty of an infraction and shall be punished by a fine of two hundred fifty dollars ($250) for each violation of this section.

(g) This section does not preempt or otherwise prohibit the adoption of a local standard that imposes greater restrictions on the access to tobacco products than the restrictions imposed by this section. To the extent that there is an inconsistency between this section and a local standard that imposes greater restrictions on the access to tobacco products, the greater restriction on the access to tobacco products in the local standard shall prevail.

SEC. 2. The provisions of this act are severable. If any provision of this act or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.

SEC. 3. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.

|

## Support for repealing the ban[edit]

The California Coalition for Fairness is leading the campaign for the veto referendum.[6] Beth Miller, the communications director for the California Coalition for Fairness, said that manufacturers were sponsoring the campaign.[7]

### Supporters[edit]

#### Corporations

* ITG Brands, LLC
* Philip Morris USA, Inc.
* R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company
* Swedish Match North America, LLC

#### Organizations

* National Association of Tobacco Outlets

### Arguments[edit]

* California Coalition for Fairness: "We agree that youth should never have access to any tobacco products, but this can be achieved without imposing a total prohibition on products that millions of adults choose to use. This law goes too far and is unfair, particularly since lawmakers have exempted hookah, expensive cigars and flavored pipe tobacco from the prohibition. Moreover, a prohibition will hurt small, local businesses and jobs as products are pushed from licensed, conscientious retailers to an underground market, leading to increased youth access, crime and other social or criminal justice concerns for many California residents."

## Support for upholding the ban[edit]

### Supporters[edit]

#### Officials

* Governor Gavin Newsom (D)

### Arguments[edit]

* Lindsey Freitas, advocacy director for Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids: "We know Big Tobacco has hidden behind smoke and lies for years to hook generations of young people on deadly tobacco products, and this referendum is just one more tactic to continue the status quo."
* Jim Knox, managing director of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network Inc.: "The tobacco industry has always shown it will go to any length to deceive the public about its deadly product. We are confident that if it gets on the ballot, that California voters will see through this despicable tobacco industry ploy to continue to lure kids into a lifetime of tobacco addiction."
* State Sen. Gerald Hill (D-13): "California fought Big Tobacco and won. This shameless industry is a sore loser and it is relentless. It wants to keep killing people with its candy-, fruit-, mint- and menthol-flavored poison. The adults who are hooked on nicotine aren’t enough for Big Tobacco; it wants our kids too."

## Campaign finance[edit]

See also: Campaign finance requirements for California ballot measures

The campaign finance information on this page reflects the most recently scheduled reports processed by BallotpediaCampaign finance report filing deadlines vary by state. Scheduled deadlines are usually based on periodic requirements—such as monthly or quarterly reports—or certain lengths of time before and after elections. Some states require interim reports in response to contributions of a certain size in addition to scheduled reports. It is not uncommon for reports to be filed late for a given campaign finance deadline., which covered through September 30, 2021. The deadlineCampaign finance report deadlines are set by law. It is not uncommon for reports to be filed after the deadlines. Ballotpedia updates the reports as soon as possible after the campaign finance filing deadline. for the next scheduled reports is January 31, 2022.

One PAC, California Coalition for Fairness, was registered to support a "No" vote on the veto referendum. The PAC raised $21.2 million.[8]

Ballotpedia had not identified committees registered to support a "Yes" vote on the the veto referendum.[8]

Note: If the veto referendum appears on the ballot, sponsors will be advocating for a "No" vote.

| Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures

|
|
|
|
|

Support | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00
Oppose | $20,002,500.00 | $1,154,439.15 | $21,156,939.15 | $19,807,686.77 | $20,962,125.92

### Support for "No" vote[edit]

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee that supported a "No" vote of the veto referendum.[8]

Committees in support of California Flavored Tobacco Products Ban Referendum (2022)

Committee | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures
California Coalition for Fairness | $20,002,500.00 | $1,154,439.15 | $21,156,939.15 | $19,807,686.77 | $20,962,125.92
Total | $20,002,500.00 | $1,154,439.15 | $21,156,939.15 | $19,807,686.77 | $20,962,125.92

#### Donors[edit]

The following were the top four donors to the committee.[8]

Donor | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions

|
|
|

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company | $9,838,600.00 | $487,437.61 | $10,326,037.61
Philip Morris USA, Inc. | $9,161,400.00 | $667,001.54 | $9,828,401.54
ITG Brands, LLC | $500,000.00 | $0.00 | $500,000.00
Swedish Match North America, LLC | $500,000.00 | $0.00 | $500,000.00

## Background[edit]

### Bans on flavored tobacco product sales[edit]

As of 2020, California and Massachusetts had adopted bans on the sale of flavored tobacco products, including flavored e-cigarettes and menthol cigarettes. New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island had adopted bans on the sale of flavored e-cigarettes but not menthol cigarettes.[9]

### San Francisco Proposition E (2018)[edit]

See also: San Francisco, California, Proposition E, Ban on the Sale of Flavored Tobacco (June 2018)

In 2017, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance that banned the sale of flavored tobacco. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company launched a veto referendum campaign to repeal the ordinance. The signature drive was successful, placing the ordinance on the ballot as Proposition E. Voters approved Proposition E, thus upholding the board's ordinance; 68.4% voted to adopt the ordinance.

R.J. Reynolds provided $12.9 million to the campaign to overturn the ban. The campaign to uphold the ban received $3.2 million, including $2.3 million from former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.[10]

### Senate Bill 793[edit]

In August 2020, the California State Legislature passed Senate Bill 793 (SB 793), which Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed on August 28, 2020.[11]

In the California State Assembly, the vote was 58-1. Asm. William Brough was the one vote against SB 793. However, 15 (of 19) Republicans did not vote on the legislation; 5 (of 60) Democrats did not vote on the legislation.[11]

In the California State Senate, the vote was 34-0. All 29 Senate Democrats, along with 5 Senate Republicans, voted for SB 793. Six (of 11) Republicans did not vote on the legislation.[11]

Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis (D), Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, and Common Sense were listed as the sources of SB 793.[11]

| Vote in the California State Assembly
August 24, 2020

Requirement: Simple majority of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 40 a
| Yes| No| Not voting
Total| 58| 1| 20
Total percent| 73.42%| 1.26%| 25.32%
Democrat| 55| 0| 5
Republican| 3| 1| 15

| Vote in the California State Senate
August 28, 2020

Requirement: Simple majority of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 21 a
| Yes| No| Not voting
Total| 34| 0| 6
Total percent| 85.00%| 0.00%| 15.00%
Democrat| 29| 0| 0
Republican| 5| 0| 6

### California veto referendum ballot measures[edit]

See also: List of California veto referendum ballot measures

A veto referendum is a type of citizen-initiated ballot measure that asks voters whether to uphold or repeal a law passed by the state legislature. Opponents of the law collect signatures to place the veto referendum on the ballot, with the aim of voters deciding to repeal the law. In California, voters have voted on 49 veto referendums, upholding laws 20 times (40.8 percent) and repealing laws 29 times (59.2 percent).

In 1912, Californians voted on a statewide veto referendum for the first time. The most recent veto referendum was on the ballot in 2020.

Number of California veto referendums

Total veto referendums  |  Laws upheld  |  Laws repealed  |  Year of last measure
49  |  20  |  29  |  2020

The veto referendum ballot measure is also known as a popular referendum, people's veto, or citizen's veto. There are 23 states that have a process for veto referendums. Voters in California approved a constitutional amendment that enacted processes for ballot initiative and veto referendum in 1911.

## Path to the ballot[edit]

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in California

### Process in California[edit]

In California, the number of signatures required for a veto referendum is equal to 5 percent of the votes cast in the preceding gubernatorial election. Petitions are allowed to circulate for 90 days from the date the targeted bill was signed. Signatures for referendums need to be certified at least 31 days before the general election. As the verification process can take multiple months, the secretary of state recommends submitting signatures before the certification deadline.

The requirements to get veto referendums certified for the 2022 ballot:

* Signatures: 623,212 valid signatures
* Deadline for bills passed in 2020 or 2021: 90 days after the date that the governor signs the targeted bill.

Signatures are first filed with local election officials, who determine the total number of signatures submitted. If the total number is equal to at least 100 percent of the required signatures, then local election officials perform a random check of signatures submitted in their counties. If the random sample estimates that more than 110 percent of the required number of signatures are valid, the referendum is eligible for the ballot. If the random sample estimates that between 95 and 110 percent of the required number of signatures are valid, a full check of signatures is done to determine the total number of valid signatures. If less than 95 percent are estimated to be valid, the referendum does not make the ballot.

### Stages of this referendum[edit]

On August 31, 2020, three individuals—Aaron Agenbroad, Jaime Rojas, and Beilal Mohamad-Ali Chatila—filed the veto referendum. Attorney General Xavier Becerra released petition language on September 10, 2020, for the veto referendum, which allowed proponents to begin collecting signatures.[12]

Proponents had until December 10, 2020, to collect 623,212 valid signatures. On December 7, the secretary of state's office reported that signatures were filed for the veto referendum. Counties reported a raw count of 1,023,529 signatures, of which 60.9% needed to be valid.[13] On January 22, 2020, the state office announced that an estimated 76.41% of the submitted signatures were valid, allowing the measure to appear on the ballot.[14]

## How to cast a vote[edit]

See also: Voting in California

Click "Show" to learn more about voter registration, identification requirements, and poll times in California.

How to cast a vote in California

The information below covers regular voting policies in the state. Information may have not applied to the election on November 3, 2020, because of temporary changes in response to coronavirus. Click here to read about changes made for the 2020 elections.

### Poll times[edit]

All polls in California are open from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Pacific Time. An individual who is in line at the time polls close must be allowed to vote.[15]

### Registration[edit]

To vote in California, an individual must be a U.S. citizen and California resident. A voter must be at least 18 years of age on Election Day. Conditional voter registration is available beginning 14 days before an election through Election Day.[16]

On October 10, 2015, California Governor Jerry Brown (D) signed into law Assembly Bill No. 1461, also known as the New Motor Voter Act. The legislation, which took effect in 2016, authorized automatic voter registration in California for any individuals who visit the Department of Motor Vehicles to acquire or renew a driver's license.[17][18]

### Automatic registration[edit]

California automatically registers eligible individuals to vote when they complete a driver's license, identification (ID) card, or change of address transaction through the Department of Motor Vehicles.

### Online registration[edit]

See also: Online voter registration

California has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website.

### Same-day registration[edit]

California allows same-day voter registration.

### Residency requirements[edit]

To register to vote in California, you must be a resident of the state. State law does not specify a length of time for which you must have been a resident to be eligible.

### Verification of citizenship[edit]

See also: Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States

California does not require proof of citizenship for voter registration, although individuals who become U.S. citizens less than 15 days before an election must bring proof of citizenship to their county elections office to register to vote in that election.[19]

### Verifying your registration[edit]

The site Voter Status, run by the California Secretary of State's office, allows residents to check their voter registration status online.

### Voter ID requirements[edit]

California does not require voters to present photo identification. However, some voters may be asked to show a form of identification when voting if they are voting for the first time after registering to vote by mail and did not provide a driver license number, California identification number, or the last four digits of their social security number.[20][21]

The following list of accepted ID was current as of November 2019. Click here for the California Secretary of State page, "What to Bring to Your Polling Place," to ensure you have the most current information.

* Copy of a recent utility bill
* Sample ballot booklet sent from the county elections office to the voter
* Document sent to the voter by a government agency
* Passport
* Driver’s license
* Official state identification card
* Student identification that includes name and photograph

#### Background[edit]

As of April 2021, 35 states enforced (or were scheduled to begin enforcing) voter identification requirements. A total of 21 states required voters to present photo identification at the polls; the remainder accepted other forms of identification. Valid forms of identification differ by state. Commonly accepted forms of ID include driver's licenses, state-issued identification cards, and military identification cards.[22][23]

## See also[edit]

2022 measures

* 2022 ballot measures
* Tobacco on the ballot
* 2022 legislative sessions

California

* California ballot measures
* California ballot measure laws

News and analysis

* Ballot measure lawsuits
* Ballot measure readability
* Ballot measure polls

|
|

## Footnotes[edit]

1. ↑ California State Legislature, "Senate Bill 793," accessed September 1, 2020
2. ↑ CSP Daily News, "California Flavored Tobacco Sales Ban Would Devastate Small Retailers, Opponents Say," July 30, 2020
3. ↑ California Fuels & Convenience Alliance, "California Legislature is Kicking Small Business While We Are Down," July 23, 2020
4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 California Secretary of State, "Initiatives and Referenda Cleared for Circulation," accessed September 11, 2020
5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
6. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Tobacco industry could ask California voters to overturn ban on flavored tobacco sales," August 31, 2020
7. ↑ CSP Daily News, "Referendum Could Overturn California Ban on Flavored Tobacco Sales," September 3, 2020
8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 Cal-Access, "Campaign Finance," accessed December 7, 2020
9. ↑ Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, "States & Localities That Have Restricted the Sale of Flavored Tobacco Products," October 23, 2020
10. ↑ City & County of San Francisco, "Campaign Finance Dashboards – June 5, 2018 and November 6, 2018 Elections," accessed January 5, 2020
11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 California State Legislature, "SB 793," accessed December 7, 2020
12. ↑ California Secretary of State, "Attorney General Information," accessed September 1, 2020
13. ↑ California Secretary of State, "Pending Signature Verification," accessed December 8, 2020
14. ↑ California Secretary of State, "Final Signature Report," January 22, 2021
15. ↑ California Secretary of State, "Section 2: Polling Place Hours," accessed October 17, 2019
16. ↑ California Secretary of State, "Voter Registration," accessed October 6, 2019
17. ↑ The Los Angeles Times, "Gov. Brown approves automatic voter registration for Californians," October 10, 2015
18. ↑ The Sacramento Bee, "California voter law could register millions–for a start," October 20, 2015
19. ↑ California Secretary of State, "Registering to Vote," accessed October 6, 2019
20. ↑ California Secretary of State, "What to Bring to Your Polling Place," accessed November 20, 2019
21. ↑ BARCLAYS OFFICIAL CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, "Section 20107," accessed November 20, 2019
22. ↑ National Conference of State Legislatures, "Voter Identification Requirements|Voter ID Laws," June 5, 2017
23. ↑ The Washington Post, "Do I need an ID to vote? A look at the laws in all 50 states," October 27, 2014

v • e

2022 ballot measures

I&R States|

• Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Florida • Idaho • Illinois • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Mexico • Ohio • Oregon • South Dakota • Utah • Washington • Wyoming

Non I&R States|

• Alabama • Connecticut • Georgia • Hawaii • Iowa • Kentucky • Kansas • Louisiana • New Hampshire • New York • North Carolina • Rhode Island • Tennessee • Texas • Vermont • Virginia • West Virginia

Other|

Scorecard • Petition drive deadlines and requirements • Polls • Lawsuits • Readability analysis • Signature costs • Cost per required signatures analysis • Campaign finance • Media editorial endorsements • Voter guides • Potential measures • Ballot Measure Monthly • Changes in 2022 to laws governing the initiative process • Not on the ballot • Filed initiatives

v • e

State of California
Sacramento (capital)

|

Elections |

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2021 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Government |

Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy