# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Murderers, rapists, and other criminals are being released from jail everyday after serving only very short and lenient sentences. Who are these criminals and what makes them so special? The criminals are juveniles who commit adult crimes. They are being tried every day in juvenile courts, they are receiving shortened sentences, and they are being released and given new identities to continue to live their lives in peaceful and happy bliss, all while their victims and their families are left to suffer forever. Because the courts and juvenile rights advocates believe that second chances should be given to youths who commit crimes, criminals are walking the streets, living as our neighbors, and in many instances committing additional crimes.

When it comes to trying teens in court as adults. Some say stop trying them as adults and try them as juveniles, others say they must be tried as adults when they commit adult crimes. I believe that teens should be held accountable for their actions and tried as adults. If I knew somebody who hurt or killed someone I loved, I would want him or her to experience the worst possible punishment for his or her actions. Some people say that children learn bad behavior from their parents, things like murder, rap or drug abuse; but I believe that children should learn from their parent's mistakes. I agree with Jessica Wilde when she say's "Morals are inherent from birth"(Wilde1). To me this is saying that kids, and even adults, should know the difference between right and wrong. Finally, put yourself in the mother's position, if your son or daughter just died, how would you want their killer to be punished? How would you feel if you never got to see your child alive again while their killer served only a short sentence before being released from jail?

Now then, some people believe that we should stop putting teens in adult prison; they believe we should be lenient with them and give them easier sentences. These people argue that children are capable of learning from their mistakes and because they are children, they can be rehabilitated. Others say that teens are too young to understand the consequences of there actions, or that they don't know their limitations with drugs or alcohol. I believe this is a ridiculous argument because teens shouldn't be drinking or doing drugs in the first place. There are some people, like Hendricks, in his article "Stop Trying 13-Year-olds in Court as Adults", who believe "They're abused and come out more dangerous and damaged then when they went in"(Hendricks 2). This is a good argument; however, can't we say the same thing for adults? Why should juveniles be treated any different than adults when the crimes they are committing are every bit as heinous as adult crimes?

Youths who commit crimes are criminals; they are walking our streets, living as our neighbors, and in many instances committing additional crimes. I strongly agree with Jessica Wilde when she says, "All crimes committed by juveniles should and must be treated in the same regard, it not to punish heinous acts, then to provide justice to the families of victims (Wilde 2). As a child myself, I was raised in a family who believes in punishments, spankings, and repercussions for the actions of the children. Some say morals are learned, others say we inherit morals at birth, either way, a criminal is a criminal and must be punished as such. Should we punish all juveniles as adults? Probably not with lesser crimes, but some crimes are certainly more heinous than others, and those crimes like murder and rape are adult crimes. It really doesn't matter the age of the criminal, it they are committing crimes that are inherently adult in nature, then yes, these criminals absolutely should be punished as an adult regardless of their age. Our courts, our schools, nor our societies, should ever allow anyone, child or adult, get away with murder.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Teens Should Absolutely Be Tried as Adults When They Commit Adult Crimes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Murderers, rapists, and other criminals are being released from jail everyday after serving only very short and lenient sentences. Who are these criminals and what makes them so special? The criminals are juveniles who commit adult crimes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Selma Official Trailer #1 (2015) - Oprah Winfrey, Cuba Gooding Jr. Movie HD

# data[].attributes.body
I

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In 2016, eighteen statewide ballot propositions were placed on the ballot in California. One appeared on the June 7, 2016, ballot and was approved. The other 17 propositions were on the November 8, 2016, ballot. Of the 17 propositions, 12 were approved and five were defeated.

Proposition 50 was on the June 7, 2016, ballot and was approved.

Between 1996 and 2016, the average number of propositions that California voters decided each even-numbered year was 18. In previous even-numbered election years, however, the measures were spread out more across different election days throughout the year since citizen initiatives were allowed on primary and special election ballots prior to 2014.

Issues that California electors addressed on the November 8, 2016, ballot included:

Many marijuana legalization initiatives were proposed and circulated in 2016. The Adult Use of Marijuana Act Initiative, now called Proposition 64, emerged early as a clear leader and was the only marijuana-related measure to be certified for the November 2016 ballot.

One additional measure, the California $15 per hour Minimum Wage Initiative, was certified for the November ballot but then was withdrawn by proponents on June 23, 2016, after the California State Legislature passed Senate Bill 3, a bill raising the state's minimum wage to $15 per hour by 2022.

On the ballot

June 7:

November 8:

Summary of campaign spending

As of February 1, 2017, support and opposition campaigns amassed $497,026,060.19 in contributions. The Los Angeles Times estimated that, between funding signature gathering efforts and campaigning, more than $452 million would be spent directly on ballot measures in California in 2016.

The campaigns surrounding Proposition 61, an initiative designed to regulate drug prices, had more funding that those surrounding any other ballot proposition. Together, the Proposition 61 campaigns received $128,276,770.21. Opponents outraised supporters six-to-one.

A combined total of $106,506,110.21 was raised in support of or opposition to Proposition 56, an initiative increasing the tobacco tax.

Campaigns involved in Proposition 52 received the third largest amount of funding, at a combined total of $71,845,772.99.

The following chart illustrates how much support and opposition committees amassed in campaign contributions for each measure:

Note: In some cases committees are registered to support or oppose multiple propositions. Ballotpedia lists the total sum committees registered to support or oppose each propositions has received in contributions. This means that the sum of all contributions in the chart below is likely higher than the total amount contributed. For example, the same committee is registered to both support Proposition 66 and oppose Proposition 62, causing some donations to that committee to be duplicated in the chart below. However, the sum contributed discussed in the above text has removed these funds, which amounted to $45,819,887.69. In other words, these donations are not duplicated in the text above.

Cost per required signature

See also: Ballot measure signature costs, 2016 and California ballot initiative petition signature costs

Over $44 million was spent by ballot measure campaigns to get the 15 initiatives and referenda on the 2016 ballot. This amount is much more than was spent in the last decade, likely due in part to the number of measures on the ballot. In 2014, $6 million was spent. In 2012, $28 million was expended.

The cost per required signature (CPRS) is a comparison of the amount of money spent on the petition drive to the number of signatures the state requires for an initiative to make the ballot. Of the 2016 measures, the CPRS was the highest for Proposition 54, with proponents spending $11.31 per required signature. Proposition 52 had the lowest CPRS in California at $2.72 per required signature. The average CPRS of all initiatives and referenda on the ballot was $6.20.

Newspaper endorsements

The tables below record the endorsements of ballot propositions on the November 8, 2016, ballot by major California newspapers.

Historical facts

See also: History of Initiative and Referendum in California and List of California ballot propositions

Before 1960, citizen-initiated measures appeared only on general election ballots; from 1960 through 2011, California ballot measures appeared on primary, general, and special election ballots and were voted on in both even and odd-numbered years.

In 2011, the California legislature approved a law requiring all citizen initiatives to go before voters at general elections in Novembers of even-numbered years.

Between 1996 and 2016, Californians voted on 213 measures. Two measures that were originally approved in 2008 and 2012 were eventually overturned.

The average number of measures on the ballot in even-numbered years between 1996 and 2016 was 18.

From 1996 to 2016, the average number of measures on the ballot in odd-numbered years was about six. The last ballot measure before 2016 to appear during an odd-numbered year was on the ballot in 2009.

Of the 215 measures voted on from 1996 through 2016, 54.9 percent were approved and 45.1 percent were defeated.

How measures get on the ballot

Citizen initiatives and veto referendums

California also allows measures to be placed on the ballot through citizen-led signature petitions, through which initiated constitutional amendments, initiated state statutes, and veto referendums can be put on the ballot.

To qualify an initiative for the election ballot in November 2016, petitioners needed to submit signatures early enough to allow for verification before a deadline on July 8, 2016. The California secretary of state recommended submitting signatures by the end of April 2016 to ensure signature validation was completed before this deadline.

Supporters of citizen initiatives are given a maximum of 180 days to circulate petitions and collect signatures, starting from when the California attorney general completes a review of their initiative wording, provides them a ballot title and allows for a 30-day citizen review and input period. Regardless of when the circulation period starts, however, the initiative measure must qualify at least 131 days before the next statewide election at which it is to be submitted to the voters, according to Article II, Section 8 of the California Constitution.

In California, the number of signatures needed to qualify a measure for the ballot is based on the total number of votes cast for the office of governor. For initiated constitutional amendments, petitioners must collect signatures equal to 8 percent of the most recent gubernatorial vote. To place a statute or veto referendum on the ballot, signatures equal to 5 percent of this vote are required. In 2016, this meant that initiated constitutional amendments needed 585,407 signatures and statutes and veto referendums needed 365,880 signatures.

Low voter turnout in 2014 resulted in the lowest initiative signature requirements the state has seen since 1982. With the lower signature requirements came a jump in the number of citizen initiatives filed with the state and an increase in the number that reached the ballot as compared to the average over the last eight years. Fourteen of the 17 measures on the ballot in November 2016 were citizen initiatives. Voters decided three initiatives in 2014, 12 in 2012, and 11 in 2010. There were 15 citizens initiatives on the ballot in 2008, which was the last year before 2016 that this number was higher than 14.

Legislative referrals

The California Legislature was projected to be in session from January 4, 2016, through August 31, 2016. In California, the legislature has the power to refer both constitutional amendments and state statutes, including bond issues, to the ballot. Legislatively-referred measures must be approved by two-thirds of the membership of each house of the legislature to make it on the ballot, where they then must be approved by the majority of voters to go into effect. The deadline for putting measures on the November 2016 ballot was on June 30, 2016, which means any legislative referrals approved after that date would go on the ballot in 2018.

The November 2016 ballot in California was finalized for 2016 regarding ballot measures in July 2016. No more new ballot measures could be added to the ballot. To see information about measures for the 2018 ballot, click here.

Not on the ballot

Initiatives

Over 100 initiatives were filed with the California attorney general in time to potentially qualify to be on the ballot in 2016. Fourteen of them were certified for the ballot and appeared before voters on November 8, 2016.

The chart below lists measures that had the potential to be certified for the 2016 ballot but were not put on the ballot in 2016. The list is comprehensive regarding citizen initiatives, but it only lists a selection of proposed legislative referrals. Note that initiative sponsors sometimes file multiple versions of what is essentially the same ballot initiative with the Attorney General of California. Each version is given its own summary date and circulation date. This means that while the circulation deadline may come and go on one version of the initiative without signatures being filed, the initiative itself may still be alive, if its sponsors are pinning their hopes on a later version of the initiative with a deadline further in the future.

The sign indicates that the measure did not qualify for the 2016 ballot, but it may qualify for the 2018 ballot. The symbol indicates that the initiatives specific signatures deadline has passed and that the initiative petition has expired and can no longer qualify for a future election ballot.

Below is some general information about the citizen initiative process in California.

Cost of processing

It costs the Attorney General of California about $5,000 per filed initiative to implement the required process of issuing a ballot title and summary. The fee to file an initiative was increased to $2,000 in early September 2015-a tenfold increase from the original price of $200 that was in place since 1943.

Submitted to Attorney General

When an initiative proponent has prepared the text of a ballot initiative they hope to qualify for the ballot, they must submit this text to the "Initiative Coordinator" at the Office of the Attorney General of California with an accompanying letter requesting that the attorney general's office prepare a ballot title and summary of the proposal.

Once the attorney general's office has prepared that title and summary, they send a copy of it to the initiative's sponsor and to the California secretary of state's office. Each initiative is given a "summary date." This date is determined by the attorney general's office and is the date that they provide the summary to the sponsor. Each initiative then has a circulation deadline that is 180 days after its summary date, while proposed veto referendums have a circulation deadline that is 90 days after the legislation targeted by the referendum was signed by the Governor of California.

Cleared for circulation

Once the Office of the Attorney General of California has prepared a ballot title and a summary of a proposed initiative, the initiative is considered to be "cleared for circulation." Its supporters then have 180 days from the date that the title and summary were prepared to collect and submit to election officials the required signatures. Many times, initiative sponsors submit more than one version of a proposed initiative to the attorney general's office. When this happens, a circulation deadline for an earlier version may elapse with no signatures having been submitted, but the general idea of that initiative is still in play because its sponsors have instead set their sights on circulating a version filed later on that has, or will have, a later circulation deadline.

The signature deadlines for the approved-for-circulation initiatives are based on when the Attorney General of California provided a ballot title and summary for the proposal. Although each initiative has it's own signature deadline, to qualify for the November 2016 election ballot, specifically, the California secretary of state recommended submitting signatures by late April 2016. If a sufficient signature petition is submitted before an individual initiative deadline but too late to qualify for the 2016 ballot, the initiative would be put on the 2018 ballot.

State profile

This excerpt is reprinted here with the permission of the 2016 edition of the Almanac of American Politics and is up to date as of the publication date of that edition. All text is reproduced verbatim, though links have been added by Ballotpedia staff. To read the full chapter on California, click here.

Both sides of America's political divide have taken the opportunity to emphasize how different California is from the rest of the country. After the 2016 presidential election, supporters of Donald Trump complained that were it not for Hillary Clinton's margin of victory in California, Trump would have won the popular vote. For their part, California's Democratic politicians have taken a leading role in opposing Trump's vision for America; some Californians are even flirting with seceding from the union, though "Calexit" faces constitutional obstacles that make it highly improbable. Despite such antagonism, California and the United States need each other, even if it no longer seems like it.

Americans have long thought of California as the Golden State -- a distant and dreamy land initially, then as a shaper of culture and as a promised land for millions of Americans and immigrants for many decades. America's most populous state remains in many ways a great success story. But in ...( read more)

Demographic data for California

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015)**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 five presidential elections between 2000 and 2016.

More California coverage on Ballotpedia

Recent news

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

External links

Basic information

Other resources

Additional reading

Capitol Weekly, "2016 ballot a fight over everything," June 22, 2015

Los Angeles Daily News, "Expect a ballot initiative carnival in 2016: Thomas Elias," February 16, 2015

The Sacramento Bee, "Jerry Brown has nearly $24 million for future ballot campaigns," January 29, 2015

Fox & Hounds, "Top 10 Measures Likely to Appear on November 2016 California Ballot," December 15, 2014

San Francisco Chronicle, "2016 election poised for initiative avalanche," December 11, 2014

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
California 2016 ballot propositions - Ballotpedia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 2016, eighteen statewide ballot propositions were placed on the ballot in California. One appeared on the June 7, 2016, ballot and was approved. The other 17 propositions were on the November 8, 2016, ballot. Of the 17 propositions, 12 were approved and five were defeated.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
6. Hispanic voters and the 2016 election

Hillary Clinton currently has a 66%-24% advantage over Donald Trump among Hispanic registered voters. In a three-way test, including Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson, 58% of Latino voters support Clinton, 20% support Trump and 13% back Johnson.

At a somewhat later point in the campaign four years ago, Barack Obama's lead over Mitt Romney among Hispanics was comparable to Clinton's lead over Trump today (69%-21%). And in the summer of 2008, Obama led John McCain 66%-23% among Hispanic voters.

According to national exit polls conducted after the 2012 election, Obama garnered 71% of the Hispanic vote (27% voted for Romney). Obama's national vote share among Latinos was the highest for a Democratic candidate since 1996, according to an analysis of the exit polls by Pew Research Center.

Clinton's lead among Latino voters extends across many demographic subgroups. Among millennials (18 to 35 year olds) - who make up 44% of all Hispanic eligible voters - Clinton leads 71%-19%. Her advantage is roughly as large (65%-26%) among older Hispanics (those 36 and older).

Clinton's lead is somewhat larger among Hispanic women than it is among Hispanic men. Among Hispanic women, 71% say they support Clinton while 19% say they support Trump. By contrast, among Hispanic men, 61% support Clinton and 30% support Trump.

Clinton holds an 80%-11% lead among Hispanic voters who are bilingual or Spanish-dominant (those who are more proficient in Spanish than English); these voters make up about 57% of all Latino registered voters. However, among the smaller group of Hispanic voters (43%) who are English-dominant - those who are more proficient in English than Spanish - just 48% back Clinton (41% would vote for Trump).

In the past, Latinos have been consistently underrepresented in the electorate, compared with their share of eligible voters or the overall population. In the current survey, only about half of all Latinos (49%) say they are "absolutely certain" they are registered to vote. That compares with 69% of blacks and 80% of whites.

There are several reasons why the share of Latinos who are registered to vote is lower than it is among blacks or whites. Many Latino immigrants may be in the U.S. legally but have not yet obtained U.S. citizenship. Many others are in the country as undocumented immigrants. Both groups are not eligible to vote, yet they make up about 30% of all Latino adults.

Clinton holds an overwhelming (87%-7%) advantage over Trump among Latino adults who say they are not certain they are registered to vote.

Hispanic voters and the issues

The top voting issues for Hispanic voters are similar to those among all registered voters. An overwhelming share of Hispanic voters (86%) say the economy will be very important to their vote; among all voters, 84% cite the economy as very important. Terrorism is cited by 80% of Hispanic voters and an identical share of all registered voters.

However, there are some notable differences in the priorities of Hispanic voters. Roughly two-thirds of Hispanic voters (68%) consider the environment a very important issue. Only about half of all voters (52%) view the environment as very important.

Nearly eight-in-ten (78%) Hispanic voters say education will be very important to their vote for president. That compares with 66% of all registered voters. Hispanics also are more likely than all voters to rate the treatment of gay, lesbian and transgender adults (50% vs. 40%), immigration (79% vs. 70%) and health care (82% vs. 74%) as very important.

Pew Research Center 's National Survey of Latinos has found that while immigration is widely viewed as an important priority among Hispanics, the economy, education and health care often are seen as important or more important.

When asked which candidate is better on specific issues, for Hispanic voters, Clinton is seen as better than Trump on all 12 issues tested in the survey.

Fully 81% of Hispanic voters say Clinton could do better in dealing with race relations, compared with just 14% who prefer Trump. Clinton also holds a 54-percentage-point lead over Trump on health care and a 48-point advantage on immigration.

Clinton's advantages among Hispanic voters are narrower on the three issues on which she trails Trump among all voters: Reducing the influence of special interest groups, improving economic conditions and defending the country from terrorist attacks.

Latino voters and 2016 engagement

The size of the Hispanic electorate is expected to number 27.3 million eligible voters (adult U.S. citizens) in 2016, projected to make up 12% of all eligible voters, a share equal to that of blacks among eligible voters. But voter turnout among Hispanics has long lagged that of other groups.

At this point in the campaign, Hispanic voters lag all registered voters on several measures of engagement. Two-third of Hispanic voters (67%) say they have been following news about the election very or fairly closely. That compares with 85% of all voters. And while 80% of all voters say they have been giving quite a lot of thought to the election, a smaller majority of Latino voters (68%) say the same.

However, most Hispanic voters (63%) say they are more interested in politics than they were in 2012. Among all voters, a similar percentage (60%) expresses increased interest in politics.

Among both Latinos and the public overall, there are wide gaps in political engagement between voters and non-voters. But in some cases Latinos who are not registered are even less engaged than are non-voters generally. For instance, just 37% of Hispanics who are not registered to vote say they have been following election news at least fairly closely. That compares with 56% of all adults who are not registered to vote.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Hillary Clinton currently has a 66%-24% advantage over Donald Trump among Hispanic registered voters. In a three-way test, including Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson, 58% of Latino voters support Clinton, 20% support Trump and 13% back Johnson.

# data[].attributes.body
A video about today's voting policy in the south and how minority votes are still suppressed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
Voter Suppression Is Real & Now We Have Mathematical Proof

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The GOP Is Now Bragging About Voter Suppression

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Republicans in the Old Confederacy have had free reign to suppress the vote of millions of their own citizens. That needs to stop, and Congress should get its act together right now and fix the Voting Rights Act. But we need to go farther than that.

# data[].attributes.body
Literacy Test that many African Americans were forced to take in order to vote. This test was voted on and proved impossible to pass.

# data[].attributes.body
Literacy Test that African Americans were forced to take to vote. This test was voted on and proved to be passable but still unconstitutional.