California Proposition 65, Dedication of Revenue from Disposable Bag Sales to Wildlife Conservation Fund (2016)
| California Proposition 65 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 8, 2016 | |
| Topic Environment | |
Status Defeated | |
| Type State statute | Origin Citizens |
California Proposition 65, the Dedication of Revenue from Disposable Bag Sales to Wildlife Conservation Fund Initiative, was on the November 8, 2016, ballot in California as an initiated state statute. It was defeated.
| A "yes" vote supported redirecting money collected from the sale of carry-out bags by grocery or other retail stores to a special fund administered by the Wildlife Conservation Board. |
| A "no" vote opposed this measure redirecting money collected from the sale of carry-out bags by grocery or other retail stores to a special fund administered by the Wildlife Conservation Board. |
Election results
| Proposition 65 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| No | 7,276,478 | 53.9% | ||
| Yes | 6,222,547 | 46.1% | ||
- Election results from California Secretary of State
Overview
Allocation of plastic bag ban revenue in California
In 2014, the California Legislature approved and the California governor signed Senate Bill 270 (SB 270). The bill was on the ballot as Proposition 67 due to the successful veto referendum signature drive by the American Progressive Bag Alliance (APBA). APBA was also the sponsor of Proposition 65. Proposition 67 was approved and mandated stores to charge 10 cents for recycled, compostable, and reusable grocery bags. The charge was intended to be spent on covering costs and educating consumers.[1]
Initiative design
Proposition 65 was designed to require all revenue generated by state-mandated sale of carryout bags to be earmarked for a new environmental fund called the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Fund (EPEF). The EPEF would have been housed in the California Treasury and managed by the Wildlife Conservation Board. The Wildlife Conservation Board would have utilized the fund for environmental protection and grants to environmental conservation organizations. Grants could have been used for drought mitigation; clean drinking water supplies; recycling; litter removal; wildlife habitat restoration; beach cleanup; and state, regional, and local parks. Organizations receiving grants would not have been permitted to use more than 5 percent of the grant to cover administrative costs. The California state auditor would have conducted a biennial financial audit of organizations receiving grants. Proposition 65 would have also authorized local governments to mandate that revenue generated from local laws requiring carryout bags be deposited into the EPEF.[2]
State of the ballot measure campaigns
The American Progressive Bag Alliance, the group that sponsored the initiative, raised $2.8 million for passing Proposition 65 and defeating Proposition 67. Although many organizations and businesses which supported a "yes" vote on Proposition 67 opposed Proposition 65, a ballot measure committee did not register to oppose the initiative. The California Republican Party supported the initiative.
Text of measure
Ballot title
The official ballot title was as follows:[3]
| “ | Carry-Out Bags. Charges. Initiative Statute.[4] | ” |
Ballot summary
The long-form ballot summary was as follows:[1]
| “ |
|
” |
The shorter ballot label summary was as follows:[1]
| “ |
Redirects money collected by grocery and certain other retail stores through mandated sale of carryout bags. Requires stores to deposit bag sale proceeds into a special fund to support specified environmental projects. Fiscal Impact: Potential state revenue of several tens of millions of dollars annually under certain circumstances, with the monies used to support certain environmental programs. [4] |
” |
The long-form, official ballot summary for Proposition 65 was identical to the initial summary provided to initiative proponents for the purpose of circulating the initiative for signature collection.
Fiscal impact
- 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:[1]
| “ |
Potential state revenue of several tens of millions of dollars annually under certain circumstances. Revenue would be used to support certain environmental programs.[4] |
” |
Full text
The full text of the initiative was as follows:[2]
SEC. 3. Statement of Purpose. The purpose of the Environmental Fee Protection Act is to fulfill Californians' expectations by requiring that any charges on carryout bags paid by consumers in connection with, or to advance, any plastic bag ban are dedicated to appropriate and worthy environmental objectives like drought mitigation, recycling, clean drinking water supplies, parks, beach cleanup, litter removal, and wildlife habitat restoration. SEC. 4. Chapter 5.2 (commencing with Section 42270) is added to Part 3 of Division 30 of the Public Resources Code, to read: Section 42270. This chapter shall be known, and may be cited as, the Environmental Fee Protection Act. Section 42271. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, all moneys generated or collected by a store pursuant to a state law that bans free distribution of any type of carryout bag, and mandates the sale of any other type of carryout bag, shall be deposited into the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Fund, which is established in the State Treasury and administered by the Wildlife Conservation Board pursuant to Section 42272. (b) For purposes of this chapter:
(c)
Section 42272. (a) The Environmental Protection and Enhancement Fund is hereby established in the State Treasury. (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Fund is a trust fund established solely to carry out the purposes of this chapter. Notwithstanding Section 13340 ofthe Government Code, all moneys deposited in the Fund, together with interest earned by the Fund, are hereby continuously appropriated, without regard to fiscal years, to the Wildlife Conservation Board solely for the purposes set forth in subdivision (c). (c) The Wildlife Conservation Board shall use the moneys in the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Fund to fund environmental protection and enhancement grants. Projects and programs eligible for grants are as follows:
(d) The Wildlife Conservation Board shall use no more than 2 percent of the moneys in the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Fund for administrative expenses. Grant recipients shall use no more than 5 percent of any moneys received for administrative expenses. (e) Prior to disbursing any grants pursuant to this chapter, the Wildlife Conservation Board shall develop project solicitation and evaluation guidelines. The guidelines may include a limitation on the dollar amounts of grants to be awarded. Prior to finalizing the guidelines, the Wildlife Conservation Board shall post the draft guidelines on its Internet website and conduct three public hearings to consider public comments. One public hearing shall be held in Northern California, one hearing shall be held in the Central Valley, and one hearing shall be held in Southern California. (f)
Section 42273. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, local governments may require moneys generated or collected pursuant to any local law that bans free distribution of any type of carryout bag, and mandates the sale of any other type of carryout bag, to be deposited into the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Fund and used for the purposes set forth in Section 42272. (b) For purposes of this section, "local law" means any ordinance, resolution, law, regulation, or other legal authority adopted, enacted, or implemented by any city, county, city and county, charter city, charter county, special district, school district, community college, or other local or regional governmental entity. SEC 5. Liberal Construction. This act shall be liberally construed in order to effectuate its purposes. SEC. 6. Conflicting Measures. (a) In the event that this measure and another measure or measures relating to the use of moneys generated or collected by stores pursuant to laws that bans free distribution, and mandates the sale, of any or all types of carryout bags shall appear on the same statewide election ballot, the other measure or measures shall be deemed to be in conflict with this measure. In the event that this measure receives a greater number of affirmative votes, the provisions of this measure shall prevail in their entirety, and the provisions of the other measure or measures shall be null and void. (b) If this measure is approved by the voters but superseded in whole or in part by any other conflicting initiative approved by the voters at the same election, and such conflicting initiative is later held invalid, this measure shall be self-executing and given full force and effect. SEC. 7. Severability. The provisions of this Act are severable. If any portion, section, subdivision, paragraph, clause, sentence, phrase, word, or application of this Act is for any reason held to be invalid by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Act. The People of the State of California hereby declare that they would have adopted this Act and each and every portion, section, subdivision, paragraph, clause, sentence, phrase, word, and application not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of this Act or application there of would be subsequently declared invalid. SEC. 8. Legal Defense. If this Act is approved by the voters of the State of California and thereafter subjected to a legal challenge alleging a violation of federal law, and both the Governor and Attorney General refuse to defend this Act, then the following actions shall be taken:
|
Competing measures
Competing revenue provisions
Proposition 67 and Proposition 65 contained conflicting provisions regarding how revenue from the state-mandated sale of carryout bags would be distributed. Proposition 65 was defeated, however, while Proposition 67 was approved. Proposition 67 allocated revenue from the sales to the stores themselves, permitting them to use the revenue in three ways:[1]
- (1) To cover costs associated with complying with Proposition 67.
- (2) To cover the costs of providing the recycled paper or reusable bags.
- (3) To provide educational materials encouraging the use of reusable bags.
Proposition 65 would have allocated the revenue into a new state fund, the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Fund, which could be expended to support drought mitigation, clean drinking water supplies, recycling, litter removal, wildlife habitat restoration, beach cleanup, and state, regional, and local parks. Stores would not have kept the revenue from a state-mandated sale of carryout bags.
As Proposition 67 passed and Proposition 65 was defeated, revenue from the state-mandated sale of carryout bags goes to stores to be used for covering costs and education.
If Proposition 67 was defeated and Proposition 65 approved, then there would have been no single-use bag ban. Furthermore, should California legislature a future bag ban, all revenue from that ban would have been allocated to an environmental fund.
If both propositions passed, but Proposition 67 by a larger margin, then revenue would have gone to stores.
If both propositions passed, but Proposition 65 by a larger margin, then a statewide single-use bag ban would have gone into effect and the revenue would have gone into an environmental fund. The Legislative Analyst's Office also noted that Proposition 65 might have prevented Proposition 67's bag ban depending on how court's interpret the propositions.
If both propositions were defeated, then there would have been no single-use bag ban, nor a requirement for how revenue be distributed in the case of a future bag ban.
Competing statutes
In a joint hearing, the Senate Environmental Quality Committee and the Assembly Natural Resources Committee speculated that Proposition 65, if approved by a greater margin than Proposition 67, could have actually superseded the bag ban in its entirety, rather than just the revenue allocation provision. The reason for speculation was due to Section 6(a) of Proposition 65, which read, "In the event that this measure receives a greater number of affirmative votes, the provisions of this measure shall prevail in their entirety, and the provisions of the other measure or measures shall be null and void." The committees surmised:[5]
| “ | Although Mr. Johnson and [American Progressive Bag Alliance] both express their preferences that carryout bag charges go towards environmental purposes and not to stores, proposed §6(a) seems inconsistent with such intent. If §6(a) is valid, causing the initiative to prevail in its entirety, then SB 270 is repealed and the state bag ban on single-use carryout bags and mandated bag fee will no longer exist, even if voters pass the referendum. Such an outcome creates a significant loss in funding for the initiative’s proposed Act and EPEF, and potentially for both the initiative and the referendum, is §6(a) another strategy to repeal SB 270?[4] | ” |
The joint hearing concluded that the judicial system would have needed to sort out "how to combine the two measures," if at all, if both were approved.
Explanation for competing initiatives
The American Progressive Bag Alliance (APBA), which funded the petition drive to place Proposition 67 on the ballot, was also behind Proposition 65.
Supporters of the plastic bag ban, including a number of newspapers, argued that the alliance was backing Proposition 65 in an attempt to turn stores against the bag ban.[6][7]
Pam Villarreal of the free-market think tank National Center for Policy Analysis disagreed, contending, "The debate over California's statewide plastic bag ban has shaped up to be a battle over the involuntary transfer of wealth from customers' wallets to big grocers. Ultimately California voters will decide what they do with their money and how it should be spent."[8] Likewise, Lee Califf, executive director of APBA, said, "The APBA opposes bag bans, taxes and charges… And while we are confident California voters will reject the statewide bag ban scam at the ballot in 2016, we know that 84% of people believe that bag charges in general should go to a public purpose, instead of increasing profit margins for grocers. So we want to make sure votes have the power to actually put bag charges to work for the environment and their communities, should SB 270 become law."[5]
Grocers backing the bag ban claimed the initiative would not be a source of profits, as revenue must be spent on covering costs and education. For example, the Sacramento Natural Foods Co-op noted paper bags cost "14 to 15 cents each. It’s inaccurate to suggest it’s a revenue stream when it is still a major expense."[9]
Support
The campaign in support of the initiative was led by the American Progressive Bag Alliance (APBA).[5] The group was also working to defeat Proposition 67. The APBA stated that, while opposed to plastic bag bans, the organization would rather see state-mandated fees on carryout bags go towards environmental projects than to grocers and retailers. Therefore, the organization developed Proposition 65.
Supporters
Parties
Individuals
- Thomas Hudson, Executive Director of California Taxpayer Protection Committee
- Deborah Howard, Executive Director of California Senior Advocates League
Arguments
Supporters made the following arguments in support of Proposition 65:[1]
- The proposition would stop the deal made between legislators and lobbyists that allowed grocery stores to keep plastic bag fee revenue as extra profits.
- The proposition gave voters an additional opportunity to voice how they want revenue from bag bans to be spent.
- The proposition would dedicate plastic bag fee revenue to environmental projects like drought relief and litter removal and would make the California Wildlife Conservation Board responsible for allocating the revenue generated from plastic bag fees.
Official arguments
The following argument in support of Proposition 65 was provided in the official voter guide:[1]
STOP THE SWEETHEART BAG TAX DEAL. HELP THE ENVIRONMENT Proposition 65 is needed to STOP grocery stores from keeping all the money collected from carryout bag taxes as profit instead of helping the environment. Grocery stores stand to gain up to $300 million in added profits each and every year unless you vote yes on Prop 65. That money should be dedicated to the environment, not more profits for corporate grocery chains. Proposition 65 will STOP THE SWEETHEART DEAL WITH GROCERY STORES and dedicate bag fees to worthy environmental causes. A SWEETHEART DEAL IN SACRAMENTO Who in their right mind would let grocery stores keep $300 million in bag fees paid by hardworking California shoppers just trying to make ends meet? The State Legislature! In a sweetheart deal put together by special interest lobbyists, the Legislature voted to let grocery stores keep bag fees as extra profit. The grocery stores will get $300 million richer while shoppers get $300 million poorer. SHAME ON THE LOBBYISTS AND LEGISLATORS The big grocery store chains and retailers gave big campaign contributions to legislators over the past seven years. And legislators rewarded them with $300 million in new profits — all on the backs of shoppers. Stop the sweetheart special interest deal... VOTE YES ON PROP 65. A BETTER WAY TO HELP THE ENVIRONMENT You can do what the legislators should have done — dedicate these bag fees to real projects that protect the environment. Proposition 65 dedicates the bag fees to environmental projects like drought relief, beach clean-up and litter removal. It puts the California Wildlife Conservation Board in control of these funds, not grocery store executives, so Californians will benefit. PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT. STOP THE SWEETHEART DEAL AND HIDDEN BAG TAX. VOTE YES ON PROP 65. |
Opposition
No on Proposition 65 led the campaign in opposition to Proposition 65. The campaign was a project of Californians Against Waste.[12]
Roger Kube of San Diego's Surfrider Foundation provided a critique that summarizes opponents' arguments to Proposition 65. He said, "Prop 65 really is a cynical ploy brought about by the plastics industry to either confuse voters, frustrate grocers or divide the grocers and the environmental community on this."[13]
Opponents
Officials
Parties
- Libertarian Party of California[15]
- Green Party of California[16]
- California Peace and Freedom Party[17]
- Santa Monica Democratic Club[18]
- Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club[19]
Organizations
- League of Women Voters of California[20]
- Clean Water Action[21]
- Surfrider Foundation[22]
- California Environmental Justice Alliance Action[23]
- California Nurses Association[24]
- Congress of California Seniors[25]
- Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce
- Valley Industry & Commerce Association (VICA)
- San Francisco Chamber of Commerce
- Northern California Recycling Association (NCRA)
- Californians Against Waste
- The Nature Conservancy
- Sierra Club California
- Monterey Bay Aquarium
- Save Our Shores
- Ecology Center
- Plastic Pollution Coalition
- Heal the Bay
- Algalita
- Save the Bay
- California Coastkeeper Alliance
- Environment California
- Center for Oceanic Awareness, Research, and Education
Individuals
- Mark Murray, Executive Director of Californians Against Waste
- Kevin Drum, political blogger for Mother Jones[26]
Arguments
Opponents made the following arguments in opposition to Proposition 65:[1]
- The proposition would only serve the interests of plastic bag companies and would distract from phasing out plastic bags entirely.
- The proposition would do little to help the environment, as plastic bags need to be eliminated completely in order to have an effective impact.
- The proposition would create an unnecessary bureaucracy to deal with a small amount of revenue.[20]
- The proposition would undermine retail support for Proposition 67 by turning the 10-cent fee for retailers into a government tax.[22]
- Proponents of the proposition were attempting to confuse voters.
Mitch Silverstein of the Surfrider Foundation made the following argument against the initiative:[22]
| “ | On its face, Prop 65 sounds pro-environment… but it’s a trick. Plastic bag manufacturers hope to undermine businesses’ support for Prop 67 by making them bear the full cost of more expensive, recycled paper bags. It would also erode the public’s support, by turning the 10-cent fee into a government tax. Taxes are unpopular, especially when they steal money from local businesses.[4] | ” |
Official arguments
The following argument in opposition of Proposition 65 was provided in the official voter guide:[1]
THE SOLE PURPOSE OF PROP 65 IS TO CONFUSE VOTERS Prop 65 promises a lot but—in reality—will deliver little for the environment. It was placed on the ballot by four out-of-state plastic bag companies who keep interfering with California's efforts to reduce plastic pollution. 65 is without real significance, designed to distract from the issue at hand: phasing out plastic shopping bags. All 65 would do is direct funding from the sale of paper bags (an option under the plastic bag ban) to a new state fund. The money for this fund is a drop in the bucket and will shrink over time as people adjust to bringing reusable bags. TO ACTUALLY PROTECT OUR ENVIRONMENT, VOTE YES ON 67 The priority for California's environment this election is to reduce harmful plastic pollution by voting Yes on Prop 67. This will continue efforts to keep wasteful plastic shopping bags out of our parks, trees, neighborhoods and treasured open spaces. |
Campaign finance
One committee registered in support of the measure—American Progressive Bag Alliance, A Project of the Society of Plastics Industry, Yes on 65 and No on 67. It reported over $2.8 million in contributions.[27]
| Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Support | $2,681,413.25 | $207,470.00 | $2,888,883.25 | $2,614,264.01 | $2,821,734.01 |
| Oppose | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 |
| Total | $2,681,413.25 | $207,470.00 | $2,888,883.25 | $2,614,264.01 | $2,821,734.01 |
Support
The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in support of the ballot measure.[27]
| Committees in support of Proposition 65 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Committee | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures |
| American Progressive Bag Alliance, A Project of the Society of Plastics Industry, Yes on 65 and No on 67 | $2,681,413.25 | $207,470.00 | $2,888,883.25 | $2,614,264.01 | $2,821,734.01 |
| Total | $2,681,413.25 | $207,470.00 | $2,888,883.25 | $2,614,264.01 | $2,821,734.01 |
Donors
The following table shows the top donors to the committee registered in support of the ballot measure.[27]
| Donor | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hilex Poly Co. LLC | $832,769.00 | $207,470.00 | $1,040,239.00 |
| Formosa Plastics Corp. | $748,441.50 | $0.00 | $748,441.50 |
| Superbag Corp. | $609,369.75 | $0.00 | $609,369.75 |
| Advance Polybag Inc. | $446,833.00 | $0.00 | $446,833.00 |
Methodology
To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.
Media editorials
Support
Ballotpedia has not yet found media editorials in support of the measure. If you are aware of support, please email it to editor@ballotpedia.org.
Opposition
- The Bakersfield Californian: "Consider the possibility of both propositions passing. The one receiving the most votes will decide who keeps the bag fees. But we should also be concerned about the legislative analyst’s conclusion that Prop. 65 could be interpreted by the courts as preventing a statewide ban. Don’t be fooled."[28]
- Chico Enterprise-Record: "Proposition 65 is a sleazy trick offering an alternative, also funded by the plastic bag industry. … Proposition 65 was placed on the ballot by the plastic bag industry either to confuse voters or to punish grocery stores for supporting the ban. Even environmental groups think Proposition 65 is a bad idea.”[29]
- The Daily Californian: "Who would have thought the plastic bag industry could be capable of such madness? It’s responsible for pushing Proposition 65, a confusing, deceptive ballot measure and is trying desperately to make plastic bags flow freely through the stores and sewers of California once more."[30]
- East Bay Express: "Prop. 65 is a distraction by the awful plastic-bag industry. Vote no."[31]
- East Bay Times: "Proposition 65 deserves consideration as one the most disingenuous ballot measures in state history. It’s crucial that California voters understand that key environmental groups oppose Proposition 65, even though it could supply millions of dollars for some of their pet causes. That’s how bad it is."[32]
- The Hanford Sentinel: "This ballot measure is sponsored by a few large plastic bag manufacturers in Texas and South Carolina. They say they’re concerned about our environment. Raise your hand if you believe that."[33]
- Los Angeles Times: "On the surface this measure seems to complement the environmental goals of the bag ban. But coming from the same people so desperately trying to stop the ban, the measure seems more like a cynical ploy to confuse voters or, at the very least, punish the state’s grocery stores for supporting the ban. ... The reality is that the fee for paper bags isn’t likely to be a windfall for stores that provide them. The California Grocers Assn. estimates that stores pay an average of 10 cents per paper bag. It seems reasonable for stores to recoup their cost when forced to collect a fee. The law also sets guidelines for how the money is used by grocers: to offset the cost of complying with the law and promoting the use of reusable grocery bags."[34]
- The Mercury News: "And vote no on Proposition 65, one of the most disingenuous ballot measures in state history -- and that's saying something. The proposition requires that the money shoppers pay for paper bags in stores go into an environmental fund -- but major environmental groups actively oppose it."[35]
- Monterey Herald: "Prop. 65 is an environmental measure in wolf’s barely disguised clothing and is directly opposed to the intentions of the ban, which was to end the reliance on disposable bags."[36]
- Orange County Register: "No matter whether California voters are for or against the other statewide proposition dealing with plastic grocery bags on the November ballot, Proposition 67, they should vote against Proposition 65, which also has to do with the bag question."[37]
- The Record: “Vote no on Proposition 65 and yes on Proposition 67.”[38]
- San Diego City Beat: “This is a misleading prop put on the ballot by the plastics industry. The environmental fund is a vague proposal that would create a bureaucracy to regulate a small amount of money. Plus, grocers need the 10-cent cost tacked onto paper bag purchases so they can afford to supply the bags.”[39]
- San Diego Free Press and OB Rag called for a "No" vote on Proposition 65.[40]
- The San Diego Union-Tribune: “So whose argument will Californians buy? Their legislative leaders who passed and signed a statewide ban into effect two years ago? Or the plastic bag manufacturers who poured mostly out-of-state money into a campaign to have voters bag the ban? (The plastic bag industry is also financing Proposition 65 over environmentalists’ objections. Don’t be confused by that measure. Just reject it.)”[41]
- The Sacramento Bee and The Fresno Bee: "It’s unfortunate that bag makers — most of them headquartered outside of California — would go to such trouble to confuse voters. It shouldn't be this hard to stop polluting a state."[42][43]
- San Francisco Chronicle: "Bag makers argue that supermarkets are profiting unfairly from selling paper bags. But the statewide grocers association says the dime-per-bag charge covers their costs, with little left over. The measure plays on phony fears to discredit the overall plastic ban. Major environmental groups are shunning Prop. 65."[44]
- San Francisco Examiner: "That might sound fine at first glance, but this measure was created by the plastic bag industry to save their livelihood in the face of Proposition 67, which seeks to ban take-out plastic bags at grocery stores, convenience stores and liquor stores."[45]
- San Mateo Daily Journal recommended a "No" vote on Proposition 65.[46]
- Santa Cruz Sentinel: "Stores, however, will have to pay for changing their operation and still charge for offering reusable bags to their customers. When an issue is forced on them by government or voters, they have the right to charge for supplies. So, the real aim of Prop. 65 is to undercut grocers who are selling paper bags and thus subvert the ban on plastic disposable bags."[47]
- Santa Rosa Press Democrat: "This initiative was a cynical attempt to turn grocers against the bag ban. It didn’t work. Grocers still support the ban, and voters should reject Proposition 65."[48]
- Ventura County Star: "While it sounds nice, the problem is that if this passes by more votes than Proposition 67, then many stores — particularly small businesses — would be hurt because they would still have to provide the alternative bags for sale but could not keep the money."[49]
Background
Local bag bans
In 2007, San Francisco became the first jurisdiction in California to ban single-use plastic bags. As of September 2016, 122 ordinances banning single-use plastic bags had been approved in the state, covering 151 county or local jurisdictions. Los Angeles, the largest city in California and second largest in the United States, banned single-use plastic bags and placed a 10-cent charge on paper bags. The city's ordinance went into effect on January 1, 2014, for large businesses and on July 1, 2014, for small businesses.[50]
There were initiative attempts to overturn local single-use plastic bag bans in Walnut Creek, Huntington Creek, and Campbell, California. All were unsuccessful in their signature drives.[51] In January 2015, however, Huntington Beach's city council voted to repeal the city's bag ban. Councilman Mike Posey, who proposed the repeal, said repealing the ban was about "personal freedom and personal responsibility."[52]
Path to the ballot
- See also: California signature requirements
- Doyle L. Johnson and Kurt Oneto submitted a letter requesting a title and summary on October 2, 2015.[2]
- A title and summary were issued by California's attorney general's office on December 8, 2015.[3]
- 365,880 valid signatures were required for qualification purposes.
- On February 4, 2016, petitioners reached the 25 percent mark in their signature gathering effort, collecting more than 91,470 signatures.[53]
- In May 2016, petitioners submitted signatures for the initiative, according to the California secretary of state.[54]
- Supporters had until June 6, 2016, to collect the required signatures.
- The measure qualified for the ballot on June 29, 2016.[55]
- The measure was assigned its official title, Proposition 65, on July 2, 2016.[56]
Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired National Petition Management, Inc. to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $2,137,992.45 was spent to collect the 365,880 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $5.84.
State profile
| 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
- 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
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms California Proposition 65 Bag Fund. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
See also
External links
Basic information
Support
Opposition
Other resources
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 California Secretary of State, "California General Election November 8, 2016, Official Voter Information Guide," accessed August 18, 2016
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 California Secretary of State, "Initiative Petition," accessed September 13, 2016
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 California Secretary of State, "Initiatives and Referenda Cleared for Circulation," accessed December 28, 2015
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 California Senate, "Joint Informational Hearing," accessed September 13, 2016
- ↑ San Jose Mercury News, "Mercury News editorial: Make California bag ban permanent," July 21, 2016
- ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "Chronicle recommends: Yes on Prop. 67, No on Prop. 65," August 26, 2016
- ↑ PRWeb, "California's Proposed Bag Ban Puts Grocers before Consumers: New NCPA Analysis," September 9, 2016
- ↑ Sonoma Index-Tribune, "California Focus: Big Plastics trying to ‘pop’ bag ban," September 9, 2016
- ↑ California Republican Party, “CAGOP Endorsements of Propositions on the California 2016 Ballot,” accessed September 12, 2016
- ↑ Note: Due to a mix-up on the California Republican Party website, Ballotpedia listed the California Republican Party as an opponent of Proposition 65 before the correct position of the party committee was provided.
- ↑ No on Proposition 65, "Home," accessed October 3, 2016
- ↑ San Diego City Beat, "Plastics industry double bags November ballot," August 10, 2016
- ↑ Sierra Sun Times, “Congressman Tom McClintock Comments on California Ballot Propositions,” October 14, 2016
- ↑ Libertarian Party of California, "Measures," August 21, 2016
- ↑ Green Party of California, “Green Party positions on Statewide Propositions - November 2016 General Election,” October 3, 2016
- ↑ Peace and Freedom Party, "Peace and Freedom Party recommends," accessed September 17, 2016
- ↑ Santa Monica Daily Press, “Endorsements surge as campaigns heat up,” September 17, 2016
- ↑ Harvey Milk Democratic Club, “Official Endorsements for the November 8, 2016 Election,” August 17, 2016
- ↑ 20.0 20.1 League of Women Voters of California, "Prop 65 - Sowing Confusion About the Plastic Bag Ban," accessed September 13, 2016
- ↑ use bag ban Clean Water Action, "Vote "Yes" on the Single-Use Plastic Bag Ban in November," accessed September 13, 2016
- ↑ 22.0 22.1 22.2 Surfrider Foundation, "Prop 67 & 65 – How to Save the Bag Ban this November," September 2, 2016
- ↑ California Environmental Justice Alliance Action, “2016 Environmental Justice Voter Guide,” accessed October 5, 2016
- ↑ National Nurses United, “California Endorsements,” accessed October 3, 2016
- ↑ No on Proposition 65, "Business, Labor & Environmental Groups Agree: No on 65," accessed October 16, 2016
- ↑ Mother Jones, “California Voters Were Hit With a Blizzard of Ballot Propositions. Here’s Your Cheat Sheet,” October 18, 2016
- ↑ 27.0 27.1 27.2 Cal-Access, "Proposition 65," accessed February 25, 2025
- ↑ The Bakersfield Californian, "Plastic bag ban: Vote yes on Prop. 67; no on 65," September 17, 2016
- ↑ Chico Enterprise-Record, “Editorial: Uphold state’s plastic bag ban with Prop. 67,” October 5, 2016
- ↑ The Daily Californian, "No on 65, yes on 67: Uphold plastic bag ban," October 21, 2016
- ↑ East Bay Express, "Vote With Us! The East Bay Express' Endorsements for Election Day 2016," October 11, 2016
- ↑ East Bay Times, "East Bay Times editorial: Make California bag ban permanent," July 19, 2016
- ↑ The Hanford Sentinel, "It's all about the bags," September 30, 2016
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Editorial Prop 67: A vote to stop profiteering from polluting the Golden State," September 12, 2016
- ↑ San Jose Mercury News, "Mercury News editorial: Make California bag ban permanent," July 21, 2016
- ↑ Monterey Herald, "Editorial, Oct. 13, 2016: Plastic bags: Vote yes on Prop. 67, no on Prop. 65," October 12, 2016
- ↑ Orange County Register, "No on Proposition 65," October 12, 2016
- ↑ The Record, “Record endorsements: Voters faced with 17 state ballot measures,” October 15, 2016
- ↑ San Diego City Beat, “2016 Voter Guide: State measures,” October 12, 2016
- ↑ San Diego Free Press, "San Diego 2016 Progressive Voter Guide," October 13, 2016
- ↑ The San Diego Union-Tribune, “Time to ban plastic bags: No on Proposition 65, yes on Prop. 67,” October 14, 2016
- ↑ The Sacramento Bee, "‘No’ on Proposition 65, ‘yes’ on Proposition 67 to ban plastic bags," September 29, 2016
- ↑ The Fresno Bee, "‘No’ on 65, ‘yes; on yes on 67 to limit plastic bags," October 2, 2016
- ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "San Francisco Chronicle recommends: Yes on Prop. 67, No on Prop. 65," August 26, 2016
- ↑ San Francisco Examiner, "Examiner Endorsements: Statewide ballot measures," October 23, 2016
- ↑ San Mateo Daily Journal, "Editorial: Daily Journal proposition endorsements," October 28, 2016
- ↑ Santa Cruz Sentinel, "Editorial, Oct. 13, 2016: Plastic bags: Vote yes on Prop. 67, no on Prop. 65," October 13, 2016
- ↑ Santa Rosa Press Democrat, "PD Editorial: Don’t bury the plastic bag ban: No on Prop 65, Yes on Prop 67," September 21, 2016
- ↑ Ventura County Star, "Editorial: Don't be fooled by plastic bag initiatives," October 4, 2016
- ↑ Californians Against Waste, "Plastic Bags: Local Ordinances," accessed September 9, 2016
- ↑ Stop the Bag Ban, "City-Specific Status, Efforts, and Victories!" accessed January 5, 2015
- ↑ Huntington Beach Independent, "Plastic bag ban repeal process starts in Huntington," January 21, 2015
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Circulating Initiatives with 25% of Signatures Reached," accessed February 24, 2016
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "1734. Carry-Out Bags. Charges. Initiative Statute. June 8 Random Sample," June 8, 2016
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "November 8, 2016, Statewide Ballot Measures," accessed July 10, 2016
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "CORRECTION: Proposition Numbers for November Ballot Measures," July 2, 2016
 |
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 |
