Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.

California Proposition 17, Voting Rights Restoration for Persons on Parole Amendment (2020)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
California Proposition 17
Flag of California.png
Election date
November 3, 2020
Topic
Suffrage
Status
Approveda Approved
Type
Constitutional amendment		Origin
State legislature

California Proposition 17, the Voting Rights Restoration for Persons on Parole Amendment, was on the ballot in California as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 3, 2020. Proposition 17 was approved.

A "yes" vote supported this constitutional amendment to allow people on parole for felony convictions to vote.

A "no" vote opposed this constitutional amendment, thereby continuing to prohibit people who are on parole for felony convictions from voting.


Election results

California Proposition 17

Result Votes Percentage

Approved Yes

9,985,568 58.55%
No 7,069,173 41.45%
Results are officially certified.
Source


Overview

What was Proposition 17?

See also: Changes to the California Constitution

Proposition 17 was a constitutional amendment that allowed people on parole for felony convictions to vote in California.[1]

As of 2020, the California Constitution disqualified people with felonies from voting until their imprisonment and parole are completed. The ballot measure amended the state constitution to allow people with felonies who are on parole to vote; therefore, the ballot measure kept imprisonment as a disqualification for voting but remove parole status.[1]

How did California compare to other states?

See also: States on felon voting rights

As of 2020, California was one of three states that require persons convicted of felonies to complete their prison and parole sentences before regaining the right to vote.

As of 2020, 19 states allowed people convicted of felonies, but who were on parole, to vote. Seventeen of these states did not allow people to vote while imprisoned. Two—Maine and Vermont—allow people who are imprisoned to vote.

The remaining 28 states had additional disqualifications—compared to California—for people convicted of felonies. Eighteen disqualified people who were imprisoned, on parole, or on probation. Seven prohibited people convicted of certain felonies from ever regaining the right to vote. In Iowa, Kentucky, and Virginia, people convicted of felonies never regain the right to vote, although their governors can issue orders to restore voting rights to individuals or groups.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title was as follows:[2]

“

Restores Right to Vote After Completion of Prison Term. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.[3]

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary was as follows:[2]

“
  • Amends state constitution to restore voting rights to persons who have been disqualified from voting while serving a prison term as soon as they complete their prison term.[3]
 ”

Fiscal impact statement

The fiscal impact statement was as follows:[2]

“
  • Increased annual county costs, likely in the hundreds of thousands of dollars statewide, for voter registration and ballot materials.
  • Increased one-time state costs, likely in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, to update voter registration cards and systems.[3]
 ”

Constitutional changes

See also: Article II, California Constitution

The measure amended Section 2 and Section 4 of Article II of the California Constitution. The following underlined text was added and struck-through text was deleted:[1]

Section 2

(a) A United States citizen 18 years of age and resident in this State may vote.

(b) An elector disqualified from voting while serving a state or federal prison term, as described in Section 4, shall have their right to vote restored upon the completion of their prison term.

Section 4

The Legislature shall prohibit improper practices that affect elections and shall provide for the disqualification of electors while mentally incompetent or imprisoned or on parole serving a state or federal prison term for the conviction of a felony.[3]

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 12, and the FRE is 17. The word count for the ballot title is 12, and the estimated reading time is 3 seconds. The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 13.5, and the FRE is 48.5. The word count for the ballot summary is 28, and the estimated reading time is 7 seconds.


Support

Free the Vote CA, also known as Yes on Prop 17, led the campaign in support of the ballot measure.[4]

Supporters

Officials

Political Parties

Unions

Organizations

  • ACLU of California
  • ACLU of Northern California
  • ACLU of Southern California
  • Brennan Center For Justice
  • California Alliance for Retired Americans
  • California Council of Churches
  • California Medical Association
  • Democracy for America
  • Democratic Socialists of America, Los Angeles
  • League of Women Voters of California


Arguments

  • State Asm. Kevin McCarty (D-7): "Parole by definition is not punishment — it’s to help reintegrate people back into the mainstream. Parolees are many times working, paying taxes, raising their family, doing right. And they can’t vote on policies that affect their lives."
  • Taina Vargas-Edmond, executive director of Initiate Justice: "The removal of the right to vote is not based in an interest in public safety. Rather, it is rooted in a punitive justice belief system that intentionally attempts to rob marginalized people of their political power."
  • The Brennan Center for Justice: "California is one of only a handful of states that denies the right to vote to people on parole but allows people on probation to vote. Few people, including election administrators, understand the difference between probation and parole. And as Californians know, those distinctions are becoming increasingly opaque and confusing as new forms of supervision get created. The result is that eligible voters think that they cannot or refrain from voting out of fear that they may be breaking the law, a phenomenon we call 'de facto disenfranchisement.'"


Official arguments

The following is the argument in support of Proposition 17 found in the Official Voter Information Guide:[5]

  • Official Voter Information Guide: VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 17 Proposition 17 is simple—it restores a person's right to vote upon completion of their prison term.
    • When a person completes their prison sentence, they should be encouraged to reenter society and have a stake in their community. Restoring their voting rights does that. Civic engagement is connected to lower rates of recidivism. When people feel that they are valued members of their community, they are less likely to return to prison.
    • 19 other states allow people to vote once they have successfully completed their prison sentence. It's time for California to do the same.
    • A Florida study found that people who have completed their prison sentences and had their voting rights restored were less likely to commit crimes in the future.
    • Nearly 50,000 Californians who have completed their prison sentences pay taxes at the local, state, and federal levels. However, they are not able to vote at any level of government.
    PROP. 17 WILL HAVE REAL LIFE IMPACTS—STORIES FROM CALIFORNIANS WHO HAVE COMPLETED THEIR SENTENCES After a parole board granted Richard his freedom, he was shocked to learn that he still could not cast a vote in California. Over the last 20 years, Richard has become what he describes as "a man built for others"—helping develop a drug and alcohol counseling program while still in prison and advocating for better criminal justice policies. "I work hard, serve my community, pay taxes, give back, and I am still a citizen of this country," Richard said. "I believe that qualifies me to have the right to vote again." Andrew is a Navy veteran who served his country but developed a drinking problem and made big mistakes that led to prison. He earned parole by working toward his rehabilitation, and now that his prison sentence is completed, he's building a new life as a veteran learning to contribute to his community. Andrew says, "I believe in working hard for what you get in life, and I believe that I've earned the right to vote so I can be a full member of my community." YES ON PROPOSITION 17 Parole is intended to be a period of reintegration into the community. People on parole who have completed their prison sentences raise families, hold jobs, pay taxes, and contribute to society in every other way. Restoring a person's voting eligibility removes stigma and helps strengthen their connection to the community. Yeson17.vote #FreetheVote CAROL MOON GOLDBERG, President League of Women Voters of California JAY JORDAN, Executive Director Californians for Safety and Justice KEVIN MCCARTY, Assemblymember Prop. 17 Author


Opposition

Opponents

Officials

Political Parties


Arguments

  • State Sen. Jim Nielsen (R-4): "Let’s talk a little about the universe we are dealing with here. They include murderers, voluntary manslaughter, rape, sodomists. For those that commit the crimes, particularly the heinous crimes, part of their sentence is to complete the parole period."
  • The Election Integrity Project California: "[Proposition 17] seeks to restore voting rights, the most fundamental and valuable of American privileges, to those who have not completed making full restitution for their crimes. While on parole, a former criminal's liberties, such as movement, association, activities and even ownership of certain items are still heavily restricted and regularly monitored by the system. Any misstep results in immediate re-incarceration. In other words, an individual on parole has not regained the full trust of the society at large, nor the privilege to participate as a full member of that society."


Official arguments

The following is the argument in opposition to Proposition 17 found in the Official Voter Information Guide:[6]

  • Official Voter Information Guide: PROPOSITION 17 WILL ALLOW CRIMINALS CONVICTED OF MURDER, RAPE, SEXUAL ABUSE AGAINST CHILDREN, KIDNAPPING, ASSAULT, GANG GUN CRIMES AND HUMAN TRAFFICKING TO VOTE BEFORE COMPLETING THEIR SENTENCE INCLUDING PAROLE. In 1974, California voters approved restoring the right to vote to convicted felons once they have completed their sentences (including parole). More recently, California's prison reform measures have moved all but the most vicious criminals out of prisons and into local jails. People convicted of nonviolent felonies like car theft or drug dealing are incarcerated in county jails and have the right to vote while serving their sentence. For them there is no parole. PAROLE IN CALIFORNIA IS FOR SERIOUS AND VIOLENT CRIMINALS. Criminals in prison have been convicted of murder or manslaughter, robbery, rape, child molestation or other serious and violent crimes and sex offenses. They have victimized innocent, law-abiding citizens who are condemned for life to revisit those crimes in every nightmare. Certain sounds, smells and everyday experiences will always return them mentally and emotionally to the scene of the crime, and for them there is no end to their sentence. Knowing that their victimizers would have social equality with them before they have been fully rehabilitated simply adds to their lifelong pain and misery. PAROLE IS TO PROVE REHABILITATION BEFORE FULL LIBERTY, INCLUDING VOTING RIGHTS, IS RESTORED. Offenders released from PRISON after serving a term for a serious or violent felony are required to complete parole (usually three years) as part of their sentences. Parole is an adjustment period when violent felons prove their desire to adjust to behaving properly in a free society. Their every move is monitored and supervised by a trained state officer. If the state does not trust them to choose where to live or travel, with whom to associate and what jobs to do, it MUST NOT trust them with decisions that will impact the lives and finances of all other members of society. MOST PAROLEES STUMBLE AND 50% ARE CONVICTED OF NEW CRIMES. Unfortunately, about half of parolees commit new crimes within three years of release. Clearly, they are not ready to join the society of law-abiding citizens. Rewards and privileges in life must be earned and deserved. Giving violent criminals the right to vote before they have successfully completed their full sentence, which INCLUDES A PERIOD OF PAROLE, is like giving students a high school diploma at the end of tenth grade. It makes no sense, and hurts their future and all of society. JUSTICE DEMANDS A NO VOTE ON PROPOSITION 17. Crime victims deserve justice. Granting violent criminals the right to vote before the completion of their sentence is not justice. Offenders deserve justice as well. Their self-respect depends upon knowing that they have made full restitution for their crimes and have earned a second chance. Californians deserve a justice system where offenders pay for their crimes, prove their rehabilitation, and only then are welcomed back into civil society. Proposition 17 is NOT justice. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 17 HARRIET SALARNO, Founder Crime Victims United of California JIM NIELSEN, Chairman California Board of Prison Terms (Ret.) RUTH WEISS, Vice President Election Integrity Project California

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for California ballot measures

The Free the Vote CA, Yes on Prop 17 PAC, along with a committee associated with Secretary of State Alex Padilla, received $1.39 million, including $250,000 from Patty Quillin.[7]

There were no PACs registered to oppose the ballot initiative.[7]

Cash Contributions In-Kind Contributions Total Contributions Cash Expenditures Total Expenditures
Support $1,233,952.96 $159,099.56 $1,393,052.52 $1,135,847.14 $1,294,946.70
Oppose $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Total $1,233,952.96 $159,099.56 $1,393,052.52 $1,135,847.14 $1,294,946.70

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in support of the ballot initiative.[7]

Committees in support of Proposition 17
Committee Cash Contributions In-Kind Contributions Total Contributions Cash Expenditures Total Expenditures
Free the Vote CA, Yes on Prop 17 $816,793.71 $159,099.56 $975,893.27 $724,860.75 $883,960.31
Alex Padilla Ballot Measure Committee for Democracy and Justice - Yes on Propositions 16, 17, and 18 $417,159.25 $0.00 $417,159.25 $410,986.39 $410,986.39
Total $1,233,952.96 $159,099.56 $1,393,052.52 $1,135,847.14 $1,294,946.70

Donors

The following were the top five donors who contributed to the support committee.[7]

Donor Cash Contributions In-Kind Contributions Total Contributions
Patty Quillin $250,000.00 $0.00 $250,000.00
Susan Pritzker $200,000.00 $0.00 $200,000.00
ACLU of Northern California Board Issues Committee $100,000.00 $37,725.52 $137,725.52
The Heising-simons Action Fund $100,000.00 $0.00 $100,000.00
California Democratic Party $0.00 $66,305.84 $66,305.84

Media editorials

Support

The following media editorial boards published an editorial supporting the ballot measure:

  • The Orange County Register Editorial Board: "Prop. 17 keeps in place the impairment of this right for those still imprisoned, but recognizes the distinction between those in prison and those deemed worthy of parole. Parolees are living among us and working to reintegrate into society. As part of that process of reintegration, and reflecting the fact that they are no longer segregated from society behind bars, it is sensible to afford them the right to vote. American citizens who are no longer imprisoned should have their voting rights restored."
  • Los Angeles Times Editorial Board: "Parolees did not emerge from prison stripped of their citizenship. Parole is not simply prison on the outside. Although if it feels that way to parolees, it’s at least in part because we make it so hard for people to fully reintegrate into the community. Parole is the pathway into society, but voting is not a reward to be earned along that path. Voting is a right that should be restored to a parolee as soon as he or she leaves prison."
  • The San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board: "Placed on the Nov. 3 ballot with wide support from state lawmakers, it would amend the state Constitution to allow people on parole for felony convictions to vote. As California Secretary of State Alex Padilla notes, this is an excellent way to promote civic engagement among the 50,000 such individuals in the Golden State — to get them to feel like they are constructive contributors to society. Critics of Proposition 17, who often make emotional pleas about victims’ rights, offer no evidence that restoring felons’ voting rights has led to bad consequences in the 19 states that have similar laws."
  • Mercury News & East Bay Times Editorial Board: "It’s the right thing to do. Our goal with imprisonment should be rehabilitation. If someone has qualified for parole, we should help them normalize their return to civilian life. Voting is a key part of that process. These are people who will be holding jobs and paying taxes. They should also have the opportunity to fully participate in society. Vote yes on Prop. 17."
  • San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Board: "The number isn’t great, totaling an estimated 40,000 individuals. It’s a tiny expansion of the voter turnout that totaled nearly 10 million in the last election. The proposition is all about inclusion, justice and fairness. These are citizens who’ve served their time and should be allowed to vote. Also, there’s an unmistakable racial angle since Black and Latino populations are overrepresented in this state’s prison system."
  • The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board: "Proposition 17 would restore the right of parolees to vote, thus increasing voter turnout and encouraging the convicted to embrace the highest ideals of citizenship. People who make serious mistakes and serve their time behind bars deserve the right to participate in our democratic process."
  • The Press Democrat Editorial Board: "Parolees work and pay taxes and, as supporters note, a Florida study concluded that parolees whose voting rights were restored were less likely to return to prison. Everyone benefits from reducing recidivism. Moreover, restoration of voting rights is consistent with voter decisions to shorten sentences for drug possession and many other nonviolent crimes and to offer a chance at early parole to inmates who work or study in prison. The Press Democrat recommends a yes vote on Proposition 17 and a no vote on Proposition 18."


Opposition

The following media editorial boards published an editorial opposing the ballot measure:

  • San Mateo Daily Journal Editorial Board: "Parole should be considered to be an extension of someone’s prison sentence. Only once they have completed their debt to society, should their complete rights be restored."
  • The Bakersfield Californian Editorial Board: "While parole is considered a mechanism to transition felons “back into society,” it also is a time – commonly three years – for a convicted criminal to earn their place in society. That should include earning their right to vote. ... The now approximately 40,000 Californians who have completed their prison sentences, but who are unable to vote while on parole, are transitioning back into society. They must still prove that they belong."
  • The Desert Sun Editorial Board: "Rather than additional punishment, we see maintaining the status quo that prevents a parolee from voting until completion of that obligation as encouragement that, added to rehabilitation and other social programs offered, will help successfully reintegrate these persons into society. The average parole period in California is about three years. This is not an undue burden. Vote "no" on Proposition 17."


Polls

See also: 2020 ballot measure polls
California Proposition 17, Voting Rights Restoration for Persons on Parole Amendment (2020)
Poll Support OpposeUndecidedMargin of errorSample size
SurveyUSA (likely voters)
9/26/2020 - 9/28/2020		 55.0%19.0%26.0%+/-5.4588
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

California Proposition 10 (1974)

See also: California Proposition 10, Voting Rights Restoration Amendment (1974)

In 1974, voters approved Proposition 10, which amended the California Constitution to remove language that prohibited persons who were convicted of infamous crimes or high crimes from voting. Instead, Proposition 10 restored the right to vote to convicts after the completion of their imprisonment and parole sentences.[8]

States on felon voting rights

See also: Voting rights for people convicted of a felony

As of 2020, California is one of three states that require persons convicted of felonies to complete their prison and parole sentences before regaining the right to vote. The following is a list of state laws regarding voting rights restoration for persons convicted of felonies:

  • two states allow people convicted of felonies always retain the right to vote:
  • 17 states and D.C. restore voting rights to people convicted of felonies after the completion of their prison term
  • three states restore voting rights to people convicted of felonies after the completion of their prison sentence and parole
  • 18 states restore voting rights to people convicted of felonies after the completion of their prison sentence, parole, and probation
  • seven states do not restore voting rights for people convicted of certain felonies (the list of felonies varies state-by-state)
  • three states never restore voting rights for people convicted of felonies (although governors have the power to restore rights to individuals or groups)

Election policy on the ballot in 2020

In 2020, voters in 14 states voted on 18 ballot measures addressing election-related policies. One of the measures addressed campaign finance, one were related to election dates, five addressed election systems, three addressed redistricting, five addressed suffrage, and three addressed term limits.

Click Show to read details about the election-related measures on statewide ballots in 2020.

Path to the ballot

See also: Amending the California Constitution

In California, a two-thirds vote is needed in each chamber of the California State Legislature to refer a constitutional amendment to the ballot for voter consideration.

Asm. Kevin McCarty (D-7) was the lead author of the constitutional amendment, which was introduced into the California State Legislature as Assembly Constitutional Amendment 6 (ACA 6) on January 28, 2019. On September 5, 2019, the California State Assembly voted 54 to 19 to approve ACA 6. At least 54 votes were needed in the Assembly. On June 24, 2020, the California State Senate voted 28 to 9 to approve ACA 6. At least 27 votes were needed in the Senate. With approval in the Assembly and Senate, ACA 6 was placed on the ballot for the general election on November 3, 2020.[1]

Vote in the California State Assembly
September 5, 2019
Requirement: Two-thirds (66.67 percent) vote of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 54  Approveda
YesNoNot voting
Total54196
Total percent68.35%24.05%7.60%
Democrat5254
Republican2142
Vote in the California State Senate
June 24, 2020
Requirement: Two-thirds (66.67 percent) vote of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 27  Approveda
YesNoNot voting
Total2893
Total percent70.00%22.50%7.50%
Democrat2702
Republican191

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.

See also

External links

Information

Support

Footnotes

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 California State Legislature, "ACA 6 (2019)," accessed September 5, 2019
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 California Secretary of State, "Ballot Title and Summary," accessed July 28, 2020
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content
  4. ↑ Free the Vote Coalition, "Homepage," accessed June 24, 2020
  5. ↑ California Secretary of State, "Official Voter Information Guide," accessed September 28, 2020
  6. ↑ California Secretary of State, "Official Voter Information Guide," accessed September 28, 2020
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 Cal-Access, "Campaign Finance," accessed May 5, 2020
  8. ↑ UC Hastings, "Proposition 10 (1974)," accessed June 23, 2020
  9. ↑ Alaska Division of Elections, "Alaska's Better Elections Initiative," accessed January 6, 2020
  10. ↑ Colorado General Assembly, "Senate Bill 42 (2019)," accessed September 5, 2019
  11. ↑ Florida Department of Elections, "Initiative 19-07," accessed March 14, 2019
  12. ↑ Massachusetts Attorney General, "Initiative 19-10: Initiative Petition for a Law to Implement Ranked-Choice Voting in Elections," accessed August 7, 2019
  13. ↑ Mississippi State Legislature, "House Concurrent Resolution 47," accessed June 30, 2020
  14. ↑ Missouri Legislature, "SJR 38 Full Text," accessed February 10, 2020
  15. ↑ New Jersey State Legislature, "Assembly Concurrent Resolution 188," accessed July 31, 2020
  16. ↑ U.S. Census Bureau, "2020 Census Operational Adjustments Due to COVID-19," accessed August 10, 2020
  17. ↑ Virginia General Assembly, "Senate Bill 236," accessed March 5, 2020
  18. ↑ Arkansas Legislature, "SJR 15 full text," accessed March 28, 2019
  19. ↑ Kentucky Legislature, "House Bill 405 Text," accessed March 11, 2020
  20. ↑ Missouri State Senate, "SJR 14," accessed April 17, 2019
  21. ↑ California Secretary of State, "Section 3: Polling Place Hours," accessed August 12, 2024
  22. ↑ California Secretary of State, "Voter Registration," accessed August 13, 2024
  23. ↑ 23.0 23.1 California Secretary of State, "Registering to Vote," accessed August 13, 2024
  24. ↑ California Secretary of State, "Same Day Voter Registration (Conditional Voter Registration)," accessed August 13, 2024
  25. ↑ SF.gov, "Non-citizen voting rights in local Board of Education elections," accessed November 14, 2024
  26. ↑ 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."
  27. ↑ California Secretary of State, "What to Bring to Your Polling Place," accessed August 12, 2024
  28. ↑ BARCLAYS OFFICIAL CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, "Section 20107," accessed August 12, 2024
  29. ↑ 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_17,_Voting_Rights_Restoration_for_Persons_on_Parole_Amendment_(2020)&oldid=9620505"