Difference between revisions of "California Proposition 86, Cigarette Taxes (2006)"

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(External links)
(External links)
Line 89: Line 89:
==External links==
==External links==
{{submit a link}}
{{submit a link}}
* [http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/past/2006/general/props/prop83/prop86.htm Official California Voter Pamphlet information about Proposition 86]
* [http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/past/2006/general/props/prop86/prop86.htm Official California Voter Pamphlet information about Proposition 86]
* [http://traynor.uchastings.edu/ballot_pdf/2006g.pdf PDF of the mailed November 7, 2006 voter guide for Proposition 86]
* [http://traynor.uchastings.edu/ballot_pdf/2006g.pdf PDF of the mailed November 7, 2006 voter guide for Proposition 86]
* [http://ca.lwv.org/lwvc/edfund/elections/2006nov/pc/prop86.html Proposition 86 in the Smart Voter Guide]
* [http://ca.lwv.org/lwvc/edfund/elections/2006nov/pc/prop86.html Proposition 86 in the Smart Voter Guide]

Revision as of 06:02, 10 July 2011

Voting on Tobacco
Tobacco money.jpg
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
California Proposition 86 was on the November 7, 2006 ballot in California as a combined initiated constitutional amendment and state statute, where it was defeated.

Proposition 86 was intended to increase the tax on cigarettes with revenues from the tax going to various services such as hospital care for children and anti-smoking campaigns.

Election results

Proposition 86
Result Votes Percentage
Defeatedd No 4,425,689 51.7%
Yes 4,136,358 48.3%

Ballot language


The ballot title was:

Tax on Cigarettes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.


Proposition 86 2006.PNG

The question on the ballot was:

"Should the state impose an additional tax of $2.60 per cigarette pack to fund new and expanded health services, health insurance for children, and expanded tobacco use prevention programs?"


The official summary provided to describe Proposition 86 said:

  • Imposes additional 13 cent tax on each cigarette distributed ($2.60 per pack), and indirectly increases tax on other tobacco products.
  • Provides funding to qualified hospitals for emergency services, nursing education and health insurance to eligible children.
  • Revenue also allocated to specified purposes including tobacco-use-prevention programs, enforcement of tobacco-related laws, and research, prevention, treatment of various conditions including cancers (breast, cervical, prostate, colorectal), heart disease, stroke, asthma and obesity.
  • Exempts recipient hospitals from antitrust laws in certain circumstances.
  • Revenue excluded from appropriation limits and minimum education funding (Proposition 98) calculations.

Fiscal impact

See also: Fiscal impact statement

The fiscal estimate provided by the California Legislative Analyst's Office said:

  • Increase in new state tobacco excise tax revenues of about $2.1 billion annually by 2007–08, declining slightly annually thereafter. Those revenues would be spent for various health programs, children’s health coverage, and tobacco-related programs.
  • Unknown net state costs potentially exceeding $100 million annually after a few years due to provisions simplifying state health program enrollment rules and creating a new pilot program for children’s health coverage.
  • Unknown, but potentially significant, savings to the state Medi-Cal Program and counties from a shift of children from other health care coverage to the Healthy Families Program (HFP); potential state costs that could be significant in the long term for ongoing support of expanded HFP enrollment.
  • Unknown, but potentially significant, savings in state and local government public health care costs over time due to various factors, including an expected reduction in consumption of tobacco products.

Arguments for the initiative

  • Will prevent teen smoking
  • Will lower amount of cigarettes consumed each year
  • Will provide health insurance for children
  • Is endorsed by major anti-smoking groups

Main proponent: Carolyn Rhee Chair American Cancer Society, California Division

Arguments against the initiative

  • 40% of money goes to hospitals while less than 10% goes to anti smoking programs
  • Tax increase excessive and unfair
  • Will encourage smuggling of cigarettes, an already large source of income for gangs

Main opponents: Larry McCarthy; President California Taxpayers’ Association, James G Knight MD; Past President San Diego County Medical Society [1]

Campaign finance

Donors for the campaign for the measure:[2]

  • YES ON PROPOSITION 86: $16,357,128
  • Total: $16,607,128

Donors for the campaign against the measure:

  • NO ON 86-STOP THE 2 BILLION TAX HIKE: $39,352,501
  • Total: $66,682,899
  • Overall Total: $83,290,027

Path to the ballot

See also: California signature requirements

As an initiated constitutional amendment, 598,105 valid signatures were required to qualify Proposition 86 for the ballot.

External links

Suggest a link

Additional reading