California “Reasonable Force” Specification Initiative (2016): Difference between revisions
From Ballotpedia
m (Rebecca Hellmich moved page California Use of Unreasonable Force Initiative (2016) to California “Reasonable Force” Specification Initiative (2016)) |
m (add categories for inventory (via BP-MassEdit WEB)) Tag: bp-massedit |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{tnr}}{{noca2016}}A '''California Use of Unreasonable Force Initiative''' (#15-0010) did not make the [[California 2016 ballot propositions|November 8, 2016 ballot]] in [[California]], as an {{issfull}}.<ref name=letter>[http://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-0010%20%28Reasonable%20Force%29.pdf? ''California Attorney General'', "Letter requesting a ballot title for Initiative 15-0010," March 23, 2015]</ref> | {{tnr}}{{noca2016}}A '''California Use of Unreasonable Force Initiative''' (#15-0010) did not make the [[California 2016 ballot propositions|November 8, 2016 ballot]] in [[California]], as an {{issfull}}.<ref name=letter>[http://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-0010%20%28Reasonable%20Force%29.pdf? ''California Attorney General'', "Letter requesting a ballot title for Initiative 15-0010," March 23, 2015]</ref> | ||
| Line 13: | Line 14: | ||
'''Fiscal impact statement:''' | '''Fiscal impact statement:''' | ||
'' | ''Note: The [[fiscal impact statement]] for a [[laws governing the initiative process in California|California ballot initiative]] authorized for circulation is jointly prepared by the [[California Legislative Analyst's Office|state's legislative analyst]] and its director of finance.'' | ||
:"Fiscal impact would depend on how the measure is implemented. Increased state and local costs for officer training that could be significant particularly in the short-term." | :"Fiscal impact would depend on how the measure is implemented. Increased state and local costs for officer training that could be significant particularly in the short-term." | ||
| Line 21: | Line 22: | ||
* James T. Lawrence submitted a letter requesting a [[ballot title|title]] and [[Ballot summary (California)|summary]] on March 24, 2015. | * James T. Lawrence submitted a letter requesting a [[ballot title|title]] and [[Ballot summary (California)|summary]] on March 24, 2015. | ||
* A [[ballot title|title]] and [[Ballot summary (California)|summary]] were issued by | * A [[ballot title|title]] and [[Ballot summary (California)|summary]] were issued by [[Attorney General of California|California's attorney general]]'s office on May 27, 2015. | ||
* [[California signature requirements|365,880 valid signatures]] are required for qualification purposes. | * [[California signature requirements|365,880 valid signatures]] are required for qualification purposes. | ||
* Supporters had until November 23, 2015, to collect the required signatures. | * Supporters had until November 23, 2015, to collect the required signatures. | ||
| Line 38: | Line 39: | ||
[[Category:California 2016 ballot measures]] | [[Category:California 2016 ballot measures]] | ||
[[Category:Did not make ballot, law enforcement]] | [[Category:Did not make ballot, law enforcement]] | ||
[[Category:State ballots, 2016]] | [[Category:State ballots, 2016]][[Category:Not on the ballot past date statewide ballot measures]] | ||
Latest revision as of 20:26, 3 February 2026
| Not on Ballot |
|---|
 |
| This measure was not put on an election ballot |
A California Use of Unreasonable Force Initiative (#15-0010) did not make the November 8, 2016 ballot in California, as an initiated state statute.[1]
Text of measure
Ballot title:
Official summary:
- "States reasonable force and associated penal codes are out of date. States that unspecified laws pertaining to use of force by law enforcement are suspended for 180 days. Requires Governor to appoint 11-person panel to review suspended laws and recommend changes to prevent violence committed by law enforcement officers against people of color. Bars members of existing police organizations in California from appointment to panel. Requires law enforcement officers to undergo training on the amended laws prior to continued service."
Fiscal impact statement:
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.
- "Fiscal impact would depend on how the measure is implemented. Increased state and local costs for officer training that could be significant particularly in the short-term."
Path to the ballot
- See also: California signature requirements
- James T. Lawrence submitted a letter requesting a title and summary on March 24, 2015.
- A title and summary were issued by California's attorney general's office on May 27, 2015.
- 365,880 valid signatures are required for qualification purposes.
- Supporters had until November 23, 2015, to collect the required signatures.
- The secretary of state reported the measure failed on December 9, 2015.[2]
External links
Footnotes
 |
State of California Sacramento (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2026 | 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 |
