Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.

California Proposition 14, Stem Cell Research Institute Bond Initiative (2020)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
California Proposition 14
Flag of California.png
Election date
November 3, 2020
Topic
Bond issues and Stem cells
Status
Approveda Approved
Type
State statute		Origin
Citizens

California Proposition 14, the Stem Cell Research Institute Bond Initiative, was on the ballot in California as an initiated state statute on November 3, 2020. Proposition 14 was approved.

A "yes" vote supported issuing $5.5 billion in general obligation bonds for the state's stem cell research institute and making changes to the institute's governance structure and programs.

A "no" vote opposed issuing $5.5 billion in general obligation bonds for the state's stem cell research institute, which ran out funds derived from Proposition 71 (2004) for new projects in 2019.


Election results

California Proposition 14

Result Votes Percentage

Approved Yes

8,588,618 51.09%
No 8,222,154 48.91%
Results are officially certified.
Source


Overview

What did the ballot measure issue bonds for?

The ballot initiative authorized $5.5 billion in general obligation bonds for the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), which was created to fund stem cell research. In 2004, voters approved Proposition 71, which created CIRM, issued $3.00 billion in bonds to finance CIRM, and established a state constitutional right to conduct stem cell research.[1]

As of October 2019, CIRM had $132 million in funds remaining.[2] On July 1, 2019, CIRM suspended applications for new projects due to depleted funds.[3]

The ballot initiative required CIRM to spend no more than 7.5 percent of the bond funds on operation costs. The remaining bond funds were to be spent on grants to entities that conduct research, trials, and programs related to stem cells, as well as start-up costs for facilities. Some of the bond funds were set to be dedicated, including $1.5 billion for research on therapies and treatments for brain and nervous system diseases, such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and dementia. Upwards of 1.5 percent of the total funds were to be spent on Community Care Centers of Excellence (CCCE), which would be sites that conduct human clinical trials, treatments, and cures. Upwards of 0.5 percent of the total funds were to be spent on the Shared Labs Program (SLP), which are state-funded facilities dedicated to research on human embryonic stem cells.[1]

What changes did the ballot measure make to CIRM?

As of 2020, an Independent Citizen’s Oversight Committee (ICOC) was responsible for governing CIRM. Proposition 71 provided that the ICOC has 29 members with specific background requirements. The ballot initiative increased the number of members from 29 to 35. CIRM had three working groups that advise the ICOC, one each for medical research funding, research standards, and facilities grants. The ballot initiative created a fourth working group, which focused on improving access to treatments and cures. The ballot initiative also capped the number of bond-funded, full-time CIRM employees at 70 (plus an additional 15 dedicated to improving access to stem cell-derived therapies and treatments). The ballot initiative established training programs for undergraduate students and fellowships for graduate students related to advanced degrees and technical careers in stem cell research, treatments, and cures.[1]

Who was behind the campaigns surrounding the ballot initiative?

See also: Support, Opposition, and Campaign finance

Californians for Stem Cell Research, Treatments & Cures, a political action committee, led the campaign in support of the ballot initiative. The campaign received $19.73 million. Robert N. Klein II, a real estate investor and stem-cell research advocate, was the largest donor, contributing $8.08 million. Klein was also the chairman of Californians for Stem Cell Research, Treatments & Cures. He was the first chairperson of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, chief author of Proposition 71 (2004), and leader of the campaign behind Proposition 71.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title was as follows:[4]

“

Authorizes Bonds Continuing Stem Cell Research. Initiative Statute.[5]

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary was as follows:[4]

“
  • Authorizes $5.5 billion in state general obligation bonds to fund grants from the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine to educational, non-profit, and private entities for: stem cell and other medical research, including training; stem cell therapy development and delivery; research facility construction; and associated administrative expenses.
  • Dedicates $1.5 billion to research and therapy for Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, stroke, epilepsy, and other brain and central nervous system diseases and conditions.
  • Appropriates General Fund moneys to pay bond debt service.
  • Expands programs promoting stem cell and other medical research, therapy development and delivery, and student and physician training and fellowships.[5]
 ”

Fiscal impact

The fiscal impact statement was as follows:[4]

“

Increased state costs to repay bonds estimated at about $260 million per year over the next roughly 30 years.[5]

”

Full text

The full text of the ballot initiative is below:[1]

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2020
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 11.5, and the FRE is 24.5. The word count for the ballot title is 13, and the estimated reading time is 3 seconds. The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 16, and the FRE is 14. The word count for the ballot summary is 87, and the estimated reading time is 23 seconds.


Support

Californians for Stem Cell Research, Treatments & Cures 2020.png

Californians for Stem Cell Research, Treatments & Cures led the campaign in support of the ballot initiative. Robert N. Klein II, a real estate investor who funded the campaign behind Proposition 71, was chairperson of the campaign.[6]

Supporters

The campaign provided a list of supports on its website, which is available here.[7]

Officials

Political Parties

Organizations

  • ALS Association
  • American Association for Cancer Research
  • American Chronic Pain Association
  • American Diabetes Association
  • Arthritis Foundation
  • Bay Area Council
  • Epilepsy Foundation
  • Greater Riverside Chambers of Commerce
  • Huntington's Disease Society of America
  • JDRF (Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation)
  • Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce
  • National Hispanic Medical Association
  • National Medical Association
  • National Multiple Sclerosis Society
  • Oakland Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce
  • San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce
  • San Francisco Chamber of Commerce
  • The Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research
  • University of California Board of Regents


Arguments

  • Robert Klein: "This medical revolution holds the promise of restoring health and quality of life for many of California’s individuals and families suffering from chronic disease and injury. However, the last tactical mile to bring this broad spectrum of therapies to patients will require more funding and the thoughtful support of California’s public as the human trials and discoveries are refined and tested, overcome numerous obstacles or complications, and ultimately serve to improve the life and reduce the suffering of every one of us."


Official arguments

The following is the argument in support of Proposition 14 found in the Official Voter Information Guide:[8]

  • Official Voter Information Guide: PROPOSITION 14: STEM CELL TREATMENTS, CURES, AND SAVING LIVES. Nearly half of all California families include a child or adult with medical conditions who could benefit from Stem Cell research, treatments, and cures. Prop. 14 provides continued funding to develop treatments, advance clinical trials and achieve new scientific breakthroughs for California’s patients with Cancer, Diabetes, Heart Disease, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, HIV/AIDS, ALS, MS, Sickle Cell Disease, Lung Diseases, Kidney Disease, Bubble Baby Disease, Age–Related Blindness and Genetic Blindness, Epilepsy, Stroke, Schizophrenia, Autism, other Mental Health and Brain Conditions, and Infectious Diseases like COVID–19. BUILDING ON CONTINUING SUCCESS: 92 FDA–APPROVED CLINICAL TRIALS / 2,900 MEDICAL DISCOVERIES TO DATE. California’s original Stem Cell funding, which runs out this year, has already led to significant progress in the development of treatments and cures, including 92 FDA–approved clinical trials for chronic disease and injuries, over 2,900 medical discoveries, and demonstrated benefits for patients and research on chronic diseases including: Cancer, Diabetes, Heart Conditions, Blindness, HIV/AIDS, ALS, Children with Immune Deficiencies, Paralysis, and Kidney Disease. SUCCESS STORIES OF CALIFORNIA PATIENTS TREATED INCLUDE: • A high school student paralyzed in a diving accident has regained upper body function. • A mother blinded by a genetic disease is regaining her eyesight. • A cure was discovered for a fatal disease that causes children to be born without functioning immune systems. • FDA-approved treatments for two types of fatal blood cancers. Hear from more patients at www.YESon14.com/successes SUPPORTED BY OVER 70 PATIENT ADVOCATE ORGANIZATIONS. A YES vote on Prop. 14 is endorsed by the University of California, NOBEL PRIZE WINNERS, leading patient and medical science advocates, and more than 70 PATIENT ADVOCATE ORGANIZATIONS, including: American Association for Cancer Research • American Diabetes Association • Leukemia & Lymphoma Society • Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation • The Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research • ALS Association, Golden West Chapter • CURE—Citizens United for Research in Epilepsy • One Mind • Immune Deficiency Foundation • Women’s Alzheimer’s Movement • Alzheimer’s Los Angeles • Christopher & Dana Reeve Foundation for Paralysis • Cystic Fibrosis Research, Inc. • Arthritis Foundation • Sickle Cell Disease Foundation of California • Foundation for Fighting Blindness • San Francisco AIDS Foundation "Prop. 14 builds on California's progress to date, helping to accelerate medical breakthroughs out of the lab and into clinical trials, where they can help improve and save patient lives." —Dr. Adriana Padilla, Fresno INCREASES PATIENT ACCESS & AFFORDABILITY. Dedicates "The Treatment and Cures Accessibility and Affordability Working Group" experts to dramatically expand access to clinical trials and new therapies, make treatments and cures more affordable for Californians, and provide patients, their families, and caregivers with financial assistance. ECONOMIC AND JOBS RECOVERY STIMULUS. New revenues, economic activity and jobs are generated by this funding that will contribute to California's economic recovery. There are no State bond payments during the first five years; and, supporting California's Stem Cell program will only cost the State an average of less than $5 per person annually. ENSURES STRICT ACCOUNTABILITY & TRANSPARENCY. California's Controller chairs The Citizens Financial Accountability Oversight Committee, which reviews independent, financial, and performance audits, of the funding Institute. The Institute complies with California's Open Meeting Act, Public Records Act, and Political Reform Act. Chronic diseases, conditions and injuries are cutting lives short, and costing Californians billions in healthcare costs. We must continue our investment, developing Stem Cell treatments to improve the health and reduce the suffering of millions of Californians. VOTE YES ON 14. IT COULD SAVE YOUR LIFE OR THE LIFE OF SOMEONE YOU LOVE. www.YESon14.com ANTONI RIBAS, M.D., Ph.D., President American Association for Cancer Research CYNTHIA E. MUÑOZ, Ph.D., MPH, President American Diabetes Association–Los Angeles ROBERT A. HARRINGTON, M.D., Chairman Department of Medicine, Stanford University

Opposition

Opponents

Political Parties


Arguments

  • Marcy Darnovsky, executive director of the Center for Genetics and Society: "It does nothing to address CIRM’s built-in conflicts of interest, or its lack of legislative oversight — despite it being an agency supported wholly by public funds. The new proposition makes some things worse; for example, it outsources critically important decisions about ethical standards to an unaccountable national committee. ... While stem cell research is valuable, there are no longer federal limits on its funding, which was the justification in 2004 for asking California voters to allocate the first multi-billion-dollar pot of money. In the meantime, that campaign’s shameless over-promising and hype set the stage for the hundreds of under-regulated commercial stem cell clinics now offering unapproved ‘treatments’ that have caused tumors and blindness. ... Today, California faces an enormous budget deficit and proposals to slash high-priority social programs that benefit all of us. It remains to be seen whether voters will approve a new multi-billion-dollar measure for CIRM, instead of investing in healthcare, housing, jobs, education, and other pressing needs."


Official arguments

The following is the argument in opposition to Proposition 14 found in the Official Voter Information Guide:[9]

  • Official Voter Information Guide: WE CAN'T AFFORD TO WASTE BILLIONS In the middle of an economic crisis, with soaring unemployment and budget shortfalls in the tens of billions of dollars, we don’t have money to burn. We simply cannot afford the $5 billion that proponents of Prop. 14 are asking for. And that's on top of the nearly $3 billion this troubled state agency has spent over the past 15 years—with poor results. After "an extensive analysis" of spending by the State agency handing out billions in grants, the San Francisco Chronicle concluded: "The predicted financial windfall has not materialized." Only a few federally approved therapies have resulted. Don't believe the "economic impact" numbers from the proponents of Prop. 14. That "impact" includes: More than $100 million in grants to private companies headquartered in other states. More than $2.4 million in salary over the past decade to the part–time vice chairman of the board, a former California legislator who is neither a doctor nor a medical scientist. Outrageous. PROP. 14 FUNDS A BUREAUCRACY WITH SERIOUS PROBLEMS Some have questioned "the integrity and independence" of the state agency overseeing these funds. The Little Hoover Commission branded Robert Klein, the former chairman of the agency’s board, "a lightning rod for calls for more accountability." The Center for Society and Genetics in Berkeley has concluded that none of the flaws in the original stem cell initiative have been addressed in Prop. 14. In fact, they conclude, the problems are even worse. OTHERS CAN DO THIS JOB BETTER The National Institute of Health provides $1.5 billion a year in grants to fund the same type of research. Private investors and companies, including many in California, have made great strides in using stem cells to cure diseases—using private funds, not tax dollars. And don't be misled by the handful of grants this agency has made in recent months to researchers working on COVID–19. It's an obvious attempt—after spending billions on other priorities—to mislead voters in the middle of this pandemic. PROP. 14 MEANS HIGHER TAXES, LAYOFFS—OR BOTH Read the nearby summary, which quotes the estimate by the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst: "State costs of $7.8 billion to pay off principal ($5.5 billion) and interest ($2.3 billion) on the bonds." Paying back Prop.14's costs of $7.8 billion could mean huge tax increases—at a time when our economy is on its knees. Or laying off thousands of nurses and other heroes who do the real work of keeping California healthy. VOTE NO ON PROP. 14. WE CAN'T AFFORD TO WASTE BILLIONS VINCENT FORTANASCE, M.D. PATRICK JAMES BAGGOT, M.D.

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for California ballot measures

The Californians for Stem Cell Research, Treatments & Cures PAC was registered to support the ballot initiative. The committee raised $19.73 million.[10]

No on Proposition 14 was registered to oppose the ballot initiative. The PAC raised $1,350.[10]

Cash Contributions In-Kind Contributions Total Contributions Cash Expenditures Total Expenditures
Support $7,115,300.00 $12,610,445.47 $19,725,745.47 $11,733,947.41 $24,344,392.88
Oppose $1,350.00 $0.00 $1,350.00 $1,350.00 $1,350.00
Total $7,116,650.00 $12,610,445.47 $19,727,095.47 $11,735,297.41 $24,345,742.88

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in support of the ballot initiative.[10]

Committees in support of Proposition 14
Committee Cash Contributions In-Kind Contributions Total Contributions Cash Expenditures Total Expenditures
Yes on 14: Californians for Stem Cell Research, Treatments and Cures $7,115,300.00 $12,610,445.47 $19,725,745.47 $11,733,947.41 $24,344,392.88
Total $7,115,300.00 $12,610,445.47 $19,725,745.47 $11,733,947.41 $24,344,392.88

Donors

The following was the top five donors to the support committee.[10]

Donor Cash Contributions In-Kind Contributions Total Contributions
Robert N. Klein II (Klein Financial Corporation) $481,727.00 $7,601,486.91 $8,083,213.91
Dagmar Dolby $0.00 $2,059,000.00 $2,059,000.00
Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation $1,750,000.00 $0.00 $1,750,000.00
T. Denny Sanford $975,000.00 $0.00 $975,000.00
Ann Howland Doerr $950,000.00 $0.00 $950,000.00
Ann S. Tsukamoto $950,000.00 $0.00 $950,000.00
L. John Doerr, III $950,000.00 $0.00 $950,000.00

Opposition

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in support of the ballot initiative.[10]

Committees in opposition to Proposition 14
Committee Cash Contributions In-Kind Contributions Total Contributions Cash Expenditures Total Expenditures
No on Proposition 14 $1,350.00 $0.00 $1,350.00 $1,350.00 $1,350.00
Total $1,350.00 $0.00 $1,350.00 $1,350.00 $1,350.00

Media editorials

Ballotpedia identified the following media editorial boards as taking positions on the ballot initiative.

Support

  • The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board: "It’s an investment of about $5 per person per year for 30 years. Proponents say that money can be used to attract $7.7 billion in matching grants, fueling 100,000 jobs — essentially, a stimulus shot in the arm at a time when our state is reeling from the effects of COVID-19. ... It makes little sense to lose the momentum of a fine stem cell agency that has relieved the suffering of millions, and promises to help millions more. The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board recommends a yes vote on Prop. 14."


Opposition

  • The Orange County Register Editorial Board: "For one thing, times have changed and the original rationale — California doing what the feds wouldn’t — is no longer applicable. For another, private enterprise has taken a bigger interest and stepped up research in this field. For another, Prop. 14 doesn’t resolve a longstanding lack of oversight and accountability. And finally, imposing new costs on residents is hardly merited when most are struggling."
  • The Bakersfield Californian Editorial Board: "As California continues to struggle under the catastrophic burden of the coronavirus pandemic, increasing state budget deficits loom, public service cuts are likely and economic recovery is likely to take more than a decade. In 2009, President Barack Obama lifted most of the restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research and demand for the cells has been greatly reduced as other research and technologies have advanced. Adding $5.5 billion to the state debt for just stem cell research would be unwise in these economically dire times."
  • Mercury News & East Bay Times Editorial Board: "Prop. 71 was designed to kick-start the research at a time when federal funding was blocked. The hope was to establish California as a major player in what was regarded as a promising field. Now supporters are asking voters in the Nov. 3 election to approve issuing another $5.5 billion of bonds. More bonds should be out of the question. It’s time for California’s stem-cell agency to continue its work as a self-sustaining non-profit or close down and allow federal grants and private business to push the industry forward. Vote no on Proposition 14."
  • San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Board: "As The Chronicle also found, alongside the legitimate but halting progress toward effective therapies to which California has contributed, a whole industry of opportunistic quacks hawking stem cell snake oil has flourished across and beyond the state. That’s not the institute’s fault, but it is a byproduct of the aggressive promotion of theoretical medical treatments directly to the public — and another reason to vote no on Prop. 14."
  • Los Angeles Times Editorial Board: "If CIRM needs money for a basic operating budget over the next couple of years, that could be covered by the state’s general fund. The agency still needs to administer already-funded projects and could use that time to discuss a more affordable path forward. Right now, the state has other, more urgent spending priorities."
  • The Desert Sun Editorial Board: "The use of such public debt, especially post-COVID-19, should be on actual programs that deal with real problems California faces right now. These must be the priority for the voter dime. The medical industrial complex — already flush and which during this pandemic has been raking in billions in accelerated research funding — should be covering this type of investment in tandem with federal government funding."
  • The Press Democrat Editorial Board: "After 16 years, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine is well established, and its successes should allow it to secure other sources of funding, including federal funding as the Bush-era restrictions have been lifted. The state, meanwhile, is struggling to balance its books, and it wouldn’t be wise to take on more debt at this time. The Press Democrat recommends a no vote on Proposition 14."
  • San Mateo Daily Journal Editorial Board: "At the time, the Bush administration had cut funding for such research and there was a promise that the research would yield tremendous medical advances. While advances have been made, it is time for the institute to find its own funding through other means."


Background

California Proposition 71 (2004)

See also: California Proposition 71, Stem Cell Research Initiative (2004)

In 2004, voters approved Proposition 71, which was a ballot initiative designed to establish a state constitutional right to conduct stem cell research, create the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), and issue $3.00 billion in general obligation bonds to fund CIRM.[11]

Yes on 71, also known as the Coalition for Stem Cell Research and Cures, led the campaign in support of Proposition 71. Yes on 71 received $24.33 million in contributions. The largest donors included Robert N. Klein II (Klein Financial Corporation), who provided $3.15 million, Ann Doerr, who provided $1.99 million, and John Doerr, who provided $1.99 million.[12]

No on 71, also known as Doctors, Patients & Taxpayers for Fiscal Responsibility, led the campaign against Proposition 71. The campaign received $499,287 in contributions, including $220,000 from Fieldstead & Company, $50,000 from Don Sebastiani, and $25,000 from the Catholic Common Good Foundation of California.[13]

California Institute for Regenerative Medicine

Proposition 71 established the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) in the California Constitution.[11] As of 2020, CIRM was headquartered in San Francisco, California.[14]

Article XXXV provided CIRM with three purposes:[11]

(1) to "make grants and loans for stem cell research, for research facilities, and for other vital research opportunities to realize therapies, protocols, and/or medical procedures that will result in, as speedily as possible, the cure for, and/or substantial mitigation of, major diseases, injuries, and orphan diseases."
(2) to "support all stages of the process of developing cures, from laboratory research through successful clinical trials."
(3) to "establish the appropriate regulatory standards and oversight bodies for research and facilities development."

An Independent Citizen’s Oversight Committee (ICOC) was responsible for governing CIRM, including the institute's funding decisions. Proposition 71 provided that the ICOC has 29 members with specific background requirements.[11]

Proposition 71 also required CIRM to have three working groups to advise the ICOC—(1) the Scientific and Medical Research Funding Working Group, (2) the Scientific and Medical Accountability Standards Working Group, and (3) the Scientific and Medical Research Facilities Working Group.[11]

Proposition 71 required grant recipients to share a portion of their income resulting from inventions. Between 2004 and 2019, the state received $352,560 from grant recipients' incomes.[2]

Grants

The following is a list of the grants that CIRM issued between 2004 and 2020:[15]

Bond issues on the ballot in California

See also: Bond issues on the ballot

Californians cast ballots on 44 bond issues, totaling $188.656 billion in value, from January 1, 1993, through June 1, 2020. Voters approved 32 (73 percent) of the bond measures—a total of $151.174 billion. Eight of the measures were citizen's initiatives, and five of the eight citizen-initiated bonds were approved. The legislature referred 36 bond measures to the ballot, and 27 of 36 legislative referrals were approved. The most common purpose of a bond measure during the 25 years between 1993 and 2020 was water infrastructure, for which there were nine bond measures.

Click show to expand the bond revenue table.

Path to the ballot

See also: 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 2020 ballot:

  • Signatures: 623,212 valid signatures were required.
  • Deadline: The deadline for signature verification was June 25, 2020. However, the process of verifying signatures can take multiple months. The recommended deadlines were March 3, 2020, for an initiative requiring a full check of signatures and April 21, 2020, for an initiative requiring a random sample of signatures.

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.

Stages of this initiative

On October 10, 2019, Robert N. Klein filed the ballot initiative.[1] Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D) released ballot language for the initiative on December 17, 2019, which allowed proponents to begin collecting signatures. The deadline to file signatures was June 15, 2020.

On February 13, 2020, proponents announced that the number of collected signatures surpassed the 25-percent threshold (155,803 signatures) to require legislative hearings on the ballot initiative.[16] In 2014, Senate Bill 1253 was enacted into law, which required the legislature to assign ballot initiatives that meet the 25-percent threshold to committees to hold joint public hearings on the initiatives not later than 131 days before the election.

On March 21, 2020, Sarah Melbostad, a spokeswoman for Californians for Stem Cell Research, Treatments, and Cures, reported that the campaign's signature drive was suspended due to the coronavirus pandemic. Melbostad said, "In keeping with the governor’s statewide order for non-essential businesses to close and residents to remain at home, we’ve suspended all signature gathering for the time being. ... We’re confident that we still have time to qualify and plan to proceed accordingly."[17]

On May 5, 2020, the campaign submitted 924,216 signatures for the ballot initiative.[18] At least 623,212 (67.43 percent) of the signatures needed to be valid. On June 22, 2020, the office of Secretary of State Alex Padilla announced that a random sample of signatures projected that 78.14 percent were valid. Therefore, the ballot initiative qualified to appear on the ballot at the general election.[19]

Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure received in-kind contributions from Robert N. Klein II to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $4,145,719.73 was spent to collect the 623,212 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $6.65.

See also

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in California

Click "Show" to learn more about voter registration, identification requirements, and poll times in California.

External links

Information

Support

Footnotes

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 California Attorney General, "Initiative 19-0022," October 10, 2019
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 California Legislative Analyst, "Initiative Analysis," accessed May 6, 2020
  3. ↑ California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, "Breaking bad news to stem cell researchers," July 1, 2019
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 California Secretary of State, "Ballot Title and Summary," accessed July 28, 2020
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
  6. ↑ Californians for Stem Cell Research, Treatments & Cures, "Homepage," accessed May 6, 2020
  7. ↑ Californians for Stem Cell Research, Treatments & Cures, "Coalition," accessed June 22, 2020
  8. ↑ California Secretary of State, "Official Voter Information Guide," accessed September 28, 2020
  9. ↑ California Secretary of State, "Official Voter Information Guide," accessed September 28, 2020
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 Cal-Access, "Campaign Finance," accessed May 5, 2020
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 California Secretary of State, "Voter Guide General Election 2004," accessed May 6, 2020
  12. ↑ Cal-Access, "Yes on 71," accessed June 22, 2020
  13. ↑ Cal-Access, "No on 71," accessed June 22, 2020
  14. ↑ California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, "History," accessed June 22, 2020
  15. ↑ California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, "Grants," accessed June 23, 2020
  16. ↑ California Secretary of State, "Proponent Letter of 25% of Signatures Reached," February 13, 2020
  17. ↑ California Stem Cell Report, "California's $5.5 Billion Stem Cell Initiative: Signature Gathering Suspended Due to Coronavirus," March 21, 2020
  18. ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "California stem cell advocates submit signatures for $5.5 billion bond measure," May 5, 2020
  19. ↑ California Secretary of State, "Final Random Sample," June 22, 2020
  20. ↑ California Secretary of State, "Section 3: Polling Place Hours," accessed August 12, 2024
  21. ↑ California Secretary of State, "Voter Registration," accessed August 13, 2024
  22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 California Secretary of State, "Registering to Vote," accessed August 13, 2024
  23. ↑ California Secretary of State, "Same Day Voter Registration (Conditional Voter Registration)," accessed August 13, 2024
  24. ↑ SF.gov, "Non-citizen voting rights in local Board of Education elections," accessed November 14, 2024
  25. ↑ 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."
  26. ↑ California Secretary of State, "What to Bring to Your Polling Place," accessed August 12, 2024
  27. ↑ BARCLAYS OFFICIAL CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, "Section 20107," accessed August 12, 2024
  28. ↑ Democracy Docket, "California Governor Signs Law to Ban Local Voter ID Requirements," September 30, 2024
v • e
2020 ballot measures
I&R States
 • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Florida • Idaho • Illinois • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Mexico • North Dakota • Oklahoma • Oregon • South Dakota • Utah • Washington • Wyoming
Non I&R States
 • Alabama • Georgia • Iowa • Kentucky • Louisiana • New Jersey • Rhode Island • Virginia • Wisconsin
Political topics
Other
Flag of California
v • e
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

Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=California_Proposition_14,_Stem_Cell_Research_Institute_Bond_Initiative_(2020)&oldid=9130182"