California Proposition 102, Mandatory AIDS Reporting Initiative (1988)
| California Proposition 102 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 8, 1988 | |
| Topic Healthcare | |
Status Defeated | |
| Type State statute | Origin Citizens |
California Proposition 102 was on the ballot as an initiated state statute in California on November 8, 1988. It was defeated.
A "yes" vote supported requiring doctors and blood banks to report patients they believe have AIDS, requiring individuals to report AIDS positive tests, prohibiting AIDS testing as a contingency for employment and insurability, and making it a felony for persons with knowledge of infection or positive test to donate blood. |
A "no" vote opposed this initiative to change reporting requirements for AIDS positive individuals. |
Election results
|
California Proposition 102 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 3,208,517 | 34.41% | ||
|
|
6,116,276 | 65.59% | ||
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title for Proposition 102 was as follows:
| “ | Reporting Exposure to AIDS Virus. Initiative Statute. | ” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary for this measure was:
| “ | Requires doctors, blood banks, and others, to report patients and blood donors, whom they reasonably believe to have been infected by or tested positive for AIDS virus, to local health officers. Restricts confidential testing. Requires reporting by persons infected or tested positive. Directs local health officers to notify reported person's spouse, sexual partners, and others possibly exposed. Repeals prohibition on use of AIDS virus tests for employment or insurability. Creates felony for persons with knowledge of infection or positive test to donate blood. Modifies fines and penalties for unauthorized disclosure of AIDS virus test results. Summary of Legislative Analyst's estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact: Fiscal impact is unknown, possibly tens or hundreds of millions of dollars depending on costs of measures "reasonably necessary" to prevent spread of disease, number and types of cases investigated, testing criminal offenders, and public health care for those denied insurance or employment. | ” |
Full Text
The full text of this measure is available here.
Fiscal impact
The fiscal estimate provided by the California Legislative Analyst's Office said:[1]
| “ |
The measure has three potentially major, and a variety of minor or unknown, fiscal effects: 1. Reporting and Investigation of Cases. The fiscal impact of this provision could vary greatly depending on the number of persons who test positive for HIV infection, the number of cases investigated, the costs of investigating cases, and the types of measures determined to be reasonably necessary to prevent transmission of infection. The costs are potentially in the tens of millions of dollars annually. Costs could significantly exceed this amount if additional measures beyond tracing of contacts, such as widespread testing, are determined to be "reasonably necessary" to prevent the spread of the disease. 2. Elimination of Restrictions on Using Test Results. The costs of this provision to government health care programs ultimately could be in the tens to hundreds of millions of dollars annually if insurance companies institute HIV testing programs to eliminate or reduce their costs related to AIDS. This is because the annual costs of AIDS care in California will grow substantially over time. Currently, a majority of this care is funded by insurance companies. Allowing insurance companies to deny coverage based on HIV tests could shift a significant portion of these costs to public programs. Potential costs resulting from employer testing programs are unknown. If a substantial number of people lose their jobs as a result of HIV testing, there could be substantial unemployment compensation and other costs. 3. Testing of Criminal Offenders. The fiscal impact of this provision is unknown, but could vary greatly, depending on how it is implemented. If all persons charged with prostitution, sex crimes, or assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury are ordered to submit to blood testing under the measure, the costs to local governments could range up to several hundred thousand dollars annually. However, because the measure does not require HIV testing of all offenders but merely permits it, the costs of this provision could be considerably less. Minor or Unknown Fiscal Effects. The following provisions would have minor or unknown fiscal effect:
Summary of Fiscal Effect. In summary, the fiscal impact of this measure is unknown. It could be as high as tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, depending on (1) the types of measures determined to be "reasonably necessary" to prevent further spread of the disease, (2) the costs for investigating HIV cases, (3) the extent of actions by insurance companies and employers to exclude persons who are HIV-infected, and (4) the number of criminal offenders who would be required to submit to a blood test.[2] |
” |
Path to the ballot
In California, the number of signatures required for an initiated state statute is equal to 5 percent of the votes cast at the preceding gubernatorial election. For initiated statutes filed in 1988, at least 372,178 valid signatures were required.
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ University of California, "Voter Guide," accessed August 3, 2021
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
 |
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 |
