California Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Initiative (2020): Difference between revisions
m (Text replacement - "==Text of the measure==" to "==Text of measure==") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| state = California | | state = California | ||
| year = 2020 | | year = 2020 | ||
| status = | | status = Not on the ballot | ||
| status image = | | status image = | ||
| type = Combined initiated constitutional amendment and state statute | | type = Combined initiated constitutional amendment and state statute | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
}} | }} | ||
The '''California Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Initiative''' (#18-0004) | The '''California Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Initiative''' (#18-0004) {{Greener | start = 11/3/2020 9:30pm CDT | before = is | after = was}} not on the [[California 2020 ballot propositions|ballot]] in [[California]] as a {{icaissfull}} on [[California 2020 ballot propositions|November 3, 2020]]. | ||
The ballot initiative would | The ballot initiative would have taxed bottled sugar-sweetened beverages, such as soda, syrups, and powders, at $0.02 per fluid ounce beginning on July 1, 2021. The ballot initiative would also have authorized local governments to impose additional taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages. In 2018, the [[California State Legislature]] [[Food and beverage tax preemption conflicts between state and local governments|preempted local governments]] from enacting soda taxes until 2031 in a compromise to keep the [[California Two-Thirds Vote for State and Local Revenue Increases Initiative (2018)|Two-Thirds Vote for State and Local Revenue Increases Initiative]] off the ballot.<ref name=initiative>[https://www.oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/18-0004%20%28Sugar-Sweetened%20Beverage%20Tax%29.pdf ''California Attorney General'', "Initiative #18-0004," July 2, 2018]</ref> | ||
The ballot initiative would | The ballot initiative would have created a Children and Family Health Promotion Fund (CFHPF), which would have received revenue from the statewide tax on sugar-sweetened beverages, syrups, and powders. Revenue in the CFHPF could have been distributed as follows:<ref name=initiative/> | ||
*'''82 percent''' for healthcare programs that provide medical and dental disease prevention and treatment for persons with diseases associated with sugar-sweetened beverages; | *'''82 percent''' for healthcare programs that provide medical and dental disease prevention and treatment for persons with diseases associated with sugar-sweetened beverages; | ||
*'''12 percent''' for health education programs designed to reduce the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages, prevention of diseases associated with sugar-sweetened beverages, improved school nutrition, and increased physical activities in schools and communities; | *'''12 percent''' for health education programs designed to reduce the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages, prevention of diseases associated with sugar-sweetened beverages, improved school nutrition, and increased physical activities in schools and communities; | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
*'''3 percent''' for research on diseases associated with sugar-sweetened beverages. | *'''3 percent''' for research on diseases associated with sugar-sweetened beverages. | ||
The ballot initiative would also | The ballot initiative would also have made the revenue from the tax exempt from the [[Article XIII B, California Constitution|state appropriations limit]], also known as the [[#Gann Limit|Gann Limit]]. In other words, the revenue would not have counted toward the limit. The Gann Limit prohibits the state government and local governments from spending revenue in excess of per-person government spending in fiscal year 1978-1979, with an adjustment allowed for changes in the cost-of-living and population.<ref name=initiative/> | ||
==Text of measure== | ==Text of measure== | ||
===Ballot title=== | ===Ballot title=== | ||
The official ballot title | The official ballot title was as follows:<ref name=sos>[http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/initiative-and-referendum-status/initiatives-referenda-cleared-circulation/ ''California Secretary of State'', "Initiatives and Referenda Cleared for Circulation," accessed September 10, 2018]</ref> | ||
{{Quote| | {{Quote| | ||
Establishes Public Health Fund by Enacting Dedicated Statewide Tax on Distribution of Sugar-Sweetened Drinks. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.}} | Establishes Public Health Fund by Enacting Dedicated Statewide Tax on Distribution of Sugar-Sweetened Drinks. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.}} | ||
===Petition summary=== | ===Petition summary=== | ||
The summary provided for inclusion on signature petition sheets | The summary provided for inclusion on signature petition sheets was as follows:<ref name=sos/> | ||
{{Quote| | {{Quote| | ||
Creates a fund for public health programs to prevent, treat, and research obesity, diabetes, dental diseases, and other diseases linked to sugar-sweetened beverages, and to increase access to healthy food and drinks. Enacts a dedicated statewide tax on distributors of sugar-sweetened beverages ($0.02 per fluid ounce). Exempts specified beverages from tax—including milk, juice, infant formula, medical beverages, and low-sugar drinks. Requires audit of fund expenditures. Amends Constitution to allow new local taxes on sugar-sweetened drinks.}} | Creates a fund for public health programs to prevent, treat, and research obesity, diabetes, dental diseases, and other diseases linked to sugar-sweetened beverages, and to increase access to healthy food and drinks. Enacts a dedicated statewide tax on distributors of sugar-sweetened beverages ($0.02 per fluid ounce). Exempts specified beverages from tax—including milk, juice, infant formula, medical beverages, and low-sugar drinks. Requires audit of fund expenditures. Amends Constitution to allow new local taxes on sugar-sweetened drinks.}} | ||
===Fiscal impact=== | ===Fiscal impact=== | ||
The fiscal impact statement | The fiscal impact statement was as follows:<ref name=sos/> | ||
{{Quote| | {{Quote| | ||
Increased state revenues starting in 2021-22. Annual revenues would be roughly $2 billion to $3 billion by 2022-23. The measure designates these revenues for health care; disease prevention; disease research; and access to fruit, vegetables, and water.}} | Increased state revenues starting in 2021-22. Annual revenues would be roughly $2 billion to $3 billion by 2022-23. The measure designates these revenues for health care; disease prevention; disease research; and access to fruit, vegetables, and water.}} | ||
| Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
*'''Signatures''': 585,407 valid signatures were required. | *'''Signatures''': 585,407 valid signatures were required. | ||
*'''Deadline''': The deadline for signature verification | *'''Deadline''': The general deadline for signature verification was set to be in late June 2020. | ||
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. | 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. | ||
| Line 67: | Line 67: | ||
===Initiative #18-0004=== | ===Initiative #18-0004=== | ||
Proponents filed the ballot initiative on July 2, 2018.<ref name=initiative/> The [[Attorney General of California]] {{Greener | start = 9/5/2018 9:00pm CDT | before = will issue | after = issued}} ballot language for the initiative on September 5, 2018, allowing a signature drive to begin. The signature deadline for | Proponents filed the ballot initiative on July 2, 2018.<ref name=initiative/> The [[Attorney General of California]] {{Greener | start = 9/5/2018 9:00pm CDT | before = will issue | after = issued}} ballot language for the initiative on September 5, 2018, allowing a signature drive to begin. The specific signature deadline for this initiative {{Greener | start = 3/13/2019 9:00pm CDT | before = is | after = was}} March 13, 2019. The secretary of state's office announced that the initiative failed on March 22, 2019. | ||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
Latest revision as of 14:24, 23 March 2019
| California Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Initiative | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 3, 2020 | |
| Topic Taxes | |
| Status Not on the ballot | |
| Type Amendment & Statute | Origin Citizens |
The California Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax Initiative (#18-0004) was not on the ballot in California as a combined initiated constitutional amendment and state statute on November 3, 2020.
The ballot initiative would have taxed bottled sugar-sweetened beverages, such as soda, syrups, and powders, at $0.02 per fluid ounce beginning on July 1, 2021. The ballot initiative would also have authorized local governments to impose additional taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages. In 2018, the California State Legislature preempted local governments from enacting soda taxes until 2031 in a compromise to keep the Two-Thirds Vote for State and Local Revenue Increases Initiative off the ballot.[1]
The ballot initiative would have created a Children and Family Health Promotion Fund (CFHPF), which would have received revenue from the statewide tax on sugar-sweetened beverages, syrups, and powders. Revenue in the CFHPF could have been distributed as follows:[1]
- 82 percent for healthcare programs that provide medical and dental disease prevention and treatment for persons with diseases associated with sugar-sweetened beverages;
- 12 percent for health education programs designed to reduce the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages, prevention of diseases associated with sugar-sweetened beverages, improved school nutrition, and increased physical activities in schools and communities;
- 3 percent for programs that support access to vegetables, fruit, and clean drinking water; and
- 3 percent for research on diseases associated with sugar-sweetened beverages.
The ballot initiative would also have made the revenue from the tax exempt from the state appropriations limit, also known as the Gann Limit. In other words, the revenue would not have counted toward the limit. The Gann Limit prohibits the state government and local governments from spending revenue in excess of per-person government spending in fiscal year 1978-1979, with an adjustment allowed for changes in the cost-of-living and population.[1]
Text of measure
Ballot title
The official ballot title was as follows:[2]
| “ |
Establishes Public Health Fund by Enacting Dedicated Statewide Tax on Distribution of Sugar-Sweetened Drinks. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.[3] |
” |
Petition summary
The summary provided for inclusion on signature petition sheets was as follows:[2]
| “ |
Creates a fund for public health programs to prevent, treat, and research obesity, diabetes, dental diseases, and other diseases linked to sugar-sweetened beverages, and to increase access to healthy food and drinks. Enacts a dedicated statewide tax on distributors of sugar-sweetened beverages ($0.02 per fluid ounce). Exempts specified beverages from tax—including milk, juice, infant formula, medical beverages, and low-sugar drinks. Requires audit of fund expenditures. Amends Constitution to allow new local taxes on sugar-sweetened drinks.[3] |
” |
Fiscal impact
The fiscal impact statement was as follows:[2]
| “ |
Increased state revenues starting in 2021-22. Annual revenues would be roughly $2 billion to $3 billion by 2022-23. The measure designates these revenues for health care; disease prevention; disease research; and access to fruit, vegetables, and water.[3] |
” |
Full text
The full text of the measure is available here.
Sponsors
Supporters
Arguments
- Natasha Lee, president of the California Dental Association, said, "For too long, California has lacked adequate support for programs that address the health effects of consumption of sugary beverages. With this initiative, our state has the opportunity to improve public health, especially among children."[4]
Path to the ballot
In California, the number of signatures required for an initiated constitutional amendment is equal to 8 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 a combined initiated constitutional amendment and state statute, filed before the 2018 general election, certified for the 2020 ballot:
- Signatures: 585,407 valid signatures were required.
- Deadline: The general deadline for signature verification was set to be in late June 2020.
Signatures are first filed with local election officials, who determine the total number of signatures submitted. If the total number is equal to at least 100 percent of the required signatures, then local election officials perform a random check of signatures submitted in their counties. If the random sample estimates that more than 110 percent of the required number of signatures are valid, the initiative is eligible for the ballot. If the random sample estimates that between 95 and 110 percent of the required number of signatures are valid, a full check of signatures is done to determine the total number of valid signatures. If less than 95 percent are estimated to be valid, the initiative does not make the ballot.
Initiative #18-0004
Proponents filed the ballot initiative on July 2, 2018.[1] The Attorney General of California issued ballot language for the initiative on September 5, 2018, allowing a signature drive to begin. The specific signature deadline for this initiative was March 13, 2019. The secretary of state's office announced that the initiative failed on March 22, 2019.
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 California Attorney General, "Initiative #18-0004," July 2, 2018
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 California Secretary of State, "Initiatives and Referenda Cleared for Circulation," accessed September 10, 2018
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 CNBC, "California prepares for a new war over soda taxes – and it could spill over into the 2020 election," September 7, 2018
 |
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 |
