Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.
California Cash Bail in Constitution Initiative (2020)
| California Cash Bail in Constitution Initiative | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 3, 2020 | |
| Topic Civil and criminal trials | |
| Status Not on the ballot | |
| Type Constitutional amendment | Origin Citizens |
The California Cash Bail in Constitution Initiative (#19-0006) was not on the ballot in California as an initiated constitutional amendment on November 3, 2020.
The ballot measure would have amended the California Constitution to require that arrested persons be given the option to post cash bail for pre-trial release.[1]
Text of measure
Ballot title
The official ballot title was as follows:[2]
| “ |
Requires Monetary Bail. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.[3] |
” |
Petition summary
The summary provided for inclusion on signature petition sheets was as follows:[2]
| “ |
Amends state Constitution to require that monetary bail be included as a means to obtain release from jail before trial, except when arrested for specified crimes excluded under current law (i.e., capital crimes, certain felonies involving violence, sexual assault, or threat of great bodily harm). Amends state Constitution to add definition of “bail” as cash, state or federal bonds, real property, or bond posted by a licensed bail agent on behalf of a licensed surety company.[3] |
” |
Fiscal impact
The fiscal impact statement was as follows:[2]
| “ |
If voters uphold the state’s pending pretrial release process, unknown net fiscal effect on state and local governments related to changes in pretrial release proceedings and the supervision of released individuals. Likely reduction in local government costs, that could reach the low tens of millions of dollars annually, from a reduction in the number of individuals or amount of time they spend detained in county jail prior to trial. If voters reject the state’s pending pretrial release process, unknown fiscal effect on state and local governments. Fiscal effect would depend on whether the Legislature chooses to establish a new pretrial release process as authorized by this measure and how such a process would function, as well as whether the Legislature could have otherwise established such a process under preexisting authority.[3] |
” |
Constitutional changes
- See also: Article I, California Constitution
The ballot measure would have amended Section 12 of Article I of the California Constitution. The following underlined text would have been added and struck-through text would have been deleted:[1]
Note: Hover over the text and scroll to see the full text.
(a) A person shall be released on bail by sufficient sureties A person arrested and held in custody shall be eligible for pre-trial release, as provided herein, except for persons arrested for:
- (
a1) Capital crimes when the facts are evident or the presumption great;
- (
b2) Felony offenses involving acts of violence on another person, or felony sexual assault offenses on another person, when the facts are evident or the presumption great and the court finds based upon clear and convincing evidence that there is a substantial likelihood the person's release would result in great bodily harm to others; or
- (
c3) Felony offenses when the facts are evident or the presumption great and the court finds based on clear and convincing evidence that the person has threatened another with great bodily harm and that there is a substantial likelihood that the person would carry out the threat if released.
(b) A person eligible for pre-trial release from custody shall have the choice to seek pre-trial release that includes:
- (1) The right to a speedy hearing before a judge or magistrate for release on his or her own recognizance, including imposition of court ordered conditions for such release;
- (2) The right to obtain release at all times before trial by posting bail; and
- (3) Any other process for pre-trial release from custody prior to a hearing conducted pursuant to either subdivision (b)(l) or subdivision (d), enacted by the Legislature and consistent with the requirements of this article.
(c) Excessive bail may not be required.
(d) The amount of bail required to obtain pre-trial release shall be set by a speedy hearing before a judge or magistrate. In fixing the amount of bail, the court shall take into consideration the seriousness of the offense charged, the previous criminal record of the person eligible for pre-release trial <de>defendant, and the probability of his or her appearing at the trial or hearing of the case. and the amount reasonably necessary to ensure the eligible person's personal appearance in court when his or her attendance is legally required. In addition, prior to the hearing provided for in subdivision (b )(1) or this subdivision, an eligible person may choose to post bail set by a bail schedule adopted by the superior court of each county. The bail schedule shall take into consideration the seriousness of the offense charged, shall not be excessive, and shall take into account such other factors that the court deems appropriate.
(e) For purposes of this article, the term "bail" means the security, whether by: (i) cash, (ii) bonds of the United States or the State of California, (iii) real property, or (iv) bond posted by a licensed bail agent on behalf of a licensed surety company, to to obtain the release of a person eligible for pre-trial release, and to ensure the personal appearance of such person in court when his or her appearance is legally required.
(f) The Legislature may provide for the implementation of this section. However, except for subdivision (b )(3 ), this section is intended to be self-executing.
A person may be released on his or her own recognizance in the court's discretion.[3]
Background
Referendum on SB 10 (2018)
On August 28, 2018, Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signed Senate Bill 10 (SB 10), which was designed to replace cash bail with risk assessments for detained suspects awaiting trials. On August 20, the state Assembly voted 42-31 to pass SB 10. On August 21, the state Senate voted 26-12 to pass the legislation. Most legislative Democrats (67 of 81) supported SB 10, while just one (of 39) Republican supported the bill.[4] Sen. Robert Hertzberg (D-18), the bill’s lead sponsor, described SB 10 as a "transformational shift away from valuing private wealth and toward protecting public safety."[5]
The American Bail Coalition, a nonprofit trade association, organized the political action committee Californians Against the Reckless Bail Scheme to lead the effort to repeal SB 10 through a veto referendum.[6] Jeff Clayton, the coalition's executive director, stated, "The only debate we’re having right now is: Is the current system worse than the alternative? And the answer is, no, it’s not."[7] Through December 31, 2018, the top ten donors to the committee were bail bond businesses, owners of bail bond businesses, or companies that provided services or insurance to bail bond businesses. David Quintana, a California Bail Agents Association lobbyist, said, “You don’t eliminate an industry and expect those people to go down quietly.”[8]
On January 16, 2019, the office of Secretary of State Alex Padilla reported that the estimated number of valid signatures exceeded the requirement of 365,880, which put the targeted law, SB 10, on hold until voters decide the bill's fate on November 3, 2020.[9]
California's three ACLU affiliates opposed SB 10, issuing a joint statement that said: "SB 10 is not the model for pretrial justice and racial equity that California should strive for." The statement called for new legislation to "address racial bias in risk assessment tools."[10] ACLU of North California executive director Abdi Soltani said the group would not, however, align with bail bond businesses to overturn SB 10. Soltani stated, "Make no mistake, the bail industry is not interested in equal justice or equal protection under the law, they are seeking to turn back the clock to protect their bottom line."[11]
Path to the ballot
In California, the number of signatures required for an initiated constitutional amendment is equal to 8 percent of the votes cast in the preceding gubernatorial election. Petitions are allowed to circulate for 180 days from the date the attorney general prepares the petition language. Signatures need to be certified at least 131 days before the general election. As the verification process can take multiple months, the secretary of state provides suggested deadlines for ballot initiatives.
The requirements to get initiated constitutional amendments certified for the 2020 ballot:
- Signatures: 997,139 valid signatures were required.
- Deadline: The deadline for signature verification was June 25, 2020. However, the process of verifying signatures can take multiple months. The recommended deadlines were March 3, 2020, for an initiative requiring a full check of signatures and April 21, 2020, for an initiative requring a random sample of signatures.
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 initiative 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 initiative does not make the ballot.
Stages of this initiative
On July 16, 2019, Thomas W. Hiltachk, an election lawyer, filed the ballot initiative.[1] Hiltachk also filed the Replace Cash Bail with Risk Assessments Referendum, which made the ballot on January 16, 2019.[12] On August 20, Hiltachk refiled the ballot initiative with an amendment. Signatures were not filed for the ballot initiative before the 18-day circulation period ended on March 17, 2020.
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 California Attorney General, "Initiative #19-0006A1," August 20, 2019
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 California Secretary of State, "Initiatives and Referenda Cleared for Circulation," accessed September 20, 2019
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 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 - ↑ California State Legislature, "SB 10," accessed August 30, 2018
- ↑ Office of Sen. Robert Hertzberg, "Governor Signs SB 10, Eliminating Money Bail in California," August 28, 2018
- ↑ The Hill, "Bail bond industry mobilizes against Calif. law eliminating cash bail," August 30, 2018
- ↑ East Bay Times, "Law ending cash bail in California halted after referendum qualifies for 2020 ballot," January 17, 2019
- ↑ The Sacramento Bee, "How will no cash bail work in California? Here are answers to common questions," August 29, 2018
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Final Random Sample," January 16, 2019
- ↑ ACLU of Southern California, "ACLU of California Statement: Governor Brown Signs Bail Reform Legislation Opposed by ACLU," August 28, 2018
- ↑ ACLU of Northern California, "ACLU of Northern California Statement on Referendum to Repeal Bail Reform Legislation," November 20, 2018
- ↑ Capital Public Radio, "California Bail Industry's Latest Effort To Stay In Business? Ask Voters For Constitutional Protection," July 17, 2019
 |
State of California Sacramento (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | 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 |
