California Proposition 66, Death Penalty Procedures (2016)

California Proposition 66
Election date November 8, 2016
Topic Death penalty
Status a Approved
Type State statute	Origin Citizens

2016 measures
June 7
Proposition 50 a
November 8
Proposition 51 a
Proposition 52 a
Proposition 53 d
Proposition 54 a
Proposition 55 a
Proposition 56 a
Proposition 57 a
Proposition 58 a
Proposition 59 a
Proposition 60 d
Proposition 61 d
Proposition 62 d
Proposition 63 a
Proposition 64 a
Proposition 65 d
Proposition 66 a
Proposition 67 a
Polls
Voter guides
Campaign finance
Signature costs

California Proposition 66, the Death Penalty Procedures Initiative, was on the November 8, 2016, ballot in California as an initiated state statute. The measure was approved.

A "yes" vote supported changing the procedures governing state court appeals and petitions that challenge death penalty convictions and sentences, including requiring the amount of time that legal challenges to death sentences take to a maximum of five years.

A "no" vote opposed changing the procedures governing state court appeals and petitions that challenge death penalty convictions and sentences, thereby keeping the state's system for governing death penalty appeals and petitions unchanged.

Proposition 66 was challenged before the California Supreme Court. On August 24, 2017, the court upheld the initiative as constitutional but stated that provisions requiring the state to speed up the death penalty appeals process were directive, rather than mandatory.

There was another death penalty-related measure, Proposition 62, that appeared on the November 8, 2016, ballot in California. If both measures passed, the one with the most "yes" votes would supersede the other. Proposition 62 was defeated.

Aftermath

Briggs vs. Brown

  

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Constitutionality; whether Prop. 66 violates provisions in the state constitution concerning the death penalty.
Court: California Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, allowing Proposition 66 to go into effect.
Plaintiff(s): Ron Briggs, a former El Dorado County supervisor	Defendant(s): Gov. Jerry Brown, Attorney General Xavier Becerra, the Judicial Council of California, and Californians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty (Intervenor)
Plaintiff argument: Prop. 66 unconstitutionally restricts the role of the Supreme Court and appellate court, and the time limits on death penalty cases violates the constitutional rights of death row inmates.	Defendant argument: The will of the voters should be respected, and the initiative is constitutional.

  Source: California Supreme Court

On November 9, 2016, litigation was filed against Proposition 66 in the California Supreme Court. Plaintiff Ron Briggs, a former El Dorado County supervisor, argued that Proposition 66 is unconstitutional. Briggs stated, "Proposition 66 violates the constitution by keeping the [state] Supreme Court and the appeals court out of the system." The plaintiff also said that the initiative would set "an inordinately short timeline for the courts to review those complex cases" and incentivize lawyers to "cut corners in their investigation and representation."

Kent Scheidegger, who helped write the initiative, responded to the lawsuit, saying, "I've been fighting against the death penalty opponents for a long time, and I know they'll really stop at nothing. ... I think the people who are opposed to the death penalty should respect the will of the people."

The California Supreme Court stayed the implementation of Proposition 66 on December 20, 2016. On February 1, 2017, the court agreed to take up the case and scheduled briefings through April 6, 2017.

On June 6, 2017, the court heard oral arguments in the case. According to the Los Angeles Times, the court appeared divided during arguments on whether the initiative could require a five-year deadline for death penalty appeals.

The California Supreme Court upheld the initiative in a 5-2 ruling on August 24, 2017. The court said the provision requiring the death penalty appeals process to conclude within five years was directive, rather than mandatory. Proposition 66 said the habeas corpus petition process and appeals shall be completed within five years after the death sentence is issued. The court’s opinion said while this provision was phrased in mandatory terms, imposing fixed time limits “would undermine the court’s authority as a separate branch of government.” Rather, the initiative should be interpreted as asking courts to resolve cases as “expeditiously as is consistent with the fair and principled administration of justice.” During hearings in the case, the initiative support campaign conceded that the five-year requirement could be interpreted as directive, as no enforcement mechanism was provided in Proposition 66.

Justices Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar and Raymond Ikola dissented from the court’s opinion to interpret this provision as directive, saying the provision should be invalided. The dissenting opinion said, “A mandatory deadline, as all the parties agree, is not constitutional. Because that is precisely what the voters enacted, we must be equally clear and invalidate it.”

Justice Carol Corrigan, who wrote the majority's opinion, said, “The implementation of Proposition 66 will necessarily be an ongoing process of exploration and adaptation.”

Moratorium on death penalty

On March 13, 2019, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed an executive order placing a moratorium on the death penalty. He said, "The intentional killing of another person is wrong and as Governor, I will not oversee the execution of any individual. Our death penalty system has been, by all measures, a failure. It has discriminated against defendants who are mentally ill, black and brown, or can’t afford expensive legal representation. It has provided no public safety benefit or value as a deterrent. It has wasted billions of taxpayer dollars. Most of all, the death penalty is absolute. It’s irreversible and irreparable in the event of human error."

President Donald Trump (R) responded to Gov. Newsom's executive order on Twitter, saying, "Defying voters, the Governor of California will halt all death penalty executions of 737 stone cold killers. Friends and families of the always forgotten VICTIMS are not thrilled, and neither am I!"

Election results

Proposition 66
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		6,626,159	51.13%
No		6,333,731	48.87%

Election results from California Secretary of State

Overview

Status of the death penalty in California

As of 2017, California was one of 30 states in which the death penalty was legal.

In 1972, the California Supreme Court ruled that the state’s capital punishment system was unconstitutional. However, in 1978, Proposition 7 reinstated the death penalty. Voters rejected an initiative to ban capital punishment, titled Proposition 34, in 2012.

Initiative design

Instead of the California Supreme Court, Proposition 66 was designed to put trial courts in charge of initial petitions, known as habeas corpus petitions, challenging death penalty convictions. The measure mandated that the judge who handled the original murder case hear the habeas corpus petition, unless good cause can be shown for another judge or court. It allowed petitions to be appealed to California Courts of Appeal and then finally to the California Supreme Court. The measure said the habeas corpus petition process and appeals shall be completed within five years after the death sentence; the California Supreme Court ruled this provision as directive, rather than mandatory in Briggs vs. Brown. Proposition 66 changed the qualifications required to represent convicted inmates in order to "ensure competent representation" and "expand the number of attorneys." It replaced the Supreme Court with trial courts as the judicial body that appoints attorneys for habeas corpus petitions. Inmates on death row would be required to work, subject to state regulations, and provide wages as restitution owed to the inmate's victims under Proposition 66. The measure mandated that the portion of wages to be provided as restitution would be 70 percent or the restitution fine, whichever is less. It authorized the state to house death row inmates in any prison, rather than the one death row prison for men and one death row prison for women.

Status of the ballot measure campaigns

Yes on Prop 66 raised $6 million, and No on 66 received $11.5 million. Yes on 66 spent contributions to approve Proposition 66 and defeat Proposition 62. No on 66 spent contributions to defeat Proposition 66 and approve Proposition 62. Polls indicated support for Proposition 66 was near 41 percent, although around 31 percent of respondents were undecided, prior to the election. The California Republican Party supported Proposition 66, and the California Democratic Party opposed the measure.

Proposition 66 vs. Proposition 62

Proposition 66 and Proposition 62 were not compatible measures. Therefore, if both were approved by a majority of voters, then the one with the most "yes" votes would have superseded the other. Proposition 62, however, was defeated. The table below outlines some of the major differences between the two initiatives:

Proposition 62	Proposition 66
Repeals the death penalty.	Keeps the death penalty in place.
Replaces the death penalty with life in prison without the possibility of parole as the maximum punishment for murder.	Changes the death penalty procedures to speed up the appeals process by putting trial courts in charge of initial petitions challenging death penalty convictions, establishing a time frame for death penalty review, and requiring appointed attorneys to work on death penalty cases.
Retroactively applies to prisoners already on death row at the time that the measure would take effect.	Stipulates that all effects would occur once Proposition 66 is enacted and authorizes death row inmate transfers among California prisons.
Would require prisoners sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole to work and pay restitution to victims' families. The portion of wages to be provided as restitution would be between 20 to 60 percent.	Would require prisoners on death row to work while in prison and pay restitution to victims' families. The portion of wages to be provided as restitution would be 70 percent or the restitution fine, whichever is less.
Stipulates that any provision found to be invalid will not affect the other provisions of the measure.	Stipulates that other death penalty measures approved would be void in the event that more affirmative votes are given for Proposition 66.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The official ballot title was as follows:

“

Death Penalty. Procedures. Initiative Statute.

”

Ballot summary

The long-form ballot summary was as follows:

“

Changes procedures governing state court appeals and petitions challenging death penalty convictions and sentences. Designates superior court for initial petitions and limits successive petitions. Establishes time frame for state court death penalty review. Requires appointed attorneys who take noncapital appeals to accept death penalty appeals. Exempts prison officials from existing regulation process for developing execution methods. Authorizes death row inmate transfers among California prisons. Increases portion of condemned inmates’ wages that may be applied to victim restitution. States other voter approved measures related to death penalty are void if this measure receives more affirmative votes.

”

The shorter ballot label summary was as follows:

“

Changes procedures governing state court challenges to death sentences. Designates superior court for initial petitions and limits successive petitions. Requires appointed attorneys who take noncapital appeals to accept death penalty appeals. Exempts prison officials from existing regulation process for developing execution methods. Fiscal Impact: Unknown ongoing impact on state court costs for processing legal challenges to death sentences. Potential prison savings in the tens of millions of dollars annually.

”

The long-form, official ballot summary for Proposition 66 was identical to the initial summary provided to initiative proponents for the purpose of circulating the initiative for signature collection.

Fiscal impact

Note: The fiscal impact statement for a California ballot initiative authorized for circulation is jointly prepared by the state's legislative analyst and its director of finance. The statement was as follows:

“

Unknown ongoing fiscal impact on state court costs for processing legal challenges to death sentences. Near-term increases in state court costs—potentially in the tens of millions of dollars annually—due to an acceleration of spending to address new time lines on legal challenges to death sentences. Savings of similar amounts in future years. Potential state prison savings that could be in the tens of millions of dollars annually.

”

Full text

The full text of the measure was available here.

Support

Californians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty, also known as No on Prop 62, Yes on Prop 66, led the campaign in support of Proposition 66. Supporters referred to the measure as the Death Penalty Reform and Savings Initiative.

Supporters

Officials

• U.S. Rep. Tom McClintock (R-4)
• U.S. Rep. Ed Royce (R-39)
• U.S. Rep. Mimi Walters (R-45)
• Sen. Jeff Stone (R-28)
• Sen. Cathleen Galgiani (D-5)
• Asm. Young Kim (R-65)
• Mayor James Bozajian, Calabasas
• Councilmember Mike Spence, West Covina
• Kevin Kiley (R), candidate for State Assembly

Former officials

• Gov. Pete Wilson (R)
• Gov. George Deukmejian (R)
• Judge Quentin L. Kopp, San Mateo County Superior Court
• Councilmember Harry Sidhu, Anaheim

Parties

• California Republican Party

Organizations

Police organizations Association of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs Bakersfield Police Officers Association California Association of Highway Patrolman California Police Chiefs Association California Correctional Peace Officers Association California Peace Officers’ Association California Statewide Law Enforcement Association California State Sheriffs’ Association Chula Vista Police Officers Association Contra Costa County Deputy Sheriffs Association Deputy Sheriffs’ Association of San Diego Law Enforcement Managers Association Local 1613, National Border Patrol Council Long Beach Police Officers Association Los Angeles Police Protective League Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association Los Angeles School Police Association Oceanside Police Officers Association Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC) Professional Peace Officers Association Riverside Sheriffs’ Association Sacramento Deputy Sheriffs Association Sacramento Law Enforcement Managers Association San Bernardino County Safety Employees Benefit Association San Diego Deputy Sheriffs San Diego Police Officers Association San Francisco Police Officers Association San Jose Police Officers Association San Mateo County Deputy Sheriff’s Association Santa Ana Police Officers Association Ventura County Deputy Sheriffs’ Association Other organizations California District Attorneys Association California Professional Firefighters California Taxpayer Protection Committee Crime and Capital Punishment Crime Survivors The Criminal Justice Legal Foundation Justice for Homicide Victims Kern County Prosecutors Association Klaas Kids Foundation Los Angeles Association of Deputy District Attorneys Maggie’s Mission Placer County Taxpayers Association Redlands Tea Party Patriots Riverside County Deputy District Attorneys Association San Diego County District Attorneys Association San Diegans Against Crime Solano County Taxpayers Association

Individuals

District attorneys Tony Rackauckus, Orange County Mike Ramos, San Bernardino Anne Marie Schubert, Sacramento Jackie Lacey, Los Angeles Lisa Smittcamp, Fresno Lisa Green, Kern Greg Totten, Ventura Steve Wagstaffe, San Mateo Amanda Hopper, Sutter Mike Hestrin, Riverside Cliff Newell, Nevada Gilbert Otero, Imperial Scott Owens, Placer Mark Peterson, Contra Costa Krishna Abrams, Solano Kirk Andrus, Siskiyou Lawrence Allen, Sierra Dan Dow, San Luis Obispo Bonnie Dumanis, San Diego Birgit Fladager, Stanislaus Dean Flippo, Monterey Eric Heryford, Trinity David Hollister, Plumas Vern Pierson, El Dorado John Poyner, Colusa Jeff Reisig, Yolo Todd Riebe, Amador Tim Ward, Tulare Pat McGrath, Yuba Don Anderson, Lake Stacey Montgomery, Lassen Candice Hooper, San Benito James Cooke, Mariposa Steve Cooley, Former District Attorney, Los Angeles Jan Scully, Former District Attorney, Sacramento Sheriffs Jim McDonnell, Los Angeles Scott Jones, Sacramento John McMahon, San Bernardino Adam Christianson, Stanislaus John D’Agostini, El Dorado Sandra Hutchens, Orange Greg Munks, San Mateo Keith Royal, Nevada Donny Youngblood, Kern Ed Prieto, Yolo Tom Bosenko, Shasta Ian Parkinson, San Luis Obispo Margret Mims, Fresno J. Paul Parker, Sutter Lou Blanas, Former Sheriff, Sacramento John McGinness, Former Sheriff, Sacramento Jon Lopey, Siskiyou Rick DiBasilio, Calaveras Tim Standley, Sierra Mike Downey, Humboldt Doug Binnewies, Mariposa Bill Brown, Santa Barbara Greg Ahern, Alameda Bruce Haney, Trinity Rick Stephens, Alpine Bill Lutze, Inyo Martin Ryan, Amador Steve Durfor, Yuba Edward Bonner, Placer

Arguments

Supporters made the following arguments in support of Proposition 66:

• The proposition would keep the death penalty system, which California needs.
• The proposition would speed up the death penalty appeals process while ensuring that no innocent person is executed.
• The proposition would mean that the worst criminals receive the strongest sentence.
• The proposition would provide closure to victims' families.
• The proposition would save taxpayers millions of dollars.

Official arguments

Jackie Lacey, District Attorney of Los Angeles County, Kermit Alexander, a family member of a multiple-homicide crime, and Shawn Welch, president of the Contra Costa County Deputy Sheriffs Association, wrote the official argument in support of Proposition 66 found in the state's voters guide. Their argument was as follows:

California's elected law enforcement leaders, police officers, frontline prosecutors, and the families of murder victims ask you to REFORM the California death penalty system by voting YES ON PROPOSITION 66! We agree California's current death penalty system is broken. The most heinous criminals sit on death row for 30 years, with endless appeals delaying justice and costing taxpayers hundreds of millions. It does not need to be this way. The solution is to MEND, NOT END, California's death penalty. The solution is YES on PROPOSITION 66. Proposition 66 was written to speed up the death penalty appeals system while ensuring that no innocent person is ever executed. Proposition 66 means the worst of the worst killers receive the strongest sentence. Prop 66 brings closure to the families of victims. Proposition 66 protects public safety — these brutal killers have no chance of ever being in society again. Prop 66 saves taxpayers money, because heinous criminals will no longer be sitting on death row at taxpayer expense for 30+ years. Proposition 66 was written by frontline death penalty prosecutors who know the system inside and out. They know how the system is broken, and they know how to fix it. It may sound complicated, but the reforms are actually quite simple. HERE'S WHAT PROPOSITION 66 DOES: 1. All state appeals should be limited to 5 years. 2. Every murderer sentenced to death will have their special appeals lawyer assigned immediately. Currently, it can be five years or more before they are even assigned a lawyer. 3. The pool of available lawyers to handle these appeals will be expanded. 4. The trial courts who handled the death penalty trials and know them best will deal with the initial appeals. 5. The State Supreme Court will be empowered to oversee the system and ensure appeals are expedited while protecting the rights of the accused. 6. The State Corrections Department (Prisons) will reform death row housing; taking away special privileges from these brutal killers and saving millions. Together, these reforms will save California taxpayers over $30,000,000 annually, according to former California Finance Director Mike Genest, while making our death penalty system work again. WE NEED A FUNCTIONING DEATH PENALTY SYSTEM IN CALIFORNIA Death sentences are issued rarely and judiciously, and only against the very worst murderers. To be eligible for the death penalty in California, you have to be guilty of first-degree murder with "special circumstances." These special circumstances include, in part: - Murderers who raped/tortured their victims. - Child killers. - Multiple murderers/serial killers. - Murders committed by terrorists; as part of a hate-crime; or killing a police officer. There are nearly 2,000 murders in California annually. Only about 15 death penalty sentences are imposed. But when these horrible crimes occur, and a jury unanimously finds a criminal guilty and separately, unanimously recommends death, the appeals should be heard within five years, and the killer executed. Help us protect California, provide closure to victims, and save taxpayers millions. Visit www.NoProp62YesProp66.com for more information. Then join law enforcement and families of victims and vote YES ON PROPOSITION 66!

Opposition

No on 66 led the campaign in opposition to Proposition 66.

Opponents

Officials

• Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D)
• U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D)
• U.S. Rep. Jared Huffman (D-2)
• U.S. Rep. Ted Lieu (D-33)
• U.S. Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-19)
• Asm. David Chui (D-17)
• Asm. Kevin McCarty (D-7)
• Supervisor Jane Kim (D), San Francisco
• Councilmember Eric Guerra (D), Sacramento
• Gary Johnson, 2016 Libertarian presidential candidate

Former officials

• Attorney General John Van de Kamp (D)
• Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa (D), Los Angeles
• Mayor Willie Brown (D), San Francisco
• Judge LaDoris Cordell, Santa Clara County Superior Court

Parties

• California Democratic Party
• Libertarian Party of California
• Green Party of California
• California Peace and Freedom Party
• Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club
• Santa Monica Democratic Club

Organizations

Civic organizations ACLU of California California Crime Victims for Alternatives to the Death Penalty California Academy of Appellate Lawyers California Attorneys for Criminal Justice California Environmental Justice Alliance Action California NAACP Color of Change Community Resource Initiative Death Penalty Focus Ella Baker Center for Human Rights Equal Justice Initiative Equal Justice Society Evolve CA Exonerated Nation Justice Not Jails LatinoJustice PRLDEF League of Women Voters of California LYRIC Murder Victims Families for Reconciliation National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers National Hispanic Leadership Agenda Our Revolution PICO California PowerPAC.org Southern Center for Human Rights The Advocacy Fund, Tides 8th Amendment Project AltaMed Action Fund State PAC Religious organizations Bend the Arc California Catholic Conference California Province for the Society of Jesus Catholics Against the Death Penalty, CA Clergy And Laity United For Economic Justice (CLUE) Friends Committee on Legislation of California Interfaith Communities United for Justice and Peace Kehilla Community Synagogue Lutheran Office of Public Policy – California Office for Social Ministry, Roman Catholic Diocese of San Diego Pax Christi Los Angeles St. Camillus Center for Spiritual Care United Church of Christ, Northern California Nevada Conference Unions California Federation of Teachers California Labor Federation SEIU California AFSCME California California Nurses Association

Individuals

Activists Donald Heller, author of CA’s 1987 death penalty law Jeanne Woodford, Warden, California Death Row Prison (1994-2004) Bryan Stevenson, Equal Justice Initiative Journalists Kevin Drum, political blogger for Mother Jones Religious leaders Elizabeth Zitrin, attorney, President, World Coalition Against the Death Penalty Eva Paterson, Equal Justice Society Very Rev. Michael F. Weiler, S.J., Provincial, California Province of the Society of Jesus Fr. Chris Ponnet, Chairperson, Pax Christi Los Angeles Rev. Peter Laarman, Coordinator for Justice Not Jails Sister Helen Prejean, Ministry Against the Death Penalty Academics Barbara Babcock, Crown Professor, Emerita, Stanford Law School Elisabeth Semel, Clinical Professor of Law, UC Berkeley School of Law Ellen Kreitzberg, Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Social Justice and Public Service, Santa Clara University School of Law Eric Wright, Professor of Law, Santa Clara University School of Law Hadar Aviram, Professor of Law, UC Hastings College of Law John J. Donohue III, Ph.D. in economics, Stanford Professor of Law Jonathan Simon, Professor of Law, Faculty Director of the Center for the Study of Law & Society Kathleen Ridolfi, Professor of Law, Santa Clara University School of Law Kenneth Simons, Chancellor’s Professor of Law, University of California, Irvine School of Law Linda Carter, Distinguished Professor of Law, University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law Mai Linh Spencer, Associate Clinical Professor of Law, UC Hastings College of Law Margaret Russell, Professor of Law, Santa Clara University School of Law Mark Kelman, James C. Gaither Professor of Law and Vice Dean, Stanford Law School Sameer Ashar, Clinical Professor of Law, UC Irvine School of Law Ty Alper, Clinical Professor of Law, UC Berkeley School of Law

Arguments

Opponents made the following arguments in opposition to Proposition 66:

• The proposition would cost taxpayers millions of dollars unnecessarily, due to increased prison spending, legal defense, death row facility construction, and litigation.
• The proposition is poorly written and confusing.
• The proposition would increase California's risk of executing an innocent person, and would remove important legal safeguards.

Official arguments

Jeanne Woodford, a former warden at the state's death row prison, Francisco Carrillo, Jr., an innocent man wrongfully convicted, and former Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa (D) of Los Angeles wrote the official argument against Proposition 66 found in the state's voters guide. Their argument was as follows:

Prop. 66 WASTES TENS OF MILLIONS OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS. Evidence shows MORE THAN 150 INNOCENT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN SENTENCED TO DEATH, and some have been executed because of poorly written laws like this one. Prop. 66 is so confusing and poorly written that we don't know all of its consequences. We do know this: it will add more layers of government bureaucracy causing more delays, cost taxpayers money, and increase California's risk of executing an innocent person. Experts agree: Prop. 66 is DEEPLY FLAWED. PROP. 66 COULD INCREASE TAXPAYER COSTS BY MILLIONS. According to nonpartisan analysis, Prop. 66 could cost "tens of millions of dollars annually" with "unknown" costs beyond that. Read the LAO's report posted at www.NoOnCAProp66.org/cost. Experts say Prop. 66 will: INCREASE PRISON SPENDING while schools, social services, and other priorities suffer. INCREASE TAXPAYER-FUNDED legal defense for death row inmates, requiring the state to hire as many as 400 new taxpayer-funded attorneys. LEAD TO CONSTRUCTION of new TAXPAYER-FUNDED DEATH ROW facilities. This initiative authorizes the state to house death row inmates in new prisons, anywhere in California. Lead to EXPENSIVE LITIGATION by lawyers who will challenge a series of poorly written provisions. "Prop. 66 is so flawed that it's impossible to know for sure all the hidden costs it will inflict on California taxpayers." —John Van de Kamp, former Attorney General of California. PROP. 66 WOULD INCREASE CALIFORNIA'S RISK OF EXECUTING AN INNOCENT PERSON. Instead of making sure everyone gets a fair trial with all the evidence presented, this measure REMOVES IMPORTANT LEGAL SAFEGUARDS and could easily lead to fatal mistakes. This measure is modeled after laws from states like Texas, where authorities have executed innocent people. People like Cameron Willingham and Carlos De Luna, both executed in Texas. Experts now say they were innocent. Prop. 66 will: • LIMIT the ability to present new evidence of innocence in court. • LEAVE people who can't afford a good attorney vulnerable to mistakes. • CLOG local courts by moving death penalty cases there, adding new layers of bureaucracy and placing high profile cases in the hands of inexperienced judges and attorneys. This would lead to costly mistakes. "If someone's executed and later found innocent, we can't go back." —Judge LaDoris Cordell, Santa Clara (retired). A CONFUSING AND POORLY WRITTEN INITIATIVE THAT WILL ONLY CAUSE MORE DELAY. Prop. 66 is a misguided experiment that asks taxpayers to increase the costs of our justice and prison systems by MILLIONS to enact poorly-written reforms that would put California at risk. SF Weekly stated, "Combing through the initiative's 16 pages is like looking through the first draft of an undergraduate paper. The wording is vague, unfocused and feels tossed off." Instead of adding new layers of government bureaucracy and increasing costs, we deserve real reform of our justice system. Prop. 66 is not the answer. "Instead of reckless, costly changes to our prison system, we need smart investments that are proven to reduce crime and serve victims."- Dionne Wilson, widow of police officer killed in the line of duty.

Campaign finance

The campaign finance information on this page reflects the most recent scheduled reports that Ballotpedia has processed, which covered through December 31, 2016.

See also: Campaign finance requirements for California ballot measures

Three committees registered in support of the measure, and three committees registered in opposition to the measure. Several committees also registered to support or oppose Proposition 62. The amounts contributed or spent between the two measures cannot be disambiguated.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$5,363,847.50	$674,145.94	$6,037,993.44	$4,969,977.14	$5,644,123.08
Oppose	$11,319,233.47	$261,873.16	$11,581,106.63	$11,273,351.00	$11,535,224.16
Total	$16,683,080.97	$936,019.10	$17,619,100.07	$16,243,328.14	$17,179,347.24

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in support of the ballot measure.

Committees in support of Proposition 66
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Californians to Mend, Not End, The Death Penalty. No on Prop 62, Yes on Prop 66.	$4,244,236.00	$674,145.94	$4,918,381.94	$4,450,965.84	$5,125,111.78
Los Angeles Police Protective League Issues PAC - Yes on 66, No on 57	$980,950.50	$0.00	$980,950.50	$358,645.71	$358,645.71
San Francisco Police Officers Association Issues PAC - Yes on 66, No on 62	$138,661.00	$0.00	$138,661.00	$160,365.59	$160,365.59
Total	$5,363,847.50	$674,145.94	$6,037,993.44	$4,969,977.14	$5,644,123.08

Donors

The following table shows the top donors to the committees registered in support of the ballot measure.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Peace Officers Research Association of California Political Issues Committee (PORAC PIC)	$755,000.00	$0.00	$755,000.00
California Correctional Peace Officers Association Truth in American Government Fund	$703,304.00	$0.00	$703,304.00
California Association of Highway Patrolmen	$250,000.00	$0.00	$250,000.00
Los Angeles Police Protective League Issues PAC	$250,000.00	$0.00	$250,000.00
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs State PIC	$210,000.00	$0.00	$210,000.00

Opposition

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in opposition to the ballot measure.

Committees in opposition to Proposition 66
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Yes on 62, No on 66. Replace the Costly, Failed Death Penalty System	$7,750,728.96	$112,573.83	$7,863,302.79	$7,746,420.51	$7,858,994.34
Million Voter Project Action Fund - Yes on 55, 56, 57, 58, 62, and No on 66	$2,080,964.45	$0.00	$2,080,964.45	$2,080,964.45	$2,080,964.45
No on Prop 66, Californians for Fair Justice	$1,487,540.06	$149,299.33	$1,636,839.39	$1,445,966.04	$1,595,265.37
Total	$11,319,233.47	$261,873.16	$11,581,106.63	$11,273,351.00	$11,535,224.16

Donors

The following table shows the top donors to the committees registered in opposition to the ballot measure.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Thomas Steyer	$1,750,000.00	$0.00	$1,750,000.00
Reed Hastings	$1,000,000.00	$0.00	$1,000,000.00
Lauren Powell Jobs	$600,000.00	$0.00	$600,000.00
Nicholas McKeown	$600,000.00	$0.00	$600,000.00
Open Society Policy Center	$500,000.00	$0.00	$500,000.00
Paul Graham	$500,000.00	$0.00	$500,000.00
NextGen California	$250,000.00	$0.00	$250,000.00

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Media editorials

Support

• The Record: “Our consensus is a no vote on Proposition 62 and yes on 66. We do not feel the death penalty should be abolished with so many on death row (whose sentences would be converted to life in prison). We do, however, concur that the process for legal challenges should not be so drawn out.”
• San Mateo Daily Journal recommended a "Yes" vote on Proposition 66.

Opposition

• The Bakersfield Californian: "The competing Proposition 66 is a flawed attempt to salvage the death penalty by speeding up its imposition. That simply won’t work and Californians will continue to waste billions of dollars on a 'penalty' that has not been imposed for years."

• Chico Enterprise-Record: "Proposition 66 doesn’t seem to be the fix that we were envisioning for the death penalty dilemma. It proposes some things that disturb us, like eliminating public oversight of execution methods."

• East Bay Express: "The repeal of capital punishment, a baldly barbaric fixture of the criminal justice system, through the passage of Proposition 62 this November, is morally imperative for California voters. The bloodlust of the competing measure, to expedite appeals and executions through Prop. 66, is unconscionable. One-in-ten death sentences are overturned."

• East Bay Times and The Mercury News: "Donald Heller wrote the 1978 proposition that brought back capital punishment. He now favors abolishing it. He knows that it costs California $90,000 a year more per prisoner on death row than it costs to jail our worst criminals for life. No other Western nation has the death penalty. California shouldn't share the values of places such as North Korea, China, Pakistan, Libya, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Vote no on Proposition 66 -- and vote yes on Proposition 62. Abolish the death penalty in California."

• Los Angeles Daily News: "The measure also sets an arbitrary five-year limit by which courts are supposed to decide a series of appeals. Expedience should not be the goal in a system that could potentially execute an innocent person. To date, more than 150 people nationwide have been exonerated from death row, including three in California."

• Los Angeles Times: "How dysfunctional is the system? Since voters reinstated the death penalty nearly 40 years ago, 1,039 convicted murderers have received death sentences, but the state has executed only 13, in part because death penalty appeals take about 25 years, according to experts. During the same period, 104 condemned inmates died of natural causes, suicides or other non-execution means — and the system has cost taxpayers about $5 billion. Something clearly has to be changed. The answer, however, is not to speed up the machinery of death, but to dismantle it. That’s why The Times urges a yes vote on Proposition 62 and a no vote on Proposition 66."

• The Modesto Bee: "Vote for Proposition 66, and deadly mistakes will be made. Pass Proposition 62, and at least our conscience will be clear."

• Monterey County Herald: "The death penalty hasn’t worked, and the only success — if such a word can be used with capital punishment — is a legal industry generated among various groups that have fought it tooth and nail, rendering the sentence essentially toothless."

• Orange County Register: "California has spent billions of dollars on the flawed death penalty system since 1978. Potentially unworkable tweaks to a failed system aren’t what California needs."

• The Sacramento Bee: "Proposition 66 might resolve that lethal-injection issue by embedding into law a method that courts have deemed to be constitutional. But even if it all works, Californians must ask themselves whether they want an efficient death penalty system, and all that would entail."

• San Diego City Beat: “While we would be willing to make valid repairs to the death penalty, this is an expensive, empty promise. Speeding up a complex system should render hesitation, and the proposed timeline is unrealistic. Also, there’s no clear path to obtaining lethal injection drugs right now. These changes aren’t worth the chances of executing an innocent person.”

• San Diego Free Press and OB Rag called for a "No" vote on Proposition 66.

• San Diego Union-Tribune: "We recommend a yes vote on Proposition 62 and no on Proposition 66 for a different reason that is more practical than emotional: The branches of California’s government have for decades shown they don’t like the death penalty and don’t want it to be used. If Proposition 66 were enacted, history suggests its fixes would not be executed with good faith."

• San Francisco Chronicle: "Californians have been offered two options on the Nov. 8 ballot to 'fix' a system of capital punishment that all sides agree has produced enormous legal bills, no semblance of deterrence to would-be murderers and too little justice to victims’ loved ones over the past four decades. ... The other, Prop. 66, proposes a highly complex, probably very expensive and constitutionally questionable scheme for streamlining the appeals process in hopes of shaving years off the timeline between conviction and execution. Even the most ardent advocates of capital punishment should be wary of the promises in Prop. 66. Its core time-saving provisions would reduce the number of habeas petitions and tighten the deadlines for filing (within one year of acquiring an attorney) and resolving appeals (within five years). In so doing, it brushes aside the legal and practical realities in the way of achieving any time savings."

• San Francisco Examiner: "Government must function to value and preserve life whenever possible, even among those who have acted unforgivably to the contrary. Beyond arguments of cost savings and critiques of a biased justice system, a civilized society must stand against institutionalized brutality and murder."

• Santa Clarita Valley Signal: "The second, Proposition 66, would revise the death penalty in an apparent bid to speed up executions through a series of procedural adjustments that we suspect would have little to no effect. ... We urge you to vote 'yes' on the first death penalty measure on the ballot, Proposition 62, and vote 'no' on the second death penalty measure, Proposition 66."

• Santa Cruz Sentinel: "There’s a competing death penalty ballot measure, Proposition 66, which seeks to remedy the high costs and long delays by speeding up the process of executing convicts. But while current delays are unacceptable, speed is hardly of the essence when taking a human life."

• Santa Rosa Press Democrat: "Rather than funding an expansion of the state public defender’s office, which handles almost all death penalty appeals, Proposition 66 would require all attorneys who practice in California appellate courts, regardless of specialty and training, to accept judicial appointments to capital cases. Claims of inattentive and incompetent counsel already are common in death penalty appeals, and conscripting lawyers would only invite more such challenges."

• Ventura County Star: "We urge a yes vote on Prop. 62 and a no vote on Prop. 66."

Polls

See also: Polls, 2016 ballot measures

• In September 2016, The Field Poll/IGS Poll surveyed 942 registered voters and found support for Proposition 66 to be 35 percent. Most voters were undecided on the measure.
• In mid October 2016, CALSPEAKS surveyed 622 likely voters on Proposition 66. Support among respondents was 51 percent.
• The Hoover Institution and YouGov surveyed 1,250 likely voters between October 4 and October 14, 2016. Support for the measure was 38 percent.
• In late October 2016, USC Dornsife and the Los Angeles Times surveyed 1,500 registered voters and found 35 percent favoring and 63 percent opposing Proposition 66.
• The Field Poll/IGS Poll surveyed 1,498 likely voters between October 25 and October 31, 2016, and found support for the measure at 48 percent.

Polls with margins of error

California Proposition 66 (2016)
Poll	Support	Oppose	Undecided	Margin of error	Sample size
USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times 10/22/2016 - 10/30/2016	35.0%	43.0%	22.0%	+/-2.3	1,500
Hoover Institution/YouGov 10/4/2016 - 10/14/2016	38.0%	24.0%	38.0%	+/-3.28	1,250
CALSPEAKS 10/7/2016 - 10/13/2016	51.0%	20.0%	29.0%	+/-7.0	622
AVERAGES	41.33%	29%	29.67%	+/-4.19	1,124
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Polls without margins of error

Note: The Field Poll/IGS Poll does not report a margin of error because "[polls] conducted online using an opt-in panel do not easily lend themselves to the calculation of sampling error estimates as are traditionally reported for random sample telephone surveys."

California Proposition 66 (2016)
Poll	Support	Oppose	Undecided	Sample size
The Field Poll/IGS Poll 10/25/2016 - 10/31/2016	48.0%	42.0%	10.0%	1,498
The Field Poll/IGS Poll 9/7/2016 - 9/13/2016	35.0%	23.0%	42.0%	942
AVERAGES	41.5%	32.5%	26%	1,220
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

• The Field Poll surveyed Californians in December 2015 and January 2016 on their support for two initiatives related to capital punishment. About 47 percent of respondents favored the provisions of Proposition 62, while 48 percent preferred the provisions of Proposition 66. The former initiative would replace the death penalty with life imprisonment without parole, and the latter initiative would speed up the execution process.

California Proposition 62 (2016) and California Proposition 66 (2016)
Poll	Favor Proposition 66	Favor Proposition 62	Undecided	Margin of error	Sample size
Field Poll 12/15/2015 - 1/3/2016	48%	47%	5%	+/-3.2	1,003
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Background

Proposition 7

See also: California Proposition 7, the Death Penalty Act (1978)

In 1972, the death penalty in California was invalidated by the California Supreme Court in People v. Anderson. It was reinstated by Proposition 7 in 1978. Over 70 percent of voters supported the reinstatement. Since that time, 13 inmates have been executed.

Proposition 34

See also: California Proposition 34, Abolition of the Death Penalty Initiative (2012)

Proposition 34, which would have ended the death penalty and replaced it with life in prison without the possibility of parole, appeared on the November 6, 2012, ballot in California. The measure was defeated, thereby continuing the use of the death penalty system in the state of California.

Death penalty invalidation

While Proposition 34 was defeated in 2012, Judge Cormac J. Carney invalidated the state's death penalty on July 16, 2014. The ruling was overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit Court, which held that the legal precedent of federal habeas corpus was not applicable to the case because Judge Carney used arguments for legal doctrine that did not exist at the time of the relevant death penalty inmate's conviction. This kept the death penalty operational in California.

Death penalty by state

Prior to the November 2016 election, capital punishment was legal in 31 states. It was illegal in 19 states and the District of Columbia. In Colorado, Pennsylvania, Oregon, and Washington, laws providing for the death penalty were in place but had been placed under gubernatorial moratoria. After the November 2016 election, voters did not change the legal status of the death penalty in any of the states with measures on the issue.

In 1846, Michigan became the first state to abolish the death penalty. Between 1846 and 1911, four states banned the practice. For the 46 years following Minnesota's 1911 repeal of capital punishment, no other states followed suit. Then, between 1957 and 1965, five additional states abolished the death penalty. During the 1970s and early 1980s, four more states followed suit. In 2007, both New Jersey and New York prohibited the death penalty. Seven states abolished the death penalty between 2007 and 2017. In August 2016, the Delaware Supreme Court struck down the death penalty as unconstitutional.

In the November 2016 election, voters in three states showed support for the death penalty. Voters in California rejected Proposition 62, which would have repealed the state's death penalty, and they approved a measure designed to speed up the death row appeal process. The people of Nebraska voted to repeal on Referendum 426, thereby preserving the death penalty by voting against the legislature's 2015 motion to abolish capital punishment. Voters in Oklahoma, where the death penalty was already legal, approved State Question 776, which constitutionalized capital punishment.

Path to the ballot

See also: California signature requirements

• Kermit Alexander submitted a letter requesting a title and summary on October 16, 2015.
• A title and summary were issued by California's attorney general's office on December 24, 2015.
• 365,880 valid signatures were required for qualification purposes.
• On February 12, 2016, petitioners reached the 25 percent mark in their signature gathering effort, collecting more than 91,470 signatures.
• On May 19, 2016, supporters submitted 593,000 signatures to election officials.
• Supporters had until June 21, 2016, to collect the required signatures.

Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired National Petition Management, Inc. and The Monaco Group to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $3,065,943.08 was spent to collect the 365,880 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $8.38.

State profile

Demographic data for California
	California	U.S.
Total population:	38,993,940	316,515,021
Land area (sq mi):	155,779	3,531,905
Race and ethnicity**
White:	61.8%	73.6%
Black/African American:	5.9%	12.6%
Asian:	13.7%	5.1%
Native American:	0.7%	0.8%
Pacific Islander:	0.4%	0.2%
Two or more:	4.5%	3%
Hispanic/Latino:	38.4%	17.1%
Education
High school graduation rate:	81.8%	86.7%
College graduation rate:	31.4%	29.8%
Income
Median household income:	$61,818	$53,889
Persons below poverty level:	18.2%	11.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in California. **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here.

Presidential voting pattern

See also: Presidential voting trends in California

California voted for the Democratic candidate in all seven presidential elections between 2000 and 2024.

More California coverage on Ballotpedia

• Elections in California
• United States congressional delegations from California
• Public policy in California
• Endorsers in California
• California fact checks
• More...

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Proposition 66 death penalty California 2016. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

California Proposition 66, Death Penalty Procedures (2016) - Google News

Related measures

2016

Death penalty measures on the ballot in 2016
State	Measures
Nebraska	Nebraska Death Penalty Repeal, Referendum 426 d
Oklahoma	Oklahoma Death Penalty, State Question 776 a
California	California Proposition 62, Repeal of the Death Penalty d

See also

Suggest a link

• 2016 ballot measures
• California 2016 ballot propositions
• California ballot measures

External links

Basic information

• Petition for Initiative #15-0096 (Proposition 66)
• California 2016 Voter Guide

Support

• No on Prop 62, Yes on Prop 66
• No on Prop 62, Yes on Prop 66 Facebook
• No on Prop 62, Yes on Prop 66 Twitter

Opposition

• No on Prop 66
• No on Prop 66 Facebook
• No on Prop 66 Twitter

Other resources

• Upvote California Podcasts on Ballot Measures

Additional reading

• New York Times, "California Voters Face Choice: End Death Penalty, or Speed It Up," September 20, 2016