2020 Calabasas helicopter crash, NTSB investigation
The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was the pilot's decision to continue flight under visual flight rules into instrument meteorological conditions, which resulted in the pilot's spatial disorientation and loss of control. Contributing to the accident was the pilot's likely self-induced pressure and the pilot's plan continuation bias, which adversely affected his decision-making, and Island Express Helicopters Inc.'s inadequate review and oversight of its safety management processes.


2020 Calabasas helicopter crash, Memorials
Around 200 people gathered at the foot of the hill close to the crash, with many wearing Bryant's jersey and holding basketballs. People also formed an impromptu memorial at the Staples Center, the home arena of the Los Angeles Lakers (the team where Bryant had played for during his entire 20 year NBA career, from 1996 to 2016) just hours before the arena was scheduled to host the Grammy Awards.


2020 Calabasas helicopter crash, Memorials
During the ceremony, host Alicia Keys and Boyz II Men performed "It's So Hard to Say Goodbye to Yesterday" in tribute to Bryant, and other performers, including Lil Nas X, Lizzo, Run-DMC, Aerosmith and DJ Khaled, incorporated tributes to Bryant in their performances. Bryant's two retired jerseys hanging in the rafters of the Staples Center were illuminated by spotlight. A week after Bryant's death, Staples Center staff began to clean up the makeshift memorial outside the arena, but promised to catalog, pack, and ship all nonperishable items to his family. Among the items thus recovered were 1,350 basketballs, as well as "25,000 candles, 5,000 signs or letters, 500 stuffed animals, 350 pairs of shoes and 14 banners."


2020 Calabasas helicopter crash, Memorials
Fans created a memorial for Bryant outside of the Kobe Bryant Gymnasium at Lower Merion High School in Ardmore, Pennsylvania, which Bryant attended from 1992 to 1996. Jerseys, dedicated basketballs, teddy bears, flowers and candles were all laid down to memorialize Bryant.


2020 Calabasas helicopter crash, Memorials
Landmarks around the world, including the Los Angeles International Airport, Madison Square Garden, the Empire State Building and the Santa Ana Water tower in Bryant's home of Orange County, CA were lit purple and gold in Bryant's memory.


2020 Calabasas helicopter crash, Memorials
On February 2, the world's tallest building, Burj Khalifa, lit up with images in tribute to Bryant and his daughter. The display was arranged by the Executive Chairman of Dubai Multi Commodities Centre (DMCC) Ahmed Sultan Bin Sulayem.


2020 Calabasas helicopter crash, Memorials
On February 7, Kobe and his daughter were buried in a private funeral in Pacific View Memorial Park in the Corona del Mar neighborhood of Newport Beach. Two days later, Bryant was also featured, alongside other recently deceased figures from the film industry, in the In Memoriam montage at the 92nd Academy Awards on February 9. A celebration of life for Kobe and his daughter was held at Staples Center on February 24, 2020.


2020 Calabasas helicopter crash, Memorials
On February 10, a memorial service was held inside Angel Stadium in Anaheim, California, honoring John Altobelli, his wife Keri and daughter Alyssa.


2020 Calabasas helicopter crash, Memorials
On July 18, the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences posthumously awarded Bryant a Governor's Award at the 72nd Los Angeles Emmy Awards in recognition of "his legacy of philanthropy, community building and inspiration that extended beyond the basketball court." Composer John Williams, whom Bryant worked with on his animated short film Dear Basketball, accepted the award on his behalf.


2020 Calabasas helicopter crash, Reactions, Basketball
The NBA family is devastated by the tragic passing of Kobe Bryant and his daughter Gianna, ... For 20 seasons, Kobe showed us what is possible when remarkable talent blends with an absolute devotion to winning. He was one of the most extraordinary players in the history of our game with accomplishments that are legendary ... But he will be remembered most for inspiring people around the world to pick up a basketball and compete to the very best of their ability. He was generous with the wisdom he acquired and saw it as his mission to share it with future generations of players, taking special delight in passing down his love of the game to Gianna.


2020 Calabasas helicopter crash, Reactions, Basketball
Gregg Downer, Bryant's high school basketball coach, was "completely shocked and devastated" by the news and was initially too distraught to speak to the media. Downer coached Bryant at Lower Merion High School in suburban Philadelphia from 1992 to 1996 and won the state championship with Bryant in 1996.


2020 Calabasas helicopter crash, Reactions, Basketball
Michael Jordan, to whom Bryant was often compared, said in a statement: "Words can't describe the pain I am feeling. I loved Kobe –  he was like a little brother to me... We used to talk often, and I will miss those conversations very much. He was a fierce competitor, one of the greats of the game and a creative force." Shaquille O'Neal, Bryant's Lakers teammate from 1996 to 2004 and with whom he shared a friendship and later a heavily publicized feud, said that he was "sick" and "had no words to express the pain."


2020 Calabasas helicopter crash, Reactions, Basketball
Several NBA teams paid tribute to Bryant during their games that night with intentional on-court violations referring to his uniform numbers: violations of the 24-second shot clock and the rule requiring teams to advance the ball past midcourt within eight seconds. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar posted a video on Twitter expressing his condolences. LeBron James, who had passed Bryant on the list of NBA career scoring leaders the previous night and had spoken to Bryant on the morning of the accident, posted a statement on Instagram, saying "I'm heartbroken and devastated ... I promise you I'll continue your legacy."


2020 Calabasas helicopter crash, Reactions, Basketball
Jerry West, Laker great and general manager who had orchestrated the deal to acquire Bryant for the Lakers, said that "I think the thing that resonates with me most... One person with one name –  Kobe –  you wouldn't have to mention his last name" and that it was the "saddest day of his life" to learn that the families in the helicopter crash had died.


2020 Calabasas helicopter crash, Reactions, Basketball
Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban said "that the number 24 will never again be worn by a Dallas Maverick." Several NBA players previously wearing Bryant's uniform numbers decided to change to new numbers in honor of Bryant.


2020 Calabasas helicopter crash, Reactions, Basketball
The NBA later postponed the Los Angeles Lakers' game against the Los Angeles Clippers that had been scheduled for January 28, two days after the accident. The game was made up on July 30,  the second game of the NBA's return from their suspension from the COVID-19 pandemic. It was originally planned to be made up on April 9, but was postponed again due to the suspension. The game ended in a Lakers 103-101 come from behind victory.


2020 Calabasas helicopter crash, Reactions, Basketball
On January 30, the first game after the crash was played at Staples Center between the Clippers and the Sacramento Kings, the Clippers honored Bryant before the game, by having Paul George narrate a video tribute to Bryant. The Clippers also uncovered Kobe's 8 and 24 retired jerseys as part of the tribute. Usually, the Clippers hide all of the Lakers' retired numbers and championship banners during their home games. The next day, the Lakers played their first game after the crash against the Portland Trail Blazers.


2020 Calabasas helicopter crash, Reactions, Basketball
Ahead of the match, Lakers paid tribute to Bryant and all who lost their lives in the crash with a ceremony held just before tip off, with Usher singing "Amazing Grace" and Boyz II Men, who performed at the Grammy's 5 days prior to the Lakers' first game since the crash, singing the National Anthem, while Wiz Khalifa and Charlie Puth reunited to perform their hit "See You Again" at halftime. James also delivered a speech to the crowd before the game, and every starter in the Lakers starting lineup was announced with Bryant's name.


2020 Calabasas helicopter crash, Reactions, Basketball
The Lakers also wore a patch with Kobe's initials for the rest of the season. The Lakers home court also paid tribute to Kobe by placing "KB" logos on the back ends of the court, and Kobe's numbers on the sidelines, with his #8 near the Lakers bench, and his #24 near the visiting team's bench. The game was the second-most watched game in ESPN history, averaging 4.41 million viewers.


2020 Calabasas helicopter crash, Reactions, Basketball
On February 15, commissioner Adam Silver announced that the NBA All-Star Game MVP Award would be renamed to the NBA All-Star Game Kobe Bryant Most Valuable Player in honor of Bryant. Also, in the 2020 NBA All-Star Game on February 16, each player on Team Giannis wore the jersey number 24, in honor of Kobe, while each player on Team LeBron wore the jersey number 2, in honor of Gianna.


2020 Calabasas helicopter crash, Reactions, Basketball
Soon after the crash, the Basketball Hall of Fame in Springfield put Kobe's name on their large sign out front as fans left candles and flowers on the large statue of James Naismith in front of the entrance. A vigil and a moment of silence was held inside the shrine with many fans of Bryant and the Lakers in attendance, despite it being in a strongly Celtics fans region.


2020 Calabasas helicopter crash, Reactions, Basketball
In addition to the Hall of Fame turning the thousands of lights of the large sphere of the shrine itself purple and gold numerous other office buildings in downtown Springfield did as well. Several billboards on Interstate 90 in Massachusetts were also dedicated to the memory of Kobe Bryant. Bryant was also inducted into the Hall of Fame Class of 2020 along with Tim Duncan and Kevin Garnett as players on their first years of eligibility.


2020 Calabasas helicopter crash, Reactions, Basketball
In May 2020, almost four months after the crash, Mamba Sports Academy reverted its name to Sports Academy by dropping the "Mamba" nickname out of respect to Bryant. After the Lakers won the 2020 NBA Finals, they dedicated the championship to Bryant.


2020 Calabasas helicopter crash, Reactions, Other sports
Many Major League Baseball, National Football League, and National Hockey League players, teams and other organizations memorialized Bryant in the immediate aftermath of the crash.


2020 Calabasas helicopter crash, Reactions, Other sports
News of Bryant's death broke just before kickoff of the 2020 Pro Bowl, with the players finding out in their locker rooms. Shortly after kickoff, Bryant's death was announced in the stadium and a moment of silence was held. ABC and ESPN broke away from their coverage of the event to cover the crash, and the player interviews focused heavily on the players' connections to, and respect for, Bryant. During pregame ceremonies for Super Bowl LIV the following week, players and coaches for both teams stood at both 24 yard lines, Bryant's number, during a tribute to Bryant and the other victims.


2020 Calabasas helicopter crash, Reactions, Other sports
WWE paid tribute to Bryant during its 2020 Royal Rumble pay-per-view later that night, as did All Elite Wrestling during that week's AEW Dynamite in Cleveland with the Southern California-based stable SoCal Uncensored wearing Bryant jerseys to the ring, and many professional wrestlers expressed their condolences for the Bryant family.


2020 Calabasas helicopter crash, Reactions, Other sports
Many ATP Tour tennis players paid tribute to Bryant during the 2020 Australian Open, including Novak Djokovic, who noted: "He was one of the greatest athletes of all time –  he inspired myself and many other people around the world."


2020 Calabasas helicopter crash, Reactions, Other sports
A.C. Milan, Bryant's favorite soccer team growing up in Italy, wore black armbands in memory of him in their Coppa Italia match against Torino on January 28, 2020. A minute of silence was also held before the match. Many soccer players and teams paid tribute to Bryant during matches and on social media.


2020 Calabasas helicopter crash, Reactions, Other sports
On January 26, 2020, after scoring his second goal from penalty spot against Lille OSC, Neymar paid tribute to Bryant by striking out four fingers of his right and two fingers of his left hand to mark number 24 towards the camera and then by offering a prayer to the heavens. On February 27, 2020, before Los Angeles FC's home match against Club León in the CONCACAF Champions League, LAFC fans unveiled a tifo honoring the Bryants; team captain Carlos Vela also wore an armband with Kobe's initials and uniform numbers. On January 27, Super League Greece club AE Larissa retired number 24 from their roster indefinitely.


2020 Calabasas helicopter crash, Reactions, Other sports
The NASCAR Cup Series' 2020 Auto Club 400 at Auto Club Speedway, located in nearby Fontana, California, featured various tributes from drivers and teams. Ryan Blaney and William Byron drove cars with special paint schemes honoring Bryant, with the former's being sponsored by Bodyarmor SuperDrink, a company of which Bryant was an investor. Sales of toy replicas of the cars were donated to philanthropic organizations connected to Bryant, with Byron's going to After-School All-Stars and Blaney's to MambaOnThree.org. Tyler Reddick's No. 8 car featured a tribute sticker, while Daniel Suárez raced with purple-and-gold gloves and shoes that were auctioned to support the Mamba On Three Fund. The track also painted a number 24 decal in the infield, while NASCAR conducted a pre-race ceremony to honor the victims.


2020 Calabasas helicopter crash, Reactions, Other sports
Tiger Woods was informed of the tragedy by his caddie Joe LaCava after finishing his final hole at the Farmers Insurance Open, and stated in the post-round interview that Bryant "brought it each and every night on both ends of the floor. And not too many guys can say that throughout NBA history".


2020 Calabasas helicopter crash, Reactions, Other sports
The following week's PGA Tour event was the Waste Management Open, an event that annually sees some of golf's most raucous crowds, particularly on the 16th hole. Several players, including Justin Thomas and Tony Finau, wore Bryant jerseys while playing the hole. On Sunday, the pin was placed 24 paces from the front and 8 paces from the left side in honor of Bryant's jersey numbers.


2020 Calabasas helicopter crash, Reactions, Other sports
Formula One champion Lewis Hamilton posted on Instagram and Twitter paying tribute to Bryant, along with several other former and current drivers, while Renault F1 driver Daniel Ricciardo wore a purple racing helmet with "KB24" below the visor during the 2020 Formula One pre-season test.


2020 Calabasas helicopter crash, Reactions, In politics
President Donald Trump and former presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, California governor Gavin Newsom, Los Angeles mayor Eric Garcetti, and other American politicians all expressed their condolences.


2020 Calabasas helicopter crash, Reactions, In popular culture
American rappers Jay Electronica and Jay-Z recorded the somber track "A.P.I.D.T.A." on the night of the helicopter crash, later released as the final track on Jay Electronica's debut album A Written Testimony on March 13, 2020. ESPN's Elle Duncan shared an emotional story while she hosted the SportsCenter show on January 27, 2020, about how proud Bryant was of being a father to his daughters; Duncan recalled, amongst other things, Bryant telling her: "I would have five more girls if I could. I'm a girl dad." Duncan's story went viral and inspired other fathers across the world to celebrate their relationships with their daughters, using the hashtag #GirlDad.


2020 Calabasas helicopter crash, Reactions, In popular culture
Kanye West dedicated the song "24" from his album Donda to Bryant.


2020 Calabrian regional election
The 2020 Calabrian regional election took place in Calabria, Italy, on 26 January 2020. The result was the victory of the centre-right coalition and the election of Jole Santelli as President of Calabria.


2020 Calabrian regional election
The election was held concurrently with a regional election in Emilia-Romagna.


2020 Calabrian regional election, Electoral system
Even if a district list is linked to a regional list that exceeds 8% of the vote, the district list must obtain at least 4% of the vote in the whole region in order to elect their own representatives. To ensure governance, the candidate who receives the most votes wins a majority bonus of 55% of the seats.


2020 Calcutta Women's Football League season
2020 Calcutta Women's Football League is officially known as Kanyashree Cup.


2020 Calgary National Bank Challenger
The 2020 Calgary National Bank Challenger was a professional tennis tournament played on indoor hard courts. It was the second edition of the tournament and part of the 2020 ATP Challenger Tour. It took place in Calgary, Canada.


2020 Calgary National Bank Challenger, Singles entrants, Other entrants
The following players received wildcards into the singles main draw:


2020 Calgary National Bank Challenger, Singles entrants, Other entrants
The following player received entry into the singles main draw using a protected ranking:


2020 Calgary National Bank Challenger – Doubles
Robert Galloway and Nathan Pasha were the defending champions but only Pasha chose to defend his title, partnering Max Schnur. Pasha successfully defended his title after defeating Harry Bourchier and Filip Peliwo 7–6(7–4), 6–3 in the final.


2020 Calgary National Bank Challenger – Singles
Ivo Karlović was the defending champion but lost in the third round to Geoffrey Blancaneaux.


2020 Calgary National Bank Challenger – Singles
Arthur Rinderknech won the title after defeating Maxime Cressy 3–6, 7–6(7–5), 6–4 in the final.


2020 Calgary Roughnecks season
The Calgary Roughnecks are a lacrosse team based in Calgary, Alberta. The team plays in the National Lacrosse League (NLL). The 2020 season is the 19th in franchise history. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the season was suspended on March 12, 2020. On April 8, the league made a further public statement announcing the cancellation of the remaining games of the 2020 season and that they would be exploring options for playoffs once it was safe to resume play.


2020 Calgary Roughnecks season
On June 4th, the league confirmed that the playoffs would also be cancelled due to the pandemic.


2020 Calgary Roughnecks season, Final standings
x: Clinched playoff berth; c: Clinched playoff berth by crossing over to another division; y: Clinched division; z: Clinched best regular season record; GP: Games PlayedW: Wins; L: Losses; GB: Games back; PCT: Win percentage; Home: Record at Home; Road: Record on the Road; GF: Goals scored; GA: Goals allowedDifferential: Difference between goals scored and allowed; GF/GP: Average number of goals scored per game; GA/GP: Average number of goals allowed per game


2020 Calgary Stampeders season
The 2020 Calgary Stampeders season was scheduled to be the 63rd season for the team in the Canadian Football League and their 76th overall. Training camps, pre-season games, and regular season games were initially postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic in Alberta. The CFL announced on April 7, 2020 that the start of the 2020 season would not occur before July 2020. On May 20, 2020, it was announced that the league would likely not begin regular season play prior to September 2020. On August 17, 2020 however, the season was officially cancelled due to COVID-19.


2020 Calgary Stampeders season
This season would have been Dave Dickenson's fifth season as head coach and John Hufnagel's 13th season as general manager. The team had planned to celebrate the 75th anniversary of the team's inception in 1945.


2020 Calgary Stampeders season, Offseason, CFL National Draft
The 2020 CFL National Draft took place on April 30, 2020. The Stampeders obtained the first overall pick after completing a trade with the Ottawa Redblacks that saw the teams swap first-round picks and Calgary acquire another third-round pick following the trade and subsequent re-signing of Nick Arbuckle to the Redblacks. However, shortly after the draft began, the Stampeders then traded the first and 15th overall picks to the BC Lions for the third and 12th overall picks.


2020 Calgary Stampeders season, Offseason, CFL National Draft
The Stampeders also traded their fifth-round selection and Justin Renfrow to BC in exchange for a fourth-round pick in this year's draft and a negotiation list player.


2020 Calgary Stampeders season, Offseason, CFL Global Draft
The 2020 CFL Global Draft was scheduled to take place on April 16, 2020. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, this draft and its accompanying combine were postponed to occur just before the start of training camp, which was ultimately cancelled. The Stampeders were scheduled to select sixth in each round with the number of rounds never announced.


2020 Calgary Stampeders season, Team, Roster
Italics indicate American playerBold indicates Global player updated 2020-08-17 • 93 Roster


2020 California Democratic presidential primary
The 2020 California Democratic presidential primary took place in California, United States, on March 3, 2020, as one of 14 contests scheduled on Super Tuesday in the Democratic Party primaries for the 2020 presidential election, following the South Carolina primary the weekend before. The California primary is a semi-closed primary, with the state awarding 494 delegates towards the 2020 Democratic National Convention, of which 415 are pledged delegates allocated on the basis of the results of the primary.


2020 California Democratic presidential primary
The Associated Press declared Bernie Sanders the winner of the primary, improving on his polling average by 3%. The runner-up, Joe Biden, had a stronger-than-expected finish to match his Super Tuesday momentum.


2020 California Democratic presidential primary, Procedure
California was one of 14 states that held its primaries on March 3, 2020, also known as "Super Tuesday", having joined other states on the date after the signing of the Prime Time Primary Act by Governor Jerry Brown on September 27, 2017, in an effort to increase the influence of the delegate-rich state in the nomination process.


2020 California Democratic presidential primary, Procedure
Candidates may obtain ballot access in a number of ways. They must have. :


2020 California Democratic presidential primary, Procedure
If they do not have at least one of those qualifications, they may submit petitions of 500 signatures from each of the state's congressional districts obtained from November 4 to December 13, 2019.


2020 California Democratic presidential primary, Procedure
The official list of qualified candidates was released on December 6, 2019. Unqualified candidates were required to submit their petitions by this date.


2020 California Democratic presidential primary, Procedure
Military and overseas mail-in ballots were sent out on January 3, 2020, and domestic mail-in ballots were requested and sent out from February 3 to February 25. Early voting centers opened for business on February 22 and will continue until March 3.


2020 California Democratic presidential primary, Procedure
Election day voting took place throughout the state from 7 a.m. until 8 p.m. In the semi-closed primary, candidates must meet a threshold of 15 percent at the congressional district or statewide level in order to be considered viable. The 415 pledged delegates to the 2020 Democratic National Convention will be allocated proportionally on the basis of the results of the primary. Of the 415 pledged delegates, between 4 and 7 are allocated to each of the state's 53 congressional districts, and another 54 are allocated to party leaders and elected officials (PLEO delegates), in addition to 90 at-large pledged delegates.


2020 California Democratic presidential primary, Procedure
Following the primary, district-level delegates to the national convention will be elected on  April 19, 2020, in the post-primary caucus. Should presidential candidates be allocated more delegates based on the results of the primary than delegate candidates presented, then supplemental delegates will be elected at caucuses on May 9, 2020. The national convention delegation meeting will subsequently be held on May 17, 2020, to vote on the 54 pledged PLEO and 90 at-large delegates to send to the Democratic National Convention. The 415 pledged delegates California sends to the national convention will be joined by 79 un-pledged superdelegates (30 members of the Democratic National Committee; 48 members of Congress; and the governor).


2020 California Democratic presidential primary, Candidates
The following candidates appear in the Certified List of Statewide Candidates:


2020 California Golden Bears football team
The 2020 California Golden Bears football team represented the University of California, Berkeley during the 2020 NCAA Division I FBS football season. The team was led by head coach Justin Wilcox, in his fourth year as head coach. The team's offense was led by Bill Musgrave, who replaced Beau Baldwin; Baldwin left to become the head coach at Cal Poly.


2020 California Golden Bears football team
On August 11, 2020, the Pac-12 Conference canceled all Fall 2020 sports competitions due to the COVID-19 pandemic. On September 24, it was announced that a seven-game season would be played in 2020, and the schedule was officially announced on October 3. Due to additional COVID-related game cancellations, the Bears ultimately only played four games and finished with a 1–3 record for the season, with the sole win coming against No. 23 ranked Oregon.


2020 California Golden Bears football team, Offseason, Offseason departures
Nine Golden Bears graduated in 2020, and three were selected in the 2020 NFL Draft.


2020 California Golden Bears football team, Preseason
On January 3, 2020, Cal announced that it would hire former Denver Broncos offensive coordinator Bill Musgrave as its next offensive coordinator, replacing Beau Baldwin. Musgrave, an Oregon alumni like Wilcox, began his coaching career as quarterbacks coach for the Oakland Raiders in 1997. He last coached at the collegiate level as an offensive coordinator for Virginia in 2001–2002.


2020 California Golden Bears football team, Preseason
On January 10, Angus McClure was announced as the next offensive line coach. McClure spent 11 years at UCLA. Four days later, Aristotle Thompson was hired as the running backs coach. Thompson was the running backs coach at Cal Poly prior to being hired at Cal.


2020 California Golden Bears football team, Preseason
Cal's defensive line coach, Gerald Alexander, was hired to the same position by the Miami Dolphins on January 24. Cal announced it would hire former Arizona defensive coordinator Marcel Yates to replace him the following day.


2020 California Golden Bears football team, Preseason
On March 4, it was announced that Peter Sirmon would be made co-defensive coordinator alongside Tim DeRuyter.


2020 California Golden Bears football team, Preseason, Pac-12 media poll
In the 2020 Pac-12 preseason media poll, California was voted to finish in second place in the North Division.


2020 California Golden Bears football team, Schedule
Cal's 2020 regular season was announced on January 16. The Golden Bears had 3 games scheduled against UNLV, TCU, and Cal Poly, but canceled these games on July 10 due to the Pac-12 Conference's decision to play a conference-only schedule due to the COVID-19 pandemic.


2020 California Golden Bears football team, Schedule
On August 11, the Pac-12 Conference canceled all Fall 2020 sports competitions due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, following an agreement that boosted testing capacity for players and personnel, the conference announced it would play a seven-game football schedule beginning in November.


2020 California Golden Bears football team, Schedule
The schedule would see Cal play all five division opponents, Arizona State from the Pac-12 South division, and a season-closing game against the equally-ranked team in the opposite division (the division winners will play each other in the conference championship, while the team that finishes second in the North division plays the team that finishes second in the South division).


2020 California Golden Bears football team, Schedule
On November 13, Cal's scheduled game at Arizona State for November 14 was canceled after a COVID-19 outbreak within the Arizona State program. The Pac-12 then announced that Cal would instead play at UCLA on the morning of November 15; the Bruins' scheduled game against Utah had also been canceled after Utah had a COVID-19 outbreak.


2020 California Proposition 13
Proposition 13 (officially named as the "Public Preschool, K-12, and College Health and Safety Bond Act of 2020") was a failed California proposition on the March 3, 2020, ballot that would have authorized the issuance of $15 billion in bonds to finance capital improvements for public and charter schools statewide. The proposition would have also raised the borrowing limit for some school districts and eliminated school impact fees for multifamily housing near transit stations.


2020 California Proposition 13
The "yes" campaign had widespread support amongst political, education and business organizations and spent roughly $10 million to support the measure. The "no" campaign was chiefly led by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, who spent $250,000 to oppose the measure.


2020 California Proposition 13, The measure
The initiative was placed on the ballot after a bipartisan vote on Assembly Bill 48 by the state legislature. Proposition 13 would have allowed the state to borrow $15 billion by selling general obligation bonds, and would have then allocated $9 billion for K-12 facilities statewide as well as $2 billion for the state's community college system, $2 billion for the University of California and $2 billion for the California State University.


2020 California Proposition 13, The measure
Of the $9 billion earmarked for preschool and K-12 schools, $5.2 billion would have gone towards renovating existing facilities, $2.8 billion would have gone towards new school construction, and the remaining $1 billion would have been evenly split between career technical sites and charter schools. Smaller preschool and K-12 schools would have received priority for funding. The Legislative Analyst's Office projected the measure would have cost California taxpayers $740 million a year for 35 years which would be repaid from the state's general fund at an annual interest rate of roughly 3.5 percent.


2020 California Proposition 13, The measure
Academics said the measure would have helped address a backlog of maintenance projects that would cost $117 billion to be fully addressed over the following decade. The measure would have funded asbestos removal, seismic retrofitting and other capital improvements on various California preschool, K-12, and college campuses.


2020 California Proposition 13, The measure
The measure contained provisions that would have eliminated school impact fees on multifamily housing development within half a mile of train and bus stations. Education finance experts said the fees are essential for properly funding the impact of new students. Developers said the fees unnecessarily drive up the cost of new housing. The author of Proposition 13, Patrick O'Donnell, said the effect of impact fee elimination should have been closely watched and corrected if necessary.


2020 California Proposition 13, The measure
The measure would have also loosened limits on local school district borrowing. High school and elementary school districts would have been allowed to borrow 2 percent of the assessed value of nearby properties, up from 1.25 percent. Unified school districts, along with community college districts, would have been able to borrow 4 percent of the assessed value of nearby properties, up from 2.5 percent. The measure would have capped administrative costs at 5 percent, or $750 million total.


2020 California Proposition 13, The measure
School districts that were less able to raise funding for construction projects or with underserved student populations (being determined by the percent of low-income students, foster youth or English language learners in the district) would have been eligible for matching state funds, for upwards of 55 to 65 percent of the total project cost. The initiative required unionized labor for these projects.


2020 California Proposition 13, The measure
Supporters said that these improvements would have made public schools safer and healthier. Opponents said that the actual total cost of the bonds plus interest would have exceeded $27 billion, which was more expensive than using funds directly from the regular state budget which had a $21 billion surplus at the time of the election.


2020 California Proposition 13, Result
Proposition 13 was defeated, becoming the first school bond rejected by California's voters since 1994.


2020 California Proposition 13, Result
Supporters of the measure said voters' confusion over the numbering led to the idea that it was a disguised repeal of the popular Proposition 13 which passed in 1978, leading to its defeat. Opponents said voters were concerned about how the measure would have raised taxes and the cost of living by increasing local school districts' debt limits.


2020 California Proposition 13, Result
Assemblyman O'Donnell announced his intention to introduce a bill that would retire the number '13' for future ballot initiatives to avoid possible confusion, a position supported by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the main opponent of the failed 2020 measure and an advocate for the famous 1978 ballot initiative.


2020 California Proposition 14
California Proposition 14 is a citizen-initiated ballot measure that appeared on the ballot in the 2020 California elections, for November 3, 2020. It authorizes state bonds to be issued worth $5.5 billion, which will fund the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), which serves as the state's center for stem cell research, and enable it to continue its operations. This measure passed with 51% of the vote.


2020 California Proposition 14, Background
Robert N. Klein II, motivated by the suffering of family members from autoimmune diseases, launched a citizen initiative known as Proposition 71 in 2004, which created a state-funded center for stem cell research - the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM). Based in San Francisco, the CIRM is responsible for with making grants and loans to stem cell research initiatives focused on developing treatment methods and completing research for clinical trials.


2020 California Proposition 14, Background
Proposition 71 was approved by 59% of California voters and authorized $3 billion in bonds to fund the CIRM in addition to creating a Governing Board of 29 members as an Independent Citizens' Oversight Committee (ICOC). By 2020, $2.75 billion of the original $3 billion has been used or earmarked for funding of basic research, infrastructure, education, and clinical translational studies. For this reason, Klein spearheaded this initiative to authorize an additional $5.5 billion in bonds for the CIRM to support additional grants and operations under Proposition 14.


2020 California Proposition 14, Background
Research areas of focus at CIRM include stem cell based research to mitigate or cure serious illness and chronic diseases such as cancer, heart disease, kidney disease, respiratory illnesses including COVID-19, diabetes, cancer, HIV/AIDs, paralysis, blindness, and more. A dedicated $1.5 billion under funding from Proposition 14 will be dedicated to research of diseases specific to the central nervous system and brain, including cancer, autism, dementia, Parkinson's and Alzheimers' disease.


2020 California Proposition 14, Background
Changes to the CIRM program and governance proposed in Proposition 14 include increased focus in improving patient access to stem cell treatments by expanding sites and facilities for human trials, the requirement for income earned from CIRM agreements to reduce the cost of stem cell treatments for patients, increase the ICOC from 29 members to 35 members, and to hire 15 full-time employees whose roles are dedicated to improving patient access to stem cell-derived therapeutics and treatments. Further, proposition 14 stipulates $1.5 billion to be spent researching brain and nervous system diseases, including dementia and Parkinson’s disease. Estimated fiscal impact of Proposition 14 would include the initial $5.5 billion in bonds and $2.5 billion in interest, for an overall annual debt payment of $310 million over 25 years. Proposition 14 appropriates money from the general fund in order to fully pay the bond debt service.


2020 California Proposition 14, Support
In addition to Klein, this measure is supported by the Regents of the University of California. It was also endorsed by governor Gavin Newsom and the Modesto Bee.


2020 California Proposition 14, Support
Proponents argue that biomedical research is crucial, particularly in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. Proponents of Proposition 14 have raised more than $13.4 million in campaign funds.


2020 California Proposition 14, Opposition
As with Proposition 71, opposition to Proposition 14 includes many across the political spectrum including the Bakersfield Californian, California Nurses Association, California Catholic Conference, California Republican Party, Center for Genetics and Society, Friends Committee on Legislation of California, Green Party of California, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Libertarian Party of California, Los Angeles Times, Orange County Register, Peace and Freedom Party, Right to Life of Central California, San Bernardino Sun, San Francisco Chronicle, San Jose Mercury News, Scholl Institute of Bioethics, and CIRM board member Jeff Sheehy.


2020 California Proposition 14, Opposition
However, there was no significant organized opposition to Proposition 14, and the "No on Proposition 14" committee raised only $250.


2020 California Proposition 15
California Proposition 15 was a failed citizen-initiated proposition on the November 3, 2020, ballot. It would have provided $6.5 billion to $11.5 billion in new funding for public schools, community colleges, and local government services by creating a "split roll" system that increased taxes on large commercial properties by assessing them at market value, without changing property taxes for small business owners or residential properties for homeowners or renters. The measure failed by a small margin of about four percentage points.


2020 California Proposition 15
Proposition 15 would have amended the Constitution of California to adjust the limitations on property taxes introduced by 1978 California Proposition 13. It would have changed the property tax assessment on owners of commercial properties with a combined value of greater than $3 million to pay property tax based on the property's current market value, not purchase price. The measure would have exempted all agricultural land and small businesses that owned their own properties. It also included a small business tax cut by increasing the small business personal property tax deduction.


2020 California Proposition 15
All residential properties for homeowners and renters were exempt and other special circumstantial exemptions were provided under the proposition, such as an exemption for rental units or properties with a higher value in which the owner does not in the property (in this case, the tax would have been based on the market value of the property starting in 2022).


2020 California Proposition 15
It is one of two ballot measures on the 2020 California ballot that would adjust the original Proposition 13, the other being Proposition 19.


2020 California Proposition 15, Background
In 1978, the California voters passed Proposition 13, which limited property taxes to 1% of assessed value, limited increases in assessed value to at most 2% per year, and set assessed value at the 1975–76 value. The assessed value only changes when the property is sold, when there is new construction on the property, or when a change of ownership otherwise occurs.


2020 California Proposition 15, Background
This led to a 60% decrease in property tax revenue collected by local governments the year after Proposition 13 was passed, and forced local authorities in California to subsequently rely on sales taxes, which are more regressive, as well as on state government funding originating from California's personal income tax, which is more progressive but also more volatile.


2020 California Proposition 15, Background
If Proposition 15 passed, it would have required owners of large commercial, non-residential properties of a combined value of over $3 million to pay property taxes based on current market value, not purchase price. Owners of commercial parcels with a combined value of under $3 million and owners of agricultural or residential property would still be covered by Proposition 13.


2020 California Proposition 15, Background
This type of "split roll" property tax system would have resulted in most owners of large commercial properties paying higher property taxes commensurate with the property's current market value, without changing property taxes for small businesses, agricultural lands, or residential properties. Upon this proposition passing, there would have been a reduction in taxes on business equipment. The amount of funding allocated to the local government and schools is dependent on the .


2020 California Proposition 15, Background, Property transfer loophole
Some businesses have exploited a property transfer loophole in Proposition 13 implementing statutes created by the California Legislature that define what constitutes a change in property ownership. To take advantage of this loophole, businesses only have to make sure that no change in ownership exceeds 50% in order to avoid a property tax reassessment.


2020 California Proposition 15, Background, Property transfer loophole
The world's largest investment firm The Blackstone Group, for example, avoided paying $2.7 million in property taxes when they purchased 49% ownership of a San Francisco property in 2017. The Trump Organization, owned by Donald Trump, is another notable property owner who has avoided millions of dollars in California property taxes as a result of the loophole. In 2018, the California Board of Equalization estimated that closing this loophole would raise up to $269 million annually in new tax revenue.


2020 California Proposition 15, Background, Property transfer loophole
The Legislature could close the property transfer loophole with a 2/3 vote. The loophole was almost closed in 2014 by a bipartisan coalition in the state legislature but the effort died after progressive politicians, organized labor, and community groups refused to support the effort. In 2015 and 2018, Republican efforts to fix this loophole were stalled by Democratic state legislators in legislative committee. Another Republican attempt to close the loophole was made in 2020. Democrat Don Perata, former California senate leader, said this loophole is left open by his party to create justification for ending Proposition 13.


2020 California Proposition 15, Support, Political endorsements
This measure was supported by over 650 federal, state, and local elected officials and the California Democratic Party. Notable endorsements include:


2020 California Proposition 15, Support, Organizational endorsements
The measure was also supported by a broad coalition of over 900 education, health and public service employees, and advocacy groups. Notable endorsing organizations included:


2020 California Proposition 15, Support, Organizational endorsements
This initiative attracted 1.7 million signatures as part of the ballot initiative campaign, a number which organizers describe as 'record-breaking'.


2020 California Proposition 15, Support, Donations
The Yes on Proposition 15 campaign raised over $67.6 million mostly from foundations and public service unions. The top 3 contributors were the Chan Zuckerburg Initiative, California Teachers Association, and SEIU California.


2020 California Proposition 15, Support, Supporter arguments
Supporters said Prop 15 is a broad coalition of 1600 organizations launched by civil rights organizations, housing groups, parents, teachers, nurses, firefighters and community-based organizations who advocate for equality and justice for communities of color.


2020 California Proposition 15, Support, Supporter arguments
Supporters stated that 92% of the revenue generated from Prop. 15 would be paid by 10% of the highest value commercial properties based on a study using the assessor's property tax data. Almost half of the revenue generated would be paid by properties that have not been reassessed since before 2000.


2020 California Proposition 15, Support, Supporter arguments
Supporters cited a report that Proposition 15 will not impact small businesses, including those who rent and are in triple net leases. The report was published by Beacon Economics and commissioned by the Silicon Valley Community Foundation. The study said that rents are determined by the local market, not by the property taxes paid.


2020 California Proposition 15, Support, Supporter arguments
U.S. President-elect Joe Biden said: "Every kid deserves a quality education, and every family deserves to live in a safe, healthy community. That's why I support Prop 15." while previous U.S. Senator from California and Vice President–elect Kamala Harris, also a supporter, stated: "A corporate tax loophole has allowed billions to be drained from our public schools and local communities. No more. I'm proud to support Prop 15."


2020 California Proposition 15, Support, Supporter arguments
Proponents of the split roll property tax system said the intent of Proposition 13 was to protect residential property taxes from spiking and say the broad application of Proposition 13 to corporate property is a loophole.


2020 California Proposition 15, Support, Supporter arguments
Governor Gavin Newsom announced his endorsement of Proposition 15, calling the proposal "a fair, phased-in and long-overdue reform to state tax policy." The governor said in a written statement, "It's consistent with California's progressive fiscal values, it will exempt small businesses and residential property owners, it will fund essential services such as public schools and public safety and, most importantly, it will be decided by a vote of the people."


2020 California Proposition 15, Support, Supporter arguments
Many argued that the additional public revenue provided by this initiative is badly needed. After Proposition 13 was passed in 1978, San Jose had to cut public services and resulted in the first public school in America in 40 years to declare bankruptcy. These issues with educational inequality have only worsened in light of the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States.


2020 California Proposition 15, Support, Supporter arguments
San Francisco mayor London Breed referred to this in her statement of support, saying "When I look at our dire budget deficits over the next couple of years, and then I see these revenue estimates showing how much we can invest in our community without having to raise any taxes on residents, it makes it more important for me to give my full support on this initiative."


2020 California Proposition 15, Support, Supporter arguments
Labor leader Dolores Huerta also argued that this revenue will help fund public health services such as clinics and public hospitals, which are facing the additional burden of the pandemic.


2020 California Proposition 15, Support, Supporter arguments
Socialists supporting Proposition 15 stated: "Prop 15 is a progressive tax, drawing its revenue from those best able to pay on behalf of the common good."


2020 California Proposition 15, Support, Supporter arguments
Environmentalists also argues that the tax reform would constrain urban sprawl, which increases greenhouse gas emissions and exacerbates climate change by inducing vehicle travel demand.


2020 California Proposition 15, Support, Supporter arguments
California State PTA President Celia Jaffe stated: "Our schools have been desperately underfunded for years, and we need this measure to ensure our children have the resources they need in order to learn. We urge parents and families across the state to support this act to give classrooms – and our children – the funding they need."


2020 California Proposition 15, Opposition, Political opponents
The measure was opposed by over 190 current and former federal, state, and local elected officials, and the California Republican Party. Notable opponents include:


2020 California Proposition 15, Opposition, Organizational opponents
This measure is also opposed by a coalition of over 350 business groups, taxpayer and civic organizations, land developers, and agricultural interests. Notable opposing organizations include:


2020 California Proposition 15, Opposition, Donations
The No on Proposition 15 campaign raised over $73.1 million mostly from land developers, agricultural interests and golf and country clubs. The largest donor was the California Business Roundtable Issues PAC, which contributed more than $38 million to the No on 15 campaign. The Business Roundtable's biggest donors were New York–based Blackstone Property Partners, which gave $7 million, and Michael Hayde, CEO of the Irvine real estate investment firm Western National Group, who gave $4.5 million.


2020 California Proposition 15, Opposition, Opposition arguments
Opponents said the costs of the tax increase would ultimately be borne by commercial property renters (business owners), and at a time already challenging for retail businesses to survive. Property taxes are paid by the tenant (as opposed to the landlord) under most retail leases. That is because retail leases are generally structured as triple-net leases, whereby a building's property taxes, insurance premiums, and maintenance expenses are passed through to the tenant, who is responsible to pay for its proportionate share of those costs in addition to base rent.


2020 California Proposition 15, Opposition, Opposition arguments
Retailers, already struggling due to the pandemic, may be unable to meet the increased tax bill, putting their survivability at greater risk. It was also expected to affect tenants who enter into gross leases (whereby expenses are included in base rent), as the higher taxes may be offset with higher rent. This would have a negative impact on tenant finances, and tenants may ultimately pass the higher costs to consumers. Opponents and analysts say Proposition 15 will have the greatest adverse impact on minority- and family-owned businesses, hitting local and regional players the hardest.


2020 California Proposition 15, Opposition, Opposition arguments
County assessors were almost uniformly against Proposition 15, saying the measure would lead to an unmanageable workload which would result in expenditures exceeding revenues to the state for many years, while revenue would be less than expected due to costly litigation associated with assessment appeals by property owners. Assessors said running the transition alone would cost $470 million per year for up to 10 years, and that the costs and challenges of the transition and increased workload could exceed any additional tax revenues. They also were critical of the tax breaks offered in the initiative, purportedly to appease small businesses.


2020 California Proposition 15, Opposition, Opposition arguments
The measure provided that businesses with 50 employees or fewer would be exempt from the property tax on "equipment and fixtures," which assessors said did not make sense and would be impossible to implement as they have no means to determine a business's workforce. According to the California Assessor's Association, Proposition 15 would require the hiring of up to 900 new assessors statewide at a total cost of $517 million to $639 million per year.


2020 California Proposition 15, Opposition, Opposition arguments
Opponents said that while the measure targets the large commercial beneficiaries of Proposition 13, it will ultimately burden property renters, consumers, and business owners alike. They also state it may inevitably lead to a full repeal of Proposition 13. "We're next on the menu," said the president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, who also said: "California has the highest income tax rate in America, we have the highest sales tax in America, we have the highest gas tax in America." and that "Even with Proposition 13 protections, California has higher property taxes than two-thirds of the nation."


2020 California Proposition 15, Opposition, Opposition arguments
Opponents drew attention to the significant financial support Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has given the measure through the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (CZI). Newer Silicon Valley corporations like Facebook derive smaller benefits from Proposition 13 than traditional California businesses do. While Facebook has not come out in support of the measure, opponents at the California Business Roundtable say: "We see CZI as a tool of Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook. It's a tool in his toolbox." Officials at the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative say the two entities operate independently.


2020 California Proposition 15, Opposition, Opposition arguments
Prop. 15 was also opposed by the California NAACP State Conference, which said it will harm minority small business owners. The endorsement received criticism because the leader of the California NAACP, Alice Huffman, owns a political consulting firm which has received cumulatively over $1.2 million in payments by campaigns that she endorsed. Huffman said she only takes on political clients whose campaigns are aligned with the California NAACP's positions.


2020 California Proposition 15, Opposition, Opposition arguments
Some commentators noted how the initiative would not provide funding for affordable housing development and would further lower the incentive for governmental approval of needed residential development in favor of more-taxable commercial development (for its attendant sales, payroll, business, and/or property tax revenue).


2020 California Proposition 15, Opposition, Opposition arguments
Opponents of the split roll property tax system said voters deliberately sought to extend Proposition 13 protections to all commercial property by rejecting a split roll promoted by Jerry Brown in 1978, and that the transfer loophole was created by the legislature and was not a component of the original Proposition 13 voters approved in the same election that year.


2020 California Proposition 15, Opposition, Opposition arguments
Some people contended this would be a way for state and local governments to pay off their significant unfunded pension liabilities rather than reforming pensions (by capping large payouts and making employees contribute more) that they feel are overly generous and adopted not because of market necessity, but because of unions' political power and bad legislative choices.


2020 California Proposition 15, Opposition, Opposition arguments
The California Farm Bureau opposed the measure because it feared that improvements to farms could be taxed at higher rates.


2020 California Proposition 15, Opposition, Opposition arguments
Another oppositional argument came from the fact that Proposition 15 would have a varying effect on different regions of the state because of the decreased business equipment taxes. It is possible that the rural areas would actually lose money, which would decrease the amount of funding going to public schools, amongst other local needs, deepening inequities state-wide.


2020 California Proposition 15, Expenditure of tax proceeds
All local governments that receive funds from the property tax increases imposed by Proposition 15 must publicly disclose for each fiscal year the amount of property tax revenues received thereunder for that fiscal year and how those property tax revenues were spent. Spending decisions on Proposition 15 tax proceeds will be made by local elected officials as part of the annual budget process.


2020 California Proposition 15, Education funding allocation
Of the Proposition 15 revenue, 40% is allocated for K–12 public school districts (89%) and community colleges (11%). The additional education revenue will be distributed to local school districts through the state Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) that uses state taxes to supplement the local property tax revenue so that every school district in the state reaches a minimum funding level based on the following principles:


2020 California Proposition 15, Education funding allocation
Some wealthier school districts receive more funding through their local property taxes than the LCFF limit. These school districts keep all their local property taxes and only receive "basic aid" from state taxes. On average, basic-aid school districts have more than $4,000 per student (30.6% increase) than LCFF school districts. Proposition 15 guarantees that all school districts will receive at least $100 more per student regardless of their LCFF or basic aid status.


2020 California Proposition 15, Education funding allocation
Revenue projections for each district have been calculated based on 2019–2020 enrollments and have been identified by School Services of California (as published by EdSource).


2020 California Proposition 15, Polling
In order to pass, it needs a simple majority (>50%).


2020 California Proposition 16
Proposition 16 is a California ballot proposition that appeared on the November 3, 2020, general election ballot, asking California voters to amend the Constitution of California to repeal 1996's Proposition 209. Proposition 209 amended the state constitution to prohibit government institutions from considering race, sex, or ethnicity, specifically in the areas of public employment, public contracting, and public education. Therefore, Proposition 209 banned the use of race-based affirmative action in California's public sector, while still permitting socioeconomic considerations.


2020 California Proposition 16
The legislatively referred state constitutional amendment was originally introduced as California Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 5 (ACA 5) by Democratic Assembly Members Weber, Gipson, and Santiago on January 18, 2019. In June 2020, the California State Legislature passed ACA 5 on a mostly party-line vote, voting 60–14 on June 10 in the Assembly and 30–10 on June 24 in the Senate. The measure was defeated by fifty-seven percent.


2020 California Proposition 16, Background
Proposition 16 would have repealed 1996 California Proposition 209 which amended the California constitution and prohibits government institutions from considering race, sex, or ethnicity, specifically in the areas of public employment, public contracting, and public education. Before Proposition 209, state and local entities had policies and programs—collectively called "affirmative action"—intended to increase opportunities and representation for people who faced inequalities as a result of their race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin. For example, the state had established programs to increase the participation of women-owned and minority-owned businesses in public contracts and set goals for the portion of state contracts that were awarded to those types of businesses.


2020 California Proposition 16, Background
In 1996, California voters approved Proposition 209, adding a new section to the State Constitution as Section 31 of Article I. The new section generally banned the consideration of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, and public contracting in California with limited exceptions. After voters approved Proposition 209, some public entities in California created or modified policies and programs to instead consider characteristics not banned by Proposition 209. For example, many California public universities universities provide outreach and support programs for students who are first in their family to attend college. Many university campuses also consider where students attended high school and where they live when making admissions decisions. The universities view these policies and programs as ways to increase diversity without violating Proposition 209.


2020 California Proposition 16, Background
The California and federal constitutions provide all people equal protection, which generally means that people in similar situations are treated similarly under the law. Federal law establishes a right to equal protection and as a result limits how "protected classes" such as race and gender may be used in decision-making. For example, under federal law, universities may consider these characteristics as one of several factors when making admission decisions in an effort to make their campuses more diverse. To ensure compliance with federal law, these policies and programs must meet certain conditions that limit the consideration of these characteristics.


2020 California Proposition 16, Background
These conditions are intended to prevent discrimination that violates equal protection. State law also has a number of anti-discrimination provisions that are similar to those in federal law. Before Proposition 209, state and local policies and programs that considered race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin still had to comply with federal law. Since such discrimination was already illegal based on state law, federal law, and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, Proposition 209 effectively banned affirmative action within these public bodies.


2020 California Proposition 16, Background
Affirmative action has its origins in Executive Order 10925, which was issued by President John F. Kennedy and required government contractors to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin."


2020 California Proposition 16, Background
Kennedy’s Executive Order was superseded by Executive Order 11246, which was issued by President Lyndon B. Johnson on September 24, 1965 and prohibits federal contractors and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do business with the federal government, from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. In 1967, President Johnson amended the order to include gender on the list of attributes. Executive Order 11246 also requires federal contractors to take affirmative action to promote the full realization of equal opportunity for women and minorities.


2020 California Proposition 16, Background
Since that time, various affirmative action programs have been created in California as well as the broader United States, to both redress disadvantages associated with past and present discrimination as well as ensure public institutions, such as universities, hospitals, and police forces, are more representative (e.g. by race or gender) of the populations they serve.


2020 California Proposition 16, Background
Led by University of California Regent Ward Connerly and endorsed by Governor Pete Wilson, Proposition 209 appeared on the ballot in California as a constitutional amendment on November 5, 1996 and was approved by voters. Proposition 209 amended the Constitution of California to prohibit government institutions from "[discriminating] against, or [granting] preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting." For these purposes, California's Constitution defines "the state" to include the state, any city, county, public university system, community college district, school district, special district, or any other political subdivision or governmental instrumentality of, or within, the state.


2020 California Proposition 16, Background
Since the passage of Proposition 209, there have been several legislative attempts to repeal sections of Proposition 209. In 2011, SB 185 would have permitted affirmative action in public higher education, but was ultimately vetoed by Governor Brown citing possible conflicts with Proposition 209. In 2014, California Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 5 would have done the similar if passed by voters, but was shelved due to strong opposition. Proposition 16 represents the first time a repeal of Proposition 209 has appeared on the ballot.


2020 California Proposition 16, Background, College admissions
In Fisher v. University of Texas (2016) the Supreme Court held that public colleges and universities may consider race as one of many factors as part of their admissions decisions when race-neutral alternatives are insufficient to build a racially diverse student body. They may not use quotas or race-based point systems for this purpose, as the Supreme Court already ruled in Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke (1978) and Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) that those affirmative actions schemes are federally unconstitutional. Prior to Proposition 209, some of California's public universities considered race and ethnicity as factors when making admissions decisions and offered programs to support the academic achievement of those students. After Proposition 209, these considerations were banned.


2020 California Proposition 16, Background, College admissions
Some public universities in California created or modified policies and programs to instead consider characteristics not banned by Proposition 209, such as socioeconomic status and geography. For example, UC Berkeley considers "contextual factors that bear directly upon the applicant’s achievement, including linguistic background, parental education level, and other indicators of support available in the home." Moreover, all UC schools utilize a review that takes into account 14 factors including academic performance, special talents, and special circumstances.


2020 California Proposition 16, Background, College admissions
According to the California legislative analyst, many of the state’s universities provide outreach and support programs for students who are first in their family to attend college. Many university campuses also consider where students attended high school and where they live when making admissions decisions. The universities view these policies and programs as ways to increase diversity without violating Proposition 209.


2020 California Proposition 16, Background, Public contracting and employment
Prior to the passage of Proposition 209, California state government and many local governments had affirmative action programs in place for minority and women business enterprises, where the state aimed to award a certain portion of state contracts to those types of businesses. As Proposition 209 barred state and local agencies from considering race and gender in public contracting decisions, these programs and businesses were negatively impacted. After the state ended its affirmative action in public contracting, few minority- or women-owned businesses were able to regain contracts according to the Equal Justice Society.


2020 California Proposition 16, Background, Public contracting and employment
This amounts to a loss of $1 billion to $1.1 billion annually for minority- and women-owned businesses. The end of affirmative action programs in contracting led to reduced awards to contracted organizations. After the passage of Proposition 209, the prices on state funded contracts fell by 5.6 percent relative to federally funded projects, for which race or gender preferences are still applied.


2020 California Proposition 16, Background, Public contracting and employment
Current law prohibits school districts in California from considering student or teacher race in funding, outreach, and hiring.


2020 California Proposition 16, Background, Assembly Constitutional Amendment 5
The California State Assembly passed Assembly Constitutional Amendment 5 (ACA-5) which—after passing the State Senate—was placed on the 2020 ballot as proposition 16.


2020 California Proposition 16, Legislative analysis
The proposition is officially titled Allows Diversity as a Factor in Public Employment, Education, and Contracting Decisions. Legislative Constitutional Amendment. According to California's Legislative Analyst, proposition 16 permits considering race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in government decision-making policies to address diversity in the operation of public employment, education, or contracting. The proposition would not alter other state or federal laws guaranteeing equal protection and prohibiting unlawful discrimination. The proposition does not change any fiscal policies, though there are uncertain effects depending on subsequent changes in hiring processes.


2020 California Proposition 16, Legislative analysis, Constitutional changes
The measure would repeal Section 31 of Article I of the California Constitution. The following text would be repealed:


2020 California Proposition 16, Campaign, Official arguments
All of us deserve equal opportunities to thrive with fair wages, good jobs, and quality schools.


2020 California Proposition 16, Campaign, Official arguments
Despite living in the most diverse state in the nation, white men are still overrepresented in positions of wealth and power in California. Although women, and especially women of color, are on the front lines of the COVID-19 response, they are not rewarded for their sacrifices. Women should have the same chance of success as men.


2020 California Proposition 16, Campaign, Official arguments
Today, nearly all public contracts, and the jobs that go with them, go to large companies run by older white men. White women make 80¢ on the dollar. The wage disparity is even worse for women of color and single moms. As a result, an elite few are able to hoard wealth instead of investing it back into communities. Prop. 16 opens up contracting opportunities for women and people of color.


2020 California Proposition 16, Campaign, Official arguments
We know that small businesses are the backbone of our economy. Yet, Main Street businesses owned by women and people of color lose over $1,100,000,000 in government contracts every year because of the current law. We need to support those small businesses, especially as we rebuild from COVID-19. Wealth will be invested back into our communities.


2020 California Proposition 16, Campaign, Official arguments
YES on Prop. 16 helps rebuild California stronger with fair opportunities for all.


2020 California Proposition 16, Campaign, Official arguments
We live in the middle of an incredible historic moment. In 2020, we have seen an unprecedented number of Californians take action against systemic racism and voice their support for real change.


2020 California Proposition 16, Campaign, Official arguments
At the same time, our shared values are under attack by the Trump administration's policies. We are seeing the rise of overt racism: white supremacists on the march, the daily demonization of Latino immigrants, Black people gunned-down in our streets, anti-Asian hate crimes on the rise, women’s rights under attack, and COVID-19 ravaging Native communities.


2020 California Proposition 16, Campaign, Official arguments
By voting YES on Prop. 16, Californians can take action to push back against the Trump administration’s racist agenda.


2020 California Proposition 16, Campaign, Official arguments
By voting YES on Prop. 16, Californians can take action to push back against racism and sexism and create a more just and fair state for all.


2020 California Proposition 16, Campaign, Official arguments
Those words—adopted by California voters in 1996 as Proposition 209—should remain firmly in place. Only by treating everyone equally can a state as brilliantly diverse as California be fair to everyone.


2020 California Proposition 16, Campaign, Official arguments
Discrimination of this kind is poisonous. It will divide us at a time we desperately need to unite. Politicians want to give preferential treatment to their favorites. They think they can "fix" past discrimination against racial minorities and women by discriminating against other racial minorities and men who are innocent of any wrongdoing. Punishing innocent people will only cause a never-ending cycle of resentment. The only way to stop discrimination is to stop discriminating.


2020 California Proposition 16, Campaign, Official arguments
Not every Asian American or white is advantaged. Not every Latino or black is disadvantaged. Our state has successful men and women of all races and ethnicities. Let's not perpetuate the stereotype that minorities and women can’t make it unless they get special preferences.


2020 California Proposition 16, Campaign, Official arguments
At the same time, our state also has men and women—of all races and ethnicities—who could use a little extra break. Current law allows for "affirmative action" of this kind so long as it doesn't discriminate or give preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin. For example, state universities can give a leg-up for students from low-income families or students who would be the first in their family to attend college. The state can help small businesses started by low-income individuals or favor low-income individuals for job opportunities.


2020 California Proposition 16, Campaign, Official arguments
But if these words are stricken from our state Constitution, the University of California will again be free to give a wealthy lawyer's son a preference for admission over a farmworker’s daughter simply because he’s from an “under-represented” group. That’s unjust.


2020 California Proposition 16, Campaign, Official arguments
Prior to the passage of Proposition 209, California and many local governments maintained costly bureaucracies that required preferential treatment in public contracting based on a business owner’s race, sex or ethnicity. The lowest qualified bidder could be rejected. A careful, peer-reviewed study by a University of California economist found that CalTrans contracts governed by Proposition 209 saved 5.6% over non-209 contracts in the two-year period after it took effect. If the savings for other government contracts are anywhere near that, repealing this constitutional provision could cost taxpayers many BILLIONS of dollars.


2020 California Proposition 16, Campaign, Official arguments
Prohibiting preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin is a fundamental part of the American creed. It's there in our Constitution for all of us. . .now and for future generations. Don't throw it away.


2020 California Proposition 16, Campaign, Support
The Opportunity for All Coalition, also known as Yes on Prop 16, was leading the campaign in support of Proposition 16. In the California State Legislature, Asm. Shirley Weber (D-79) was the lead sponsor of the constitutional amendment. Chairpersons of Yes on 16 include Eva Paterson, president of the Equal Justice Society; Vincent Pan, co-executive director of Chinese for Affirmative Action; and Thomas Saenz, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.


2020 California Proposition 16, Campaign, Opposition
Californians for Equal Rights, also known as No on 16, is leading the campaign in opposition to Proposition 16. Ward Connerly, who was chairperson of the campaign behind California Proposition 209 (1996), is president of Californians for Equal Rights.


2020 California Proposition 16, Campaign, Opposition
Opponents of Proposition 16 primarily cite the divisive, discriminatory, and constitutionally questionable nature of Proposition 16, as well as the positive results Proposition 209 has yielded for underrepresented students at California's public universities since its implementation. They also point to deeper, socio-economic issues that must be addressed to achieve better outcomes for underrepresented minorities (URMs), including improving public school outcomes and options for URMs in public K-12 education, inefficient public education spending, unequal access, lack of parental involvement, community segregation, and a shortage of qualified teachers. Under Proposition 209, California universities and government hiring may still consider economic background in the admissions process, but may not use race. Finally, Proposition 16 opponents believe that Proposition 16 is not a true affirmative action program, but is aimed at legalizing discrimination and government-sanctioned racial favoritism.


2020 California Proposition 16, Response
Similar arguments for support were summarized as follows in ACA 5's bill analysis:


2020 California Proposition 16, Response
California is currently the fifth-largest economy in the world and has the world's largest system of higher education. Despite this, women and people of color are not getting their fair share of opportunities to get ahead:


2020 California Proposition 16, Response, Asian Americans
The debate about affirmative action has drawn strong opinions from both supporters and opponents within the Asian American community. The debate has largely centered around affirmative action in college admissions. Currently, Asian Americans are the only over-represented student ethnic group in "more selective" public colleges in California and make up the largest proportion of undergraduate enrollment at the University of California.


2020 California Proposition 16, Response, Asian Americans
Asian Americans have mobilized on both in support of and in opposition to Proposition 16. There are longstanding Asian American civil rights groups including Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Asian Law Caucus, Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Los Angeles, Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, Japanese American Citizens League, Chinese for Affirmative Action, and Organization of Chinese Americans among others that support Proposition 16. Many in these groups believe that affirmative action "lifts everyone up together and gives all people of color better access to education and opportunities," that affirmative action benefits Asian Americans, and that affirmative action remains necessary to address systemic racism.


2020 California Proposition 16, Response, Asian Americans
On the other side, the opposition includes the  80-20 Educational Foundation, Asian American Coalition for Education, and the Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation among others. Many in these groups believe that Prop. 16 and affirmative action policies in general discriminate against Asian Americans. Nearly 5,700 Asian American individuals have donated to the "No On Prop 16" campaign, representing 95% of donors to the campaign.


2020 California Proposition 16, Polling
Public opinion of affirmative action may vary depending on question framing.


2020 California Proposition 17
The 2020 California Proposition 17 is a ballot measure that appeared on the ballot in the 2020 California elections on November 3. Prop 17 amended the Constitution of California to allow people who are on parole to vote. Due to the passage of this proposition, more than 50,000 people in California who are currently on parole and have completed their prison sentence are now eligible to vote and to run for public office. This proposition also provides that all those on parole in the future will be allowed to vote  and run for public office as well. The work of Proposition 17 comes out of a history of addressing felony disenfranchisement in the United States. California voters approved this measured by a margin of roughly 18 percentage points.


2020 California Proposition 17, Background
Appearing on ballot in the 2020 California elections on November 3, 2020, the proposed state constitutional amendment was originally introduced as California Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 6 (ACA 6) by Assemblymember Kevin McCarty in January 2019. ACA 6 passed the California State Assembly on September 5, 2019, and was approved by the California State Senate with 28 ayes on June 24, 2020. After being put on the ballot, ACA 6 was given the ballot designation of Proposition 17.


2020 California Proposition 17, Background
Under California law, there is a distinction between probation and parole. Probation is the part of the criminal sentence, and allows those with felonies to finish their sentence outside of the prison. Parole begins upon release from prison when their sentence ends. As of July 2020, the Constitution of California allows someone on probation to vote, but prohibits people on parole from voting until their parole is completed. This will change if Proposition 17 passes, such that all individuals on probation or parole will be allowed to vote.


2020 California Proposition 17, Support
ACA 6 was co-sponsored by #Cut50, All of Us or None, American Civil Liberties Union of California, Anti- Recidivism Coalition, Californians United for a Responsible Budget, Initiate Justice, League of Women Voters of California, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, People Over Profits San Diego, Secretary of State Alex Padilla, Vote Allies, White People 4 Black Lives. It was also supported by 118 organizations and local governments. The official Argument in Favor was submitted by Carol Moon Goldberg, President of the League of Women Voters of California, Jay Jordan, Executive Director of Californians for Public Safety, and Assemblymember Kevin McCarty.


2020 California Proposition 17, Opposition
ACA 6 was opposed by Election Integrity Project California, Inc. The official Argument Against was submitted by Harriet Salarno, Founder of Crime Victims United of California, Jim Nielsen, retired Chairman of the California Board of Prison Terms, and Ruth Weiss, Vice President of the Election Integrity Project California.


2020 California Proposition 17, Polling
In order to pass, it needs a simple majority (>50%).


2020 California Proposition 18
The 2020 California Proposition 18 would allow 17-year-olds to vote in primary and special elections if they will turn 18 by the subsequent general election.


2020 California Proposition 18
Appearing on the ballot in the 2020 California elections on November 3, 2020, the proposed state constitutional amendment was originally introduced as California Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 4 (ACA 4) by Assemblymember Kevin Mullin. ACA 4 passed the California State Assembly on August 22, 2019, amended and passed by the California State Senate on June 25, 2020, and was re-approved by the California State Assembly on June 26, 2020. After being put on the ballot, ACA 4 was given the ballot designation of Prop 18. Because it is a proposed constitutional amendment, 2020 Proposition 18 must appear as a ballot proposition and be approved by voters.


2020 California Proposition 18
Proposition 18 is one of two proposed ballot measures in the 2020 California elections that would expand voting rights. The other is Proposition 17, which would allow individuals on parole to vote. Even though Proposition 17 passed, Proposition 18 failed, by a margin of roughly twelve percentage points.


2020 California Proposition 18, Background
In the last 20 years, California has held primary elections in February (2008), March (2000, 2002, 2004, 2020), and June (2006, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016). Currently, 18 other states and the District of Columbia allow people who are 17 to vote in a primary if they will be 18 by the general election in November. Both of these are proposed amendments to the California Constitution that originated in the California State Assembly.


2020 California Proposition 18, Campaign, Support
The official Argument in Favor of ACA 4 was submitted by Assemblymember Kevin Mullin and Assemblymember Evan Low.


2020 California Proposition 18, Campaign, Opposition
The official Argument Against ACA 4 was submitted by Ruth Weiss, Co-Founder of the Election Integrity Project California, Jon Coupal, President of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, and Larry Sand, a retired teacher.


2020 California Proposition 19
Proposition 19, also referred to as Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 11, is an amendment of the Constitution of California that was narrowly approved by voters in the general election on November 3, 2020, with just over 51% of the vote. As passed, the proposition increases the property tax burden on owners of inherited property to provide expanded property tax benefits to homeowners ages 55 years and older, disabled homeowners, and victims of wildfires and natural disasters. According to the California Legislative Analyst, Proposition 19 is a large net tax increase "of hundreds of millions of dollars per year."


2020 California Proposition 19
The proposition was sponsored and heavily promoted by the California Association of Realtors, and became effective on February 16, 2021.


2020 California Proposition 19, Background
The California Association of Realtors previously sponsored and financed an initiative measure known as 2018 California Proposition 5 on the November 2018 ballot that would have further expanded Proposition 13 property tax breaks for certain homeowners (primarily homeowners over age 55) by allowing them to transfer their lower property tax base to replacement property. That ballot measure failed statewide with 40% support, and also failed to receive majority support in all 58 California counties. Proposition 5 opponents successfully argued that the initiative measure was a "huge tax break to wealthy Californians" and a "huge windfall to the real estate industry."


2020 California Proposition 19, Background
In 2019, the California Association of Realtors sponsored and financed another initiative measure that would have expanded Proposition 13 property tax breaks for certain homeowners like the 2018 California Proposition 5 ballot measure. However, to generate a net increase in property tax revenue, the initiative also significantly narrowed Proposition 13 property tax reassessment exclusion rules for inherited properties and expanded the scope of business entity ownership changes that would result in commercial property reassessment under Proposition 13. This initiative measure received sufficient signatures to qualify for the November 2020 ballot.


2020 California Proposition 19, Background
Thereafter, as allowed under California law, the California Association of Realtors negotiated with various special interests to secure legislative approval of an alternative constitutional amendment known as Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 11 (ACA 11). Proposition 19 was added to the ballot via ACA 11 which was authored by San Mateo Assemblymember Kevin Mullin.


2020 California Proposition 19, Background
Significant controversy arose because the legislative approval of ACA 11 missed the regular legal deadline for placing measures on the November 2020 ballot, and the Legislature also had to enact a separate statute calling a special election for ACA 11 that was consolidated with the regular November 2020 election. In response to the approval and qualification of ACA 11 for the November 2020 ballot, the California Association of Realtors withdrew its 2019 initiative measure that was previously eligible to appear on the November 2020 ballot.


2020 California Proposition 19, Background
The primary differences between Proposition 19 and the 2019 initiative measure withdrawn by the California Association of Realtors are that Proposition 19 excluded the expanded business entity ownership provisions that would have resulted in commercial property reassessment under Proposition 13 (to appease major business interests who did not like the business tax increase component of the 2019 initiative) and that Proposition 19 added the partial firefighting revenue provisions as a political sweetener (to appease firefighting organizations that previously opposed 2018 California Proposition 5).


2020 California Proposition 19, Background
Thus, compared to the 2019 initiative measure, Proposition 19 retained the expanded Proposition 13 property tax breaks for certain homeowners (primarily homeowners over age 55) like those contained in the defeated 2018 California Proposition 5 ballot measure, retained the property tax increase provisions by significantly narrowing Proposition 13 property tax reassessment exclusion rules for inherited properties, and added the partial firefighting revenue provisions as a political sweetener.


2020 California Proposition 19, Real estate industry sponsor and prior history
The California Association of Realtors sponsored the Proposition 19 constitutional amendment, with the expectation of deriving significant profits from many more home sales under the ballot measure, including from both the expanded tax benefit portability provisions and from the significant narrowing of the inheritance exclusion provisions which will force more home sales. The president of the California Association of Realtors has denied that Proposition 19 is about making money for the Realtors.


2020 California Proposition 19, Racial equity issues
In analyzing the Proposition 19 ballot measure, a September 2020 report by the California Budget & Policy Center stated that: "Housing policy and tax policy have historically benefited white households most, including through policies with explicitly racist design and implementation that have blocked Black and brown Californians from homeownership opportunities. By directing additional tax benefits largely to white homeowners, Prop. 19 reinforces racial inequity within California's tax system."


2020 California Proposition 19, Racial equity issues
The Greenlining Institute has also criticized Proposition 19 for not helping "first-time homeowners who are disproportionately Black, Indigenous and people of color."


2020 California Proposition 19, Racial equity issues
According to data from the Los Angeles County Assessor, the significant curtailment of the property tax inheritance exclusion under Proposition 19 would adversely impact many property owners in minority communities. For example, significantly more property owners have claimed the property tax inheritance exclusion in the city of Compton than in the cities of Beverly Hills and Malibu combined.


2020 California Proposition 19, Campaign controversy
It was reported that the California Association of Realtors, the sponsor of Proposition 19, hired a former employee of a statewide taxpayer association for the sole purpose of using the former employer's job title to confuse voters to support Proposition 19. A radio ad was cited in the article as being deceptive because the former employee led listeners to believe he was advocating for the Proposition 19 tax increase in his capacity as the former legislative director of the statewide taxpayers association.


2020 California Proposition 19, Campaign controversy
The statewide taxpayers association received many calls from voters who said they were disgusted by the misleading radio ads and large direct mail pieces by the Yes on 19 campaign. The reporting article also cited a California Globe analysis that Proposition 19 is a billion dollar tax increase on California families and that Proposition 19 was in fact opposed by the statewide taxpayers association.


2020 California Proposition 19, Newspaper editorials
According to the California Initiative Editorial Scorecard, Proposition 19 was opposed by 16 major California newspapers and supported by 7 major California newspapers.


2020 California Proposition 19, Campaign contributions
According to campaign contribution data from the California Secretary of State, as of November 1, 2020, supporters of Proposition 19 have raised $47.0 million, with $40.4 million from the California Association of Realtors and $4.9 million from the National Association of Realtors, for a combined total of $45.3 million (96.4% of all campaign contributions) coming from real estate interests. Opponents of Proposition 19 have raised approximately $45,000.


2020 California Proposition 19, Polling
In order to pass, Proposition 19 needs simple majority (>50%) approval by the voters.


2020 California Proposition 20
California Proposition 20 was a proposed initiated state statute on the ballot in the 2020 California elections. This initiative would have added more crimes to the list of non-violent felonies for which early parole is restricted, and would have required DNA collection for certain misdemeanors.


2020 California Proposition 20
Proposition 20 was decisively rejected by 62% of Californians, a margin of 24 percentage points. Observers partly attributed its failure to the George Floyd protests bringing negative attention to punitive criminal justice policies.


2020 California Proposition 20, Support
This measure was being supported by law enforcement unions, grocery store chains, and current California State Assembly member and former law enforcement officer Jim Cooper.


2020 California Proposition 20, Support
Proponents cited that these changes are to close exceptions in the original text of Proposition 47 that allowed access to early parole or probation for individuals convicted of sex trafficking of children, rape of an unconscious person, felony assault with a deadly weapon, battery on a police officer or freighter, and felony domestic violence.


2020 California Proposition 20, Opposition
The measure was opposed by the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, former governor Jerry Brown, and the American Civil Liberties Union. The Los Angeles Times announced its opposition to the Proposition in October 2020.


2020 California Proposition 20, Opposition
Opponents cited the impact that the COVID-19 Pandemic has had on crowded prisons, and argue that prisons should not hold any more people than they already do. In addition, they also cite the disparate impact that America's criminal justice system has on African Americans, a concern that has increased in the wake of the Killing of George Floyd.


2020 California Proposition 20, Opposition
According to opponents Proposition 20 would have increased the prison population, thereby increasing state and local court, correctional, and law enforcement costs by tens of millions of dollars annually. Had it passed, it would have partially reversed the results of Proposition 47, Proposition 57, and other legislation that have been intended to reduce the prison population and shift the correctional system from a punitive system to a rehabilitative system.


2020 California Proposition 20, Polling
In order to pass, it needs a simple majority (>50%).


2020 California Proposition 21
Proposition 21, an initiative statute for local rent control officially called the Expands Local Governments’ Authority to Enact Rent Control on Residential Property, was a California ballot proposition that appeared on the ballot for the general election on November 3, 2020 and was rejected. If approved, it would allow local governments to establish rent control on residential properties that have been occupied for over 15 years. It would also allow landlords who own no more than two homes to exempt themselves from such policies. This would essentially repeal some of the provisions in the 1995 Costa–Hawkins Rental Housing Act. Proposition 21 was rejected by 60% of California voters, just like Proposition 10 was before it.


2020 California Proposition 21
In the 2018 California election, a measure to completely repeal the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, known as Proposition 10, was on the ballot, but failed to pass, as nearly 60% of voters rejected that measure. The same activists who sponsored Proposition 10, who had links to the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, tried again with another ballot measure to reform the Costa-Hawkins Act, due to their failure to completely repeal it in 2018. The AIDS Healthcare Foundation spent $40 million in support of Proposition 21 and the opposition spent $85 million.


2020 California Proposition 21
As of 2017, over seventeen million Californians are renters. This totals about 45% of the state's population. Further, California boasts the highest rental costs in the nation. Per the Rose Institute of State and Local Government, "the state’s [California's] median rent is $1,447, whereas the United States’ is $1,012."


2020 California Proposition 21, Results
California voters rejected Proposition 21 by a margin of 59.9% to 40.1%. This is the second time that California voters have rejected a rent-control measure at the ballot box. In 2018, California voters rejected Proposition 10, a similar rent-control measure, by a similar margin of 59% to 41%.


2020 California Proposition 21, Results
This loss came as Californians experienced record high rents in September 2020, and renters feared COVID-19 related evictions. Supporters of Proposition 21 expressed regret over the defeat. René Moya, campaign director for Yes on 21, said, “We are disappointed, although not completely surprised, that Prop. 21 fell short at the ballot box tonight.”


2020 California Proposition 22
Proposition 22 was a ballot initiative in California on the November 2020 state election which passed with 59% of the vote and granted app-based transportation and delivery companies an exception to Assembly Bill 5 by classifying their drivers as "independent contractors", rather than "employees", thereby exempting employers from providing the full suite of mandated employee benefits (which include time-and-a-half for overtime, paid sick time, employer-provided health care, bargaining rights, and unemployment insurance) while instead giving drivers new protections of:


2020 California Proposition 22, Background
In 2019, Assembly Bill 5 was passed, and it was designed by lawmakers to require companies to classify ride-hail drivers and other gig-economy workers as "employees". It requires companies to classify all workers as employees unless companies can prove that the workers: are not directed or controlled by the company during their work time, and their work is not the company's "core" business, and the worker has their own business doing that type of work. Lyft and Uber refused to comply with this law, and stated a desire to keep drivers classified as independent contractors.