California Proposition 66, Death Penalty Procedures (2016)
| California Proposition 66, Death Penalty Procedures | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 8, 2016 | |
| Topic Death penalty | |
Status Approved | |
| Type State statute | Origin Citizens |
California Proposition 66, the Death Penalty Procedures Initiative, was on the November 8, 2016, ballot in California as an initiated state statute.[1] The measure was approved.
| A "yes" vote supported changing the procedures governing state court appeals and petitions that challenge death penalty convictions and sentences. |
| A "no" vote opposed changing the procedures governing state court appeals and petitions that challenge death penalty convictions and sentences, thereby keeping the state's system for governing death penalty appeals and petitions unchanged. |
Proposition 66 was designed to shorten the time that legal challenges to death sentences take to a maximum of five years.[2]
Supporters referred to the measure as the "Death Penalty Reform and Savings" Initiative.
Aftermath
On November 9, 2016, litigation was filed against Proposition 66 in the California Supreme Court. Plaintiffs John Van de Kamp, a former California Attorney General, and Ron Briggs, a former El Dorado County supervisor, argued that Proposition 66 is unconstitutional. Ron Briggs stated, "Proposition 66 violates the constitution by keeping the [state] Supreme Court and the appeals court out of the system."[3] The plaintiffs also said that the initiative would set "an inordinately short timeline for the courts to review those complex cases" and incentivize lawyers to "cut corners in their investigation and representation."[4][5]
Kent Scheidegger, who helped write the initiative, responded to the lawsuit, saying, "I've been fighting against the death penalty opponents for a long time, and I know they'll really stop at nothing. ... I think the people who are opposed to the death penalty should respect the will of the people."[3]
The California Supreme Court stayed the implementation of Proposition 66 on December 20, 2016.[6] On February 1, 2017, the court agreed to take up the case and scheduled briefings through April 6, 2017.[7]
Election results
| Proposition 66 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 6,626,159 | 51.13% | ||
| No | 6,333,731 | 48.87% | ||
- Election results from California Secretary of State
Overview
Status of the death penalty in California
As of 2016, California was one of 30 states in which the death penalty was legal.[8]
In 1972, the California Supreme Court ruled that the state’s capital punishment system was unconstitutional. However, in 1978, Proposition 7 reinstated the death penalty. Voters rejected an initiative to ban capital punishment, titled Proposition 34, in 2012.
Initiative design
Instead of the California Supreme Court, Proposition 66 was designed to put trial courts in charge of initial petitions, known as habeas corpus petitions, challenging death penalty convictions. The measure mandated that the judge who handled the original murder case hear the habeas corpus petition, unless good cause can be shown for another judge or court. It allowed petitions to be appealed to California Courts of Appeal and then finally to the California Supreme Court. The measure required the habeas corpus petition process and appeals to be completed within five years after the death sentence. Proposition 66 changed the qualifications required to represent convicted inmates in order to "ensure competent representation" and "expand the number of attorneys." It replaced the Supreme Court with trial courts as the judicial body that appoints attorneys for habeas corpus petitions. Inmates on death row would be required to work, subject to state regulations, and provide wages as restitution owed to the inmate's victims under Proposition 66. The measure mandated that the portion of wages to be provided as restitution would be 70 percent or the restitution fine, whichever is less. It authorized the state to house death row inmates in any prison, rather than the one death row prison for men and one death row prison for women.[2]
Status of the ballot measure campaigns
Yes on Prop 66 raised $13.35 million, and No on 66 received $13.92 million. Yes on 66 spent contributions to approve Proposition 66 and defeat Proposition 62. No on 66 spent contributions to defeat Proposition 66 and approve Proposition 62. Polls indicated support for Proposition 66 was near 41 percent, although around 31 percent of respondents were undecided, prior to the election. The California Republican Party supported Proposition 66, and the California Democratic Party opposed the measure.
Proposition 66 vs. Proposition 62
Proposition 66 and Proposition 62 were not compatible measures. Therefore, if both were approved by a majority of voters, then the one with the most "yes" votes would have superseded the other. Proposition 62, however, was defeated. The table below outlines some of the major differences between the two initiatives:
| Proposition 62 | Proposition 66 |
|---|---|
| Repeals the death penalty. | Keeps the death penalty in place. |
| Replaces the death penalty with life in prison without the possibility of parole as the maximum punishment for murder. | Changes the death penalty procedures to speed up the appeals process by putting trial courts in charge of initial petitions challenging death penalty convictions, establishing a time frame for death penalty review, and requiring appointed attorneys to work on death penalty cases. |
| Retroactively applies to prisoners already on death row at the time that the measure would take effect. | Stipulates that all effects would occur once Proposition 66 is enacted and authorizes death row inmate transfers among California prisons. |
| Would require prisoners sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole to work and pay restitution to victims' families. The portion of wages to be provided as restitution would be between 20 to 60 percent. | Would require prisoners on death row to work while in prison and pay restitution to victims' families. The portion of wages to be provided as restitution would be 70 percent or the restitution fine, whichever is less. |
| Stipulates that any provision found to be invalid will not affect the other provisions of the measure. | Stipulates that other death penalty measures approved would be void in the event that more affirmative votes are given for Proposition 66. |
Text of measure
Ballot title
The official ballot title was as follows:[9]
| “ | Death Penalty. Procedures. Initiative Statute.[10] | ” |
Ballot summary
The long-form ballot summary was as follows:[2]
| “ |
|
” |
The shorter ballot label summary was as follows:[2]
| “ |
Changes procedures governing state court challenges to death sentences. Designates superior court for initial petitions and limits successive petitions. Requires appointed attorneys who take noncapital appeals to accept death penalty appeals. Exempts prison officials from existing regulation process for developing execution methods. Fiscal Impact: Unknown ongoing impact on state court costs for processing legal challenges to death sentences. Potential prison savings in the tens of millions of dollars annually.[10] |
” |
The long-form, official ballot summary for Proposition 66 was identical to the initial summary provided to initiative proponents for the purpose of circulating the initiative for signature collection.
Fiscal impact
Note: The fiscal impact statement for a California ballot initiative authorized for circulation is jointly prepared by the state's legislative analyst and its director of finance. The statement was as follows:[9]
| “ |
|
” |
Full text
The full text of the measure was available here.
Support
Californians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty, also known as No on Prop 62, Yes on Prop 66, led the campaign in support of Proposition 66.[11]
Supporters
Officials
- U.S. Rep. Tom McClintock (R-4)[12]
- U.S. Rep. Ed Royce (R-39)[13]
- U.S. Rep. Mimi Walters (R-45)
- Sen. Jeff Stone (R-28)
- Sen. Cathleen Galgiani (D-5)
- Rep. Young Kim (R-65)
- Mayor James Bozajian, Calabasas
- Councilmember Mike Spence, West Covina
- Kevin Kiley (R), candidate for State Assembly
Former officials
- Gov. Pete Wilson (R)[13]
- Gov. George Deukmejian (R)
- Judge Quentin L. Kopp, San Mateo County Superior Court
- Councilmember Harry Sidhu, Anaheim
Parties
Organizations
Police organizations
Other organizations
|
Individuals
District attorneys
Sheriffs
|
Arguments
Supporters made the following arguments in support of Proposition 66:[2]
- The proposition would keep the death penalty system, which California needs.
- The proposition would speed up the death penalty appeals process while ensuring that no innocent person is executed.
- The proposition would mean that the worst criminals receive the strongest sentence.
- The proposition would provide closure to victims' families.
- The proposition would save taxpayers millions of dollars.
Official arguments
Jackie Lacey, District Attorney of Los Angeles County, Kermit Alexander, a family member of a multiple-homicide crime, and Shawn Welch, president of the Contra Costa County Deputy Sheriffs Association, wrote the official argument in support of Proposition 66 found in the state's voters guide. Their argument was as follows:[2]
California's elected law enforcement leaders, police officers, frontline prosecutors, and the families of murder victims ask you to REFORM the California death penalty system by voting YES ON PROPOSITION 66! We agree California's current death penalty system is broken. The most heinous criminals sit on death row for 30 years, with endless appeals delaying justice and costing taxpayers hundreds of millions. It does not need to be this way. The solution is to MEND, NOT END, California's death penalty. The solution is YES on PROPOSITION 66. Proposition 66 was written to speed up the death penalty appeals system while ensuring that no innocent person is ever executed. Proposition 66 means the worst of the worst killers receive the strongest sentence. Prop 66 brings closure to the families of victims. Proposition 66 protects public safety — these brutal killers have no chance of ever being in society again. Prop 66 saves taxpayers money, because heinous criminals will no longer be sitting on death row at taxpayer expense for 30+ years. Proposition 66 was written by frontline death penalty prosecutors who know the system inside and out. They know how the system is broken, and they know how to fix it. It may sound complicated, but the reforms are actually quite simple. HERE'S WHAT PROPOSITION 66 DOES: 1. All state appeals should be limited to 5 years. Together, these reforms will save California taxpayers over $30,000,000 annually, according to former California Finance Director Mike Genest, while making our death penalty system work again. WE NEED A FUNCTIONING DEATH PENALTY SYSTEM IN CALIFORNIA Death sentences are issued rarely and judiciously, and only against the very worst murderers. To be eligible for the death penalty in California, you have to be guilty of first-degree murder with "special circumstances." These special circumstances include, in part: - Murderers who raped/tortured their victims. There are nearly 2,000 murders in California annually. Only about 15 death penalty sentences are imposed. But when these horrible crimes occur, and a jury unanimously finds a criminal guilty and separately, unanimously recommends death, the appeals should be heard within five years, and the killer executed. Help us protect California, provide closure to victims, and save taxpayers millions. Visit www.NoProp62YesProp66.com for more information. |
Opposition
No on 66 led the campaign in opposition to Proposition 66.[15]
Opponents
Officials
- Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D)[16]
- U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D)
- U.S. Rep. Jared Huffman (D-2)
- U.S. Rep. Ted Lieu (D-33)[17]
- U.S. Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-19)
- Rep. David Chui (D-17)
- Rep. Kevin McCarty (D-7)
- Supervisor Jane Kim (D), San Francisco
- Councilmember Eric Guerra (D), Sacramento
- Gary Johnson, 2016 Libertarian presidential candidate
Former officials
- Attorney General John Van de Kamp (D)[16]
- Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa (D), Los Angeles
- Mayor Willie Brown (D), San Francisco
- Judge LaDoris Cordell, Santa Clara County Superior Court
Parties
- California Democratic Party[18]
- Libertarian Party of California[19]
- Green Party of California[20]
- California Peace and Freedom Party[21]
- Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club[22]
- Santa Monica Democratic Club[23]
Organizations
Civic organizations
Religious organizations
Unions |
Individuals
Activists
Journalists
Religious leaders
Academics
|
Arguments
Opponents made the following arguments in opposition to Proposition 66:[2]
- The proposition would cost taxpayers millions of dollars unnecessarily, due to increased prison spending, legal defense, death row facility construction, and litigation.
- The proposition is poorly written and confusing.
- The proposition would increase California's risk of executing an innocent person, and would remove important legal safeguards.
Official arguments
Jeanne Woodford, a former warden at the state's death row prison, Francisco Carrillo, Jr., an innocent man wrongfully convicted, and former Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa (D) of Los Angeles wrote the official argument against Proposition 66 found in the state's voters guide. Their argument was as follows:[2]
Prop. 66 WASTES TENS OF MILLIONS OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS. Evidence shows MORE THAN 150 INNOCENT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN SENTENCED TO DEATH, and some have been executed because of poorly written laws like this one. Prop. 66 is so confusing and poorly written that we don't know all of its consequences. We do know this: it will add more layers of government bureaucracy causing more delays, cost taxpayers money, and increase California's risk of executing an innocent person. Experts agree: Prop. 66 is DEEPLY FLAWED.
According to nonpartisan analysis, Prop. 66 could cost "tens of millions of dollars annually" with "unknown" costs beyond that. Read the LAO's report posted at www.NoOnCAProp66.org/cost. Experts say Prop. 66 will:
"Prop. 66 is so flawed that it's impossible to know for sure all the hidden costs it will inflict on California taxpayers." —John Van de Kamp, former Attorney General of California.
This measure is modeled after laws from states like Texas, where authorities have executed innocent people. People like Cameron Willingham and Carlos De Luna, both executed in Texas. Experts now say they were innocent. Prop. 66 will:
"If someone's executed and later found innocent, we can't go back." —Judge LaDoris Cordell, Santa Clara (retired).
SF Weekly stated, "Combing through the initiative's 16 pages is like looking through the first draft of an undergraduate paper. The wording is vague, unfocused and feels tossed off." Instead of adding new layers of government bureaucracy and increasing costs, we deserve real reform of our justice system. Prop. 66 is not the answer. "Instead of reckless, costly changes to our prison system, we need smart investments that are proven to reduce crime and serve victims."- Dionne Wilson, widow of police officer killed in the line of duty. |
Campaign finance
| Total campaign contributions[28] as of February 1, 2017[29] | |
 Support:
|
$13,354,270.68 |
 Opposition:
|
$13,916,025.29 |
As of February 1, 2017, the support campaign for Proposition 66 raised $13,354,270.68, and the opposition campaign had raised $13,916,025.29.[30]
Support
As of February 1, 2017, the following PACs were registered to support Proposition 66. The committees were also registered in opposition to Proposition 62. The total amount raised and expended below were current as of February 1, 2017.[31]
- Note: The total does not simply equal the two committees' contributions because one committee contributed money to the other committee. Counting the money twice in the total would be redundant. See the methodology section for more information.
| PAC | Amount raised | Amount spent |
|---|---|---|
| CALIFORNIANS TO MEND, NOT END, THE DEATH PENALTY. NO ON PROP 62, YES ON PROP 66. SUPPORTED BY PROSECUTORS, LAW ENFORCEMENT, AND FAMILIES OF VICTIMS | $4,918,381.94 | $5,612,251.80 |
| CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION TRUTH IN AMERICAN GOVERNMENT FUND; NO ON PROPOSITION 62, YES ON PROPOSITION 66 (NON-PROFIT 501 (C) 5) | $8,372,260.10 | $1,688,100.00 |
| LOS ANGELES POLICE PROTECTIVE LEAGUE ISSUES PAC - YES ON 66 | $980,950.50 | $359,795.71 |
| SAN FRANCISCO POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION ISSUES PAC - YES ON 66, NO ON 62 | $159,386.00 | $207,723.85 |
| Total | $13,354,270.68 | $6,791,163.50 |
As of February 1, 2017, the top five largest donors in support of Proposition 66 were:[32]
| Donor | Amount |
|---|---|
| Peace Officers Research Association of California Political Issues Committee (PORAC PIC) | $755,000 |
| California Correctional Peace Officers Association Truth in American Government Fund | $703,304 |
| California Association of Highway Patrolmen | $250,000 |
| Los Angeles Police Protective League Issues PAC | $225,000 |
| Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs State PIC | $210,000 |
Opposition
Five ballot measure campaign committees were registered to oppose Proposition 66 as of February 1, 2017. The committees received the following total contributions as of February 1, 2017. Some of the committees were also registered in support of Proposition 62. The expenditures listed were current as of February 1, 2017.[31]
| Committee | Amount raised | Amount spent |
|---|---|---|
| YES ON 62, NO ON 66. REPLACE THE COSTLY, FAILED DEATH PENALTY SYSTEM. SPONSORED BY TAXPAYERS FOR SENTENCING REFORM | $7,863,302.79 | $7,995,802.56 |
| PROTEUS ACTION LEAGUE NON-PROFIT 501 (C)(4) ORGANIZATION, OPPOSING MEASURE 66. | $96,790.12 | $96,790.12 |
| No On Prop 66 Sponsored By Powerpac.org And American Civil Liberties Union Of Northern California, With Help From Organizations For Fair Justice Click here for details | $1,640,932.38 | $1,612,003.36 |
| MILLION VOTER PROJECT ACTION FUND - YES ON 55, 56, 57, 58, 62, AND NO ON 66, SPONSORED BY SOCIAL JUSTICE ORGANIZATIONS | $2,110,000.00 | $2,110,000.00 |
| FUND FOR POLICY REFORM (NONPROFIT 501(C)(4)) | $6,140,000.00 | $6,140,000.00 |
| Total | $13,916,025.29 | $14,019,596.04 |
As of February 1, 2017, the top five largest donors in opposition to Proposition 66 were:[32]
| Donor | Amount |
|---|---|
| Thomas Steyer | $1,850,000 |
| Nicholas McKeown | $1,500,000 |
| Reed Hastings | $1,000,000 |
| Laurene Powell Jobs, Including Emerson Collective, LLC. | $600,000 |
| Paul Graham | $500,000 |
Methodology
In calculating campaign finance for supporting and opposing committees, Ballotpedia does not count donations or expenditures from one ballot measure committee to another since that would amount to counting the same money twice. This method is used to give the most accurate information concerning how much funding was actually provided to and spent by the opposing and supporting campaigns.
Ballotpedia subtracts out committee-to-committee contributions—both cash donations and in-kind contributions. Because of this, it is possible for certain committees to have negative contributions. Negative contributions mean that a committee has provided more contributions to other committees than it has received. If expenditures exceed contributions, it means the committee has accrued unpaid bills, has unpaid or unforgiven loans, or has contributed a certain amount of in-kind services to another committee.
Ballotpedia provides information about all reported in-kind donations. In-kind contributions are also counted towards total expenditures since, with in-kind gifts, the contribution and services or goods are provided simultaneously. Ballotpedia does this to provide the most accurate information about the cash-on-hand of supporting and opposing campaigns.
Media editorials
Support
- The Record: “Our consensus is a no vote on Proposition 62 and yes on 66. We do not feel the death penalty should be abolished with so many on death row (whose sentences would be converted to life in prison). We do, however, concur that the process for legal challenges should not be so drawn out.”[33]
- San Mateo Daily Journal recommended a "Yes" vote on Proposition 66.[34]
Opposition
- The Bakersfield Californian: "The competing Proposition 66 is a flawed attempt to salvage the death penalty by speeding up its imposition. That simply won’t work and Californians will continue to waste billions of dollars on a 'penalty' that has not been imposed for years."[35]
- Chico Enterprise-Record: "Proposition 66 doesn’t seem to be the fix that we were envisioning for the death penalty dilemma. It proposes some things that disturb us, like eliminating public oversight of execution methods."[36]
- East Bay Express: "The repeal of capital punishment, a baldly barbaric fixture of the criminal justice system, through the passage of Proposition 62 this November, is morally imperative for California voters. The bloodlust of the competing measure, to expedite appeals and executions through Prop. 66, is unconscionable. One-in-ten death sentences are overturned."[37]
- East Bay Times and The Mercury News: "Donald Heller wrote the 1978 proposition that brought back capital punishment. He now favors abolishing it. He knows that it costs California $90,000 a year more per prisoner on death row than it costs to jail our worst criminals for life. No other Western nation has the death penalty. California shouldn't share the values of places such as North Korea, China, Pakistan, Libya, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Vote no on Proposition 66 -- and vote yes on Proposition 62. Abolish the death penalty in California."[38][39]
- Los Angeles Daily News: "The measure also sets an arbitrary five-year limit by which courts are supposed to decide a series of appeals. Expedience should not be the goal in a system that could potentially execute an innocent person. To date, more than 150 people nationwide have been exonerated from death row, including three in California."[40]
- Los Angeles Times: "How dysfunctional is the system? Since voters reinstated the death penalty nearly 40 years ago, 1,039 convicted murderers have received death sentences, but the state has executed only 13, in part because death penalty appeals take about 25 years, according to experts. During the same period, 104 condemned inmates died of natural causes, suicides or other non-execution means — and the system has cost taxpayers about $5 billion. Something clearly has to be changed. The answer, however, is not to speed up the machinery of death, but to dismantle it. That’s why The Times urges a yes vote on Proposition 62 and a no vote on Proposition 66."[41]
- The Modesto Bee: "Vote for Proposition 66, and deadly mistakes will be made. Pass Proposition 62, and at least our conscience will be clear."[42]
- Monterey County Herald: "The death penalty hasn’t worked, and the only success — if such a word can be used with capital punishment — is a legal industry generated among various groups that have fought it tooth and nail, rendering the sentence essentially toothless."[43]
- Orange County Register: "California has spent billions of dollars on the flawed death penalty system since 1978. Potentially unworkable tweaks to a failed system aren’t what California needs."[44]
- The Sacramento Bee: "Proposition 66 might resolve that lethal-injection issue by embedding into law a method that courts have deemed to be constitutional. But even if it all works, Californians must ask themselves whether they want an efficient death penalty system, and all that would entail."[45]
- San Diego City Beat: “While we would be willing to make valid repairs to the death penalty, this is an expensive, empty promise. Speeding up a complex system should render hesitation, and the proposed timeline is unrealistic. Also, there’s no clear path to obtaining lethal injection drugs right now. These changes aren’t worth the chances of executing an innocent person.”[46]
- San Diego Free Press and OB Rag called for a "No" vote on Proposition 66.[47]
- San Diego Union-Tribune: "We recommend a yes vote on Proposition 62 and no on Proposition 66 for a different reason that is more practical than emotional: The branches of California’s government have for decades shown they don’t like the death penalty and don’t want it to be used. If Proposition 66 were enacted, history suggests its fixes would not be executed with good faith."[48]
- San Francisco Chronicle: "Californians have been offered two options on the Nov. 8 ballot to 'fix' a system of capital punishment that all sides agree has produced enormous legal bills, no semblance of deterrence to would-be murderers and too little justice to victims’ loved ones over the past four decades. ... The other, Prop. 66, proposes a highly complex, probably very expensive and constitutionally questionable scheme for streamlining the appeals process in hopes of shaving years off the timeline between conviction and execution. Even the most ardent advocates of capital punishment should be wary of the promises in Prop. 66. Its core time-saving provisions would reduce the number of habeas petitions and tighten the deadlines for filing (within one year of acquiring an attorney) and resolving appeals (within five years). In so doing, it brushes aside the legal and practical realities in the way of achieving any time savings."[49]
- San Francisco Examiner: "Government must function to value and preserve life whenever possible, even among those who have acted unforgivably to the contrary. Beyond arguments of cost savings and critiques of a biased justice system, a civilized society must stand against institutionalized brutality and murder."[50]
- Santa Clarita Valley Signal: "The second, Proposition 66, would revise the death penalty in an apparent bid to speed up executions through a series of procedural adjustments that we suspect would have little to no effect. ... We urge you to vote 'yes' on the first death penalty measure on the ballot, Proposition 62, and vote 'no' on the second death penalty measure, Proposition 66."[51]
- Santa Cruz Sentinel: "There’s a competing death penalty ballot measure, Proposition 66, which seeks to remedy the high costs and long delays by speeding up the process of executing convicts. But while current delays are unacceptable, speed is hardly of the essence when taking a human life."[52]
- Santa Rosa Press Democrat: "Rather than funding an expansion of the state public defender’s office, which handles almost all death penalty appeals, Proposition 66 would require all attorneys who practice in California appellate courts, regardless of specialty and training, to accept judicial appointments to capital cases. Claims of inattentive and incompetent counsel already are common in death penalty appeals, and conscripting lawyers would only invite more such challenges."[53]
- Ventura County Star: "We urge a yes vote on Prop. 62 and a no vote on Prop. 66."[54]
Polls
- See also: Polls, 2016 ballot measures
- In September 2016, The Field Poll/IGS Poll surveyed 942 registered voters and found support for Proposition 66 to be 35 percent. Most voters were undecided on the measure.[55]
- In mid October 2016, CALSPEAKS surveyed 622 likely voters on Proposition 66. Support among respondents was 51 percent.[56]
- The Hoover Institution and YouGov surveyed 1,250 likely voters between October 4 and October 14, 2016. Support for the measure was 38 percent.[57]
- In late October 2016, USC Dornsife and the Los Angeles Times surveyed 1,500 registered voters and found 35 percent favoring and 63 percent opposing Proposition 66.[58]
- The Field Poll/IGS Poll surveyed 1,498 likely voters between October 25 and October 31, 2016, and found support for the measure at 48 percent.[59]
Polls with margins of error
| California Proposition 66 (2016) | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poll | Support | Oppose | Undecided | Margin of Error | Sample Size | ||||||||||||||
| USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times 10/22/2016 - 10/30/2016 | 35.0% | 43.0% | 22.0% | +/-2.3 | 1,500 | ||||||||||||||
| Hoover Institution/YouGov 10/4/2016 - 10/14/2016 | 38.0% | 24.0% | 38.0% | +/-3.28 | 1,250 | ||||||||||||||
| CALSPEAKS 10/7/2016 - 10/13/2016 | 51.0% | 20.0% | 29.0% | +/-7.0 | 622 | ||||||||||||||
| AVERAGES | 41.33% | 29% | 29.67% | +/-4.19 | 1,124 | ||||||||||||||
| Note: A "0%" finding means the candidate was not a part of the poll. 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. | |||||||||||||||||||
Polls without margins of error
- Note: The Field Poll/IGS Poll does not report a margin of error because "[polls] conducted online using an opt-in panel do not easily lend themselves to the calculation of sampling error estimates as are traditionally reported for random sample telephone surveys."[55]
| California Proposition 66 (2016) | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poll | Support | Oppose | Undecided | Sample Size | |||||||||||||||
| The Field Poll/IGS Poll 10/25/2016 - 10/31/2016 | 48.0% | 42.0% | 10.0% | 1,498 | |||||||||||||||
| The Field Poll/IGS Poll 9/7/2016 - 9/13/2016 | 35.0% | 23.0% | 42.0% | 942 | |||||||||||||||
| AVERAGES | 41.5% | 32.5% | 26% | 1,220 | |||||||||||||||
| Note: A "0%" finding means the candidate was not a part of the poll. 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. | |||||||||||||||||||
- The Field Poll surveyed Californians in December 2015 and January 2016 on their support for two initiatives related to capital punishment. About 47 percent of respondents favored the provisions of Proposition 62, while 48 percent preferred the provisions of Proposition 66. The former initiative would replace the death penalty with life imprisonment without parole, and the latter initiative would speed up the execution process.[60]
| California Proposition 62 (2016) and California Proposition 66 (2016) | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poll | Favor Proposition 66 | Favor Proposition 62 | Undecided | Margin of Error | Sample Size | ||||||||||||||
| Field Poll 12/15/2015 - 1/3/2016 | 48% | 47% | 5% | +/-3.2 | 1,003 | ||||||||||||||
| Note: A "0%" finding means the candidate was not a part of the poll. 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
Proposition 7
In 1972, the death penalty in California was invalidated by the California Supreme Court in People v. Anderson. It was reinstated by Proposition 7 in 1978. Over 70 percent of voters supported the reinstatement. Since that time, 13 inmates have been executed.[61]
Proposition 34
Proposition 34, which would have ended the death penalty and replaced it with life in prison without the possibility of parole, appeared on the November 6, 2012, ballot in California. The measure was defeated, thereby continuing the use of the death penalty system in the state of California.
Death penalty invalidation
While Proposition 34 was defeated in 2012, Judge Cormac J. Carney invalidated the state's death penalty on July 16, 2014.[62] The ruling was overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit Court, which held that the legal precedent of federal habeas corpus was not applicable to the case because Judge Carney used arguments for legal doctrine that did not exist at the time of the relevant death penalty inmate's conviction. This kept the death penalty operational in California.[63][64]
Death penalty by state
Prior to the November 2016 election, capital punishment was legal in 31 states. It was illegal in 20 states plus the District of Columbia. Colorado, Pennsylvania, Oregon, and Washington feature laws allowing the death penalty but had governor-imposed moratoriums in place. Following the November 2016 election, the legal status of the death penalty did not change in any of the states in which voters decided measures about the issue.
In 1846, Michigan became the first state to abolish the death penalty. Between 1846 and 1911, four states banned the practice. For the 46 years following Minnesota's 1911 repeal of capital punishment, no other states followed suit. Then, between 1957 and 1965, five additional states abolished the death penalty. During the 1970s and early 1980s, four more states decided against it. Another lull lasted until 2007, when both New Jersey and New York prohibited the death penalty. A total of eight states have abolished the death penalty since 2007. The most recent state was Delaware, where the Delaware Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional in August 2016.[65]
During the November 2016 election, voters in three states showed support for the death penalty. Voters in California rejected Proposition 62, which would have repealed the state's death penalty, and they narrowly approved a measure designed to speed up the death row appeal process. The people of Nebraska voted "repeal" on Referendum 426, thereby preserving the death penalty by voting against the legislature's 2015 motion to abolish capital punishment. Moreover, voters in Oklahoma, where the death penalty was already legal, approved State Question 776, which constitutionalized the death penalty.
Path to the ballot
- See also: California signature requirements
- Kermit Alexander submitted a letter requesting a title and summary on October 16, 2015.[1]
- A title and summary were issued by California's attorney general's office on December 24, 2015.[9]
- 365,880 valid signatures were required for qualification purposes.
- On February 12, 2016, petitioners reached the 25 percent mark in their signature gathering effort, collecting more than 91,470 signatures.[66]
- On May 19, 2016, supporters submitted 593,000 signatures to election officials.[67]
- Supporters had until June 21, 2016, to collect the required signatures.
Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired National Petition Management, Inc. and The Monaco Group to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $3,065,943.08 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 $8.38.
| Verbatim fact check: Does an increase in the number of propositions on the ballot in California lead to more of those propositions being rejected by voters? | |
| We examined the election results for statewide propositions on the ballot between 1912 and 2014 to determine if there is a simple correlation between the number of propositions on the ballot and the proportion of propositions that are rejected by voters. In elections with more than 13 propositions, the average number of propositions on the ballot per election during the period, voters rejected 44 percent of propositions. In elections with 13 or fewer statewide propositions on the ballot, 42 percent were rejected. Read Ballotpedia's Verbatim fact check » | |
State profile
This excerpt is reprinted here with the permission of the 2016 edition of the Almanac of American Politics and is up to date as of the publication date of that edition. All text is reproduced verbatim, though links have been added by Ballotpedia staff. To read the full chapter on California, click here.
The Golden State—that is how Americans have long thought of California: as a distant and dreamy land initially, then as a shaper of culture and as a promised land for millions of Americans and immigrants for many decades. America’s largest state in terms of population remains in many ways a great success story. But in some ways, it has failed to fulfill its promise. It is the birthplace of much of the world’s most advanced technology, yet it has plenty of Third World neighborhoods. It is home to some of the world’s most creative people and industries, but for five years it posted one of the nation’s highest unemployment rates. Among the states, it has attracted the largest number of immigrants from Mexico, Latin America, and Asia, but it also has seen the largest exodus of citizens to other states.
In the middle of the 20th century, California was the promised land for an American middle class that supported the New Deal and liked Ike, that embraced and personified all-American values in 1940s movies and 1950s television. By the early 21st century, California had become a two-tiered society, with an affluent elite that embraces culturally liberal values—“gentry ... (read more)
| Demographic data for California | ||
|---|---|---|
| California | U.S. | |
| Total population: | 38,066,920 | 314,107,084 |
| Land area (sq mi): | 155,779 | 3,531,905 |
| Gender | ||
| Female: | 50.3% | 50.8% |
| Race and ethnicity | ||
| White: | 39.2% | 62.8% |
| Black/African American: | 5.9% | 12.6% |
| Asian: | 13.5% | 5% |
| Native American: | 0.8% | 0.8% |
| Pacific Islander: | 0.4% | 0.2% |
| Two or more: | 4.5% | 2.9% |
| Hispanic/Latino: | 38.2% | 16.9% |
| Education | ||
| High school graduation rate: | 81.5% | 86.3% |
| College graduation rate: | 31% | 29.3% |
| Income | ||
| Median household income: | $61,489 | $53,482 |
| Persons below poverty level: | 16.4% | 14.8% |
| Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2014) | ||
Presidential Voting Pattern
The percentages below show California voter preference in general election presidential races.
California vote percentages
- 2012: 60.2% Democratic / 37.1% Republican
- 2008: 61% Democratic / 37% Republican
- 2004: 54.3% Democratic / 44.4% Republican
- 2000: 53.4% Democratic / 41.7% Republican
U.S. vote percentages
- 2012: 51.1% Democratic / 47.2% Republican
- 2008: 52.9% Democratic / 45.7% Republican
- 2004: 48.3% Democratic / 50.7% Republican
- 2000: 48.4% Democratic / 47.9% Republican
More California coverage on Ballotpedia
- Elections in California
- United States congressional delegations from California
- Public policy in California
- Influencers in California
- Verbatim California fact checks
- More...
Recent news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Proposition 66 death penalty California 2016. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles; they are included to provide readers with the most recent news articles on the subject. Click here to learn more about this section.
Related measures
2016
| Death penalty measures on the ballot in 2016 | |
|---|---|
| State | Measures |
| California | California Proposition 62, Repeal of the Death Penalty 
|
| Nebraska | Nebraska Death Penalty Repeal, Referendum 426
|
| Oklahoma | Oklahoma Death Penalty, State Question 776 |
See also
External links
Basic information
Support
- No on Prop 62, Yes on Prop 66
- No on Prop 62, Yes on Prop 66 Facebook
- No on Prop 62, Yes on Prop 66 Twitter
Opposition
Other resources
Additional reading
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 California Secretary of State, "Full text," accessed December 31, 2015
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 California Secretary of State, "California General Election November 8, 2016, Official Voter Information Guide," accessed August 18, 2016
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Fox 40, "Lawsuit Claims Proposition 66 Violates the Constitution," November 14, 2016
- ↑ The Orange County Register, "Death penalty foes ask court to pre-emptively block Proposition 66 streamlining measure," November 11, 2016
- ↑ SFGate, "Suit filed to block death-penalty measure Prop. 66," November 10, 2016
- ↑ KPCC, "California Supreme Court halts death penalty measure Prop 66," December 20, 2016
- ↑ SFGate, "State Supreme Court to review measure to speed up executions," February 1, 2017
- ↑ Death Penalty Information Center, "States With and Without the Death Penalty," August 18, 2016
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 California Secretary of State, "Initiatives and Referenda Cleared for Circulation," accessed December 31, 2015
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributed to the original source.
- ↑ No on 62 Yes on 66, "Homepage," accessed September 18, 2016
- ↑ Sierra Sun Times, “Congressman Tom McClintock Comments on California Ballot Propositions,” October 14, 2016
- ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 13.5 No on 62, Yes on 66, "Supporters," accessed September 1, 2016
- ↑ California Republican Party, “CAGOP Endorsements of Propositions on the California 2016 Ballot,” accessed September 12, 2016
- ↑ No on 66, "Homepage," accessed September 18, 2016
- ↑ 16.0 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4 16.5 16.6 16.7 No on 66, "Endorsements," accessed August 14, 2016
- ↑ The Davis Vanguard, "Boxer, Ted Lieu, and Gary Johnson Among Growing List of Opponents to Prop 66," October 14, 2016
- ↑ Times of San Diego, "California Democratic Party Supports Legalizing Marijuana," June 20, 2016
- ↑ Libertarian Party of California, "Measures," August 21, 2016
- ↑ Green Party of California, “Green Party positions on Statewide Propositions - November 2016 General Election,” October 3, 2016
- ↑ Peace and Freedom Party, "Peace and Freedom Party recommends," accessed September 17, 2016
- ↑ Harvey Milk Democratic Club, “Official Endorsements for the November 8, 2016 Election,” August 17, 2016
- ↑ Santa Monica Daily Press, “Endorsements surge as campaigns heat up,” September 17, 2016
- ↑ California Environmental Justice Alliance Action, “2016 Environmental Justice Voter Guide,” accessed October 5, 2016
- ↑ Our Revolution, "Ballot Initiatives," accessed October 4, 2016
- ↑ Highland Community News, “Nurses Endorse Gun Safety, Death Penalty Repeal Measures,” September 26, 2016
- ↑ Mother Jones, “California Voters Were Hit With a Blizzard of Ballot Propositions. Here’s Your Cheat Sheet,” October 18, 2016
- ↑ Note: These totals include all contributions and may include in-kind donations as well as cash donations.
- ↑ Note: This date is the most recent date on which Ballotpedia staff researched campaign finance data. The actual date through which this information is accurate depends on the campaign finance reporting requirements in this state.
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Power Search Campaign Finance," accessed February 1, 2017
- ↑ 31.0 31.1 Cal-Access, "PROPOSITION 066- DEATH PENALTY. PROCEDURES. INITIATIVE STATUTE.," accessed February 1, 2017
- ↑ 32.0 32.1 California Fair Political Practices Commission, "November 2016 General Election," August 16, 2016
- ↑ The Record, “Record endorsements: Voters faced with 17 state ballot measures,” October 15, 2016
- ↑ San Mateo Daily Journal, "Editorial: Daily Journal proposition endorsements," October 28, 2016
- ↑ The Bakersfield Californian, "The Californian recommends: A guide to California's crowded initiative ballot," October 2, 2016
- ↑ Chico Enterprise-Record, "Editorial: Yes on Proposition 62, no on Proposition 66," October 5, 2016
- ↑ East Bay Express, "Vote With Us! The East Bay Express' Endorsements for Election Day 2016," October 11, 2016
- ↑ East Bay Times, "Editorial: Abolish death penalty; pass Proposition 62," July 16, 2016
- ↑ Mercury News, "Mercury News editorial: Abolish the death penalty; Vote yes on Proposition 62," July 15, 2016
- ↑ Los Angeles Daily News, "Death-penalty fixes are questionable; vote no on Prop. 66: Endorsement," October 12, 2016
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Props 62 and 66: California voters should end the death penalty, not speed it up," September 3, 2016
- ↑ The Modesto Bee, "It’s a question of conscience for Props 62, 66," October 18, 2016
- ↑ Monterey Herald, "Editorial, Sept. 9, 2016: Death penalty: Yes on 62, no on Prop. 66," September 9, 2016
- ↑ Orange County Register, "No on Proposition 66," October 13, 2016
- ↑ The Sacramento Bee, "End the illusion: Abolish the death penalty," October 7, 2016
- ↑ San Diego City Beat, “2016 Voter Guide: State measures,” October 12, 2016
- ↑ San Diego Free Press, "San Diego 2016 Progressive Voter Guide," October 13, 2016
- ↑ San Diego Union-Tribune, "Why California should end, not streamline, the death penalty," October 23, 2016
- ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "Fight crime, not futility: Abolish death penalty," August 25, 2016
- ↑ San Francisco Examiner, "Examiner Endorsements: Statewide ballot measures," October 23, 2016
- ↑ Santa Clarita Valley Signal, "Our View: Yes on Prop 62," August 19, 2016
- ↑ Santa Cruz Sentinel, "Editorial, Sept. 9, 2016: Death penalty: Yes on 62, no on Prop. 66," September 8, 2016
- ↑ Santa Rosa Press Democrat, "PD Editorial: Death penalty: Yes on Prop 62, No on Prop 66," September 15, 2016
- ↑ Ventura County Star, "Editorial: Vote to end the death penalty in California," October 11, 2016
- ↑ 55.0 55.1 Field Poll/IGS Poll, "Death penalty repeal (Prop. 62) holds narrow lead, but is receiving less than 50% support. Most voters aren't sure about Prop. 66, a competing initiative to speed implementation of death sentences," September 22, 2016
- ↑ CALSPEAKS, "General Election October 2016 Survey of Californians," October 20, 2016
- ↑ Politico, "Hoover Institution Golden State Poll," October 31, 2016
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, "October Release," accessed November 3, 2016
- ↑ The Field Poll, "Voters Inclined to Support Many of this Year's Statewide Ballot Propositions," November 4, 2016
- ↑ The Mercury News, "Poll: California death penalty is toss-up for voters," August 11, 2016
- ↑ California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, "Inmates Executed, 1978 to Present," accessed September 4, 2016
- ↑ New York Times, "California Death Penalty Is Unconstitutional, Federal Judge Says," July 16, 2014
- ↑ The Atlantic, "California's Death Penalty Returns," November 13, 2015
- ↑ Bloomberg BNA, "Challenge to Calif. Death Penalty Scheme Fails," November 18, 2015
- ↑ Death Penalty Information Center, "States With and Without the Death Penalty," accessed September 18, 2016
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Circulating Initiatives with 25% of Signatures Reached," accessed February 24, 2016
- ↑ Napa Valley Register, "California poised for November showdown over death penalty," May 19, 2016
| ||
 |
State of California Sacramento (capital) |
|---|---|
| Ballot Measures |
List of California ballot propositions | Local measures | School bond issues | Ballot measure laws | Initiative laws | History of I&R | Campaign Finance Requirements | Recall process | |
| Ballot measures by year |
1910 | 1911 | 1912 | 1914 | 1915 | 1916 | 1919 | 1920 | 1922 | 1924 | 1926 | 1928 | 1930 | 1932 | 1933 | 1934 | 1935 | 1936 | 1938 | 1939 | 1940 | 1942 | 1944 | 1946 | 1948 | 1949 | 1950 | 1952 | 1954 | 1956 | 1958 | 1960 | 1962 | 1964 | 1966 | 1968 | 1970 | 1972 | 1973 | 1974 | 1976 | 1978 | 1980 | 1982 | 1984 | 1986 | 1988 | 1990 | 1992 | 1993 | 1994 | 1996 | 1998 | 2000 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2006 (local) | 2008 | 2008 (local) | 2009 | 2009 (local) | 2010 | 2010 (local) | 2011 (local) | 2012 | 2012 (local) | 2014 | 2016 | |
| Government |
California State Constitution | State Assembly | State Senate | State legislative districts | Legislative Analyst's Office| |
| State executive offices |
Governor | Attorney General | Secretary of State | Controller | Treasurer | State Auditor | Superintendent of Public Instruction | Commissioner of Insurance | Secretary of Agriculture | Secretary for Natural Resources | Director of Industrial Relations | President of Public Utilities | |
| School boards |
California Department of Education | California school districts | |
| Judiciary |
California Supreme Court | Courts of Appeal | Superior Courts | Judicial selection in California | |
| Elections |
Recalls | Vote fraud | 2010 elections | 2012 elections | 2014 elections | Fair Political Practices Commission | |
| Divisions |
List of Counties | List of Cities | List of School Districts | Evaluation of county websites | Evaluation of city websites | Evaluation of school district websites | |
- California 2016 ballot measures
- State ballots, 2016
- State Ballot Measure, November 8, 2016
- Approved, 2016
- Approved, November 8, 2016
- Death penalty, California
- Death penalty, 2016
- Certified, death penalty, 2016
- Law enforcement, California
- Law enforcement, 2016
- Certified, law enforcement, 2016
- California 2016 ballot measures, certified
- Initiated statute certified for the 2016 ballot
- Ballot measure article with polls
