# 2016 California Proposition 67

Elections in California :
Federal governmentU.S. President
1852
1856
1860
1864
1868
1872
1876
1880
1884
1888
1892
1896
1900
1904
1908
1912
1916
1920
1924
1928
1932
1936
1940
1944
1948
1952
1956
1960
1964
1968
1972
1976
1980
1984
1988
1992
1996
Dem
Rep
2000
Dem
Rep
2004
Dem
Rep
2008
Dem
Rep
2012
Dem
Rep
2016
Dem
Rep
2020
Dem
Rep
2024
Dem
Rep
U.S. Senate
1849
1850
1852 sp
1856
1857 sp
1860
1860 sp
1868
1872
1873
1873 sp
1878
1880
1885
1886 sp
1887
1891
1891 sp
1893
1895 sp
1897
1900 sp
1903
1905
1909
1911
1914
1916
1920
1922
1926
1928
1932
1934
1938
1940
1944
1946
1946 sp
1950
1952
1954 sp
1956
1958
1962
1964
1968
1970
1974
1976
1980
1982
1986
1988
1992
1992 sp
1994
1998
2000
2004
2006
2010
2012
2016
2018
2022
2022 sp
2024
2024 sp
2028
2030
U.S. House of Representatives
1849
1851
1852
1854
1856
1859
1861
1863
1864
1867
1868
1871
1872
1875
1876
1879
1880
1882
1884
1886
1888
1890
1892
1894
1896
1898
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
1940
1942
1944
1946
12th
1948
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1987
5th sp
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2001
32nd sp
2002
2004
2005
5th sp
48th sp
2006
50th sp
2007
36th sp
2008
12th sp
2009
10th sp
32nd sp
2010
2011
36th sp
2012
2014
2016
2017
34th sp
2018
2020
25th sp
2022
22nd sp
2024
16th
20th sp
30th
45th
47th
2026 :
State governmentExecutive Governor
1849
1851
1853
1855
1857
1859
1861
1863
1867
1871
1875
1879
1882
1886
1890
1894
1898
1902
1906
1910
1914
1918
1922
1926
1930
1934
1938
1942
1946
1950
1954
1958
1962
1966
1970
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2003 (recall)
2006
2010
2014
2018
2021 (recall)
2022
2026
Lieutenant governor
1950
1954
1958
1962
1966
1970
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
2026
Attorney general
1970
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
2026
Secretary of state
1970
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
Treasurer
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
2026
Controller
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
Insurance commissioner
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
Superintendent
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
Board of equalization
2018
2022
Legislature Senate
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
Special
Assembly
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2021 (79th sp)
2022 (17th sp)
2024
Special
Judiciary Court of appeals
1994
1998
2002
2006
Elections by year
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2005
2006
2008
Feb
Jun
Nov
2009
2010
Jun
Nov
2012
Jun
Nov
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024 :
State propositions1910–1919
1911
4
7
8
1960–1969
1964
14
1970–1979
1978
6
8
13
1980–1989
1982
8
1986
64
65
1988
98
99
1990–1999
1994
187
1996
196
209
215
218
1998
6
10
227
2000–2009
2000
21
22
36
39
2003
53
54
2004
1A
55
56
57
58
59
60
60A
61
62
63
64
65
66
69
71
2005
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
2006
81
82
83
85
87
89
90
2008
91
92
93
94, 95, 96, and 97
98 and 99
1A
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
2009
1A
1B
1C
1D
1E
1F
2010–2019
2010
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2012
29
30
32
34
37
38
39
2014
1
2
41
42
45
46
47
48
2016
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
2018
68
69
70
71
72
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
2020–2029
2020
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2022
1
26
27
28
29
30
31
2024
1
2
3
4
5
6
32
33
34
35
36
Full list :
Los Angeles CountyLos Angeles County Board of supervisors
1980
1996
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
Ballot measures
1980
A
2008
R
2012
B
J
2016
M
Elections
2020
2022
2024
Los Angeles Mayor
1896
1898
1900
1902
1904
1906
1909 (sp)
1909
1911
1913
1915
1917
1919
1921
1923
1925
1929
1933
1937
1938
1941
1945
1949
1953
1957
1961
1965
1969
1973
1977
1981
1985
1989
1993
1997
2001
2005
2009
2013
2017
2022
2026
City attorney
2009
Ballot measures
1986
U
2017
S
Elections
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
2019 (sp)
2020
2022
2023 (sp)
2024
Long Beach Mayor
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022 :
Orange CountyOrange County Board of supervisors
2018
2020
2022
2024
District attorney
2018
Anaheim Mayor
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
Irvine Mayor
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
Costa Mesa Municipal
1947
1953
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024 :
SacramentoMayor
2000
2004
2008
2012
2016
2020
2024 :
San Diego CountySan Diego County Board of supervisors
2020
San Diego Mayor
1887
1889
1891
1893
1895
1897
1899
1901
1903
1905
1907
1909
1911
1913
1915
1917
1919
1921
1923
1925
1927
1929
1931
1932
1935
1939
1943
1947
1951
1955
1959
1963
1967
1971
1975
1979
1983 (sp)
1984
1986 (sp)
1988
1992
1996
2000
2004
2005 (sp)
2008
2012
2013–14 (sp)
2016
2020
2024
2028
City attorney
2004
2008
2012
2016
2020
City council
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
Special :
San FranciscoMayor
1901
1903
1905
1907
1909
1911
1931
1935
1939
1943
1947
1951
1955
1959
1963
1967
1971
1975
1979
1983 (recall)
1983
1987
1991
1995
1999
2003
2007
2011
2015
2018 (sp)
2019
2024
District attorney
2019
2022 (recall)
2022 (sp)
2024
Board of supervisors
1977
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
Board of education
2018
2022 (recall)
Ballot measures
2024
G
Elections
2004
Mar
Nov
2005
2006
Jun
Nov
2007
2008
Feb
Jun
Nov
2009
2010
Jun
Nov
2011
2012
Jun
Nov
2013
2022
Feb :
San JoseMayor
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
2024 :
Other localities
Bakersfield
Mayoral elections:
2004
2008
2012
2016
2020
2024
Fresno
Mayoral elections:
1996
2000
2004
2008
2012
2016
2020
2024
Oakland
Mayoral elections:
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
2024
2025
Riverside
Mayoral elections:
1997
2001
2005
2009
2012
2016
2020
2024
San Bernardino
Mayoral elections:
2005
2009
2014
2018
2022
Stockton
Mayoral elections:
2008
2012
2016
2020
2024 :
vte :
Proposition 67 was a California ballot proposition on the November 8, 2016 ballot. A "Yes" vote was to approve, and a "No" vote to reject, a statute that prohibits grocery and other stores from providing customers single–use plastic or paper carryout bags but permits the sale of recycled paper bags and reusable bags for a fee.
Proposition 67 passed with 53% of the vote. With its passage, Senate Bill 270, which bans plastic shopping bags, was upheld and went into full effect. A related measure to allocate revenue generated from the sale of disposable carryout bags, specifically paper bags, to the Wildlife Conservation Fund, Proposition 65, failed at the polls.

## Background
### Environmental impact

Single-use plastic shopping bags are inexpensive to produce and effective for consumer use, and thus have taken over the market. These bags hold roughly an 80 percent share of the grocery and convenience store market since their introduction. According to a 2008 estimate in Waste Management, people around the world discard between 500 billion and 1 trillion plastic bags a year.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency describes both the Pollution Prevention Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act as establishing a nationwide objective for environmental protection. In detailing the wave of communities initiating bans on single-use plastic bags, the EPA cites the following rationale for limits on single-use plastic bags:
* they are typically made out of petroleum-based plastic and don't biodegrade when they are disposed of or escape into the environment;
* when plastic bags are disposed of on land they may be blown into creeks, lakes, or oceans where they can entangle marine life or the animals may mistakenly eat the plastic bags thinking that they are food;
* the light-weight plastic is not easily recyclable; and
* the bags are often used only once before being thrown away.
Single-use plastic bags are considered to be a major contributor to the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, an area in the Pacific Ocean with high concentrations of litter and floating plastic by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Plastic is produced from petroleum, natural gas, and added chemicals, using large amounts of fossil fuel in production. Additionally, when plastic bags are disposed of in landfills, chemicals from this buried plastic are released into the surrounding environment and groundwater. National Geographic states that some of these chemicals, notably phthalates and bisphenol A, have been implicated as human health problems.

### Worldwide legislation

Due to the environmental impact of plastic bags, numerous countries and cities around the world have implemented either taxes or bans on single-use plastic bags.
* Ireland instituted a 15 Euro cent levy on plastic bags in 2002, resulting in a 90% reduction in usage
* Uganda banned Polythene carrier bags in 2007
* China banned many types of plastic bags in 2008, and has seen reduction despite trouble enforcing the law
* The European Union passed legislation in 2015 with the aim to cut plastic bag use in half by 2019
* France implemented banned single-use plastic bags on July 1, 2016, and banned plastic dinnerware as well
A more in-depth view at developments regarding limited use of plastic bags throughout the world can be found at Phase-out of lightweight plastic bags.

#### United States legislation

* Washington D.C. became the first U.S. city to tax grocery store customers for plastic bag use, followed by Montgomery County, Maryland
* All counties in Hawaii have banned plastic bags effective July 2015
* Puerto Rico banned use of plastic bags effective 2016
* Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin have state laws preventing local government from regulating the sale or use of plastic bags

### Reduction methods

While legislation throughout the United States differs, the Environmental Protection Agency notes similarities across legislation that includes strict standard for replacement bags implemented at a fee. Generally, replacement multi-use bags must be either recyclable or compostable. The bag must be built for extended use and have the ability to carry more weight than a standard, single-use bag. In many areas, plastic bag bans require retailers to charge a fee associated with providing reusable plastic bags to both cover the costs of providing heavier-duty bags and encourage consumers to provide their own bags. Multiple studies have been conducted to determine the most effective way to reduce consumer use of single-use plastic bags.
Cities within the United States have implemented both bans and fees to reduce the consumption of single-use plastic bags to varying degrees of effectiveness. San Jose, California banned plastic bags and saw an 89% decrease in the quantity of plastic bags found in the city's storm drains. On the other hand, Washington DC implemented a five-cent tax on bags that has led to a 60% reduction in bag usage.

#### Studies
##### Financial incentives

Tatiana Homonoff of Princeton University uses design-based research to estimate the effectiveness policies related to plastic bag usage in the United States. She finds a large decline in plastic bag use immediately following the implementation of a five-cent tax on plastic bags. Additionally, Homonoff found that those who continued to use plastic bags used fewer bags per shopping trip following the tax. In contrast, a policy that offered consumers a five-cent bonus for reusable shopping bags had almost no effect on consumption of single-use shopping bags. This pattern is consistent with the economic model of loss aversion, and highlights the importance of financial incentives when designing policies directed to change consumer behavior. The graph to the left displays how a loss of $.05 has a larger magnitude shift to value than a gain of $.05. Consumers who are loss averse will respond better to a penalty of five cents for using a single-use plastic bag rather than five-cent reward for using a reusable bag.
Sidharth Muralidharan and Kim Sheehan determine penalties for single-use plastic bag consumption are only effective in the short term and assess methods to deter plastic bag use in the long run. The authors explore consumer motivation by looking at how advertising messages framed as gains (avoiding a fee), losses (paying a tax) impact consumer behavior differently. Their findings demonstrate that a penalty framed as a tax may be more effective in motivating shoppers to bring reusable bags and to reduce consumption of single-use plastic bags.

##### Social incentives

Ritch, Brennan, and MacLeod argue that there are differences between regular consumer behaviors and those considered pro-environmental, thus complicating financial incentives with social expectations. Use of reusable shopping bags instead of single-use plastic has a signaling effect from the consumer to be thoughtful and care about the environment. There is a certain amount of shame associated with using a single-use plastic bag provided general public knowledge on its problematic impact on the environment.
Erkan Arı and Veysel Yılmaz study the impact of consumer attitudes on consumption of plastic bags in Turkey. The authors find that environmental consciousness and social pressure are factors in reducing consumption of plastic bags and causes for consumers to switch to reusable bags.

## Proposal

Per the State Constitution in California, new state laws may be placed before voters as a referendum to decide whether they will go into effect. The state law at question was Senate Bill 270, approved by the governor and filed with the Secretary of State on September 30, 2014. The bill prohibits certain stores from providing customers with plastic single-use bags, and charges $0.10 for other types of bags. These requirements apply only in areas that did not already have single-use carryout bag laws at the time. At the same time, another proposition regarding plastic grocery bags was on the ballot. Proposition 65 was an initiative to use proceeds from plastic bag sales in grocery stores to fund environmental projects in California. This initiative failed to pass, receiving 54.8% "No" votes.

### Vote implications
#### "Yes" vote

A "Yes" vote upholds Senate Bill 270. This prohibits certain retail and grocery stores from providing free, single-use, carryout bags to customers. Single-use plastic bags will be banned, and stores may sell reusable plastic or paper bags for a minimum of $0.10 per bag. This law will only go into effect in areas without their own laws regarding single-use plastic bags.

#### "No" vote

A "No" vote rejects Senate Bill 270. Under this condition, stores in the State of California without city or county ordinances regarding single-use plastic bags will be free to continue to freely distribute such bags.

### Fiscal impact

The Official Voter Information Guide states that the passing of this measure would have relatively small fiscal effects on both the state and local governments. The measure could result in an increase of state costs to CalRecycle to ensure bag manufacturers meet new requirements. The measure may result in some cost saving to local governments in the form of reduced cleanup or waste management costs.

## Provisions
### Prohibits single-use plastic carryout bags

The measure prohibits grocery stores, convenience stores, pharmacies, and liquor stores from providing single-use, plastic, carryout bags. There are certain exceptions to this rule such as bags for unwrapped food products such as bulk produce or certain prescriptions.

### Requires charge for other carryout bags

In addition to banning single-use plastic bags, the measure permits the sale of reusable plastic bags as a replacement to single-use bags at a minimum fee of $0.10. This fee does not apply to certain low-income customers. The revenue generated from reusable bag sales is kept by individual stores. Under the provision, stores must use proceeds to cover the costs of providing carryout bags, complying with the new measure, and efforts to educate and encourage reusable bag usage.

### Creates new standards for reusable carryout bags

The measure creates new standards for the durability and material qualifications for reusable bags distributed at grocery stores, convenience stores, pharmacies, and liquor stores. The California Department of Resources Recovery is responsible for determining reusable bag requirements and ensuring bag manufacturers meet certification requirements.

## Implementation
### Implementing the proposition

Under the proposition, grocery and retail stores with pharmacies, are prohibited to provide their customers single use plastic bags. Instead they are to provide certifiable reusable bags or recycled paper bags with a minimum surcharge of 10 cents per bag. Stores which do not have an implemented charge will be required to charge a minimum of 10 cents for a single plastic bag. Stores which have implemented a bag charge will be allowed to keep the their implemented price as long as it stays in accordance with terms outlined in the ban. The proposition sets to address any problems which arise inequity by requiring stores provide a reusable bag free of charge to recipients of food assistance, EBT, WIC, or Food Vouchers, as well as pharmacies provide bags containing a prescribed prescription.

## Support and opposition
### In favor of Proposition 67
#### Arguments for Proposition 67

Those in favor of implementing Proposition 67 claim its passing will reduce litter, protect the ocean and wildlife, and reduce cleanup costs. Single-use plastic bags are one of the most common forms of litter and create environmental problems both on land and in water. An estimated 300 million plastic bags end up in the Atlantic Ocean, creating problems for sea-life. Build up of plastic bags on land lead to drainage problems resulting in floods. Plastic bags on land are slow to decompose, thus posing a continued threat to wildlife unless dealt with through human intervention and clean up. Julie Packard, Executive Director of the Monterey Bay Aquarium states: "Plastic bags harm wildlife everyday. Sea turtles, sea otters, seals, fish, and birds are tangled by plastic bags; some mistake the bags for food, fill their stomachs with plastics and die of starvation. YES on 67 is a common-sense solution to reduce plastic in our ocean, lakes and streams, and protect wildlife."
Plastic bags are hard to recycle, as there is no system implemented to successfully deal with their disposal. It is expensive to effectively recycle the type of plastics used in single-use plastic bags, as these bags can clog recycling system equipment. It is up to local governments and recycling companies to decide whether the practice of recycling single-use plastic bags is allowed.
Voting "Yes" on Proposition 67 keeps in place a law passed by the California State Legislature and signed by the Governor that stops the distribution of single-use bags to consumers. Multiple cities and counties in California have similar laws implemented, and this unifies state law throughout California. At the time of the vote, 122 ordinances banning single-use plastic bags had been approved in the State of California governing 151 jurisdictions.

#### Groups in support of Proposition 67

Those in support of Proposition 67 highlight the environmental impacts of plastic bag usage and claim the opposition is composed of plastic bag companies from out of state. Committees formed primarily to fund and support this measure include:
Individual Ballot Measure Committees Formed for this Measure :
| Committee Name | Total Reported Contributions |
| California vs. Big Plastic, Protect the Plastic Bag Ban, Sponsored by Environmental, Ocean Protection, Grocery Store, Reusable Bag Manufacturer, Business and Other Nonprofit Organizations | $857,690 |
| Californians Against Waste - Protect the Plastic Ban (Non-Profit 501 (C) (4)) | $85,121 |
| Committee to Protect the Plastic Bag Ban, Sponsored by the California Grocers Association (Non-Profit 501(c) 6): No on Proposition 67 | $238,550 |
| Save the Bag Ban, Sponsored by Environment California | $771,650 |
| Save the Bay Action Fund Committee to Support Proposition 67 | $99,375 |
| Save the Bay Action Fund PAC - Yes on Prop 67 | $3,600 |

### In opposition of Proposition 67
#### Arguments against Proposition 67

Those in favor of plastic bags claim plastic bags are both cheap and hygienic. Plastic shopping bags can be used by consumers for multiple other uses, and therefore are not single-use as they are stated to be. Additionally, the implementation of a fee on reusable bags is an unnecessary burden to consumers that will be directed towards large stores instead of environmental efforts or projects with no oversight. Grocery stores profit off of consumers who are forced to pay a $.10 fee for each bag purchased.
Another concern regarding the ban of single-use plastic bags is both the effectiveness and environmental impact of alternative replacements. Opponents to single-use plastic bag bans argue that multi-use bags are not environmentally friendly either. In A UK Environment Agency report on life-cycle assessment of grocery bags, the authors find that with typical consumer behavior, the pollution-minimizing solution is to obtain single-use plastic grocery bags and reuse once for secondary tasks before disposing of bags. The larger environmental impact of reusable bags paired with the consumer behavior of treating bags similar to single-use actually results in more harm than good towards the environment.
Another concern about the Plastic bag ban is the possible job loss faced by those employed at single-use bag manufacturing companies. The implementations of the bill will require companies to implement and educate workers to produce a different product. With both processes taking more time and money than the $2 million the bill allocates towards this transition. Additionally, the implementation raises concerns on the impact of the consumer. The ban disenfranchises lower-income communities while stores profit. The bag charge grants all profits directly to stores and manufacturers without any allotment form environmental conservation efforts.

#### Groups in opposition of Proposition 67

A number of large plastic companies support recycling plastic as opposed to a ban or reduction on its use. Committees formed primarily to fund the opposition to this measure include:
Individual Ballot Measure Committees Formed for this Measure :
| Committee Name | Total Reported Contributions |
| American Progressive Bag Alliance, a Project of the Society of the Plastics Industry (Non-Profit 501 (c) (6)), Yes on 65 and No on 67 | $6,146,383 |