2020 California Proposition 19

Last updated
California Proposition 19 (2020)
Flag of California.svg
November 3, 2020 (2020-11-03)

Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 11. Changes tax assessment transfers and inheritance rules
Results
Choice
Votes %
Check-71-128-204-brightblue.svgYes8,545,39351.11%
Light brown x.svgNo8,175,61848.89%

2020 California Proposition 19 results map by county.svg

California Proposition 19 (2020), 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. [1] [2] The legislation 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 natural disasters, and fund wildfire response. [3] According to the California Legislative Analyst, Proposition 19 is a large net tax increase "of hundreds of millions of dollars per year." [4]

Contents

According to the ballot summary, Proposition 19: [5]

The proposition was sponsored and heavily promoted by the California Association of Realtors, and became effective on February 16, 2021. [7] [8]

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. [9] That ballot measure failed statewide with 40% support, and also failed to receive majority support in all 58 California counties. [10] 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." [11]

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. [12] This initiative measure received sufficient signatures to qualify for the November 2020 ballot. [13]

Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 11 (ACA 11)

As allowed under California law, [14] 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). [15] Proposition 19 was added to the ballot via ACA 11 which was authored by San Mateo Assemblymember Kevin Mullin. [16]

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. [17] 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. [18] 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). [19] [20]

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. [21]

Legislative Votes on ACA 11

In California, constitutional amendments proposed by the Legislature require approval from two-thirds of the membership of each house. [22]

The following are the votes by the Members of the California Legislature on ACA 11, along with how the voters within the corresponding legislative district subsequently voted on Proposition 19:

California Assembly

Assembly votes are from the California Assembly Daily Journal [23] and Proposition 19 outcomes are from the California Secretary of State. [24] The vote designation of "Abstain" is for those Legislators present on the day of the vote, [25] but who did not record a vote for or against ACA 11. The vote designation of "Absent" is for those Legislators who were absent on the day of the vote. Assembly districts are based on the applicable 2011 district.

DistrictLast NameFirst NamePartyACA 11 VoteProp 19 Outcome
04Aguiar-CurryCeciliaDemYesPass
31ArambulaJoaquinDemYesPass
16Bauer-KahanRebeccaDemYesPass
24BermanMarcDemYesPass
05BigelowFrankRepYesFail
50BloomRichardDemAbstainFail
76Boerner-HorvathTashaDemAbstainPass
18BontaRobDemYesPass
73BroughBillRepNoFail
62BurkeAutumnDemYesPass
57CalderonIanDemYesFail
51CarrilloWendyDemYesFail
60CervantesSabrinaDemAbstainFail
49ChauEdDemYesFail
55ChenPhillipRepAbstainFail
17ChiuDavidDemAbstainPass
68ChoiStevenRepAbstainFail
25ChuKansenDemYesPass
08CooleyKenDemNoFail
09CooperJimDemYesPass
35CunninghamJordanRepAbstainFail
01DahleMeganRepYesFail
69DalyTomDemYesPass
72DiepTylerRepAbsentFail
13EggmanSusanDemYesPass
12FloraHeathRepYesFail
34FongVinceRepNoFail
11FrazierJimDemAbsentPass
43FriedmanLauraDemYesFail
45GabrielJesseDemYesFail
03GallagherJamesRepYesFail
58GarciaCristinaDemYesPass
56GarciaEduardoDemYesPass
64GipsonMikeDemYesPass
78GloriaToddDemYesPass
80GonzalezLorenaDemAbsentPass
21GrayAdamDemYesPass
14GraysonTimDemYesPass
41HoldenChrisDemYesFail
44IrwinJacquiDemYesPass
59Jones-SawyerReggieDemYesPass
27KalraAshDemYesPass
54Kamlager-DoveSydneyDemYesPass
06KileyKevinRepNoFail
36LackeyTomRepYesFail
10LevineMarcDemNoPass
37LimónMoniqueDemYesFail
28LowEvanDemYesPass
77MaienscheinBrianDemYesPass
26MathisDevonRepYesFail
42MayesChadIndYesFail
07McCartyKevinDemYesPass
61MedinaJoseDemYesPass
22MullinKevinDemYesPass
66MuratsuchiAlDemYesFail
46NazarianAdrinDemAbstainPass
70O'DonnellPatrickDemYesFail
33ObernolteJayRepYesFail
23PattersonJimRepAbstainFail
74Petrie-NorrisCottieDemAbstainFail
20QuirkBillDemYesPass
65Quirk-SilvaSharonDemAbstainFail
40RamosJamesDemAbsentPass
63RendonAnthonyDemYesPass
47ReyesEloiseDemYesPass
39RivasLuzDemYesPass
30RivasRobertDemYesPass
52RodriguezFreddieDemYesPass
48RubioBlancaDemYesFail
32SalasRudyDemAbstainFail
53SantiagoMiguelDemYesPass
38SmithChristyDemYesFail
29StoneMarkDemYesPass
19TingPhilDemAbstainPass
67VacantVacantVacVacantFail
71VoepelRandyRepYesFail
75WaldronMarieRepYesFail
79WeberShirleyDemYesPass
15WicksBuffyDemYesPass
02WoodJimDemAbstainPass
California Senate

Senate votes are from the California Senate Daily Journal [26] and Proposition 19 outcomes are from the California Secretary of State. [27] The vote designation of "Abstain" is for those Legislators present on the day of the vote, [28] but who did not record a vote for or against ACA 11. Senate districts are based on the applicable 2011 district.

DistrictLast NameFirst NamePartyACA 11 VoteProp 19 Outcome
26AllenBenDemAbstainFail
32ArchuletaBobDemYesFail
39AtkinsToniDemYesPass
36BatesPatriciaRepNoFail
15BeallJimDemYesPass
08BorgeasAndreasRepAbstainFail
35BradfordStevenDemYesPass
12CaballeroAnnaDemYesPass
29ChangLing LingRepAbstainFail
01DahlBrianRepYesFail
03DoddBillDemYesPass
24DurazoMaria ElenaDemYesPass
05GalgianiCathleenDemYesPass
07GlazerSteveDemYesPass
33GonzalezLenaDemYesPass
16GroveShannonRepAbstainFail
18HertzbergRobertDemYesPass
13HillJerryDemYesPass
40HuesoBenDemYesPass
14HurtadoMelissaDemAbstainPass
19JacksonHannah-BethDemYesFail
38JonesBrianRepNoFail
20LeyvaConnieDemYesPass
02McGuireMikeDemYesPass
28MelendezMelissaRepNoFail
30MitchellHollyDemYesPass
17MonningBillDemYesPass
37MoorlachJohnRepAbstainFail
23MorrellMikeRepNoFail
04NielsenJimRepNoFail
06PanRichardDemYesPass
25PortantinoAnthonyDemYesFail
31RothRichardDemYesPass
22RubioSusanDemYesFail
09SkinnerNancyDemYesPass
27SternHenryDemYesFail
34UmbergTomDemYesFail
10WieckowskiBobDemYesPass
11WienerScottDemYesPass
21WilkScottRepYesFail

Real estate industry sponsor and prior history

The California Association of Realtors sponsored the Proposition 19 constitutional amendment, [29] 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. [30] The president of the California Association of Realtors has denied that Proposition 19 is about making money for the Realtors. [31]

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." [32]

The Greenlining Institute has also criticized Proposition 19 for not helping "first-time homeowners who are disproportionately Black, Indigenous and people of color." [33]

Campaign controversy

It was reported [34] 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. 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. [35]

Newspaper editorials

According to the California Initiative Editorial Scorecard, Proposition 19 was opposed by 16 major California newspapers and supported by 5 major California newspapers. [36]

The following major California newspapers opposed Proposition 19: [37]

NewspaperPosition
Los Angeles TimesOppose
San Jose Mercury NewsOppose
Orange County RegisterOppose
East Bay TimesOppose
San Francisco ChronicleOppose
The Press-EnterpriseOppose
San Gabriel Valley TribuneOppose
The Daily BreezeOppose
Los Angeles Daily NewsOppose
The Santa Rosa Press DemocratOppose
Long Beach Press-TelegramOppose
Inland Valley Daily BulletinOppose
San Bernardino SunOppose
The Desert SunOppose
Chico Enterprise-RecordOppose
Bakersfield CalifornianOppose

The following major California newspaper supported Proposition 19: [38]

NewspaperPosition
San Diego Union-TribuneSupport
Sacramento BeeSupport
San Luis Obispo TribuneSupport
Fresno BeeSupport
Modesto BeeSupport

Campaign contributions

According to campaign contribution data from the California Secretary of State, as of November 1, 2020, supporters of Proposition 19 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 raised approximately $45,000. [39]

Polling

In order to pass, Proposition 19 needed simple majority (>50%) approval by the voters which it narrowly received.

Poll sourceDate(s)
administered
Sample
size [lower-alpha 1]
Margin
of error
For Proposition 19Against Proposition 19Undecided
SurveyUSA September 26–28, 2020588 (LV)± 5.4%56%10%34%

Notes

  1. Key:
    A – all adults
    RV – registered voters
    LV – likely voters
    V – unclear

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1978 California Proposition 13</span> Ballot initiative which capped property tax at 1% and yearly increases at 2%

Proposition 13 is an amendment of the Constitution of California enacted during 1978, by means of the initiative process. The initiative was approved by California voters on June 6, 1978. It was upheld as constitutional by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1 (1992). Proposition 13 is embodied in Article XIII A of the Constitution of the State of California.

The Oregon tax revolt is a political movement in Oregon which advocates for lower taxes. This movement is part of a larger anti-tax movement in the western United States which began with the enactment of Proposition 13 in California. The tax revolt, carried out in large part by a series of citizens' initiatives and referendums, has reshaped the debate about taxes and public services in Oregon.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2004 California Proposition 60</span> Amendment to the Constitution of California

Proposition 60 was an amendment of the Constitution of California, enacted in 2004, guaranteeing the right of a party participating in a primary election to also participate in the general election that follows. It was proposed by the California Legislature and approved by the voters in referendum held as part of the November 2004 election, by a majority of 67%.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2004 California Proposition 65</span> 2004 California ballot proposition

Proposition 65 was a California ballot proposition on the November 2, 2004 ballot. It failed to pass with 3,901,748 (37.6%) votes in favor and 6,471,506 (62.4%) against. It was a state constitutional amendment that would have required voter approval for any state legislation reducing certain local government revenues from January 2003 levels. It was officially known as the Local Taxpayers and Public Safety Protection Act.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1964 California Proposition 14</span> 1964 California ballot proposition

California Proposition 14 was a November 1964 initiative ballot measure that amended the California state constitution to nullify the 1963 Rumford Fair Housing Act, thereby allowing property sellers, landlords and their agents to openly discriminate on ethnic grounds when selling or letting accommodations, as they had been permitted to before 1963. The proposition became law after receiving support from 65% of voters. In 1966, the California Supreme Court in a 5–2 split decision declared Proposition 14 unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that decision in 1967 in Reitman v. Mulkey.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1996 California Proposition 218</span> Adopted initiative constitutional amendment

Proposition 218 is an adopted initiative constitutional amendment which revolutionized local and regional government finance and taxation in California. Named the "Right to Vote on Taxes Act," it was sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association as a constitutional follow-up to the landmark property tax reduction initiative constitutional amendment, Proposition 13, approved in June 1978. Proposition 218 was approved and adopted by California voters during the November 5, 1996, statewide general election.

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is a California-based nonprofit lobbying and policy organization that advocates for Proposition 13 and Proposition 218. Officially nonpartisan, the organization also advocates against raising taxes in California.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 California elections</span>

The California state elections, November 2008 were held on November 4, 2008 throughout California. Among the elections taking place were those for the office of President of the United States, all the seats of California's delegation to the House of Representatives, all of the seats of the State Assembly, and all of the odd-numbered seats of the State Senate. Twelve propositions also appeared on the ballot. Numerous local elections also took place throughout the state.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1992 California elections</span>

California's state elections were held November 3, 1992. Necessary primary elections were held on March 3. Up for election were all the seats of the State Assembly, 20 seats of the State Senate, and fifteen ballot measures.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 California Proposition 5</span> 2008 California ballot proposition

California Proposition 5, or the Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act was an initiated state statute that appeared as a ballot measure on the November 2008 ballot in California. It was disapproved by voters on November 4 of that year.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2000 California Proposition 39</span> California ballot initiative

Proposition 39 was an initiative state constitutional amendment and statute which appeared on the November 7, 2000, California general election ballot. Proposition 39 passed with 5,431,152 Yes votes, representing 53.4 percent of the total votes cast. Proposition 39 was essentially a milder version of Proposition 26, which would have ended the Proposition 13 supermajority vote requirement altogether, but was defeated with 3,521,327 "Yes" votes, representing 48.7 percent of the total votes cast, in the March 7, 2000, California primary election. The measure was funded by Ann and John Doerr, John T. Walton and Reed Hastings; it was opposed by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1996 California Proposition 218 (Local Initiative Power)</span> Adopted initiative constitutional amendment

Proposition 218 is an adopted initiative constitutional amendment in the state of California that appeared on the November 5, 1996, statewide election ballot. Proposition 218 revolutionized local and regional government finance in California. Called the “Right to Vote on Taxes Act,” Proposition 218 was sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association as a constitutional follow-up to the landmark Proposition 13 property tax revolt initiative constitutional amendment approved by California voters on June 6, 1978. Proposition 218 was drafted by constitutional attorneys Jonathan Coupal and Jack Cohen.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 California elections</span>

The California state elections in 2020 were held on Tuesday, November 3, 2020. Unlike previous election cycles, the primary elections were held on Super Tuesday, March 3, 2020.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2018 California elections</span>

California state elections in 2018 were held on Tuesday, November 6, 2018, with the primary elections being held on June 5, 2018. Voters elected one member to the United States Senate, 53 members to the United States House of Representatives, all eight state constitutional offices, all four members to the Board of Equalization, 20 members to the California State Senate, and all 80 members to the California State Assembly, among other elected offices.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2018 California Proposition 69</span> California ballot measure

California Proposition 69 was a legislatively referred constitutional amendment that appeared on ballots in California in the June primary election in 2018. This measure put the revenue from the Road Repair and Accountability Act, which increased fuel taxes, in a "lockbox" so that it can only be used for transportation-related purposes. It also exempts said gas tax revenue from the previously existing appropriations mandate and expenditures limit. This state constitution amendment ensures that revenues from SB1 Gas Taxes established by the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 can only be used for transportation-related purposes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 California Proposition 15</span> 2020 California ballot measure

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 California Proposition 18</span> 2020 California ballot proposition

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2012 California Proposition 31</span> California ballot measure in 2012

The 2012 California Proposition 31 was officially titled "State Budget. State and Local Government. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute." and was a California ballot measure that appeared on the ballot in the November 2012 California elections. The initiative would have established a two-year state budget, allowed the Governor to make budget cuts in fiscal emergencies, would have prevented the state Legislature from spending more than $25 million without creating spending cuts or other budget offsets, and would have allowed local governments the ability to transfer certain amounts of property taxes among themselves instead of the state. Although the law was supported by the California Republican Party multiple conservative groups came out against proposition 31 including members of the tea party movement who viewed the law as a way to undermine property rights.

The following is a list of ballot measures which were on the ballot for the 2022 United States elections. Some were held prior to the federal elections on November 8. Many were initiated by state legislatures, while others were initiated by public petitions.

References

  1. Alpert, Adrienne (September 29, 2020). "What is Prop.19? Measure would change several facets of property tax rules in California". ABC 7. Retrieved September 29, 2020.
  2. "California voters approve Prop. 19, giving new property tax breaks to older homeowners". Los Angeles Times. 11 November 2020. Retrieved 24 November 2020.
  3. "California Proposition 19, Property Tax Transfers, Exemptions, and Revenue for Wildfire Agencies and Counties Amendment (2020)". Ballotpedia. Retrieved September 24, 2020.
  4. Grimes, Katy (October 26, 2020). "Former CAGOP Chairman, Taxpayers Assoc. Employee Mislead Voters on Prop. 19". California Globe.
  5. "Proposition 19 Official Title and Summary | Official Voter Information Guide | California Secretary of State". voterguide.sos.ca.gov. Retrieved 2020-10-05.
  6. Dillon, Liam (October 19, 2020). "Who wins and who loses with California property tax measure Proposition 19". Los Angeles Times.
  7. "Proposition 19 – Board of Equalization".
  8. "A look at California's Real Estate Ballot Measures". 19 October 2020.
  9. Changes Requirements for Certain Property Owners to Transfer Their Property Tax Base to Replacement Property. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute. California Initiative AG No. 17-0013 Am. 1 (2017).
  10. California Secretary of State, Statement of Vote November 6, 2018 General Election, pp. 95–97.
  11. Ballot Pamphlet, California General Election (November 6, 2018), argument against Proposition 5, p. 39.
  12. Changes Requirements For Transferring Property Tax Base To Replacement Property. Expands Business Property Reassessment. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. California Initiative AG No. 19-0003 (2019).
  13. California Secretary of State AP 20:040, New Measure Eligible for California's November 2020 Ballot, April 23, 2020.
  14. Cal. Elec. Code, § 9604.
  15. Assem. Const. Amend. No. 11, Stats. 2020, res. ch. 31.
  16. Campbell, Kelsey (August 5, 2020). "November 2020 Ballot Initiatives in California Aim to Change Policy on Commercial and Residential Properties". Briscoe Ivester & Bazel LLP.
  17. Cal. Stats. 2020, Ch. 26, effective June 30, 2020.
  18. California Secretary of State, Chief Counsel Letter Re Conditional Acceptance of Conditional Withdrawal of Initiative AG No. 19-0003, June 25, 2020.
  19. Ballot Pamphlet, California General Election (November 6, 2018), argument against Proposition 5, p. 39.
  20. Walters, Dan (September 30, 2020). "Proposition 19's tortuous journey to the ballot". Orange County Register.
  21. Assem. Const. Amend. No. 11, Stats. 2020, res. ch. 31.
  22. Cal. Const., art. XVIII, § 1.
  23. California Legislature (2019-20 Regular Session), Assembly Daily Journal, June 26, 2020, p. 4978.
  24. California Secretary of State, Supplement to the Statement of Vote November 3, 2020, pp. 185-192.
  25. California Legislature (2019-20 Regular Session), Assembly Daily Journal, June 26, 2020, p. 4950.
  26. California Legislature (2019-20 Regular Session), Senate Daily Journal, June 25, 2020, p. 3847.
  27. California Secretary of State, Supplement to the Statement of Vote November 3, 2020, pp. 167-171.
  28. California Legislature (2019-20 Regular Session), Senate Daily Journal, June 25, 2020, p. 3833.
  29. Assem. Floor Analysis of Assem. Const. Amend. No. 11, Concurrence in Sen. Amendments, June 25, 2020, p. 4.
  30. "Editorial: Prop. 19 perpetuates California property tax inequity". The Mercury News. August 1, 2020.
  31. Dillon, Liam (October 19, 2020). "Who wins and who loses with California property tax measure Proposition 19". Los Angeles Times.
  32. Kimberlin, Sara; Kitson, Kayla (September 2020). "Proposition 19: Creates a Complicated Property Tax Scheme and Reinforces Racial Inequities in California". California Budget & Policy Center. Retrieved 7 October 2020.
  33. The Greenlining Institute, 2020 California Ballot Propositions Guide (Proposition 19) (September 16, 2020).
  34. Grimes, Katy (October 26, 2020). "Former CAGOP Chairman, Taxpayers Assoc. Employee Mislead Voters on Prop. 19". California Globe.
  35. Grimes, Katy (October 26, 2020). "Former CAGOP Chairman, Taxpayers Assoc. Employee Mislead Voters on Prop. 19". California Globe.
  36. Rodota, Joe; Klink, Matt (October 14, 2020). "California Initiative Editorial Scorecard #3". Fox&Hounds. Retrieved 14 October 2020.
  37. Rodota, Joe; Klink, Matt (October 14, 2020). "California Initiative Editorial Scorecard #3". Fox&Hounds. Retrieved 14 October 2020.
  38. Rodota, Joe; Klink, Matt (October 14, 2020). "California Initiative Editorial Scorecard #3". Fox&Hounds. Retrieved 14 October 2020.
  39. "Campaign Finance Power Search, Ballot Measures Advanced Search (November 3, 2020 Ballot Measures, Proposition 19)". California Secretary of State. November 1, 2020.