Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.
California Pandemic Early Detection and Prevention Institute Initiative (2024)
| California Pandemic Early Detection and Prevention Institute Initiative | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 5, 2024 | |
| Topic Administration of government | |
| Status Not on the ballot | |
| Type Amendment & Statute | Origin Citizens |
The California Pandemic Early Detection and Prevention Institute Initiative (#21-0022) was not on the ballot in California as a combined initiated constitutional amendment and state statute on November 5, 2024.[1]
A "yes" vote would have supported increasing the income tax by 0.75% for individuals with income over $5 million for 10 years and dedicating revenue to the California Institute for Pandemic Prevention, the Community Pandemic Response Fund, and the School Disease Spread Prevention Fund. |
A "no" vote would have opposed increasing the income tax by 0.75% for individuals with income over $5 million for 10 years and dedicating revenue to the California Institute for Pandemic Prevention, the Community Pandemic Response Fund, and the School Disease Spread Prevention Fund. |
Overview
What would the initiative have done?
- See also: Measure design
The initiative would have amended the California Constitution and enacted a law to increase the income tax by 0.75% for individuals with income over $5 million for 10 years and dedicated revenue to the California Institute for Pandemic Prevention, the Community Pandemic Response Fund, and the School Disease Spread Prevention Fund. The Legislative Analyst's Office estimated that the state revenues from the tax would have ranged from $500 million to $1.5 billion annually.[1][2]
The new institute would have been established in the constitution and would have been tasked with awarding grants related to pandemic prevention initiatives. The initiative would have enacted a wind down provision where after the tax expired in 2032 the institute could have continued to operate for another five years. If funds remained after the 15-year period, the institute would have been able to continue to operate but would not have been authorized to administer grants.[1]
Who supported and opposed the initiative?
- See also: Support and Opposition
Californians Against Pandemics led the campaign in support of the initiative. The committee received over $22.2 million in contributions. The campaign received endorsements from State Assemblymember Matt Haney (D), Director of the UCSF-Abbott Viral Diagnostics Charles Chiu, President of the California Medical Association Robert E. Wailes, and County Health Executives Association of California. Max Henderson, one of the sponsors of the initiative, said, "We’re lucky to have cutting-edge technology here to make sure we never see these economic and school shutdowns ever again. Our vision is to put the systems in place to prevent the next pandemic. It’s not going to happen at the federal level, but California can lead."[3]
The California Teachers Association and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association opposed the initiative. Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, said, "Why are we even talking about raising taxes when we have a nearly $50 billion state budget surplus. This is exactly why we’re seeing significant flight out of California and why wealthier individuals like Elon Musk are leaving for states like Texas and Florida."[4][5]
Measure design
- See also: Text of measure
Click on the arrows (▼) below for summaries of the different provisions of the initiative.
Income Tax Authorization: New income tax on individuals with income over $5 million
Revenue generated by the new tax would have been deposited into the following newly established funds:
- 25% of revenues to the Community Pandemic Response Fund;
- 25% of revenues to the School Disease Spread Prevention Fund; and
- 50% of revenues to the California Institute for Pandemic Prevention Fund.
The Legislative Analyst's Office estimated that the state revenues from the tax would range from $500 million to $1.5 billion annually.[2]
The initiative contained a provision that would have made revenue exempt from the state appropriations limit, also known as the Gann Limit. The Gann Limit prohibits state government and local governments from spending revenue in excess of per-person government spending in fiscal year 1978-1979, with an adjustment for changes in the cost of living and population. The Gann Limit was adopted with the passage of Proposition 4 in 1979.[1]
California Institute for Pandemic Prevention: Establishment and governance
- awarding grants related to the development of pathogen-agnostic metagenomic sequencing;
- supporting the implementation of a pathogen-agnostic metagenomic-sequencing-based disease and pandemic detection system;
- making grants for public benefit and according to "high standards of ethics, privacy, and security"; and
- supporting state public health authorities and officials to mitigate and prevent future pandemics.
The proposed implementing legislation would have created the Independent Scientific Governing Board. The board would have consisted of nine members—the current California Department of Public Health (or a designee) and seven governor-appointed members with one of the following expertise: metagenomic sequencing, infectious diseases, software and health data, microtechnology and nanotechnology, technology commercialization, local public health, and public health laboratory medicine. The ninth member would have been the chief executive officer and be hired and approved by the first eight members.
The members would have served six-year terms, except the chief executive officer, who would serve 10 years. The initiative would have authorized the board to provide oversight of the institute's operations and financial performance, advise the CEO, issue public reports, and adopt policies and regulations to carry out the purposes of the proposed law.[1]
The institute would have also had a grants committee consisting of at least three members responsible for establishing the grants application process, criteria, and standards of evaluation for the grantees. The initiative provided minimum standards for the grant application review process.[1]
During the 10-year period of the tax, the initiative would have prohibited no more than 5% of the institute's annual revenues to be appropriated for administration costs and no more than 3% of revenues for grant implementation costs. Thereafter, the institute would have been prohibited from spending no more than 10% on the aforementioned costs.[1]
The initiative would have prohibited members of the Independent Scientific Governing Board, the Scientific Accountability Committee, or any Advisory Task Force to use their official position to influence the awarding of grants. Members of the Grants Committee would have also been required to disclose potential conflicts of interest and recuse themselves from certain grant-making decisions. The initiative would have prohibited members of the Grants Committee and any employee of the Institute who filed a Statement of Economic Interest from being employed or receiving compensation for a 12-month period after their departure from any entity that received a grant during their tenure.
The initiative would have also required that grants, loans, or contracts be awarded in public meetings and all governance, scientific, medical, and regulatory standards be adopted in public meetings. The Institute could have conducted closed meetings under limited circumstances enumerated in the initiative including meetings concerning a biosecurity risk, confidential patient or medical information, or confidential intellectual property.
The initiative provided for a wind down provision where after the tax expires in 2032 the institute could have continued to operate for another five years. If funds remained after the 15-year period, the institute could have been able to continue to operate but would have not been authorized to administer grants.[1]
Community Pandemic Response Fund: Creation and purpose
School Disease Spread Prevention Fund: Creation and purpose
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title would have been as follows:[6]
| “ |
Provides Funding for Pandemic Detection and Prevention by Increasing Tax on Personal Income Over $5 Million. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.[7] |
” |
Petition summary
The summary provided for inclusion on signature petition sheets was as follows:[6]
| “ |
Increases tax on personal income over $5 million by 0.75% for 10 years, and allocates new tax revenues as follows: 50% to the California Institute for Pandemic Prevention (established by this measure), to award grants for research and development of technologies to detect and prevent future pandemics; 25% for public health programs for pandemic preparedness; and 25% for improvements to school facilities to limit disease transmission. Creates Independent Scientific Governing Board to administer the Institute; requires board members have specified medical, technological, or public-health expertise.[7] |
” |
Fiscal impact
The fiscal impact statement was as follows:[6]
| “ |
Increased state tax revenues that likely would range from around $500 million to $1.5 billion annually for the ten-year period the new tax would be in effect. Revenues entirely would support activities related to infectious disease control and pandemic prevention.[7] |
” |
Full text
The full text of the ballot initiative is below:[6]
Support
Californians Against Pandemics led the campaign in support of the initiative.[3]
Supporters
Officials
- State Assemblymember Matt Haney (D)
Former Officials
- Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical & Biological Defense Programs Andrew C. Weber
Corporations
Unions
Organizations
Individuals
- Charles Chiu - Director of the UCSF-Abbott Viral Diagnostics
- Robert E. Wailes - President of the California Medical Association
Arguments
Opposition
If you are aware of any opponents or opposing arguments, please send an email with a link to editor@ballotpedia.org.
Opponents
Unions
Organizations
Arguments
Campaign finance
Ballotpedia identified one committee registered in support of the initiative—Californians Against Pandemics. The committee reported receiving over $22.2 million in contributions. The top donor to the campaign is Guarding Against Pandemics, a 501(c)(4) funded by Alameda Research LLC. Alameda Research, founded by Sam Bankman-Fried, was a cryptocurrency trading firm that filed for bankruptcy in November 2022.[8][9]
| Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Support | $22,250,000.00 | $31,421.95 | $22,281,421.95 | $22,298,173.98 | $22,329,595.93 |
| Oppose | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 |
| Total | $22,250,000.00 | $31,421.95 | $22,281,421.95 | $22,298,173.98 | $22,329,595.93 |
Support
The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in support of the measure.[8]
| Committees in support of Pandemic Early Detection and Prevention Institute Initiative | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Committee | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures |
| Californians Against Pandemics | $22,250,000.00 | $31,421.95 | $22,281,421.95 | $22,298,173.98 | $22,329,595.93 |
| Total | $22,250,000.00 | $31,421.95 | $22,281,421.95 | $22,298,173.98 | $22,329,595.93 |
Donors
The following were the top donors who contributed to the support committee.[8]
| Donor | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Guarding Against Pandemics | $12,000,000.00 | $7,585.00 | $12,007,585.00 |
| Open Philanthropy Action Fund | $10,250,000.00 | $23,836.95 | $10,273,836.95 |
Background
Income tax rates in California
For tax year 2022, California has a graduated individual income tax with rates ranging from 1% to 13.3%. The various brackets are listed below:[10]
| California income tax brackets | ||
|---|---|---|
| Tax rate | Single filer bracket | Married filer bracket |
| 1% | > $0 | > $0 |
| 2% | > $9,325 | > $18,650 |
| 4% | > $22,107 | > $44,214 |
| 6% | > $34,892 | > $69,784 |
| 8% | > $48,435 | > $96,870 |
| 9.3% | > $61,214 | >$122,428 |
| 10.3% | > $312,686 | >$625,372 |
| 11.3% | > $375,221 | >$750,442 |
| 12.3% | > $625,369 | >$1,000,000 |
| 13.3% | > $1,000,000 | >$1,250,738 |
As of 2022, 43 states tax individual income—41 taxed wages while New Hampshire taxes only dividend and interest revenue and Washington taxes the capital gains income of high earners. The remaining seven states did not tax personal income. Of the 41 states with an income tax, nine states have a flat rate, and the other states have graduated rates that varied depending on different income brackets. The number of income tax brackets ranged from three in Kansas to 12 in Hawaii.
The tax rate applied to income within the highest bracket across the 41 states with income taxes ranging from 2.9% applied to income above $445,000 in North Dakota to 13.3% applied to income above $1,000,000 in California.[11]
Gann Limit
The initiative contains a provision that would make revenue exempt from the state appropriations limit, also known as the Gann Limit. The Gann Limit prohibits state government and local governments from spending revenue in excess of per-person government spending in fiscal year 1978-1979, with an adjustment for changes in the cost of living and population. The Gann Limit was adopted with the passage of Proposition 4 in 1979.
Ballotpedia is tracking ballot measures in response to the coronavirus pandemic. The following is a list of measures that have been certified for the ballot in 2022:
| Ballot measures in response to the coronavirus pandemic and coronavirus-related regulations | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| State | Measure | Description | Election date | Origin | Status |
| Alabama | Amendment 4 | Amends state constitution to require changes to laws governing the conduct of a general election to be implemented at least six months from the general election | November 8, 2022 | Legislature | Approved |
| Arkansas | Issue 1 | Allows the state legislature to call itself into extraordinary sessions upon (a) a joint proclamation from the Speaker of the House and the Senate President Pro Tempore or (b) upon a proclamation signed by two-thirds of the members in each chamber | November 8, 2022 | Legislature | Defeated |
| Arkansas | Issue 3 | Amends the state constitution to provide that "government shall not burden a person's freedom of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability" | November 8, 2022 | Legislature | Defeated |
| Idaho | SJR 102 | Allows the legislature to call itself into special session | November 8, 2022 | Legislature | Approved |
| Kentucky | Amendment 1 | Changes the end date of the legislative session through a three-fifths vote in each chamber and provides that a special legislative session up to 12 days may be called by the House speaker and the Senate president | November 8, 2022 | Legislature | Defeated |
| Utah | Amendment A | Increases appropriations limits during emergencies and exempts emergency federal funding from appropriations limits | November 8, 2022 | Legislature | Defeated |
Path to the ballot
Process in California
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 the initiative certified for the 2024ballot:
- Signatures: 997,139 valid signatures were required.
- Deadline: The deadline for the initiative was May 23, 2022.
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.
Initiative #21-0022
Max Henderson and Anna Maybach filed the ballot initiative on September 16, 2021. The Attorney General of California issued ballot language for the initiative on November 22, 2021, allowing a signature drive to begin. Signatures were due on May 23, 2022. Proponents reported collecting 25% of the required signatures on February 15, 2022.[12]
On May 5, Politico reported that the campaign had submitted 1.5 million signatures for verification.[13]
The signature verification process for the 2022 ballot was not completed by the June 30, 2022, verification deadline. The measure was moved to 2024.[6]
On July 5, 2022, the secretary of state reported that the initiative had qualified for the 2024 ballot. The final random sample count concluded that 1,111,665 of the 1,531,899 signatures were valid.[6]
On June 27, 2024, the secretary of state reported that the initiative had been withdrawn from the ballot. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) announced that the state would invest in preventing the next pandemic by integrating the California Initiative to Advance Precision Medicine into the California Health and Human Services Agency.[14]
How to cast a vote
- See also: Voting in California
See below to learn more about current voter registration rules, identification requirements, and poll times in California.
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 California Attorney General, "Initiative 21-0021," September 16, 2021
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Legislative Analyst's Office, "Initiative summary," accessed April 28, 2022
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Californians Against Pandemics, "Home," accessed March 7, 2022
- ↑ LA Times "Tech titans want the richest Californians to pay for pandemic preparedness," April 25, 2022
- ↑ California Teachers Association, "Educators recommend candidates and ballot initiatives," accessed January 12, 2023
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 California Secretary of State, "Initiatives and Referenda Cleared for Circulation," accessed October 20, 2021
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 Cal-Access', "Campaign Finance Search," accessed April 12, 2022
- ↑ LA Times, "What’s the fate of California’s pandemic preparedness ballot measure backed by Sam Bankman-Fried?" November 27, 2023
- ↑ Tax Foundation, "State Individual Income Tax Rates and Brackets for 2022," July 27, 2022
- ↑ Tax Foundation, "State Individual Income Tax Rates and Brackets for 2017," March 9, 2017
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Initiatives," accessed September 18, 2021
- ↑ Politico, "Newsom warns there’s more at risk if Roe falls," May 5, 2022
- ↑ Governor Gavin Newsom, "California to focus on pandemic preparedness and prevention through precision medicine research," June 25, 2024
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Section 3: Polling Place Hours," accessed August 12, 2024
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Voter Registration," accessed August 13, 2024
- ↑ 17.0 17.1 California Secretary of State, "Registering to Vote," accessed August 13, 2024
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Same Day Voter Registration (Conditional Voter Registration)," accessed August 13, 2024
- ↑ SF.gov, "Non-citizen voting rights in local Board of Education elections," accessed November 14, 2024
- ↑ Under federal law, the national mail voter registration application (a version of which is in use in all states with voter registration systems) requires applicants to indicate that they are U.S. citizens in order to complete an application to vote in state or federal elections, but does not require voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the application "may require only the minimum amount of information necessary to prevent duplicate voter registrations and permit State officials both to determine the eligibility of the applicant to vote and to administer the voting process."
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "What to Bring to Your Polling Place," accessed August 12, 2024
- ↑ BARCLAYS OFFICIAL CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, "Section 20107," accessed August 12, 2024
- ↑ Democracy Docket, "California Governor Signs Law to Ban Local Voter ID Requirements," September 30, 2024
 |
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 |
