Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

California Proposition 11, Ambulance Employees Paid On-Call Breaks, Training, and Mental Health Services Initiative (2018)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search


California Proposition 11
Flag of California.png
Election date
November 6, 2018
Topic
Labor and unions
Status
Approveda Approved
Type
State statute
Origin
Citizens


California Proposition 11, the Ambulance Employees Paid On-Call Breaks, Training, and Mental Health Services Initiative, was on the ballot in California as an initiated state statute on November 6, 2018.[1] The measure was approved.

A yes vote supported:
  • allowing ambulance providers to require workers to remain on-call during breaks paid at their regular rate;
  • requiring employers to provide additional training for EMTs and paramedics; and
  • requiring employers to provide EMTs and paramedics with some paid mental health services.
A no vote opposed:
  • allowing ambulance providers to require workers to remain on-call during breaks paid at their regular rate;
  • requiring employers to provide additional training for EMTs and paramedics; and
  • requiring employers to provide EMTs and paramedics with some paid mental health services.

Election results

California Proposition 11

Result Votes Percentage

Approved Yes

7,181,116 59.63%
No 4,861,831 40.37%
Results are officially certified.
Source

Overview

What did this ballot initiative change about ambulance operations?

Proposition 11 allowed ambulance providers to require workers to remain on-call (reachable by a portable communications device) during meal and rest breaks. The measure required ambulance providers to pay workers at their regular rate during breaks, not make workers take a meal break during the first or last hour of a shift, and space multiple meal breaks during a shift by at least two hours. If a worker is contacted during a meal or rest break, the initiative mandated that the interrupted break not be counted towards the breaks the worker is required to receive. The measure required ambulance providers to manage staffing levels sufficient to provide employees with the required breaks.[1]

The initiative required ambulance providers to provide ambulance employees, such as paramedics and EMTs, with training related to active shooters and multiple casualties, natural disasters, violence prevention, and mental health. The initiative also required ambulance providers to provide workers up to 10 paid mental health services per year and, for employers who provide health insurance, health insurance plans that offer long-term mental health services.[1]

Why was this ballot initiative proposed?

In December 2016, the California Supreme Court ruled in Augustus v. ABM Security Services that employer-required on-call rest breaks violated state labor law. According to the state Supreme Court, state labor law mandates that rest breaks must be considered off-duty and uninterruptible, including in the event of an emergency. Although Augustus specifically applied to private security guards, the California Legislative Analyst noted that on-call break practices among EMTs and paramedics are similar to that of private security guards. The analyst's office also noted that several lawsuits alleging break violations under Augustus had been brought against ambulance providers and remained unresolved. If Augustus was applied to ambulance employees, EMTs and paramedics would need to go off-duty during their meal and rest breaks. Ambulance providers, according to the analyst's office, would have needed to hire about 25 percent more ambulance crews to meet the requirements of Augustus.[2][3] The ballot initiative amended state labor law to allow EMTs and paramedics to be on-call during breaks and require employers to pay workers at their regular rates during breaks.[1]

Who was behind the campaigns surrounding the ballot initiative?

Californians for Emergency Preparedness and Safety led the campaign in support of Proposition 11. The committee had raised $29.89 million. American Medical Response, the country's largest medical transportation firm, provided 99.7 percent of the committee's total funds. There were no committees registered to oppose the ballot initiative.[4]

Text of measure

Ballot title

The official ballot title was as follows:[5]

Requires Private-Sector Emergency Ambulance Employees to Remain on Call During Work Breaks. Changes Other Conditions of Employment. Initiative Statute.[6]

Ballot summary

The official ballot summary was as follows:[7]

  • Makes labor law entitling hourly employees to take work breaks for meals and rest, without being on-call, inapplicable to private-sector emergency ambulance employees. Regulates timing of meal breaks for these employees.
  • Eliminates employers’ liability—in actions pending on or after October 25, 2017—for violations of existing law regarding work breaks. Requires employers to provide training regarding certain emergency incidents, violence prevention, and mental health and wellness.
  • Requires employers to provide employees certain mental-health services.[6]

Fiscal impact

Note: The fiscal impact statement for a California ballot initiative authorized for circulation is prepared by the state's legislative analyst and director of finance.

The fiscal impact statement was as follows:[5]

Local government net savings likely in the tens of millions of dollars annually due to lower emergency ambulance contract costs.[6]

Full text

The full text of the measure was as follows:[1]

ARTICLE 1. Title.

Section 880. This Act shall be known and may be cited as the Emergency Ambulance Employee Safety and Preparedness Act.

ARTICLE 2. Findings and Declarations.

Section 881. The People of the State ofCalifornia find and declare the following:

(a) California has the nation's largest population, third largest landmass, and is prone to natural disasters such as earthquakes, wildfires, and floods. These circumstances demand a welltrained emergency ambulance workforce.

(b) In California, private companies provide the primary emergency medical technician (EMT) and paramedic services for 74% of state residents. Unfortunately, catastrophes like natural disasters, active shooters, and mass casualty incidents occur far too frequently throughout the state and nation. Like all other first responders, emergency ambulance employees such as EMTs and paramedics must be adequately trained and available to respond to all types of crises and pleas for help.

(c) Private companies that employ emergency ambulance employees such as EMTs and paramedics should be required to provide compensated yearly training to prepare them to handle active shooter and mass casualty incidents, in addition to natural disasters.

(d) It takes a special type of person to be an emergency ambulance employee like an EMT or paramedic dedicated to serve, protect, and provide life-saving services for their fellow neighbors around the clock. Emergency ambulance employees such as EMTs and paramedics often witness traumatic events. Employers should provide mental health services to emergency ambulance employees.

(e) Emergency ambulance employees such as EMTs and paramedics work hard, and can be called into action at any time during their work shift to provide life-saving care. Therefore, it is important that they receive adequate meal and rest time to remain at their peak performance.

ARTICLE 3. Statement of Purpose.

Section 882. The purpose of the Emergency Ambulance Employee Safety and Preparedness Act is to enhance public health and safety by ensuring that emergency ambulance employees such as EMTs and paramedics receive adequate training, meal and rest time, and mental health benefits, and are available to respond to 911 emergency-type requests for medical assistance at all times.

ARTICLE 4. Emergency Ambulance Employee Safety and Preparedness.

Section 883. Training.

(a) In addition to other minimum employment qualifications and certifications, every emergency ambulance employee shall annually receive employer-paid training in each of the following areas:

(1) Responding to active shooter and mass casualty incidents;

(2) Responding to natural disasters; and

(3) Preventing violence against emergency ambulance employees and patients.

(b) The training required by subdivision (a) shall be provided free of charge to emergency ambulance employees. Emergency ambulance employees shall be compensated at their regular hourly rate of pay while participating in training required by subdivision (a).

(c) The training required to be provided pursuant to this section shall be generally comparable in content, scope, and quality to courses offered by the United States Federal Emergency Management Agency's Emergency Management Institute and/or National Training and Education Division.

Section 884. Mental Health.

(a) Every emergency ambulance employee shall receive employer-paid mental health and wellness education within 30 days ofbeing hired, and shall receive employer-paid mental health and wellness education each calendar year thereafter. Mental health and wellness education shall inform emergency ambulance employees of available mental health treatments and support services, and provide general information regarding common mental health illnesses.

(b) Every emergency ambulance employee shall be entitled to employer-paid mental health services through an employee assistance program (EAP). The EAP coverage shall provide up to 10 mental health treatments per issue per calendar year.

(c) Every emergency ambulance employee that qualifies or is eligible to receive employer-provided health insurance shall have access to health insurance plans that offer longterm mental health treatment services.

(d) For purposes of this section, "issue" means episodes of mental health conditions such as stress, depression, grief, loss, relationship struggles, substance abuse, parenting challenges, and other mental health conditions as described within the EAP.

Section 885. Meal and Rest Periods.

(a) All emergency ambulance employees are hereby entitled to meal and rest periods as prescribed elsewhere by the Industrial Welfare Commission.

(b) Emergency ambulance employees shall be compensated at their regular hourly rate of pay during meal and rest periods.

Section 886. Staffing for Meal Periods.

(a)(1) An emergency ambulance provider shall not require an emergency ambulance employee to take a meal period during the first or last hour of a work shift, and must allow an emergency ambulance employee to space multiple meal periods during a work shift at least two hours apart.

(2) An emergency ambulance provider shall manage staffing at levels sufficient to provide enough inactivity in a work shift for emergency ambulance employees to meet the requirements of this subdivision.

(b) Any meal period that does not comply with paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) shall not be counted towards the meal periods an employee is entitled to during his or her work shift.

Section 887. Communication to Protect Public Health and Safety.

Notwithstanding any provision oflaw to the contrary:

(a) In order to maximize protection of public health and safety, emergency ambulance employees shall remain reachable by a portable communications device throughout the entirety of each work shift.

(b) If an emergency ambulance employee is contacted during a meal or rest period, that particular meal or rest period shall not be counted towards the meal and rest periods the employee is entitled to during his or her work shift.

(c) If an emergency ambulance employee is not contacted during a meal or rest period, that particular meal or rest period shall be counted towards the meal and rest periods the employee is entitled to during his or her work shift.

Section 888. Definitions.

As used in this Chapter, all of the following definitions shall apply:

(a) "Emergency ambulance employee" means a person who meets both of the following requirements:

(1) Is an emergency medical technician (EMT), dispatcher, paramedic, or other licensed or certified ambulance transport personnel who contributes to the delivery of ambulance services; and

(2) Is employed by an emergency ambulance provider.

(b) "Emergency ambulance provider" means an employer that provides ambulance services; but shall not include the state or any political subdivision thereof, in its capacity as the direct employer of a person meeting the description contained in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a).

(c) "Contacted" means receiving a message or directive over a portable communications device which requires a response. A bare requirement to carry a portable communications device and remain reachable does not constitute being "contacted".

(d) "Portable communications device" means a pager, radio, station alert box, intercom, cellular telephone, or other communications method.

(e) "Work shift" means designated hours of work by an emergency ambulance employee, with a designated beginning time and quitting time, including any periods for meals or rest.

Section 889. Notwithstanding any other provision oflaw to the contrary, Section 887 and Section 888 are declarative of, and do not alter or amend, existing California law, and shall apply to any and all actions pending on, or commenced after, October 25, 2017 alleging a violation of California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 11090 (Industrial Welfare Commission [IWC] Order No. 9-2001) or any amended, successor, or replacement law, regulation, or IWC order.

ARTICLE 5. Amendment.

Section 890. The Legislature may amend this Chapter by a statute passed in each house of the Legislature by rollcall vote entered into the journal, four-fifths of the membership concurring, provided that the statute is consistent with, and furthers the purpose of, this Chapter. No bill seeking to amend this Chapter may be passed or ultimately become a statute unless the bill has been printed and distributed to members, and published on the Internet, in its final form, for at least 12 business days prior to its passage in either house of the Legislature.

Section 2. Liberal Construction.

This Act shall be liberally construed in order to effectuate its purposes.

Section 3. Conflicting Measures.

(a) In the event that this initiative measure and another initiative measure or measures relating to working conditions of emergency ambulance employees shall appear on the same statewide election ballot, the other initiative measure or measures shall be deemed to be in conflict with this measure. In the event that this initiative measure receives a greater number of affirmative votes, the provisions ofthis measure shall prevail in their entirety, and the provisions of the other initiative measure or measures shall be null and void.

(b) If this initiative measure is approved by the voters but superseded in whole or in part by any other conflicting initiative measure 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.

Section 4. Severability.

The provisions of this Act are severable. If any portion, section, subdivision, paragraph, clause, sentence, phrase, word, or application ofthis 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 ofthis 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 thereof would be subsequently declared invalid.

Section 5. 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 state or federal law, and both the Governor and Attorney General refuse to defend this Act, then the following actions shall be taken:

(a) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Chapter 6 of Part 2 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code or any other law, the Attorney General shall appoint independent counsel to faithfully and vigorously defend this Act on behalf of the State of California.

(b) Before appointing or thereafter substituting independent counsel, the Attorney General shall exercise due diligence in determining the qualifications of independent counsel and shall obtain written affirmation from independent counsel that independent counsel will faithfully and vigorously defend this Act. The written affirmation shall be made publicly available upon request.

(c) A continuous appropriation is hereby made from the General Fund to the Controller, without regard to fiscal years, in an amount necessary to cover the costs ofretaining independent counsel to faithfully and vigorously defend this Act on behalf of the State of California.[6]

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2018
Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The attorney general wrote the ballot language for this measure.


The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 12, and the FRE is 22. The word count for the ballot title is 20, and the estimated reading time is 5 seconds. The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 14, and the FRE is 22. The word count for the ballot summary is 76, and the estimated reading time is 20 seconds.

In 2018, for the 167 statewide measures on the ballot, the average ballot title or question was written at a level appropriate for those with between 19 and 20 years of U.S. formal education (graduate school-level of education), according to the FKGL formula. Read Ballotpedia's entire 2018 ballot language readability report here.

Support

Californians for Emergency Preparedness and Safety 2018.png

Californians for Emergency Preparedness and Safety led the campaign in support of the initiative.[8]

Supporters

  • American Medical Response[4]

Arguments

Californians for Emergency Preparedness and Safety made the following argument on the committee's website:[8]

  • This initiative establishes into law the longstanding industry practice of requiring EMTs, paramedics, life flight helicopter crews and 911 dispatchers to remain reachable during their breaks – just like police officers and other essential public safety personnel – and pays them to do so.
  • It also requires emergency medical crews to receive additional compensation if a break is missed and cannot be made up during the work shift.
  • If this initiative does not pass, EMTs and paramedics must be unreachable while on breaks and cannot be dispatched to a 911 call to provide lifesaving care, even if the medical emergency is just blocks away.[6]

Official arguments

Adam Dougherty, an emergency physician, Carol Meyer, former director of the Los Angeles County Emergency Medical Services Agency, and Jaison Chand, a paramedic, wrote the official argument found in the state voter information guide in support of Proposition 11:[7]

PROP. 11 ENSURES YOUR 911 EMERGENCY CARE WILL NOT BE DELAYED

Prop. 11 establishes into law the longstanding industry practice of paying emergency medical technicians (EMTs) and paramedics to remain reachable during their work breaks in case of an emergency—just like firefighters and police officers.

Prop. 11 is needed because a recent California court ruling could stop this longstanding practice and require EMTs and paramedics to be completely unreachable while on break. This means if the closest ambulance to your emergency is on break when you call for help, 911 dispatchers would have NO WAY to reach the ambulance crew because all communications devices would be turned OFF. Prop. 11 ensures your 911 emergency care is not delayed.

“Prop. 11 ensures EMTs and paramedics can quickly respond to provide the critical care you need. It just makes common sense. Vote YES on 11.”—Adam Dougherty, MD, MPH, Emergency Physician

WHEN YOU CALL 911, SECONDS CAN BE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LIFE AND DEATH

It is essential that EMTs and paramedics are able to respond quickly and deliver lifesaving medical care during mass casualty events, like active shooter incidents and natural disasters. Prop. 11 requires that emergency medical crews are paid by their employer to receive additional training that meets FEMA standards for violence prevention, active shooter, mass casualty, and natural disaster incidents. YES on 11.

“As a paramedic, I want to be there when people need help. Prop. 11 makes sure that when lives are at risk, emergency care will not be delayed and we are prepared to respond to nearly any disaster.”—Daniel Iniguez, Licensed Paramedic

PROP. 11 ENSURES EMTs & PARAMEDICS HAVE WORKPLACE PROTECTIONS

EMTs and paramedics should have workplace protections to ensure they are well-rested. Prop. 11 requires 911 ambulance operators to maintain high enough staffing levels to provide coverage for breaks. Prop. 11 also says emergency medical crews will continue receiving an additional hour of pay if they miss a break and it cannot be made up during their work shift. YES on 11.

PROP. 11 PROVIDES MENTAL HEALTH BENEFITS FOR EMTs & PARAMEDICS

It takes a special type of person to be an EMT or paramedic, and it can sometimes be a stressful job. Prop. 11 requires employers to provide emergency medical crews with mandatory mental health coverage, as well as yearly mental health and wellness training. YES on 11.

Vote YES on Prop. 11 to protect public safety and to ensure EMTs and paramedics can quickly respond when you have an emergency.[6]

Opposition

Opponents

Arguments

  • State Assembly Member Freddie Rodriguez (D-52) stated, "As a career Emergency Medical Technician in the private ambulance industry, I am strongly opposed to Proposition 11, which is misleading and wrong. Approving this measure means harming first responders and allowing powerful corporation to escape paying millions in wages to hard working men and women. I stand with my fellow emergency medical service workers in urging all Californians to reject Proposition 11."[10]

Official arguments

There were no arguments submitted for the voter information guide in opposition to Proposition 11.[7]


Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for California ballot measures
Total campaign contributions:
Support: $29,887,769.96
Opposition: $0.00

There was one ballot measure committee registered in support of the measure—Californians for Emergency Preparedness and Safety. The committee had raised $29.89 million and spent $29.83 million. The largest contributor to the committee was the medical transportation firm American Medical Response, which provided 99.7 percent of the funds.[4]

There were no committees registered to oppose the ballot initiative.[4]

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in support of the initiative:[4]

Committees in support of Proposition 11
Supporting committeesCash contributionsIn-kind servicesCash expenditures
Californians for Emergency Preparedness and Safety$29,700,000.00$187,769.96$29,640,041.57
Total$29,700,000.00$187,769.96$29,640,041.57
Totals in support
Total raised:$29,887,769.96
Total spent:$29,827,811.53

Donors

The following was the top donor who contributed to the support committee:[4]

Donor Cash In-kind Total
American Medical Response $29,600,000.00 $187,769.96 $29,787,769.96
911 Ambulance Provider's Medi-Cal Alliance $25,000.00 $0.00 $25,000.00

Reporting dates

In California, ballot measure committees filed a total of five campaign finance reports in 2018. The filing dates for reports were as follows:[11]

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Media editorials

Support

  • Bakersfield Californian: "Proposition 11 would make it clear that emergency medical technicians and paramedics working for private ambulance companies must remain reachable during paid work breaks so that they can respond immediately when needed. The proposition results from an earlier court ruling that placed the status of on-call workers in question. This is a sensible response. Vote yes."[12]
  • Los Angeles Times: "Proposition 11 on the Nov. 6 ballot would make clear that emergency medical technicians and paramedics working for private ambulance services must remain reachable during paid work breaks so that they can respond immediately when needed. It’s a sensible proposal that would maintain the status quo among emergency responders, and voters should support it."[13]
  • The Mercury News: "For the past 50 years, privately owned and operated ambulance firms in California have had their crews remain on call during their work breaks, making themselves available to answer emergency calls and then taking their breaks as time permits later in their shifts. It’s a reasonable practice in a life-or-death business. Especially in rural areas, where backup crews are not readily available or practical. But a 2016 state Supreme Court ruling on a private security provider case threw the legality of on-call breaks among paramedics and EMTs into question."[14]
  • Monterey Herald: "Labor unions are opposed to this measure, which they argue is a special carve out for one industry. But Prop. 11 also protects workers, by requiring that meal breaks not be during the first or last hour of a shift and that breaks be spaced at least two hours apart. If workers are needed to respond to a call during a break, that break would not be counted as a required break. Voters should approve Proposition 11."[15]
  • The Orange County Register: "Adequate rest is undeniably important for all emergency workers, and Prop. 11 requires ambulance operators to maintain staffing “at levels sufficient” to allow employees to take rest breaks during their typical 12-hour shifts. A court-imposed requirement for emergency medical workers to turn off electronic communication devices during those breaks could needlessly put lives at risk. It is simply good sense to state that labor law entitling hourly employees to take meal and rest breaks without being on-call does not apply to private-sector emergency ambulance employees. Prop. 11 it deserves a Yes vote."[16]
  • The Sacramento Bee: "EMTs and paramedics typically work 12-hour shifts, and being on call makes it difficult to plan meal and rest breaks. But they can squeeze them in during down time; it’s also what they signed up for when they took the job. ... We generally support workers and their rights on the job. On these ballot measures, however, patients have to come first."[17]
  • The San Diego Union-Tribune: "Meanwhile, it appears many emergency medical technicians and paramedics are fine with the current practice. No one bothered to submit a formal statement of opposition to election officials for use in the official state voter guide."[18]
  • The San Luis Obispo Tribune: "Statewide, it could cost ambulance companies as much as $100 million per year in additional staffing and equipment costs if they had to provide ambulance crews with off-duty breaks. According to the Legislative Analyst, counties that contract for ambulance services would probably bear most of those costs."[19]

Opposition

  • Marin Independent Journal: "There’s a lot about this measure that makes sense, but asking voters to mandate that ambulance workers get paid for on-call time when, due to emergencies, they often wind up working on their breaks is not the kind of issue that should be resolved by voters, who are being flooded with campaign slogans. This is a matter for diligent review by state lawmakers."[20]
  • San Francisco Chronicle: "However, that bill stalled in the state Senate over two key issues: One was whether the interruptions could include less serious calls; the other was whether the legislation should effectively void pending labor-related lawsuits against American Medical Response, which also happens to be the funder of Prop. 11. Those workers should not be denied their day in court. This issue should be resolved in the Legislature, with all parties at the table to negotiate and compromise. Vote no on Prop. 11."[21]

Polls

See also: Ballotpedia's approach to covering polls
California Proposition 11 (2018)
Poll Support OpposeUndecidedMargin of errorSample size
SurveyUSA
10/12/2018 - 10/14/2018
54.0%26.0.0%20.0%+/-4.9762
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Background

What did California Labor Code state about work breaks?

The California Labor Code (CLC) is a collection of statutes that govern employer-employee relations in California, including wages, hours, breaks, and working conditions. As of 2018, the CLC states that employers, with exceptions for certain industries, cannot require employees to work during meal or rest breaks.[22] This provision mandating meal or rest breaks for employees, with exceptions, was passed in 2000. The legislation was passed 22-14 in the state Senate and 42-31 in the state Assembly. Gov. Gray Davis (D) signed the legislation into law.[23]

What happened in Augustus v. ABM Security Services?

On December 22, 2016, the California Supreme Court ruled in the case Augustus v. ABM Security Services that workers on rest breaks cannot be required to be on-call. The court determined that California Labor Code (CLC) prohibited employers from controlling how employees spend their break time.[3]

Jennifer Augustus, the lead plaintiff in the case, sued ABM Security Services, alleging that ABM required security guards to keep their pagers and radio phones on during breaks and to respond to calls when needs arose. The state Supreme Court sided with Augustus that ABM violated state Labor Code.[3]

What is American Medical Response?

American Medical Response (AMR) was the firm funding the campaign in support of the ballot initiative. AMR, a medical transportation company, is the largest provider of ambulance services in California.[24]

Between 2010 and 2018, American Medical Response had contributed to local Democratic and Republican parties in California, candidates for the California State Legislature of both major parties, local officials of both major parties, and, according to FEC, one congressional candidate in 2012—Aaron Schock of Illinois.[4][25]

Path to the ballot

See also: California signature requirements and Laws governing the initiative process in California

Process in California

In California, the number of signatures required for an initiated state statute is equal to 5 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 state statutes certified for the 2018 ballot:

  • Signatures: 365,880 valid signatures were required.
  • Deadline: The deadline for signature verification was June 28, 2018. However, the secretary of state suggested deadlines for turning in signatures of March 7, 2018, for initiatives needing a full check of signatures and April 24, 2018, for initiatives needing a random sample of signatures verified.

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 #17-0043

On October 25, 2017, Sean Henschel submitted a letter requesting a title and summary for the initiative. The attorney general's office issued ballot language on December 29, 2017, allowing proponents to begin collecting signatures.

Proponents of the initiative had until June 27, 2018, to collect 365,880 valid signatures. However, 657,744 signatures were filed earlier in late April 2018. At least 55.63 percent of the submitted signatures needed to be valid for the initiative to make the ballot. Counties had until June 19, 2018, to conduct a random sample of signatures.[26]

On June 18, 2018, Secretary of State Alex Padilla said his office received more than the 365,880 required signatures, qualifying the measure for the ballot. The random sample that counties conducted indicated that 515,539 signatures were valid. Therefore, around 78.4 percent of signatures were valid.[27]

Compared to the 15 ballot initiatives certified for the ballot in California in 2016, a 55.6 percent validation requirement was about six percentage points below the average for an initiative to make the ballot. The 15 ballot initiatives from 2016 had an average validation requirement of 61.9 percent, with a range between 58.1 and 67.4 percent.

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 $2,892,967.03 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 $7.91.

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in California

Poll times

All polls in California are open from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Pacific Time. An individual who is in line at the time polls close must be allowed to vote.[28]

Registration requirements

Check your voter registration status here.

To vote in California, an individual must be a U.S. citizen and California resident. A voter must be at least 18 years of age on Election Day. Pre-registration is available at 16 years of age. Pre-registered voters are automatically registered to vote when they turn 18.[29]

Automatic registration

California automatically registers eligible individuals to vote when they complete a driver's license, identification (ID) card, or change of address transaction through the Department of Motor Vehicles. Learn more by visiting this website.

Online registration

See also: Online voter registration

California has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website.

Same-day registration

California allows same-day voter registration.

Californians must be registered to vote at least 15 days before Election Day. If the registration deadline has passed for an upcoming election, voters may visit a location designated by their county elections official during the 14 days prior to, and including Election Day to conditionally register to vote and vote a provisional ballot, which are counted once county election officials have completed the voter registration verification process. The state refers to this process as Same Day Voter Registration.[30][31]

Residency requirements

To register to vote in California, you must be a resident of the state. State law does not specify a length of time for which you must have been a resident to be eligible.

Verification of citizenship

See also: Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States

California's constitution requires that voters be U.S. citizens. When registering to vote, proof of citizenship is not required. Individuals who become U.S. citizens less than 15 days before an election must bring proof of citizenship to their county elections office to register to vote in that election. An individual applying to register to vote must attest that they are a U.S. citizen under penalty of perjury.[30]

As of November 2024, two jurisdictions in California had authorized noncitizen residents to vote for local board of education positions through local ballot measures. Only one of those jurisdictions, San Francisco, had implemented that law. Noncitizens voting for board of education positions must register to vote using a separate application from the state voter registration application.[32]

All 49 states with voter registration systems require applicants to declare that they are U.S. citizens in order to register to vote in state and federal elections, under penalty of perjury or other punishment.[33] Seven states — Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, New Hampshire, and Wyoming — have laws requiring verification of citizenship at the time of voter registration, whether in effect or not. One state, Ohio, requires proof of citizenship only when registering to vote at a Bureau of Motor Vehicles facility. In three states — California, Maryland, and Vermont — at least one local jurisdiction allows noncitizens to vote in some local elections. Noncitizens registering to vote in those elections must complete a voter registration application provided by the local jurisdiction and are not eligible to register as state or federal voters.

Verifying your registration

The secretary of state's My Voter Status website allows residents to check their voter registration status online.

Voter ID requirements

California does not require voters to present identification before casting a ballot in most cases.

On September 29, 2024, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed SB 1174 into law prohibiting any jurisdiction in the state from adopting a local law that requires voters to present ID before voting.[34]

The federal Help America Vote Act requires that individuals in all 50 states who register to vote by mail and who have not voted previously in a federal election in their state must provide either their driver's license or a paycheck, bank statement, current utility bill, or government document showing their name and address. Individuals voting by mail must include a copy of one of those documents with their absentee/mail-in ballot.[35]

These requirements do not apply if an individual submitted a copy of their identification, their driver's license number or the last four digits of their Social Security number when registering to vote.

The following list of accepted ID to comply with HAVA requirements was current as of October 2025. Click here for the California Secretary of State page to ensure you have the most current information.

  • Current and valid photo identification provided by a third party in the ordinary course of business that includes the name and photograph of the individual presenting it. Examples of photo identification include, but are not limited to, the following documents:
    • driver's license or identification card of any state;
    • passport;
    • employee identification card;
    • identification card provided by a commercial establishment;
    • credit or debit card;
    • military identification card;
    • student identification card;
    • health club identification card;
    • insurance plan identification card; or
    • public housing identification card.
  • Any of the following documents, provided that the document includes the name and address of the individual presenting it, and is dated since the date of the last general election…:
    • utility bill;
    • bank statement;
    • government check;
    • government paycheck;
    • document issued by a governmental agency;
    • sample ballot or other official elections document issued by a governmental, agency dated for the election in which the individual is providing it as proof, of residency or identity;
    • voter notification card issued by a governmental agency;
    • public housing identification card issued by a governmental agency;
    • lease or rental statement or agreement issued by a governmental agency;
    • student identification card issued by a governmental agency;
    • tuition statement or bill issued by a governmental agency;
    • insurance plan card or drug discount card issued by a governmental agency;
    • discharge certificates, pardons, or other official documents issued to the individual by a governmental agency in connection with the resolution of a criminal case, indictment, sentence, or other matter;
    • public transportation authority senior citizen and disabled discount cards issued by a governmental agency;
    • identification documents issued by governmental disability agencies;
    • identification documents issued by government homeless shelters and other government temporary or transitional facilities;
    • drug prescription issued by a government doctor or other governmental health care provider;
    • property tax statement issued by a governmental agency;
    • vehicle registration issued by a governmental agency; or
    • vehicle certificate of ownership issued by a governmental agency.[6]

State profile

Demographic data for California
 CaliforniaU.S.
Total population:38,993,940316,515,021
Land area (sq mi):155,7793,531,905
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

See also

External links

Information

Support

Footnotes

  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 California Attorney General, "Initiative #17-0043," accessed October 31, 2017
  2. California Legislative Analyst, "A.G. File No. 2017-043," December 14, 2017
  3. 3.0 3.1 3.2 California Supreme Court, "Augustus v. ABM Security Services, December 22, 2016
  4. 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 Cal-Access, "Campaign Finance," accessed April 4, 2018
  5. 5.0 5.1 California Secretary of State, "Initiatives and Referenda Cleared for Circulation," accessed March 6, 2017
  6. 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
  7. 7.0 7.1 7.2 California Secretary of State, "Official Voter Information Guide November 2018," accessed August 21, 2018
  8. 8.0 8.1 Californians for Emergency Preparedness and Safety, "Homepage," accessed April 4, 2018
  9. LA School Report, "Analysis: California Teachers Association to spend up to $10 million supporting two statewide ballot initiatives — and opposing three others," June 26, 2018
  10. Freddie Rodriguez, "News, accessed October 12, 2018
  11. California Fair Political Practices Commission, "When to File Campaign Statements: State & Local Filing Schedules," accessed December 6, 2017
  12. Bakersfield Californian, "Our View: We recommend: Fix our roads, deliver clean, abundant water," September 30, 2018
  13. Los Angeles Times, "A vote for Proposition 11 is a sensible vote for public safety," September 21, 2018
  14. The Mercury News, "Editorial: Prop. 11 will solve ambulance workers’ on-call issue," August 10, 2018
  15. Monterey Herald, "Editorial: California voters should approve props 11 and 12," September 8, 2018
  16. The Orange County Register, "Yes on Proposition 11 for more sensible 911 services," October 5, 2018
  17. The Sacramento Bee, "On Propositions 8 and 11, vote to protect patient safety," September 12, 2018
  18. The San Diego Union-Tribune, "Prop. 11: Vote yes to maintain public safety with private first responders," September 21, 2018
  19. The San Luis Obispo Tribune, "From gas tax to rent control, here are The Tribune’s recommendations on 11 statewide props," October 26, 2018
  20. Marin Independent Journal, "Editorial: IJ’s recommendations on state propositions," October 17, 2018
  21. San Francisco Chronicle, "Chronicle recommends: No on California Prop. 11 — a measure that does not belong on the state ballot," September 9, 2018
  22. California State Legislature, "California Labor Code 226.7," accessed June 15, 2018
  23. California State Legislature, "AB-2509," accessed June 15, 2018
  24. American Medical Response, "Homepage," accessed June 15, 2018
  25. Federal Elections Commission, "Campaign Finance Data," accessed June 15, 2018
  26. California Secretary of State, "Ballot Measures," accessed August 29, 2017
  27. California Secretary of State, "Final Random Sample," accessed June 18, 2018
  28. California Secretary of State, "Section 3: Polling Place Hours," accessed August 12, 2024
  29. California Secretary of State, "Voter Registration," accessed August 13, 2024
  30. 30.0 30.1 California Secretary of State, "Registering to Vote," accessed August 13, 2024
  31. California Secretary of State, "Same Day Voter Registration (Conditional Voter Registration)," accessed August 13, 2024
  32. SF.gov, "Non-citizen voting rights in local Board of Education elections," accessed November 14, 2024
  33. 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."
  34. Democracy Docket, "California Governor Signs Law to Ban Local Voter ID Requirements," September 30, 2024
  35. Congress, "H.R.3295 - Help America Vote Act of 2002," accessed September 30, 2025