California Proposition 31, Flavored Tobacco Products Ban Referendum (2022)

California Proposition 31Election dateNovember 8, 2022TopicTobacco and Business regulationStatusa ApprovedTypeReferendumOriginCitizens

California Proposition 31, the Flavored Tobacco Products Ban Referendum was on the ballot in California as a veto referendum on November 8, 2022. The ballot measure was approved, thus upholding the legislation.

You are watching: California Proposition 31, Flavored Tobacco Products Ban Referendum (2022)

A “yes” vote is to uphold the contested legislation, Senate Bill 793 (SB 793), which would ban the sale of flavored tobacco products.

A “no” vote is to repeal the contested legislation, Senate Bill 793 (SB 793), thus keeping the sale of flavored tobacco legal in the state.

Election results

California Proposition 31

Result Votes Percentage

Yes

6,803,424 63.42% No 3,923,383 36.58% Results are officially certified. Source

Aftermath

Post-election lawsuit

Lawsuit overviewIssue: Does the state ban on flavored tobacco products violate the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause and Commerce Clause?Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of CaliforniaPlaintiff(s): R.J. Reynolds, et. al.Defendant(s): California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D)Plaintiff argument:The flavored tobacco ban violates the U.S. Constitution’sDefendant argument: The state has the right to set regulations on such tobacco products.

Source: New York Times

On November 9, 2022, R.J. Reynolds filed a lawsuit in federal court arguing that the approved ban violated the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy and Commerce Clauses. The lawsuit says, “The ban falls under the TCA’s express preemption clause, ‘which preempts ‘any [state] requirement’ that is ‘different from, or in addition to,’ a federal requirement about a tobacco product standard. A flavor ban is a paradigmatic tobacco product standard.”[1]

California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) said in a statement, “Time and time again, Big Tobacco has attempted to steam roll state efforts to protect our youngest residents from the damaging effects of tobacco use. While we have not yet been formally served with the lawsuit, we look forward to vigorously defending this important law in court.”[1]

On November 29, 2022, R.J. Reynolds and other tobacco companies filed a request with the U.S. Supreme Court to ask the court to order an emergency stop on the state from enforcing the flavored tobacco ban.[2]

On December 12, 2022, the supreme court ruled unanimously to not issue an emergency order stopping the ban.[3]

Overview

Opponents of Proposition 31 sought to overturn Senate Bill 793 (SB 793), which was signed into law on August 28, 2020. SB 793 was designed to ban the sale of flavored tobacco products and tobacco product flavor enhancers, with exceptions for hookah tobacco, loose leaf tobacco, and premium cigars. The bill was designed to fine retailers $250 for each sale violating the law.[4]

The California State Legislature passed SB 793 in August 2020. The legislation received support from most legislative Democrats (84 of 89) and a quarter of legislative Republicans (8 of 30). One legislator voted against the bill, and the remaining legislators were absent or abstained. State Sen. Jerry Hill (D-13), the legislative sponsor of SB 793, said, “Using candy, fruit and other alluring flavors, the tobacco industry weaponized its tactics to beguile a new generation into nicotine addiction while keeping longtime users hooked. SB 793 breaks Big Tobacco’s death grip.”[5] The California Fuels & Convenience Alliance, which opposed SB 793, described the flavored tobacco ban as “misguided policy that will do more harm than good” and “hurt small businesses, eliminate necessary tax revenue, and perpetuate dangerous and avoidable police interactions in our communities.”[6]

No on Prop 31- Californians Against Prohibition is campaigning for the veto referendum to repeal SB 793. Through October 27, 2022, the campaign had received over $23.2 million, including $9.7 million from R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and $9.5 million from Philip Morris USA.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The official ballot title was as follows:[7]

“

Referendum Challenging a 2020 Law Prohibiting Retail Sale of Certain Flavored Tobacco Products.[8]

”

Petition summary

The summary provided for inclusion on signature petition sheets was as follows:[7]

“

If the required number of registered voters sign this petition and the petition is timely filed, there will be a referendum challenging a 2020 law on the next statewide ballot after the November 3, 2020 general election. The challenged law prohibits the retail sale of certain flavored tobacco products and tobacco flavor enhancers. The referendum would require a majority of voters to approve the 2020 state law before it can take effect.[8]

”

Full text

The full text of SB 793, which proponents of the veto referendum seek to repeal, was as follows:

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2022

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 15, and the FRE is 11. The word count for the ballot title is 12.

The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 14, and the FRE is 37. The word count for the ballot summary is 68.

Support for ‘Yes’ vote

Yes On Proposition 31, Committee to Protect California Kids led the campaign in support of a ‘yes’ vote on Proposition 31, which upheld the legislation.[9]

Supporters

Officials

• Governor Gavin Newsom (D)

Political Parties

• Democratic Party of California
• Peace and Freedom Party of California

Unions

• California Teachers Association
• SEIU California State Council

Organizations

• League of Women Voters of California

Arguments

Official arguments

Read more : Which are the dimensions of a ping pong table?

The following is the argument in support of Proposition 31 found in the Official Voter Information Guide:[10]

Support for ‘no’ vote

The No on Prop 31- Californians Against Prohibition led the campaign in support of a ‘no’ vote on Proposition 31, which would have repealed the legislation.[11][12][13]

Opponents

Political Parties

• Republican Party of California

Corporations

• ITG Brands, LLC
• Philip Morris USA, Inc.
• R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company
• Swedish Match North America, LLC

Organizations

• National Association of Tobacco Outlets

Arguments

Official arguments

The following is the argument in opposition to Proposition 31 found in the Official Voter Information Guide:[14]

Polls

See also: Ballotpedia’s approach to covering polls and 2022 ballot measure polls Are you aware of a poll on this ballot measure that should be included below? You can share ballot measure polls, along with source links, with us at editor@ballotpedia.org.California Proposition 31, Flavored Tobacco Products Ban Referendum (2022) Poll Dates Sample size Margin of error Support Oppose Undecided Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies (IGS) 9/22/22 – 9/27/22 6,939 LV ± 2.5% 57% 31% 12% Question: “PROPOSITION 31: REFERENDUM ON 2020 LAW THAT WOULD PROHIBIT THE RETAIL SALE OF CERTAIN FLAVORED TOBACCO PRODUCTS. A “Yes” vote approves, and a “No” vote rejects, a 2020 law prohibiting retail sale of certain flavored tobacco products. Fiscal Impact: Decreased state tobacco tax revenues ranging from tens of millions of dollars annually to around $100 million annually. If the election were held today, how would you vote on Proposition 31?” Note: LV is likely voters, RV is registered voters, and EV is eligible voters.

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for California ballot measures

One PAC, the Yes On Proposition 31, Committee to Protect California Kids, was registered to support a “Yes” vote on the veto referendum. The PAC raised nearly $48.1 million.[15]

The No on Prop 31- Californians Against Prohibition PAC was registered to support a “No” vote on the veto referendum. The PAC raised $23.3 million.[15]

.sbtotaltable { width: 50%; } .sbtotaltable th { font-size:1.2em; } .sbtotaltable td { text-align:center; } .sbtotalheader { background-color: black !important; color:white !important; font-size:1.0em; font-weight:bold; } .sbtotaltotal { font-weight:bold; } Cash Contributions In-Kind Contributions Total Contributions Cash Expenditures Total Expenditures Support $46,585,151.08 $1,539,266.74 $48,124,417.82 $46,583,931.07 $48,123,197.81 Oppose $20,752,500.00 $2,506,355.39 $23,258,855.39 $20,697,433.37 $23,203,788.76

Support for “Yes” vote

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee that supported a “Yes” vote of the veto referendum.[15]

.sbtotaltable { width: 50%; } .sbtotaltable th { font-size:1.2em; } .sbtotaltable td { text-align:center; } .sbtotalheader { background-color: black !important; color:white !important; font-size:1.0em; font-weight:bold; } .sbtotaltotal { font-weight:bold; } Committees in support of Proposition 31 Committee Cash Contributions In-Kind Contributions Total Contributions Cash Expenditures Total Expenditures Yes on Proposition 31, Committee to Protect California Kids $46,585,151.08 $1,539,266.74 $48,124,417.82 $46,583,931.07 $48,123,197.81 Total $46,585,151.08 $1,539,266.74 $48,124,417.82 $46,583,931.07 $48,123,197.81

Donors

The following were the top donors to the committee.[15]

Donor Cash Contributions In-Kind Contributions Total Contributions Michael R. Bloomberg $44,620,971.00 $1,451,528.89 $46,072,499.89 Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. $1,100,000.00 $0.00 $1,100,000.00 American Heart Association $100,000.00 $134,749.53 $234,749.53 American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, Inc. $100,000.00 $0.00 $100,000.00 American Lung Association $100,000.00 $0.00 $100,000.00

Support for “No” vote

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee that supported a “No” vote of the veto referendum.[15]

.sbtotaltable { width: 50%; } .sbtotaltable th { font-size:1.2em; } .sbtotaltable td { text-align:center; } .sbtotalheader { background-color: black !important; color:white !important; font-size:1.0em; font-weight:bold; } .sbtotaltotal { font-weight:bold; } Committees in support of Proposition 31 Committee Cash Contributions In-Kind Contributions Total Contributions Cash Expenditures Total Expenditures No on Prop 31- Californians Against Prohibition $20,752,500.00 $2,506,355.39 $23,258,855.39 $20,697,433.37 $23,203,788.76 Total $20,752,500.00 $2,506,355.39 $23,258,855.39 $20,697,433.37 $23,203,788.76

Donors

The following were the top donors to the committee.[15]

Donor Cash Contributions In-Kind Contributions Total Contributions R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company $8,654,250.00 $1,009,940.41 $9,664,190.41 Philip Morris USA, Inc. $7,999,850.00 $1,526,878.19 $9,526,728.19 American Snuff Company $826,750.00 $0.00 $826,750.00 Swedish Match North America, LLC $500,000.00 $750.00 $500,750.00 ITG Brands, LLC $500,000.00 $0.00 $500,000.00

Media editorials

See also: 2022 ballot measure media endorsements

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

Ballotpedia lists the positions of media editorial boards that support or oppose ballot measures. This does not include opinion pieces from individuals or groups that do not represent the official position of a newspaper or media outlet. Ballotpedia includes editorials from newspapers and outlets based on circulation and readership, political coverage within a state, and length of publication. You can share media editorial board endorsements with us at editor@ballotpedia.org.

Support

Opposition

Background

Bans on flavored tobacco product sales

As of 2020, California and Massachusetts had adopted bans on the sale of flavored tobacco products, including flavored e-cigarettes and menthol cigarettes. New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island had adopted bans on the sale of flavored e-cigarettes but not menthol cigarettes.[16]

San Francisco Proposition E (2018)

See also: San Francisco, California, Proposition E, Ban on the Sale of Flavored Tobacco (June 2018)

In 2017, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance that banned the sale of flavored tobacco. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company launched a veto referendum campaign to repeal the ordinance. The signature drive was successful, placing the ordinance on the ballot as Proposition E. Voters approved Proposition E, thus upholding the board’s ordinance; 68.4% voted to adopt the ordinance.

R.J. Reynolds provided $12.9 million to the campaign to overturn the ban. The campaign to uphold the ban received $3.2 million, including $2.3 million from former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.[17]

Senate Bill 793

In August 2020, the California State Legislature passed Senate Bill 793 (SB 793), which Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed on August 28, 2020.[18]

In the California State Assembly, the vote was 58-1. Asm. William Brough was the one vote against SB 793. However, 15 (of 19) Republicans did not vote on the legislation; 5 (of 60) Democrats did not vote on the legislation.[18]

In the California State Senate, the vote was 34-0. All 29 Senate Democrats, along with 5 Senate Republicans, voted for SB 793. Six (of 11) Republicans did not vote on the legislation.[18]

Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis (D), Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, and Common Sense were listed as the sources of SB 793.[18]

Vote in the California State AssemblyAugust 24, 2020Requirement: Simple majority of all members in each chamberNumber of yes votes required: 40 a YesNoNot votingTotal58120Total percent73.42%1.26%25.32%Democrat5505Republican3115 Vote in the California State SenateAugust 28, 2020Requirement: Simple majority of all members in each chamberNumber of yes votes required: 21 a YesNoNot votingTotal3406Total percent85.00%0.00%15.00%Democrat2900Republican506

California veto referendum ballot measures

See also: List of California veto referendum ballot measures

A veto referendum is a type of citizen-initiated ballot measure that asks voters whether to uphold or repeal a law passed by the state legislature. Opponents of the law collect signatures to place the veto referendum on the ballot, with the aim of voters deciding to repeal the law. In California, voters have voted on 50 veto referendums, upholding laws 21 times (42%) and repealing laws 29 times (58%).

In 1912, Californians voted on a statewide veto referendum for the first time. The most recent veto referendum was on the ballot in 2022.

Read more : Search code, repositories, users, issues, pull requests…

Number of California veto referendums Total veto referendums Laws upheld Laws repealed Year of last measure 50 21 29 2022

The veto referendum ballot measure is also known as a popular referendum, people’s veto, or citizen’s veto. There are 23 states that have a process for veto referendums. Voters in California approved a constitutional amendment that enacted processes for ballot initiative and veto referendum in 1911.

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in California

Process in California

In California, the number of signatures required for a veto referendum is equal to 5 percent of the votes cast in the preceding gubernatorial election. Petitions are allowed to circulate for 90 days from the date the targeted bill was signed. Signatures for referendums need to be certified at least 31 days before the general election. As the verification process can take multiple months, the secretary of state recommends submitting signatures before the certification deadline.

The requirements to get veto referendums certified for the 2022 ballot:

• Signatures: 623,212 valid signatures
• Deadline for bills passed in 2020 or 2021: 90 days after the date that the governor signs the targeted bill.

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 referendum 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 referendum does not make the ballot.

Stages of this referendum

On August 31, 2020, three individuals—Aaron Agenbroad, Jaime Rojas, and Beilal Mohamad-Ali Chatila—filed the veto referendum. Attorney General Xavier Becerra released petition language on September 10, 2020, for the veto referendum, which allowed proponents to begin collecting signatures.[19]

Proponents had until December 10, 2020, to collect 623,212 valid signatures. On December 7, the secretary of state’s office reported that signatures were filed for the veto referendum. Counties reported a raw count of 1,023,529 signatures, of which 60.9% needed to be valid.[20] On January 22, 2020, the state office announced that an estimated 76.41% of the submitted signatures were valid, allowing the measure to appear on the ballot.[21]

Sponsors of the measure hired 2020 Ballcamp LLC to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $13,699,810.05 was spent to collect the 623,212 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $21.98.

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.

How to cast a vote in California

Poll times

All polls in California are open from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Pacific Time. An individual who is in line at the time polls close must be allowed to vote.[22]

Registration

To vote in California, an individual must be a U.S. citizen and California resident. A voter must be at least 18 years of age on Election Day. Pre-registration is available at 16 years of age. Pre-registration automatically registers voters when they turn 18.[23]

On October 10, 2015, California Governor Jerry Brown (D) signed into law Assembly Bill No. 1461, also known as the New Motor Voter Act. The legislation, which took effect in 2016, authorized automatic voter registration in California for any individuals who visit the Department of Motor Vehicles to acquire or renew a driver’s license.[24][25]

Automatic registration

California automatically registers eligible individuals to vote when they complete a driver’s license, identification (ID) card, or change of address transaction through the Department of Motor Vehicles.

Online registration

See also: Online voter registration

California has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website.

Same-day registration

California allows same-day voter registration.

Californians must be registered to vote at least 15 days before Election Day. If the registration deadline has passed for an upcoming election, voters may visit a location designated by their county elections official during the 14 days prior to, and including Election Day to conditionally register to vote and vote a provisional ballot. The state refers to this process as Same Day Voter Registration.[26]

Residency requirements

To register to vote in California, you must be a resident of the state. State law does not specify a length of time for which you must have been a resident to be eligible.

Verification of citizenship

See also: Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States

California’s constitution requires that voters be U.S. citizens. When registering to vote, proof of citizenship is not required. Individuals who become U.S. citizens less than 15 days before an election must bring proof of citizenship to their county elections office to register to vote in that election.[26]

Verifying your registration

The site Voter Status, run by the California Secretary of State’s office, allows residents to check their voter registration status online.

Voter ID requirements

California does not require voters to present photo identification. However, some voters may be asked to show a form of identification when voting if they are voting for the first time after registering to vote by mail and did not provide a driver license number, California identification number, or the last four digits of their social security number.[27][28]

The following list of accepted ID was current as of March 2023. Click here for the California Secretary of State page to ensure you have the most current information.

“

• Current and valid photo identification provided by a third party in the ordinary course of business that includes the name and photograph of the individual presenting it. Examples of photo identification include, but are not limited to, the following documents:
  • driver’s license or identification card of any state;
  • passport;
  • employee identification card;
  • identification card provided by a commercial establishment;
  • credit or debit card;
  • military identification card;
  • student identification card;
  • health club identification card;
  • insurance plan identification card; or
  • public housing identification card.
• Any of the following documents, provided that the document includes the name and address of the individual presenting it, and is dated since the date of the last general election…:
  • utility bill;
  • bank statement;
  • government check;
  • government paycheck;
  • document issued by a governmental agency;
  • sample ballot or other official elections document issued by a governmental, agency dated for the election in which the individual is providing it as proof, of residency or identity;
  • voter notification card issued by a governmental agency;
  • public housing identification card issued by a governmental agency;
  • lease or rental statement or agreement issued by a governmental agency;
  • student identification card issued by a governmental agency;
  • tuition statement or bill issued by a governmental agency;
  • insurance plan card or drug discount card issued by a governmental agency;
  • discharge certificates, pardons, or other official documents issued to the individual by a governmental agency in connection with the resolution of a criminal case, indictment, sentence, or other matter;
  • public transportation authority senior citizen and disabled discount cards issued by a governmental agency;
  • identification documents issued by governmental disability agencies;
  • identification documents issued by government homeless shelters and other government temporary or transitional facilities;
  • drug prescription issued by a government doctor or other governmental health care provider; (R) property tax statement issued by a governmental agency;
  • vehicle registration issued by a governmental agency; or
  • vehicle certificate of ownership issued by a governmental agency.[8]

”

See also

Footnotes

2022 ballot measuresI&R StatesNon I&R StatesPolitical topicsOther State of CaliforniaSacramento (capital)Elections

What’s on my ballot? | Elections in 2023 | 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

Source: https://gardencourte.com
Categories: Outdoor