Your monthly support provides voters the knowledge they need to make confident decisions at the polls. Donate today.
California Marijuana Control, Legalization and Revenue Initiative (2016)
| California Marijuana Control, Legalization and Revenue Initiative | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 8, 2016 | |
| Topic Marijuana | |
| Status Not on the ballot | |
| Type State statute | Origin Citizens |
| Voting on Marijuana | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| |||
| Ballot Measures | |||
| By state | |||
| By year | |||
| Not on ballot | |||
|
The California Marijuana Control, Legalization and Revenue Initiative (#15-0020, #15-0039, #15-0085A1, #15-0086A1 and #15-0087) were initiated state statutes proposed for the California ballot on November 8, 2016.
There were seven versions of the initiative, and five of them failed to qualify for the 2016 ballot as of July 1, 2016. Versions 15-0119 and 15-0120 may qualify for the 2018 ballot.
The measures would have legalized marijuana under state law. All five versions are similar, with differences in tax rates and local control options.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]
Text of measure
Initiative #15-0020
Ballot title
The official ballot title was:[8]
| “ | Marijuana Legalization. Initiative Statute.[9] | ” |
Ballot summary
The official ballot summary was:[8]
| “ | Legalizes under state law marijuana use, growth, cultivation, possession, transportation, storage, or sale. Creates commission to regulate and license marijuana industry. Applies general retail sales taxes to marijuana, unless medical or dietary exemptions apply. Permits taxes on nonmedical marijuana sales, up to 10% of retail price. Prohibits discrimination against marijuana users or businesses. Prohibits Legislature from enacting marijuana laws. Imposes personal liability on law enforcement for wrongful marijuana destruction or assisting with certain marijuana investigations. Requires voter approval to zone beyond set limits. Nullifies other local regulations. Exempts medical marijuana collectives from licensing and local zoning.[9] | ” |
Full text
The full text of the measure could be found here.
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 read:[8]
| “ | Net reduced costs ranging from tens of millions of dollars to potentially exceeding $100 million annually to state and local governments related to enforcing certain marijuana-related offenses, handling the related criminal cases in the court system, and incarcerating and supervising certain marijuana offenders. Net additional state and local tax revenues of potentially a few hundred million dollars annually related to the production and sale of marijuana, a portion of which would be required to be spent for specific purposes such as education, public safety, and drug abuse education and treatment.[9] | ” |
Initiative #15-0039
- Note: This version failed to reach the ballot.
Ballot title
The official ballot title was:[8]
| “ | Marijuana Legalization. Initiative Statute.[9] | ” |
Ballot summary
The official ballot summary was:[8]
| “ | Legalizes marijuana under state law. Creates commission to regulate and license marijuana industry. Applies general retail sales taxes to marijuana, unless medical or dietary exemptions apply. Permits excise taxes on certain marijuana sales, up to 15% of retail price, and storage, up to 10% of wholesale price. Prohibits discrimination based on marijuana use. Bars marijuana testing for job applicants and employees, or penalizing employees for off-duty use, unless they are in safety-sensitive occupations. Permits local regulation of marijuana businesses, including ban or cap with voter approval. Exempts medical marijuana collectives from licensing and local zoning.[9] | ” |
Full text
The full text of the measure could be found here.
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 read:[8]
| “ | Net reduced costs ranging from tens of millions of dollars to potentially exceeding $100 million annually to state and local governments related to enforcing certain marijuana-related offenses, handling the related criminal cases in the court system, and incarcerating and supervising certain marijuana offenders. Net additional state and local tax revenues of potentially up to several hundred million dollars annually related to the production and sale of marijuana, most of which would be required to be spent for specific purposes such as education, public safety, and drug abuse education and treatment.[9] | ” |
Initiative #15-0085A1
Ballot title
The official ballot title was:[8]
| “ | Marijuana Legalization. Initiative Statute.[9] | ” |
Ballot summary
The official ballot summary was:[8]
| “ | Legalizes marijuana under state law. Creates commission to regulate and license marijuana industry. Applies general retail sales taxes to marijuana, unless medical or dietary exemptions apply. Permits excise taxes on certain marijuana sales, up to 15% of retail price, and storage, up to 10% of wholesale price. Prohibits discrimination based on marijuana use. Restricts marijuana testing for job applicants and employees, or penalizing employees for off-duty use, unless they are in safety-sensitive occupations. Permits local regulation of marijuana businesses, including ban or limit on number with voter approval. Exempts medical marijuana collectives from licensing requirements. [9] | ” |
Full text
The full text of the measure could be found here.
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 read:[8]
| “ | Net reduced costs ranging from tens of millions of dollars to potentially exceeding $100 million annually to state and local governments related to enforcing certain marijuana-related offenses, handling the related criminal cases in the court system, and incarcerating and supervising certain marijuana offenders. Net additional state and local tax revenues of potentially up to several hundred million dollars annually related to the production and sale of marijuana, most of which would be required to be spent for specific purposes such as education, public safety, and drug abuse education and treatment.[9] | ” |
Initiative #15-0086A1
Ballot title
The official ballot title was:[8]
| “ | Marijuana Legalization. Initiative Statute.[9] | ” |
Ballot summary
The official ballot summary was:[8]
| “ | Legalizes marijuana under state law. Creates commission to regulate and license marijuana industry. Applies general retail sales taxes to marijuana, unless medical or dietary exemptions apply. Permits excise tax on marijuana, up to 12% of retail price. Permits local governments to ban or limit the number of marijuana businesses within their boundaries if their voters approve. Requires each county sheriff to establish marijuana-specific diversion programs for marijuana offenders.[9] | ” |
Full text
The full text of the measure could be found here.
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 read:[8]
| “ | Net reduced costs ranging from tens of millions of dollars to potentially exceeding $100 million annually to state and local governments related to enforcing certain marijuana-related offenses, handling the related criminal cases in the court system, and incarcerating and supervising certain marijuana offenders. Net additional state and local tax revenues of potentially up to several hundred million dollars annually related to the production and sale of marijuana, a portion of which would be required to be spent for specific purposes such as education, public safety, and drug abuse education and treatment.[9] | ” |
Initiative #15-0087
Ballot title
The official ballot title was:[8]
| “ | Marijuana Legalization. Initiative Statute.[9] | ” |
Ballot summary
The official ballot summary was:[8]
| “ | Legalizes marijuana under state law. Applies general retail sales taxes to non-medical marijuana. Permits Legislature to place additional excise tax on non-medical marijuana sales, up to 15% of retail price. Permits local governments to ban or limit the number of marijuana businesses within their boundaries if their voters approve. Requires State to create and fund diversion programs in each county exclusively for marijuana offenders. Requires Legislature to pass laws implementing the initiative by January 1, 2018.[9] | ” |
Full text
The full text of the measure could be found here.
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 read:[8]
| “ | Reduced costs ranging from tens of millions of dollars to potentially exceeding $100 million annually to state and local governments related to enforcing certain marijuana-related offenses, handling the related criminal cases in the court system, and incarcerating and supervising certain marijuana offenders. Net additional state and local tax revenues of potentially up to several hundred million dollars annually related to the production and sale of marijuana.[9] | ” |
Initiative #15-0119
Ballot title
The official ballot title was:[8]
| “ | Marijuana Legalization. Initiative Statute.[9] | ” |
Ballot summary
The official ballot summary was:[8]
| “ |
Legalizes marijuana under state law. Applies general retail sales taxes to non-medical marijuana. Permits Legislature to place additional excise tax on non-medical marijuana sales, up to 15% of retail price. Permits local governments to ban or limit the number of marijuana businesses within their boundaries if their voters approve. Requires State to create and fund diversion programs in each county exclusively for marijuana offenders. Requires Legislature to pass laws implementing the initiative.[9] |
” |
Full text
The full text of the measure could be found here.
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 read:[8]
| “ |
Reduced costs ranging from tens of millions of dollars to potentially exceeding $100 million annually to state and local governments related to enforcing certain marijuana-related offenses, handling the related criminal cases in the court system, and incarcerating and supervising certain marijuana offenders. Net additional state and local tax revenues of potentially up to several hundred million dollars annually related to the production and sale of marijuana.[9] |
” |
Initiative #15-0120
Ballot title
The official ballot title was:[8]
| “ | Marijuana Legalization. Initiative Statute.[9] | ” |
Ballot summary
The official ballot summary was:[8]
| “ |
Legalizes marijuana under state law. Applies general retail sales taxes to non-medical marijuana. Permits Legislature to place additional excise tax on non-medical marijuana sales, up to 15% of retail price. Permits local governments to ban or limit the number of marijuana businesses within their boundaries if their voters approve. Requires State to create and fund diversion programs in each county exclusively for marijuana offenders. Requires Legislature to pass laws implementing the initiative.[9] |
” |
Full text
The full text of the measure could be found here.
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 read:[8]
| “ |
Reduced costs ranging from tens of millions of dollars to potentially exceeding $100 million annually to state and local governments related to enforcing certain marijuana-related offenses, handling the related criminal cases in the court system, and incarcerating and supervising certain marijuana offenders. Net additional state and local tax revenues of potentially up to several hundred million dollars annually related to the production and sale of marijuana.[9] |
” |
Path to the ballot
- See also: California signature requirements
Initiative 15-0020
- John Lee, Degé Coutee, Dave Hodges, Omar Figueroa, Jennifer Nicoletto, Michael Grafton, Shona Gochenaur, Teresa Randolph, Denise Dorey, Jason Bennett, Gregory Ledbetter, Jon Martinelli, Michael Goldman, Elihu Hernandez, Gilbert Canedo, Archie Hinkle and Sandra Bacon-Tercero submitted a letter requesting a title and summary on April 20, 2015.[1]
- A title and summary were issued by California's attorney general's office on June 24, 2015.[8]
- 365,880 valid signatures will be required for qualification purposes.
- Supporters had until December 21, 2015, to collect the required signatures.
- The secretary of state reported that version #15-0020 had failed on January 5, 2016.[10]
Initiative 15-0039
- John Lee, Degé Coutee, Dave Hodges, Omar Figueroa, Jennifer Nicoletto, Michael Grafton, Shona Gochenaur, Teresa Randolph, Denise Dorey, Jason Bennett, Gregory Ledbetter, Jon Martinelli, Michael Goldman, Elihu Hernandez, Gilbert Canedo, Archie Hinkle and Sandra Bacon-Tercero submitted a letter requesting a title and summary on July 13, 2015.[2]
- A title and summary were issued by California's attorney general's office on September 16, 2015.[8]
- 365,880 valid signatures were required for qualification purposes.
- Supporters had until March 14, 2016, to collect the required signatures.
- The California secretary of state announced that Initiative #15-0039 failed on March 25, 2016.
Initiative 15-0085A1
- Editte Dalya Lerman, David Nick, Omar Figueroa, Dave Hodges, John W. Lee, Michael Grafton, Archie Hinkle, Degé Coutee, Elihu Hernandez, Steve Kubby, A. Jon Martinelli, Lanette M. Davies, Craig Beresh, Deborah Tharp, Dona Frank, Jason W. Bennett, Gilbert E. Canedo, Denise Dorey, Russell Goodrow, Gregory Charles Ledbetter, Gregory F. Fuentes, Sandra Bacon Tercero, Shona Levana Gochenaur, Richard Miller, Jason Browne, Ron E. Mullins and John Lee submitted a letter requesting a title and summary on November 20, 2015.[3]
- A title and summary were issued by California's attorney general's office on December 22, 2015.[8]
- 365,880 valid signatures are required for qualification purposes.
- Supporters had until June 20, 2016, to collect the required signatures.
- The California secretary of state announced that Initiative #15-0085A1 failed on July 1, 2016.
Initiative 15-0086A1
- Editte Dalya Lerman, Dave Hodges, Michael Grafton, Steve Kubby, Ron E. Mullins, David Nick, John W. Lee, Russell Goodrow, Richard Miller and John Lee submitted a letter requesting a title and summary on November 20, 2015.[4]
- A title and summary were issued by California's attorney general's office on December 22, 2015.[8]
- 365,880 valid signatures are required for qualification purposes.
- Supporters had until June 20, 2016, to collect the required signatures.
- The California secretary of state announced that Initiative #15-0086A1 failed on July 1, 2016.
Initiative 15-0087
- Editte Dalya Lerman, Dave Hodges, Michael Grafton, Steve Kubby, Ron E. Mullins, David Nick, Russell Goodrow, Richard Miller and John Lee submitted a letter requesting a title and summary on October 16, 2015.[5]
- A title and summary were issued by California's attorney general's office on December 22, 2015.[8]
- 365,880 valid signatures are required for qualification purposes.
- Supporters had until June 20, 2016, to collect the required signatures.
- The California secretary of state announced that Initiative #15-0087 failed on July 1, 2016.
Initiative 15-0119
- Dave Hodges, John Lee, and Michael Grafton submitted a letter requesting a title and summary on December 16, 2015.[6]
- A title and summary were issued by California's attorney general's office on February 23, 2016.[8]
- 365,880 valid signatures were required for qualification purposes.
- Supporters had until August 22, 2016, to collect the required signatures.
Initiative 15-0120
- Dave Hodges submitted a letter requesting a title and summary on December 17, 2015.[6]
- A title and summary were issued by California's attorney general's office on February 23, 2016.[8]
- 365,880 valid signatures were required for qualification purposes.
- Supporters had until August 22, 2016, to collect the required signatures.
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...
See also
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 California Secretary of State, "#15-0020 Full text," accessed January 4, 2016
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 California Secretary of State, "#15-0039 Full text," accessed January 4, 2016
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 California Secretary of State, "#15-0085A1 Full text," accessed January 4, 2016
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 California Secretary of State, "#15-0086A1 Full text," accessed January 4, 2016
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 California Secretary of State, "#15-0087 Full text," accessed January 4, 2016
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 California Secretary of State, "#15-0119 Full text," accessed February 24, 2016
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "#15-0120 Full text," accessed February 24, 2016
- ↑ 8.00 8.01 8.02 8.03 8.04 8.05 8.06 8.07 8.08 8.09 8.10 8.11 8.12 8.13 8.14 8.15 8.16 8.17 8.18 8.19 8.20 8.21 8.22 8.23 8.24 8.25 8.26 8.27 California Secretary of State, "Initiatives and Referenda Cleared for Circulation," accessed January 4, 2016 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "sos" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "sos" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ 9.00 9.01 9.02 9.03 9.04 9.05 9.06 9.07 9.08 9.09 9.10 9.11 9.12 9.13 9.14 9.15 9.16 9.17 9.18 9.19 9.20 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedfail
 |
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 |
