California Proposition 56, Tobacco Tax Increase (2016)

California Proposition 56

Election date
November 8, 2016
Topic
Tobacco
Status
a Approved
Type
Amendment
& Statute| Origin
Citizens

* * *

2016 measures

June 7
Proposition 50 a
November 8
Proposition 51 a
Proposition 52 a
Proposition 53 d
Proposition 54 a
Proposition 55 a
Proposition 56 a
Proposition 57 a
Proposition 58 a
Proposition 59 a
Proposition 60 d
Proposition 61 d
Proposition 62 d
Proposition 63 a
Proposition 64 a
Proposition 65 d
Proposition 66 a
Proposition 67 a
Polls
Voter guides
Campaign finance
Signature costs

California Proposition 56, the Tobacco Tax Increase Initiative, was on the November 8, 2016, ballot in California as a combined initiated constitutional amendment and state statute. It was approved.[1]

| A "yes" vote favored increasing the cigarette tax by $2.00 per pack, with equivalent increases on other tobacco products and electronic cigarettes.

|

| A "no" vote opposed increasing the cigarette tax by $2.00 per pack, with equivalent increases on other tobacco products and electronic cigarettes.

|

The tobacco tax increase went into effect on April 1, 2017.

Initiatives to increase taxes on tobacco products were also on the ballot in Colorado as Amendment 73, Missouri as Proposition A and Amendment 3, and North Dakota as Measure 4 in 2016.

## Contents

* 1 Election results
* 2 Overview
* 2.1 Status of the tobacco tax in California
* 2.2 Changes to state law
* 2.3 State of the ballot measure campaigns
* 3 Initiative design
* 3.1 Tax allocation in 2016
* 3.2 Changes made by Proposition 56
* 3.3 Revenue distribution
* 4 Text of measure
* 4.1 Ballot title
* 4.2 Ballot summary
* 4.3 Full text
* 4.4 Fiscal impact
* 4.5 Constitutional changes
* 5 Background
* 6 Support
* 6.1 Supporters
* 6.1.1 Officials
* 6.1.2 Parties
* 6.1.3 Organizations
* 6.1.3.1 Civic and environmental organizations
* 6.1.3.2 Education organizations and school districts
* 6.1.3.3 Child advocate organizations
* 6.1.3.4 Business associations
* 6.1.3.5 Unions
* 6.1.4 Individuals
* 6.2 Arguments
* 6.2.1 Official arguments
* 6.3 Campaign advertisements
* 7 Opposition
* 7.1 Opponents
* 7.1.1 Officials
* 7.1.2 Parties
* 7.1.3 Organizations
* 7.1.4 Businesses
* 7.1.5 Individuals
* 7.2 Arguments
* 7.2.1 Official arguments
* 7.3 Campaign advertisements
* 8 Campaign finance
* 8.1 Support
* 8.1.1 Donors
* 8.2 Opposition
* 8.2.1 Donors
* 8.3 Methodology
* 9 Media editorials
* 9.1 Support
* 9.2 Opposition
* 9.3 Other opinions
* 10 Polls
* 11 Path to the ballot
* 12 State profile
* 12.1 Presidential voting pattern
* 13 Recent news
* 14 Related measures
* 14.1 2016
* 15 External links
* 15.1 Basic information
* 15.2 Support
* 15.3 Opposition
* 15.4 Other resources
* 16 See also
* 17 Footnotes

## Election results[edit]

Proposition 56

Result| Votes| Percentage
a Yes|  8,980,448|  64.43%
No| 4,957,994| 35.57%

Election results from California Secretary of State

## Overview[edit]

### Status of the tobacco tax in California[edit]

California had a tobacco excise tax of $0.87 per pack of cigarettes in 2016. The average state tobacco tax was $1.65 in 2016. Fourteen states had lower tobacco taxes than California, while 34 states and D.C. had higher taxes. The federal government levied a $1.01 tobacco tax in 2016.[2]

Prior to the passage of Proposition 56, revenue from the state tax on tobacco went to the General Fund, tobacco prevention, healthcare services for low-income persons, environmental protection, breast cancer screenings and research, and early childhood development programs.[3]

### Changes to state law[edit]

Proposition 56 increased the tobacco tax by $2.00, bringing the total tobacco tax up to $2.87 per pack of cigarettes. The tobacco tax was levied on other tobacco products and e-cigarettes as well. Revenue from the additional $2.00 tax was allocated to physician training, prevention and treatment of dental diseases, Medi-Cal, tobacco-use prevention, research into cancer, heart and lung diseases, and other tobacco-related diseases, and school programs focusing on tobacco-use prevention and reduction.[3]

### State of the ballot measure campaigns[edit]

No on 56 outraised supporters two-to-one. Yes on 56 had received $35.53 million, while opponents had raised $70.98 million. Two of the largest cigarette manufacturers in the U.S., Philip Morris USA, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, and their affiliates, together contributed over $69 million to No on 56. Supporters’ biggest donor was Tom Steyer, who contributed over $11.55 million. Prior to the election, polls showed support for Proposition 56 around 60 percent. The California Democratic Party backed the measure, and the California Republican Party opposed it.

## Initiative design[edit]

### Tax allocation in 2016[edit]

California levies an excise tax on tobacco products. In 2016, the tobacco tax was 87 cents per pack of cigarettes. Revenue from the tax was distributed as follows:[3]

* 10 cents to the General Fund. About $84 million was raised for the fund in fiscal year 2015-2016 due to this allocation.
* 25 cents towards tobacco prevention, healthcare services for low-income persons, and environmental protection. Proposition 99 of 1988 created this portion of the tax. About $259 million was raised for these services in fiscal year 2015-2016.
* 2 cents towards breast cancer screenings and research. For fiscal year 2015-2016, $20 million was raised for these services.
* 50 cents towards early childhood development programs. Proposition 10 of 1998 created this portion of the tax. About $447 million was raised for these programs in fiscal year 2015-2016.

The federal government also levied a tobacco tax at $1.01 per pack of cigarettes.

### Changes made by Proposition 56[edit]

Proposition 56 did not change how the 87-cent tobacco tax is allocated. Rather, the measure added an additional $2.00 tax, bringing the total tobacco tax up to $2.87 per pack of cigarettes. It increased the excise tax on other tobacco products equivalently. Proposition 56 changed the definition of "other tobacco products" in state law to include e-cigarettes. Therefore, Proposition 99 and Proposition 10 taxes apply to e-cigarettes.[3]

### Revenue distribution[edit]

Revenue from the $2.00 tax levied by Proposition 56 was distributed through a four-step process:[3]

* Step 1: use new revenue to replace old revenue lost due to lower tobacco consumption resulting from tobacco tax increase.
* Step 2: use next 5 percent of revenue to pay the costs of administering the tax.
* Step 3: allocate $48 million to enforcing tobacco laws, $40 million to physician training to increase the number of primary care and emergency physicians in the state, $30 million toward preventing and treating dental diseases, and $400,000 to the California State Auditor to audit funds from the new tax.
* Step 4: allocate 82 percent of remaining funds toward services related to Medi-Cal; 11 percent of remaining funds toward tobacco-use prevention; 5 percent of remaining funds toward research into cancer, heart, and lung diseases and other tobacco-related diseases; and 2 percent of remaining funds toward school programs focusing on tobacco-use prevention and reduction.

## Text of measure[edit]

### Ballot title[edit]

The official ballot title was as follows:[4]

“  | Cigarette Tax to Fund Healthcare, Tobacco Use Prevention, Research, and Law Enforcement. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.[5] | ”

|
|

### Ballot summary[edit]

The long-form ballot summary was as follows:[3]

“  |

* Increases cigarette tax by $2.00 per pack, with equivalent increase on other tobacco products and electronic cigarettes containing nicotine.
* Allocates revenues primarily to increase funding for existing healthcare programs; also for tobacco use prevention/control programs, tobacco-related disease research and law enforcement, University of California physician training, dental disease prevention programs, and administration. Excludes these revenues from Proposition 98 funding requirements.
* If tax causes decreased tobacco consumption, transfers tax revenues to offset decreases to existing tobacco-funded programs and sales tax revenues.
* Requires biennial audit.[5]

| ”

|
|

The shorter ballot label summary was as follows:[3]

“  |

Increases cigarette tax by $2.00 per pack, with equivalent increase on other tobacco products and electronic cigarettes containing nicotine. Fiscal Impact: Additional net state revenue of $1 billion to $1.4 billion in 2017-18, with potentially lower revenues in future years. Revenues would be used primarily to augment spending on health care for low-income Californians.[5]

| ”

|
|

The long-form, official ballot summary for Proposition 56 was identical to the initial summary provided to initiative proponents for the purpose of circulating the initiative for signature collection.

### Full text[edit]

The full text of the measure could be found here.

### Fiscal impact[edit]

Note: The fiscal impact statement for a California ballot initiative authorized for circulation is jointly prepared by the state's legislative analyst and its director of finance. The statement was as follows:[4]

“  |

* Increased net state revenue of $1 billion to $1.4 billion in 2017-18, with potentially lower annual revenues over time. These funds would be allocated to a variety of specific purposes, with most of the monies used to augment spending on health care for low income Californians.[5]

| ”

|
|

### Constitutional changes[edit]

Proposition 56 added a Section 23 to Article XVI of the California Constitution:[3]

SEC. 23. The tax imposed by the California Healthcare, Research and Prevention Tobacco Tax Act of 2016 and the revenue derived therefrom, including investment interest, shall not be considered General Fund revenues for purposes of Section 8 and its implementing statutes, and shall not be considered “General Fund revenues,” “state revenues,” or “General Fund proceeds of taxes” for purposes of subdivisions (a) and (b) of Section 8 and its implementing statutes.[5]

Proposition 56 added a Section 14 to Article XIII B of the California Constitution:[3]

SEC. 14. “Appropriations subject to limitation” of each entity of government shall not include appropriations of revenue from the California Healthcare, Research and Prevention Tobacco Tax Act of 2016 Fund created by the California Healthcare, Research and Prevention Tobacco Tax Act of 2016. No adjustment in the appropriations limit of any entity of government shall be required pursuant to Section 3 as a result of revenue being deposited in or appropriated from the California Healthcare, Research and Prevention Tobacco Tax Act of 2016 Fund.[5]

## Background[edit]

Below is a chart detailing the state tobacco excise tax in all 50 states, plus the District of Columbia, as of August 1, 2016. The federal government levied a $1.01 tobacco tax in 2016. In 2016, New York had the highest tobacco tax at $4.35 per pack of cigarettes. Missouri had the lowest tobacco tax at 17 cents per pack of cigarettes. The mean or average tobacco tax was $1.65.[2]

State  | 2016 tobacco taxes  | Rank

|
|

Alabama | $0.675 | 40
Alaska | $2.00 | 13
Arizona | $2.00 | 13
Arkansas | $1.15 | 33
California | $0.87 | 37
Colorado | $0.84 | 38
Connecticut | $3.90 | 2
Delaware | $1.60 | 24
Florida | $1.339 | 29
Georgia | $0.37 | 49
Hawaii | $3.20 | 5
Idaho | $0.57 | 45
Illinois | $1.98 | 18
Indiana | $1.00 | 36
Iowa | $1.36 | 28
Kansas | $1.29 | 31
Kentucky | $0.60 | 43
Louisiana | $1.08 | 34
Maine | $2.00 | 13
Maryland | $2.00 | 13
Massachusetts | $3.51 | 4
Michigan | $2.00 | 13
Minnesota | $3.00 | 8
Mississippi | $0.68 | 39
Missouri | $0.17 | 51
Montana | $1.70 | 21
Nebraska | $0.64 | 41
Nevada | $1.80 | 19
New Hampshire | $1.78 | 20
New Jersey | $2.70 | 9
New Mexico | $1.66 | 23
New York | $4.35 | 1
North Carolina | $0.45 | 47
North Dakota | $0.44 | 48
Ohio | $1.60 | 24
Oklahoma | $1.03 | 35
Oregon | $1.32 | 30
Pennsylvania | $2.60 | 10
Rhode Island | $3.75 | 3
South Carolina | $0.57 | 45
South Dakota | $1.53 | 26
Tennessee | $0.62 | 42
Texas | $1.41 | 27
Utah | $1.70 | 21
Vermont | $3.08 | 6
Virginia | $0.30 | 50
Washington | $3.025 | 7
Washington, D.C. | $2.50 | 12
West Virginia | $1.20 | 32
Wisconsin | $2.52 | 11
Wyoming | $0.60 | 43

This map is current as of September 18, 2016.

## Support[edit]

Yes on 56 - Save Lives California led the campaign in support of Proposition 56.[6]

### Supporters[edit]

#### Officials[edit]

* U.S. Rep. Karen Bass (D-37)
* U.S. Rep. Ted Lieu (D-33)
* Secretary of State Alex Padilla (D)
* Controller Betty Yee (D)
* Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones (D)
* State Superintendent Tom Torlakson
* Sen. Kevin de Leon (D-24)
* Sen. Ben Allen (D-26)
* Sen. Bill Monning (D-17)
* Sen. Carol Liu (D-25)
* Sen. Richard Pan (D-6)
* Sen. Ed Hernandez (D-22)
* Sen. Fran Pavley (D-27)
* Sen. Jerry Hill (D-13)
* Sen. Jim Beall (D-15)
* Sen. Mark Leno (D-11)
* Sen. Marty Block (D-39)
* Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-33)
* Asm. Anthony Rendon (D-63)
* Asm. Autumn Burke (D-62)
* Asm. Bill Quirk (D-20)
* Asm. Das Williams (D-37)
* Asm. David Chiu (D-17)
* Asm. Ed Chau (D-49)
* Asm. Evan Low (D-28)
* Asm. Joaquin Arambula (D-31)
* Asm. Lorena Gonzalez (D-80)
* Asm. Mark Stone (D-29)
* Asm. Miguel Santiago (D-53)
* Asm. Rob Bonta (D-18)
* Asm. Susan Bonilla (D-14)

#### Parties[edit]

* California Democratic Party
* Green Party of California[7]
* Los Angeles County Democratic Party
* Democratic Party of the San Fernando Valley
* Santa Monica Democratic Club[8]
* Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club[9]

#### Organizations[edit]

##### Civic and environmental organizations

* Alliance San Diego
* African American Tobacco Control Leadership Council
* AltaMed Action Fund State PAC
* Asian & Pacific Islander American Health Forum
* Asian Americans Advancing Justice – Los Angeles
* Asian American Senior Citizens Service Center (AASCSC)
* Asian Pacific Community Fund
* Asian Pacific Partners for Empowerment, Advocacy and Leadership (APPEAL)
* Asian Resources Inc. (ARI)
* California Environmental Justice Alliance Action[10]
* California League of Conservation Voters
* California Pan-Ethnic Health Network
* California Partnership
* CAPITAL (Council of Asian and Pacific Islanders Together for Advocacy & Leadership)
* The Center on Policy Initiatives (CPI)
* Chinese America Citizen Alliance (CACA)
* Coalition of Lavender-Americans on Smoking and Health (CLASH)
* Consumer Action
* Courage Campaign
* EqualityCA
* Filipino Advocates for Justice
* The Greenlining Institute
* HONOR PAC
* InnerCity Struggle
* Koreatown Immigrant Workers’ Alliance (KIWA)
* Korean Community Center of the East Bay
* Korean Churches for Community Development (KCCD)
* Latino Coalition for a Healthy California
* MarinLink
* Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF)
* NAACP, California
* National Asian Pacific American Families Against Substance Abuse (NAPAFASA)
* National Korean American Service & Education Consortium (NAKASEC)
* NextGen California
* PICO California
* San Francisco AIDS Foundation
* Save The Bay
* Services Immigrant Rights and Education Network (SIREN)
* Sierra Club
* Social Justice Learning Institute, Inc.
* Vietnamese Reach for Health Coalition (VRHC)
* William C. Velasquez Institute

##### Education organizations and school districts

* California Faculty Association
* California School Board Association
* California State PTA
* Firebaugh-Las Deltas Unified School District
* Oakland Unified School District
* San Diego Unified School Board[11]
* Sacramento City Unified School District
* Sonoma County Board of Education

##### Child advocate organizations

* Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids
* Children’s Defense Fund — California
* Children Now
* The Children’s Partnership
* Common Sense Kids Action
* El Camino Children and Family Services, Inc.
* Special Needs Network, Inc.

##### Business associations

* Artesia Chamber of Commerce
* Bay Area Council
* Beverly Hills Chamber of Commerce
* BizFed – Los Angeles County Business Federation
* Crenshaw Chamber of Commerce
* Cupertino Chamber of Commerce
* El Monte/South El Monte Chamber of Commerce
* Hollywood Chamber of Commerce
* Inland Empire African American Chamber of Commerce
* Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce
* Los Angeles Latino Chamber of Commerce
* North Orange County Chamber of Commerce
* San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership
* Silicon Valley Leadership Group
* Southern California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
* The Asian American Small Business PAC

##### Unions

* Alameda Labor Council
* American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)
* Butte – Glenn Counties CLC
* California Labor Federation
* Central Labor Council of Contra Costa County
* Five Counties CLC
* Fresno-Madera-Tulare-Kings CLC
* Humboldt and Del Norte Counties CLC
* Kern, Inyo and Mono Counties CLC
* Los Angeles County Federation of Labor
* Marysville Central Labor Council
* Merced-Mariposa CLC
* Monterey Bay CLC
* Napa-Solano CLC
* North Bay Labor Council
* North Valley Labor Federation
* Orange County Labor Federation
* Sacramento CLC
* San Bernardino-Riverside CLC
* San Diego-Imperial CLC
* San Francisco Labor Council
* San Joaquin-Calaveras CLC
* San Mateo County CLC
* Service Employees International Union California (SEIU)
* SEIU 2015
* SEIU 721
* SEIU Local 99 Education Workers United
* SEIU United Service Workers West
* South Bay AFL-CIO Labor Council
* Stanislaus-Tuolumne CLC
* Tri-Counties CLC

|

#### Individuals[edit]

* Former Mayor Michael Bloomberg, New York City[12]
* Tom Steyer[13]

### Arguments[edit]

Yes on 56’s “Save Lives” ad

Supporters made the following arguments in support of Proposition 56:[3]

* The proposition would reduce tobacco-related healthcare costs and would help pay for those costs.
* The proposition would prevent youth smoking and would also address tobacco marketing aimed at youth as a target customer.
* The proposition includes transparency and accountability safeguards for use of the tax revenue generated.

Yes on 56, the organization that led the fight in support of Proposition 56, focused on three points:[6]

“  |

* Protect children. Thousands of youth become addicted to tobacco each year. Now tobacco companies are targeting kids with candy-flavored electronic cigarettes containing nicotine. It has been proven that higher tobacco taxes reduce teen smoking.
* Saves lives. Smoking is the number one cause of preventable death in California. This initiative will save lives by preventing kids from getting hooked on tobacco, improving health care, and fighting cancer and other tobacco-related diseases.
* Asks smokers to pay their fair share to improve health care and fight cancer. This is simply a user fee on those who continue to use tobacco. It will mean smokers help pay for cancer treatment, smoking prevention, health care, and research to fight cancer and other tobacco-related diseases.[5]

| ”

|
|

#### Official arguments[edit]

JoAnna Morales, former chair of the Board of the American Cancer Society in California, Tami Titteletiz, leadership board member of the American Lung Association in California, and David Lee, president of the American Heat Association Western States Affiliate, wrote the official argument in support of Proposition 56 found in the state voters guide. Their argument was as follows:[3]

The American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, American Lung Association in California and American Heart Association are sponsoring Prop 56 because taxing tobacco saves lives by getting people to quit or never start smoking.

Get the facts at YesOn56.org.

VOTE YES ON PROP 56 TO KEEP KIDS FROM SMOKING AND REDUCE TOBACCO- RELATED HEALTHCARE COSTS

Tobacco remains a DEADLY, COSTLY product that hurts all Californians — even those who don't smoke.

* Each year, tobacco causes more deaths than guns, car accidents, HIV, alcohol, and illegal drugs combined. Tobacco is the #1 cause of preventable death — killing 40,000 Californians annually.
* Each year, tobacco-related healthcare costs Californian taxpayers $3.58 BILLION.

At the same time, Big Tobacco has made billions in profits off California and is still trying to hook future generations into a lifetime of addiction. They know Prop 56 will prevent youth smoking. That's why they'll spend millions of dollars to defeat Prop 56: to protect their profits at our expense.

PROP 56 WORKS LIKE A USER FEE, TAXING TOBACCO TO HELP PAY FOR TOBACCO-RELATED HEALTHCARE COSTS

Prop 56 increases the tax on cigarettes and other tobacco products, including electronic cigarettes.

The only people who will pay are those who use tobacco products, and that money will fund already existing programs to prevent smoking, improve healthcare and research cures for cancer and tobacco-related diseases.

PROP 56 IS ABOUT FAIRNESS — IF YOU DON'T USE TOBACCO, YOU DON'T PAY

California taxpayers spend $3.58 BILLION every year — $413 per family whether they smoke or not — paying medical costs of smokers. Prop 56 is a simple matter of fairness — it works like a user fee on tobacco products to reduce smoking and ensure smokers help pay for healthcare costs.

PROP 56 HELPS PREVENT YOUTH SMOKING

Increasing tobacco taxes reduces youth smoking according to the US Surgeon General. Yet California has one of the lowest tobacco taxes nationwide. This year alone, an estimated 16,800 California youth will start smoking, one-third of whom will die from tobacco-related diseases.

In every state that has significantly raised cigarette taxes smoking rates have gone down. Prop 56 is so important because it helps prevent youth from becoming lifelong addicts and will save lives for future generations.

PROP 56 FIGHTS BIG TOBACCO'S LASTEST SCHEME TO TARGET KIDS

Electronic cigarettes are Big Tobacco's latest effort to get kids hooked on nicotine. They know that 90% of smokers start as teens. Teens that use e-cigarettes are twice as likely to start smoking traditional cigarettes, That's why every major tobacco corporation now owns at least one e-cigarette brand, Some e-cigarettes even target children with predatory themes like Barbie, Minions and Tinker Bell, and flavors like cotton candy and bubble gum.

Prop 56 taxes e-cigarettes just like tobacco products, preventing our kids from getting hooked on this addictive, costly, deadly habit.

PROP 56 INCLUDES TOUGH TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES

Prop 56 has built-in safeguards, including independent audits and strict caps on overhead spending and administrative costs, And Prop 56 explicitly prohibits politicians from diverting funds for their own agendas.

SAVE LIVES. VOTE YES ON 56.

|

### Campaign advertisements[edit]

The following video advertisements were produced by Yes on 56:[14]

A Yes on 56 ad titled "Why Yes?"

A Yes on 56 ad titled "Trust"

A Yes on 56 ad titled "Butterfly"

## Opposition[edit]

No on 56 - Stop the Special Interest Tax Grab led the campaign in opposition to Proposition 56.[15]

### Opponents[edit]

#### Officials[edit]

* U.S. Rep. Tom McClintock (R-4)[16]
* Mayor Robert Pacheco, Walnut[17]

#### Parties[edit]

* California Republican Party[18]
* Libertarian Party of California[19]
* California Peace and Freedom Party[20]

#### Organizations[edit]

* California Taxpayers Association[17]
* Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
* California Manufacturers and Technology Association
* California Black Chamber of Commerce
* California Retailers Association
* Hispanic Leadership Fund
* Hispanic 100
* National Tax Limitation Committee
* California Taxpayer Protection Committee
* Alliance of Contra Costa Taxpayers
* Calaveras County Taxpayers Association
* Napa County Taxpayers Association
* Fullerton Association of Concerned Taxpayers
* Humboldt County Taxpayers League
* Inland Empire Taxpayers Association
* Sacramento Taxpayers Association
* San Joaquin County Taxpayers Association
* Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association
* Solano County Taxpayers Association
* Sutter County Taxpayers Association
* California State Fraternal Order of Police
* Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs
* Orange County Coalition of Police & Sheriffs
* Taxpayers Protection Alliance
* San Diego Tax Fighters
* Big Bear Chamber of Commerce
* Industry Manufacturers Council

#### Businesses[edit]

* Philip Morris USA Inc.
* R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company

#### Individuals[edit]

* Kevin Drum, political blogger for Mother Jones[21]

### Arguments[edit]

No on 56's “Stop the Special Interest Tax Grab.”

Opponents made the following arguments in opposition to Proposition 56:[3]

* The proposition would fund insurance companies and special interests more than it would fund treatments for smoking-related illnesses and youth smoking prevention.
* The proposition would not allocate funds for improving schools.
* The tax revenue that would be generated by the proposition should address other issues.
* The proposition would waste money on overhead and bureaucracy.

No on 56, the group leading the fight against Proposition 56, made the following arguments against the measure:[15]

“  | Prop 56 is a $1.4 billion “tax hike grab” by insurance companies and other wealthy special interests to dramatically increase their profits by shortchanging schools and ignoring other pressing problems.

1\. Prop. 56 cheats schools out of at least $600 million per year.

2\. Prop. 56 doesn’t solve problems facing California families.

3\. Prop. 56 fattens insurance company profits.

4\. Prop. 56 spends up to $147 million per year on overhead and bureaucracy.[5]

| ”

|
|

#### Official arguments[edit]

Tom Bogetich, former executive director of the California State Board of Education, Arnold M. Zeiderman, former director of maternal health and family planning at the Los Angeles County Department of Health, and Tom Dominguez, president of the Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs, wrote the official argument against Proposition 56 found in the state voters guide. Their argument was as follows:[3]

WE ALL WANT TO HELP THOSE WHO WANT TO STOP SMOKING, BUT PROP. 56 IS NOT WHAT IT APPEARS TO BE.

Prop. 56 is a $1.4 billion "tax hike grab" by insurance companies and other wealthy special interests to dramatically increase their profits by shortchanging schools and ignoring other pressing problems.

Prop. 56 allocates just 13% of new tobacco tax money to treat smokers or stop kids from starting. If we are going to tax smokers another $1.6 billion per year, more should be dedicated to treating them and keeping kids from starting.

Instead, most of the $1.6 billion in new taxes goes to health insurance companies and other wealthy special interests, instead of where it is needed.

PROP. 56 CHEATS SCHOOLS OUT OF AT LEAST $600 MILLION PER YEAR.

California's Constitution (through Proposition 98), requires that schools get at least 43% of any new tax increase. Prop. 56 was purposely written to undermine our Constitution's minimum school funding guarantee, allowing special interests to deceptively divert at least $600 million a year from schools to health insurance companies and other wealthy special interests. Not one penny of the new tax money will go to improve our kids' schools.

PROP. 56 DOESN'T SOLVE PROBLEMS FACING CALIFORNIA FAMILIES.

We have many pressing problems in California, like fully funding our schools, repairing roads, solving the drought and fighting violent crime. If we are going to raise taxes, we should be spending this new tax revenue on these problems.

PROP. 56 FATTENS INSURANCE COMPANY PROFITS.

In another deception, health insurance companies and wealthy special interests wrote Prop. 56 and are spending millions to pass it so that they can get paid as much as $1 billion more for treating the very same Medi-Cal patients they already treat today. They are not required to accept more Medi-Cal patients to get this money.

Instead of treating more patients, insurance companies can increase their bottom line and more richly reward their CEOs and senior executives. In fact, the Prop. 56 spending formula gives insurance companies and other health care providers 82% of this new tax.

PROP. 56 SPENDS OVER $147 MILLION PER YEAR ON OVERHEAD AND BUREAUCRACY.

This $147 million can be spent each year with virtually no accountability to taxpayers. This could lead to massive waste, fraud, and abuse. In fact, Prop. 56 spends nearly as much money on administration and overhead as it does on tobacco prevention efforts!

NO ON PROP. 56

NO to wealthy special interests using our initiative process just to increase their profits.

NO to cheating schools out of at least $600 million per year.

NO to millions of new tax dollars going to overhead and administration with the potential for waste, fraud, and abuse.

NO to rewarding health insurance companies and wealthy special interests with even bigger profits, instead of solving real problems like roads, violent crime and fully funding our schools.

PLEASE READ IT FOR YOURSELF AND FOLLOW THE PROP. 56 MONEY AT: www.noonproposition56.com

|

### Campaign advertisements[edit]

The following video advertisements were produced by No on Prop 56:[22]

A No on Prop 56 ad titled "Cheats Our Kids' Schools"

A No on Prop 56 ad titled "Stop the Special Interest Tax Grab"

## Campaign finance[edit]

The campaign finance information on this page reflects the most recent scheduled reports that Ballotpedia has processed, which covered through December 31, 2016.

See also: Campaign finance requirements for California ballot measures

Five committees registered to support Proposition 56. Together they reported over $34.5 million in contributions. Three committees registered to oppose Proposition 56. Together they reported over $70.9 million in contributions.[23]

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

|
|
|
|
|

Support | $33,128,370.92 | $1,379,416.29 | $34,507,787.21 | $34,893,669.40 | $36,273,085.69
Oppose | $69,231,144.00 | $1,747,201.45 | $70,978,345.45 | $68,801,508.21 | $70,548,709.66
Total | $102,359,514.92 | $3,126,617.74 | $105,486,132.66 | $103,695,177.61 | $106,821,795.35

### Support[edit]

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in support of the ballot measure.[23]

Committees in support of Proposition 56

Committee | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures
Yes on 56 - Saves Lives California, a coalition of Doctors, Dentists, Health Plans, Labor, Hospitals and Non-profit Health Advocate Organizations | $30,270,078.10 | $1,337,862.37 | $31,607,940.47 | $29,488,167.40 | $30,826,029.77
Million Voter Project Action Fund - Yes on 55, 56, 57, 58, 62, and No on 66 | $2,080,964.45 | $0.00 | $2,080,964.45 | $2,080,964.45 | $2,080,964.45
Million Voter Project Action Fund - Yes on 55 and 57 | $426,035.55 | $0.00 | $426,035.55 | $2,971,957.38 | $2,971,957.38
California Kids Campaign, Yes on Props 55 & 56 | $295,000.00 | $0.00 | $295,000.00 | $268,333.93 | $268,333.93
Fight Cancer - Yes on 56 | $56,292.82 | $41,553.92 | $97,846.74 | $84,246.24 | $125,800.16
Total | $33,128,370.92 | $1,379,416.29 | $34,507,787.21 | $34,893,669.40 | $36,273,085.69

#### Donors[edit]

The following table shows the top donors to the committee registered in support of the ballot measure.[23]

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

|
|
|

Tom Steyer | $10,300,000.00 | $0.00 | $10,300,000.00
California Hospitals Committee on Issues | $10,000,000.00 | $0.00 | $10,000,000.00
California State Council of Service Employees Issues Committee | $2,000,000.00 | $99,895.50 | $2,099,895.50
Tom Steyer | $1,750,000.00 | $0.00 | $1,750,000.00
California Dental Association | $1,000,000.00 | $10,655.05 | $1,010,655.05

### Opposition[edit]

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in opposition to the ballot measure.[23]

Committees in opposition to Proposition 56

Committee | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures
No on 56 - Stop the Special Interest Tax Grab | $69,195,500.00 | $1,747,201.45 | $70,942,701.45 | $68,765,864.21 | $70,513,065.66
California Citizens Against Special Interests and Wasteful Taxes, No on Prop. 56 | $32,050.00 | $0.00 | $32,050.00 | $32,050.00 | $32,050.00
Protect Small Business and Smoke Free Alternatives, No on 56 | $3,594.00 | $0.00 | $3,594.00 | $3,594.00 | $3,594.00
Total | $69,231,144.00 | $1,747,201.45 | $70,978,345.45 | $68,801,508.21 | $70,548,709.66

#### Donors[edit]

The following table shows the top donors to the committee registered in opposition to the ballot measure.[23]

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

|
|
|

Philip Morris USA Inc. | $42,777,900.00 | $1,292,048.63 | $44,069,948.63
R.J. Reynolds | $24,767,100.00 | $115,262.73 | $24,882,362.73
Fontem Ventures USA, Inc. | $1,500,250.00 | $0.00 | $1,500,250.00
McLane Company, Inc. | $100,000.00 | $700.00 | $100,700.00
Core-Mark International, Inc. | $50,000.00 | $9,307.09 | $59,307.09

### Methodology[edit]

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

## Media editorials[edit]

### Support[edit]

* The Bakersfield Californian: "The present anti-smoking efforts and the tax money to support them are victims of their own success. As the number of smokers declines, so does the volume of cigarettes sold and the amount of taxes collected. Without an infusion of cash, California’s anti-smoking efforts and treatment may plateau, or even worse reverse. Californians should vote YES on Prop. 56 to maintain and expand the state’s anti-smoking and treatment programs."[24]

* East Bay Express: "We don’t always embrace regressive taxes, but a smart thing about this $2-per-pack increase on cigarettes and comparable tax on other tobacco products is that there is a limit on administrative expenses, and it would inject nearly $1 billion into the Medi-Cal program, which provides health-care coverage to low-income residents."[25]

* The Highlander: “It is the belief of this editorial board that the increase on the current taxes on these products will benefit public health by discouraging many people from ever starting to use them. The revenue generated by these taxes will also be used to the benefit the public more directly by funding medical care for lower-income groups in the form of Medi-Cal.”[26]

* Los Angeles Times: "That’s too bad because tobacco taxes are really a brilliant and beautiful thing: They not only bring in revenue for government but also serve a social good in the process. On average, peer-reviewed studies have shown, a 10% increase in the total price of cigarettes will yield a 3% to 4% reduction in adult consumption — and a 7% reduction among young smokers."[27]

* Marin Independent Journal: "A $2-per-pack tax on cigarettes and electronic smoking devices sounds like a lot. But California’s tax on cigarettes is far less than other states charge. Proposition 56 would raise the state tax to $2.87 per pack. New York’s tax is $4.35 per pack."[28]

* The Mercury News: "The need is urgent: E-cigarettes have increased teen smoking at an alarming rate. The Centers for Disease Control reported last year that vaping by middle- and high-school students tripled from 4.5 percent in 2013 to 13.4 percent in 2014. It's an easy slip from there to tobacco, and the harm is similar. The proposition raises the tax on e-cigarettes, as well as on other tobacco products, at levels equivalent to the per-pack cigarette hike. It's way past time for California to do this. Voters should resoundingly approve Proposition 56."[29]

* The Record: “Vote yes. Our concern is that this tax would impact poor smokers more than those well-to-do smokers, but the tax would increase funding to health programs.”[30]

* The Sacramento Bee: "In 1988, one in four Californians smoked. That was the year voters approved Proposition 99, a landmark initiative that raised tobacco taxes by 25 cents per pack, primarily to fund what then was a unique state-run anti-tobacco campaign. It has been a public health success. Now, 12 percent of Californians smoke."[31]

* San Diego City Beat: “Hiking tobacco taxes is a proven way to deter smoking habits, so guess which industry is against it.”[32]

* San Diego Free Press and OB Rag endorsed Proposition 56.[33]

* The San Diego Union-Tribune: “Giving a significantly higher percentage of revenue to anti-smoking programs would have been preferable. But especially because the higher price is likely to deter smoking — and to deter young people from starting smoking — we offer our strong support. Yes on Proposition 56.”[34]

* San Francisco Chronicle: "The case for a specific excise tax on tobacco is overwhelming. The drafters of Prop. 56 have done a responsible job of apportioning the up to $1.4 billion in new revenue from the tax to efforts to either prevent or offset the public burden caused by smoking. The major beneficiary would be the Medi-Cal program, which would receive between $710 million and $1 billion in 2017-18, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office. Smaller amounts would go into education and cessation programs. It would limit administrative spending to no more than 5 percent."[35]

* San Francisco Examiner: "Revenue from the tax would help fund physician training, prevention and treatment of dental diseases, Medi-Cal, tobacco-use prevention, research into cancer, heart and lung diseases, and other tobacco-related diseases, and school programs focusing on tobacco-use prevention and reduction."[36]

* Ventura County Star: "Empirical evidence shows that if the price of tobacco is raised dramatically, it results in a decline in teen-age smoking, because cost is one of the primary forces controlling teens who start experimenting with smoking."[37]

### Opposition[edit]

* San Mateo Daily Journal recommended a "No" vote on Proposition 56.[38]

* Southern California News Group, which includes the Orange County Register, LA Daily News, and Long Beach Press-Telegram: "Prop. 56 fails to meet these basic expectations, however. In addition to taxing demonstrably harmful products like cigarettes, the initiative imposes a new $2 tax on electronic cigarettes, which are not tobacco products and which might actually serve as a less harmful alternative to real cigarettes. Even more troublingly, the initiative does not allocate funds in manner [sic] consistent with its promise to 'save lives.'”[39][40]

### Other opinions[edit]

* The Mercury News published an editorial on the "No" campaign's advertisements:[41]

“  | Nobody blows smoke in the face of voters better than the tobacco industry. …

The ads are insidious. They tug at parents’ heartstrings, claiming the proposition takes money away from schools — a flat-out lie — and gives it to greedy insurance companies. In fact it goes to pay doctors to treat poor people who are newly-insured under Covered California. …

But the tobacco industry’s despicable campaign is working. Bankrolled mainly by R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris, the No on Prop. 56 campaign has spent more than $50 million to blanket the airwaves with scurrilous ads.[5]

| ”

|
|

## Polls[edit]

See also: Polls, 2016 ballot measures

* A USC Dornsife and Los Angeles Times joint poll found support at 63 percent for Proposition 56 in early September 2016.[42]
* In September 2016, SurveyUSA surveyed voters on Proposition 56. Approximately 60 percent of respondents supported the initiative. Asking respondents about their demographic, political, and lifestyle characteristics, SurveyUSA found that 54 percent of smokers opposed the initiative. Of all the other groups surveyed, at least 50 percent supported the measure.[43]
* A Field Poll/IGS Poll surveyed 943 likely voters and found support for Proposition 56 to be 53 percent. The biggest demographic difference was between age cohorts, with 79 percent of persons 18-29 and 46 percent of persons 65 and over supporting the measure.[44]
* In mid September 2016, the Public Policy Institute of California found support for Proposition 56 to be around 59 percent.[45]
* CALSPEAKS surveyed 622 likely voters on Proposition 56 in mid October 2016. Support among respondents was 62 percent.[46]
* In mid October 2016, SurveyUSA found support for the initiative around 57 percent and opposition to the initiative around 35 percent.[47]
* The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) surveyed 1,016 likely voters in mid- to late October 2016 and found support at 46 percent. PPIC broke respondents down into three racial/ethnic categories, "White," "Latino," and "Other." Latinos in the sample had the most favorable view, at 80 percent, of Proposition 56. Whites had the least favorable view, at 49 percent. Respondents classified as "Other" favored the measure 65 to 28 percent.[48]
* The Field Poll/IGS Poll surveyed 1,498 likely voters between October 25 and October 31, 2016, and found support for the measure at 55 percent.[49]

Polls with margins of error

California Proposition 56 (2016)

Poll | Support | Oppose| Undecided| Margin of error| Sample size
Public Policy Institute of California
10/14/2016 - 10/23/2016 | 56.0%| 38.0%| 6.0%| +/-4.3| 1,016
SurveyUSA
10/13/2016 - 10/15/2016 | 57.0%| 35.0%| 7.0%| +/-3.7| 752
CALSPEAKS
10/7/2016 - 10/13/2016 | 62.0%| 26.0%| 12.0%| +/-7.0| 622
Public Policy Institute of California
9/9/2016 - 9/18/2016 | 59.0%| 36.0%| 5.0%| +/-3.5| 1,702
SurveyUSA
9/8/2016 - 9/11/2016 | 60.0%| 33.0%| 7.0%| +/-3.7| 712
USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times
9/1/2016 - 9/8/2016 | 63.0%| 32.0%| 6.0%| +/-3.0| 1,912
AVERAGES|  59.5%|  33.33%|  7.17%|  +/-4.2|  1,119.33
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Polls without margins of error

Note: The Field Poll/IGS Poll does not report a margin of error because "[polls] conducted online using an opt-in panel do not easily lend themselves to the calculation of sampling error estimates as are traditionally reported for random sample telephone surveys."[44]
California Proposition 56 (2016)

Poll | Support | Oppose| Undecided| Sample size
The Field Poll/IGS Poll
10/25/2016 - 10/31/2016 | 55.0%| 43.0%| 2.0%| 1,498
The Field Poll/IGS Poll
9/7/2016 - 9/13/2016 | 53.0%| 40.0%| 7.0%| 943
AVERAGES|  54%|  41.5%|  4.5%|  1,220.5
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

## Path to the ballot[edit]

See also: California signature requirements

* Dustin Corcoran, Laphonza Butler, Olivia M. Diaz-Lapham, Tom Steyer, and Lance H. Olson submitted a letter requesting a title and summary on November 10, 2015.[1]
* A title and summary were issued by California's attorney general's office on December 15, 2015.[4]
* 585,407 valid signatures were required for qualification purposes.
* On February 12, 2016, petitioners reached the 25 percent mark in their signature gathering effort, collecting more than 146,352 signatures.[50]
* On May 16, 2016, supporters submitted over one million signatures to the California secretary of state.[51]
* Proposition 56 was certified for the ballot on June 30, 2016.[52]
* Supporters had until June 13, 2016, to collect the required signatures.

Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired Boven Consulting, Kimball Petition Management, Inc., Bridge Street, Inc. and Million Voter Project Action Fund to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $4,524,176.13 was spent to collect the 585,407 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $7.73.

## State profile[edit]

Demographic data for California

| California| U.S.
Total population:| 38,993,940| 316,515,021
Land area (sq mi):| 155,779| 3,531,905
Race and ethnicity**
White:| 61.8%| 73.6%
Black/African American:| 5.9%| 12.6%
Asian:| 13.7%| 5.1%
Native American:| 0.7%| 0.8%
Pacific Islander:| 0.4%| 0.2%
Two or more:| 4.5%| 3%
Hispanic/Latino:| 38.4%| 17.1%
Education
High school graduation rate:| 81.8%| 86.7%
College graduation rate:| 31.4%| 29.8%
Income
Median household income:| $61,818| $53,889
Persons below poverty level:| 18.2%| 11.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015)
Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in California.

* * *

**Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here.

### Presidential voting pattern[edit]

See also: Presidential voting trends in California

California voted for the Democratic candidate in all seven presidential elections between 2000 and 2024.

More California coverage on Ballotpedia

* Elections in California
* United States congressional delegations from California
* Public policy in California
* Endorsers in California
* California fact checks
* More...

## Recent news[edit]

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms California tobacco tax Proposition 56. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

California Proposition 56, Tobacco Tax Increase (2016) - Google News

## Related measures[edit]

### 2016[edit]

Tobacco measures on the ballot in 2016

State| Measures
Missouri| Missouri 60 Cent Cigarette Tax, Constitutional Amendment 3 d
Colorado| Colorado Tobacco Tax Increase, Amendment 72 d
Missouri| Missouri 23 Cent Cigarette Tax, Proposition A d

## External links[edit]

### Basic information[edit]

* Initiative Petition for Proposition 56
* California 2016 Voter Guide

### Support[edit]

* Yes on 56
* Yes on 56 Facebook
* Yes on 56 Twitter

### Opposition[edit]

* No on 56
* No on 56 Twitter
* No on 56 Facebook

### Other resources[edit]

* Upvote California Podcasts on Ballot Measures

## See also[edit]

| Suggest a link

|

* 2016 ballot measures
* California 2016 ballot propositions
* California ballot measures

## Footnotes[edit]

1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 California Secretary of State, "Full text," accessed December 31, 2015
2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, "State Cigarette Excise Tax Rates & Rankings," August 1, 2016
3. ↑ 3.00 3.01 3.02 3.03 3.04 3.05 3.06 3.07 3.08 3.09 3.10 3.11 3.12 California Secretary of State, "California General Election November 8, 2016, Official Voter Information Guide," accessed August 18, 2016
4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 California Secretary of State, "Initiatives and Referenda Cleared for Circulation," accessed December 31, 2015
5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source. Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content
6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Yes on 56, "Homepage," accessed September 15, 2016
7. ↑ Green Party of California, “Green Party positions on Statewide Propositions - November 2016 General Election,” October 3, 2016
8. ↑ Santa Monica Daily Press, “Endorsements surge as campaigns heat up,” September 17, 2016
9. ↑ Harvey Milk Democratic Club, “Official Endorsements for the November 8, 2016 Election,” August 17, 2016
10. ↑ California Environmental Justice Alliance Action, “2016 Environmental Justice Voter Guide,” accessed October 5, 2016
11. ↑ KPBS, "San Diego Unified School Board Says Proposition 56 Will Reduce Teen Smoking," September 15, 2016
12. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Ex-New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is backing California's cigarette tax proposition," October 12, 2016
13. ↑ The Mercury News, "Three rich Californians stake claims on statewide ballot," September 18, 2016
14. ↑ Yes on 56 Youtube, "Yes on 56 Channel," accessed September 15, 2016
15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 No on 56, "Homepage," accessed September 16, 2016
16. ↑ Sierra Sun Times, “Congressman Tom McClintock Comments on California Ballot Propositions,” October 14, 2016
17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 No on 56, "Coalition," accessed September 15, 2016
18. ↑ California Republican Party, “CAGOP Endorsements of Propositions on the California 2016 Ballot,” accessed September 12, 2016
19. ↑ Libertarian Party of California, "Measures," August 21, 2016
20. ↑ Peace and Freedom Party, "Peace and Freedom Party recommends," accessed September 17, 2016
21. ↑ Mother Jones, “California Voters Were Hit With a Blizzard of Ballot Propositions. Here’s Your Cheat Sheet,” October 18, 2016
22. ↑ No on Prop 56 Youtube, "No on Prop 56 Channel," accessed September 15, 2016
23. ↑ 23.0 23.1 23.2 23.3 23.4 Cal-Access, "Proposition 56," accessed February 19, 2025
24. ↑ Bakersfield Californian, "OUR VIEW: Prop. 56: Vote YES to increase cigarette tax," September 2, 2016
25. ↑ East Bay Express, "Vote With Us! The East Bay Express' Endorsements for Election Day 2016," October 11, 2016
26. ↑ The Highlander, "Proposition Endorsements," October 3, 2016
27. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Vote yes on Proposition 56 to raise California's too-low tobacco tax," September 30, 2016
28. ↑ Marin Independent Journal, "Marin IJ Editorial: Proposition 54 needed to stem legislative hijinks," October 13, 2016
29. ↑ Mercury News, "Mercury News editorial: Tobacco tax increase deserves a big yes," July 9, 2016
30. ↑ The Record, “Record endorsements: Voters faced with 17 state ballot measures,” October 15, 2016
31. ↑ The Sacramento Bee, "Californians should vote Yes on 56 for public health," September 9, 2016
32. ↑ San Diego City Beat, “2016 Voter Guide: State measures,” October 12, 2016
33. ↑ San Diego Free Press, "San Diego 2016 Progressive Voter Guide," October 13, 2016
34. ↑ San Diego Union-Tribune, “Yes on Prop. 56: raising the tobacco tax a healthy idea,” October 14, 2016
35. ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "Chronicle recommends: Yes on Prop. 56," August 23, 2016
36. ↑ San Francisco Examiner, "Examiner Endorsements: Statewide ballot measures," October 23, 2016
37. ↑ Ventura County Star, "Editorial: Prop. 56 would make our state healthier," September 29, 2016
38. ↑ San Mateo Daily Journal, "Editorial: Daily Journal proposition endorsements," October 28, 2016
39. ↑ Orange County Register, "No on Proposition 56," October 11, 2016
40. ↑ LA Daily News, "No on Prop. 56: Endorsement," October 10, 2016
41. ↑ The Mercury News, "Editorial: Ignore outrageous Prop 56 tobacco tax ads," September 28, 2016
42. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Measure to increase the state's cigarette tax has a big lead, poll finds," September 16, 2016
43. ↑ SurveyUSA, "Results of SurveyUSA Election Poll #23139," September 12, 2016
44. ↑ 44.0 44.1 Field Poll/IGS Poll, "Strong support for tax extension and criminal sentencing initiatives; cigarette tax leads, but by narrower margin," September 23, 2016
45. ↑ Public Policy Institute of California, "Californians & Their Government," September 2016
46. ↑ CALSPEAKS, "General Election October 2016 Survey of Californians," October 20, 2016
47. ↑ SurveyUSA, "On Eve of Final Presidential Debate, Trump in California Risks Getting Smaller Percentage of Popular Vote Than Any Republican Candidate in the Past 100 Years; Recreational Marijuana Prop 64 Still Leads Ever-So-Slightly; Harris Safe," October 17, 2016
48. ↑ Public Policy Institute of California, "Californians and Their GovernmentOctober 2016 Full Crosstabs – Likely Voters Only," October 26, 2016
49. ↑ The Field Poll, "Voters Inclined to Support Many of this Year's Statewide Ballot Propositions," November 4, 2016
50. ↑ California Secretary of State, "Circulating Initiatives with 25% of Signatures Reached," accessed February 24, 2016
51. ↑ ABC News, "The Latest: Signatures Submitted for California Tobacco Tax," May 16, 2016
52. ↑ California Secretary of State, "Qualified Statewide Ballot Measures," accessed August 18, 2016

v • e

2016 ballot measures

I&R States|

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

Non I&R States|

Alabama • Georgia • Hawaii • Indiana • Kentucky • Maryland • Minnesota • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New York • North Carolina • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • Texas • Vermont • Virginia • West Virginia • Wisconsin

Political topics|

Adult entertainment • Alcohol • Assisted death • Banking • Bond issues • Business regulation • Campaign finance • Civil and criminal trials • Civil rights • Constitutional language • County and municipal governance • Death penalty • Definition of a corporation • Education • Elections and campaigns • Energy • English language • Environment • Firearms • Food and agriculture • Forests and parks • Gambling • Government accountability • Healthcare • Hunting and fishing • Labor and unions • Law enforcement • Lottery • Marijuana • Minimum wage • Prisons • Property • Redistricting • Religion • Salaries of government officials • School choice • State and local government budgets, spending and finance • State executive officials • State judiciary • State legislature • Suffrage • Taxes • Tort law • Transportation • Treatment of animals • Veterans • Wages and pay

Other|

Scorecard • Petition drive deadlines and requirements • Polls • Lawsuits • Potential measures • Ballot Measure Monthly • Changes in 2016 to laws governing the initiative process • Not on the ballot • Signature costs • Cost per required signatures analysis • Campaigns • Campaign contributions • Campaign finance • Endorsements • Voter guides

Ballotpedia

About

Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities

* * *

Executive: Leslie Graves, Founder and CEO • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer

Communications: Alison Graves, Director of Communications • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Frank Festa • Sarah Groat • Nathaniel Harwood • Dillon Redmond
External Relations:  Geoff Pallay, Director of External Relations • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Ashley Fleming • Thomas Mardik • Hannah Nelson
Operations: Meghann Olshefski, Director of Operations • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch
Tech: Matt Latourelle, Director of Technology Operations • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Joseph Sanchez • Mary Susmitha

Contributors: Scott Rasmussen

* * *

Editorial Content

Josh Altic, Director of Content • Daniel Anderson, Associate Director of Elections & Data • Cory Eucalitto, Associate Director of Features • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor of Ballot Measures • Mandy McConnell, Managing Editor of News • Doug Kronaizl, Managing Editor of Local Expansion • Abbey Smith, Managing Editor of Elections • Janie Valentine, Managing Editor of Law • Joel Williams, Managing Editor of Events • Joseph Greaney, Managing Editor of Policy • Andrew Bahl • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Jon Dunn • Victoria Edwards • Thomas Ellis • Nicole Fisher • Thomas Grobben • Brianna Hosea • Molly Kehoe • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Nathan Maxwell • Jimmy McAllister • Brandon McCauley • Ellie Mikus • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Annelise Reinwald • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Emma Soukup • Alexis Thacker • Mina Vogel • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox

v • e

State of California
Sacramento (capital)

|

Elections |

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2026 | 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