California Proposition 31, Flavored Tobacco Products Ban Referendum (2022)

California Proposition 31
Election date November 8, 2022
Topic Tobacco and Business regulation
Status a Approved
Type Referendum	Origin Citizens

California Proposition 31, the Flavored Tobacco Products Ban Referendum was on the ballot in California as a veto referendum on November 8, 2022. The ballot measure was approved, thus upholding the legislation.

A "yes" vote is to uphold the contested legislation, Senate Bill 793 (SB 793), which would ban the sale of flavored tobacco products.

A "no" vote is to repeal the contested legislation, Senate Bill 793 (SB 793), thus keeping the sale of flavored tobacco legal in the state.

Election results

California Proposition 31
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		6,803,424	63.42%
No		3,923,383	36.58%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Aftermath

Post-election lawsuit

  

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Does the state ban on flavored tobacco products violate the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause and Commerce Clause?
Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Plaintiff(s): R.J. Reynolds, et. al.	Defendant(s): California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D)
Plaintiff argument: The flavored tobacco ban violates the U.S. Constitution's	Defendant argument: The state has the right to set regulations on such tobacco products.

  Source: New York Times

On November 9, 2022, R.J. Reynolds filed a lawsuit in federal court arguing that the approved ban violated the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy and Commerce Clauses. The lawsuit says, "The ban falls under the TCA’s express preemption clause, 'which preempts 'any [state] requirement' that is 'different from, or in addition to,' a federal requirement about a tobacco product standard. A flavor ban is a paradigmatic tobacco product standard."

California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) said in a statement, "Time and time again, Big Tobacco has attempted to steam roll state efforts to protect our youngest residents from the damaging effects of tobacco use. While we have not yet been formally served with the lawsuit, we look forward to vigorously defending this important law in court."

On November 29, 2022, R.J. Reynolds and other tobacco companies filed a request with the U.S. Supreme Court to ask the court to order an emergency stop on the state from enforcing the flavored tobacco ban.

On December 12, 2022, the supreme court ruled unanimously to not issue an emergency order stopping the ban.

Overview

Opponents of Proposition 31 sought to overturn Senate Bill 793 (SB 793), which was signed into law on August 28, 2020. SB 793 was designed to ban the sale of flavored tobacco products and tobacco product flavor enhancers, with exceptions for hookah tobacco, loose leaf tobacco, and premium cigars. The bill was designed to fine retailers $250 for each sale violating the law.

The California State Legislature passed SB 793 in August 2020. The legislation received support from most legislative Democrats (84 of 89) and a quarter of legislative Republicans (8 of 30). One legislator voted against the bill, and the remaining legislators were absent or abstained. State Sen. Jerry Hill (D-13), the legislative sponsor of SB 793, said, "Using candy, fruit and other alluring flavors, the tobacco industry weaponized its tactics to beguile a new generation into nicotine addiction while keeping longtime users hooked. SB 793 breaks Big Tobacco’s death grip." The California Fuels & Convenience Alliance, which opposed SB 793, described the flavored tobacco ban as "misguided policy that will do more harm than good" and "hurt small businesses, eliminate necessary tax revenue, and perpetuate dangerous and avoidable police interactions in our communities."

No on Prop 31- Californians Against Prohibition is campaigning for the veto referendum to repeal SB 793. Through October 27, 2022, the campaign had received over $23.2 million, including $9.7 million from R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and $9.5 million from Philip Morris USA.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The official ballot title was as follows:

“

Referendum Challenging a 2020 Law Prohibiting Retail Sale of Certain Flavored Tobacco Products.

”

Petition summary

The summary provided for inclusion on signature petition sheets was as follows:

“

If the required number of registered voters sign this petition and the petition is timely filed, there will be a referendum challenging a 2020 law on the next statewide ballot after the November 3, 2020 general election. The challenged law prohibits the retail sale of certain flavored tobacco products and tobacco flavor enhancers. The referendum would require a majority of voters to approve the 2020 state law before it can take effect.

”

Full text

The full text of SB 793, which proponents of the veto referendum seek to repeal, was as follows:

SECTION 1. Article 5 (commencing with Section 104559.5) is added to Chapter 1 of Part 3 of Division 103 of the Health and Safety Code, to read: Article 5. Tobacco Sale Prohibition 104559.5. (a) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply: (1) “Characterizing flavor” means a distinguishable taste or aroma, or both, other than the taste or aroma of tobacco, imparted by a tobacco product or any byproduct produced by the tobacco product. Characterizing flavors include, but are not limited to, tastes or aromas relating to any fruit, chocolate, vanilla, honey, candy, cocoa, dessert, alcoholic beverage, menthol, mint, wintergreen, herb, or spice. A tobacco product shall not be determined to have a characterizing flavor solely because of the use of additives or flavorings or the provision of ingredient information. Rather, it is the presence of a distinguishable taste or aroma, or both, as described in the first sentence of this definition, that constitutes a characterizing flavor. (2) “Constituent” means any ingredient, substance, chemical, or compound, other than tobacco, water, or reconstituted tobacco sheet, that is added by the manufacturer to a tobacco product during the processing, manufacture, or packing of the tobacco product. (3) “Flavored shisha tobacco product” means any shisha tobacco product that contains a constituent that imparts a characterizing flavor. (4) “Flavored tobacco product” means any tobacco product that contains a constituent that imparts a characterizing flavor. (5) “Hookah” means a type of waterpipe, used to smoke shisha or other tobacco products, with a long flexible tube for drawing aerosol through water. Components of a hookah may include heads, stems, bowls, and hoses. (6) “Hookah tobacco retailer” means a tobacco retailer that is engaged in the retail sale of shisha tobacco products, hookah, and hookah smoking accessories. (7) “Labeling” means written, printed, pictorial, or graphic matter upon a tobacco product or any of its packaging. (8) “Loose leaf tobacco” consists of cut or shredded pipe tobacco, usually sold in pouches, excluding any tobacco product which, because of its appearance, type, packaging, or labeling, is suitable for use and likely to be offered to, or purchased by, consumers as tobacco for making cigarettes, including roll-your-own cigarettes. (9) “Packaging” means a pack, box, carton, or container of any kind, or, if no other container, any wrapping, including cellophane, in which a tobacco product is sold or offered for sale to a consumer. (10) “Premium cigar” means any cigar that is handmade, is not mass produced by use of mechanization, has a wrapper that is made entirely from whole tobacco leaf, and has a wholesale price of no less than twelve dollars ($12). A premium cigar does not have a filter, tip, or nontobacco mouthpiece and is capped by hand. (11) “Retail location” means both of the following: (A) A building from which tobacco products are sold at retail. (B) A vending machine. (12) “Sale” or “sold” means a sale as that term is defined in Section 30006 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. (13) “Shisha tobacco product” means a tobacco product smoked or intended to be smoked in a hookah. “Shisha tobacco product” includes, and may be referred to as, hookah tobacco, waterpipe tobacco, maassel, narghile, and argileh. “Shisha tobacco product” does not include any electronic devices, such as an electronic hookah, electronic cigarette, or electronic tobacco product. (14) “Tobacco product” means a tobacco product as defined in paragraph (8) of subdivision (a) of Section 104495, as that provision may be amended from time to time. (15) “Tobacco product flavor enhancer” means a product designed, manufactured, produced, marketed, or sold to produce a characterizing flavor when added to a tobacco product. (16) “Tobacco retailer” means a person who engages in this state in the sale of tobacco products directly to the public from a retail location. “Tobacco retailer” includes a person who operates vending machines from which tobacco products are sold in this state. (b) (1) A tobacco retailer, or any of the tobacco retailer’s agents or employees, shall not sell, offer for sale, or possess with the intent to sell or offer for sale, a flavored tobacco product or a tobacco product flavor enhancer. (2) There is a rebuttable presumption that a tobacco product is a flavored tobacco product if a manufacturer or any of the manufacturer’s agents or employees, in the course of their agency or employment, has made a statement or claim directed to consumers or to the public that the tobacco product has or produces a characterizing flavor, including, but not limited to, text, color, images, or all, on the product’s labeling or packaging that are used to explicitly or implicitly communicate that the tobacco product has a characterizing flavor. (c) Subdivision (b) does not apply to the sale of flavored shisha tobacco products by a hookah tobacco retailer if all of the following conditions are met: (1) The hookah tobacco retailer has a valid license to sell tobacco products issued pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 22971.7) of Division 8.6 of the Business and Professions Code. (2) The hookah tobacco retailer does not permit any person under 21 years of age to be present or enter the premises at any time. (3) The hookah tobacco retailer shall operate in accordance with all relevant state and local laws relating to the sale of tobacco products. (4) If consumption of tobacco products is allowed on the premises of the hookah tobacco retailer, the hookah tobacco retailer shall operate in accordance with all state and local laws relating to the consumption of tobacco products on the premises of a tobacco retailer, including, but not limited to, Section 6404.5 of the Labor Code. (d) Subdivision (b) does not apply to sales of premium cigars sold in cigar lounges where products are purchased and consumed only on the premises. (e) Subdivision (b) does not apply to loose leaf tobacco or premium cigars. (f) A tobacco retailer, or agent or employee of a tobacco retailer, who violates this section is guilty of an infraction and shall be punished by a fine of two hundred fifty dollars ($250) for each violation of this section. (g) This section does not preempt or otherwise prohibit the adoption of a local standard that imposes greater restrictions on the access to tobacco products than the restrictions imposed by this section. To the extent that there is an inconsistency between this section and a local standard that imposes greater restrictions on the access to tobacco products, the greater restriction on the access to tobacco products in the local standard shall prevail. SEC. 2. The provisions of this act are severable. If any provision of this act or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application. SEC. 3. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2022

Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The attorney general wrote the ballot language for this measure.

The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 15, and the FRE is 11. The word count for the ballot title is 12.

The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 14, and the FRE is 37. The word count for the ballot summary is 68.

Support for 'Yes' vote

Yes On Proposition 31, Committee to Protect California Kids led the campaign in support of a 'yes' vote on Proposition 31, which upheld the legislation.

Supporters

Officials

• Governor Gavin Newsom (D)

Political Parties

• Democratic Party of California
• Peace and Freedom Party of California

Unions

• California Teachers Association
• SEIU California State Council

Organizations

• League of Women Voters of California

Arguments

• Lindsey Freitas, advocacy director for Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids: "We know Big Tobacco has hidden behind smoke and lies for years to hook generations of young people on deadly tobacco products, and this referendum is just one more tactic to continue the status quo."
• State Sen. Gerald Hill (D-13): "California fought Big Tobacco and won. This shameless industry is a sore loser and it is relentless. It wants to keep killing people with its candy-, fruit-, mint- and menthol-flavored poison. The adults who are hooked on nicotine aren’t enough for Big Tobacco; it wants our kids too."
• Jim Knox, managing director of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network Inc.: "The tobacco industry has always shown it will go to any length to deceive the public about its deadly product. We are confident that if it gets on the ballot, that California voters will see through this despicable tobacco industry ploy to continue to lure kids into a lifetime of tobacco addiction."
• Gov. Gavin Newsom (D): "Big Tobacco has been targeting our kids, trying to hook our kids on tobacco products, killing literally a generation. It’s time for us to stand up and protect our kids and to push back against Big Tobacco, not just in terms of their efforts to go after our kids but their racist marketing. Enough’s enough, this is about as easy a question that we’ll be asked this November."

Official arguments

The following is the argument in support of Proposition 31 found in the Official Voter Information Guide:

Official Voter Information Guide: YES ON 31. The American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, American Lung Association in California and the American Heart Association support Yes on 31 because it will save lives. Yes on 31 protects kids by ending the sale of candy-flavored tobacco products, including e-cigarettes and minty-menthol cigarettes. Big Tobacco uses candy-flavored products to target kids—including cotton candy, chocolate, strawberry, and minty-menthol—and lure them into a lifelong addiction to nicotine. In fact, 4 out of 5 kids who have used tobacco started with a flavored product. Get the facts at VoteYesOn31.com YES ON 31 PROTECTS KIDS FROM GETTING HOOKED ON HIGHLY ADDICTIVE NICOTINE Tobacco companies use candy flavors to hide strong hits of nicotine, a highly addictive drug that is especially dangerous for kids, harming brain development and impacting their attention, mood, and impulse control. With a Yes on 31 vote, we can stop Big Tobacco from using flavors to get kids hooked on nicotine and profiting from addiction, disease, and death. In California, almost all high school e-cigarette users prefer flavored products. Today—over 2 million middle and high school students nationwide use e-cigarettes. The American Lung Association in California says, “Using candy flavors to trick kids into trying nicotine is the cornerstone of Big Tobacco’s deadly business model. Yes on 31 will save lives—protecting kids from ever getting hooked on tobacco in the first place.” YES ON 31 SAVES LIVES AND TAXPAYER MONEY Tobacco is the #1 preventable cause of death in California, where tobacco-related diseases kill 40,000 people each year. Smoking kills more people than alcohol, AIDS, car accidents, illegal drugs, murders, and suicides combined. Of all the kids who become new smokers each year, almost a third will ultimately die from it. Every time Big Tobacco addicts another generation of kids, they put taxpayers, whether they smoke or not, on the hook for billions of dollars in tobacco-related healthcare costs. YES ON 31 PREVENTS BIG TOBACCO FROM CAUSING MORE HARM TO BLACK COMMUNITIES Big Tobacco preys on Black neighborhoods, spending billions to lobby, advertise and market minty-menthol cigarettes—the original candy-flavored cigarette. In the 1950s, fewer than 10% of Black Americans who smoked used minty-menthols. Today, 85% do. The NAACP says, “Tobacco companies use minty-menthol to mask the harsh taste of tobacco, which makes smoking easier to start and harder to quit. After targeting African Americans for decades, Big Tobacco is turning an enormous profit—while rates of tobacco-related heart disease, stroke and cancer skyrocket. Yes on 31 will take Big Tobacco’s candy-flavored tools of addiction out of our communities, saving lives and improving public health.” PROTECT KIDS. VOTE YES ON 31 Yes on 31 will protect kids from ever trying tobacco and help users quit—saving hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars annually, and saving countless lives. If we can save even a few lives by ending the sale of candy-flavored tobacco, it will be worth it. ---Karmi Ferguson, Executive Director, American Academy of Pediatrics, California; Kathy Rogers, Executive Vice President, American Heart Association; and Jose Ramos, National Board Member, American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network

Support for 'no' vote

The No on Prop 31- Californians Against Prohibition led the campaign in support of a 'no' vote on Proposition 31, which would have repealed the legislation.

Opponents

Political Parties

• Republican Party of California

Corporations

• ITG Brands, LLC
• Philip Morris USA, Inc.
• R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company
• Swedish Match North America, LLC

Organizations

• National Association of Tobacco Outlets

Arguments

• California Coalition for Fairness: "We agree that youth should never have access to any tobacco products, but this can be achieved without imposing a total prohibition on products that millions of adults choose to use. This law goes too far and is unfair, particularly since lawmakers have exempted hookah, expensive cigars and flavored pipe tobacco from the prohibition. Moreover, a prohibition will hurt small, local businesses and jobs as products are pushed from licensed, conscientious retailers to an underground market, leading to increased youth access, crime and other social or criminal justice concerns for many California residents."
• Joe Lang, managing partner at Lang, Hansen Giroux & Kidane: "It's already illegal for anyone under 21 to use any tobacco product flavored or not. Prop 31 is not a ban on flavored tobacco for children - that's already illegal. It's a ban on legal regulated sales to adult consumers."
• Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association: "Although the law bans the sale of flavored tobacco products to all customers regardless of age, lawmakers named it the “Stop Tobacco Access to Kids Enforcement Act.” They claimed it was needed to stop underage tobacco use — because only kids, apparently, like flavor. To be sure, no one wants children smoking or vaping, but it’s already illegal in California to sell or give tobacco and vapor products to anyone under the age of 21. If prohibition worked, then we wouldn’t have a problem."

Official arguments

The following is the argument in opposition to Proposition 31 found in the Official Voter Information Guide:

Official Voter Information Guide: The politicians who wrote Proposition 31 say it will reduce underage tobacco use—but it’s already illegal to sell any tobacco product to anyone under the age of 21 in California, with big penalties for breaking the law. PROP. 31 IS ADULT PROHIBITION Prop. 31 enacts a sweeping new ban on menthol cigarettes, flavored smokeless tobacco, and other flavored non-tobacco nicotine products for adults over the age of 21. Prohibition has never worked—it didn’t work with alcohol or marijuana, and it won’t work now. And Prop. 31’s prohibition will impact minority neighborhoods more than any other, criminalizing the sale of menthol cigarettes which are primarily the choice of adult tobacco consumers in these communities. PROP. 31 WILL INCREASE CRIME Almost half of all cigarettes in California are sold in the underground market, smuggled in from other states or countries like China and Mexico. Prop. 31 will drive even more sales underground from licensed neighborhood retailers to gangs and organized crime. What’s worse, Proposition 31 does not add a single penny to law enforcement to fight the violent crime that will follow. “Proposition 31 is practically unenforceable. It will put criminals in charge and convert a highly regulated tobacco market into an unregulated criminal market, creating unnecessary and potentially dangerous police interactions.”—Edgar Hampton, Retired California Police Officer PROP. 31 WILL COST TAXPAYERS A legislative analysis found that Prop. 31 will lead to “significant revenue losses” that will exceed $1 billion in the next four years. That means less money for healthcare, education, programs for seniors and law enforcement. PROP. 31 BANS FDA AUTHORIZED REDUCED HARM PRODUCTS AND COULD INCREASE CIGARETTE USE AMONG YOUNG PEOPLE The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) now has regulatory authority over tobacco and vapor products and already has banned many flavored tobacco products, but Prop. 31 goes too far—banning the sale of flavored reduced-risk, smoke-free products authorized by the FDA “appropriate for the protection of public health” for adults 21 and over. When adult consumers are denied access to potentially less harmful products authorized by the FDA, they continue with traditional cigarettes that produce second-hand smoke. San Francisco’s flavor ban is a perfect example of the impact on youth as well: a Yale University study found there was a significant INCREASE in cigarette smoking among high school students—the exact opposite result the politicians promised. PUBLIC EDUCATION IS BETTER THAN PROP. 31 California led the nation in raising the age to purchase tobacco to 21, has among the toughest anti-tobacco laws in the country, and spends over $140 million a year to help people quit tobacco and stop kids from starting. The results are clear: Youth vaping is down 59% in the last three years, and youth smoking is at an all-time low of just 1.9% according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration. California should not abandon what is clearly working and replace it with a failed policy of the past—prohibition—that will increase crime, cost taxpayers, and backfire on the communities we are trying to protect. Please join us and vote NO on Prop. 31. ---Michael Genest, Former Director, California Department of Finance; Julian Canete, President, California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce; and Tom Hudson, President, California Taxpayer Protection Committee

Polls

See also: Ballotpedia's approach to covering polls and 2022 ballot measure polls

Are you aware of a poll on this ballot measure that should be included below? You can share ballot measure polls, along with source links, with us at editor@ballotpedia.org.

California Proposition 31, Flavored Tobacco Products Ban Referendum (2022)
Poll	Dates	Sample size	Margin of error	Support	Oppose	Undecided

Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies (IGS)	9/22/22 - 9/27/22	6,939 LV	± 2.5%	57%	31%	12%
	Question: "PROPOSITION 31: REFERENDUM ON 2020 LAW THAT WOULD PROHIBIT THE RETAIL SALE OF CERTAIN FLAVORED TOBACCO PRODUCTS. A “Yes” vote approves, and a “No” vote rejects, a 2020 law prohibiting retail sale of certain flavored tobacco products. Fiscal Impact: Decreased state tobacco tax revenues ranging from tens of millions of dollars annually to around $100 million annually. If the election were held today, how would you vote on Proposition 31?"
Note: LV is likely voters, RV is registered voters, and EV is eligible voters.

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for California ballot measures

The campaign finance information on this page reflects the most recently scheduled reports processed by Ballotpedia, which covered through January 31, 2022.

One PAC, the Yes On Proposition 31, Committee to Protect California Kids, was registered to support a "Yes" vote on the veto referendum. The PAC raised nearly $48.1 million.

The No on Prop 31- Californians Against Prohibition PAC was registered to support a "No" vote on the veto referendum. The PAC raised $23.3 million.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$46,585,151.08	$1,539,266.74	$48,124,417.82	$46,583,931.07	$48,123,197.81
Oppose	$20,752,500.00	$2,506,355.39	$23,258,855.39	$20,697,433.37	$23,203,788.76

Support for "Yes" vote

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee that supported a "Yes" vote of the veto referendum.

Committees in support of Proposition 31
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Yes on Proposition 31, Committee to Protect California Kids	$46,585,151.08	$1,539,266.74	$48,124,417.82	$46,583,931.07	$48,123,197.81
Total	$46,585,151.08	$1,539,266.74	$48,124,417.82	$46,583,931.07	$48,123,197.81

Donors

The following were the top donors to the committee.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Michael R. Bloomberg	$44,620,971.00	$1,451,528.89	$46,072,499.89
Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.	$1,100,000.00	$0.00	$1,100,000.00
American Heart Association	$100,000.00	$134,749.53	$234,749.53
American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, Inc.	$100,000.00	$0.00	$100,000.00
American Lung Association	$100,000.00	$0.00	$100,000.00

Support for "No" vote

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee that supported a "No" vote of the veto referendum.

Committees in support of Proposition 31
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
No on Prop 31- Californians Against Prohibition	$20,752,500.00	$2,506,355.39	$23,258,855.39	$20,697,433.37	$23,203,788.76
Total	$20,752,500.00	$2,506,355.39	$23,258,855.39	$20,697,433.37	$23,203,788.76

Donors

The following were the top donors to the committee.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company	$8,654,250.00	$1,009,940.41	$9,664,190.41
Philip Morris USA, Inc.	$7,999,850.00	$1,526,878.19	$9,526,728.19
American Snuff Company	$826,750.00	$0.00	$826,750.00
Swedish Match North America, LLC	$500,000.00	$750.00	$500,750.00
ITG Brands, LLC	$500,000.00	$0.00	$500,000.00

Media editorials

See also: 2022 ballot measure media endorsements

Ballotpedia identified the following media editorial boards as taking positions on the initiative.

Ballotpedia lists the positions of media editorial boards that support or oppose ballot measures. This does not include opinion pieces from individuals or groups that do not represent the official position of a newspaper or media outlet. Ballotpedia includes editorials from newspapers and outlets based on circulation and readership, political coverage within a state, and length of publication. You can share media editorial board endorsements with us at editor@ballotpedia.org.

Support

• Bay Area Reporter Editorial Board: "Tobacco products are flavored with menthol or mimic candy in an effort to entice young users into what is a potentially deadly habit. We're glad the state passed the law, and we urge voters to keep it in place. Vote YES on Prop 31."
• Santa Cruz Sentinel Editorial Board: "The tobacco industry also points out that it’s already illegal in California to sell to sell any tobacco or vapor product to anyone under the age of 21, flavored or not. But that hasn’t stopped many young people from obtaining flavored tobacco products, with the popularity of vapes seemingly out distancing local prohibitions. All the more reason to ensure that the 2020 law is reinstated. Vote Yes on Prop. 31."
• Los Angeles Times Editorial Board: "Flavors in tobacco products are uniquely harmful because they mask the unappealingly harsh taste of tobacco and can lure in new and often young users and get them hooked. ... Vote yes on Proposition 31 to allow a good law to go into effect."
• San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Board: "Voters should reject Big Tobacco’s attempt to override sound public policy by saying yes to Prop. 31. The arguments for a no vote are dubious. Most try to summon faux outrage over the so-called nanny state. ... And, no, Prop. 31 won’t criminalize flavored tobacco use for people who continue to use these products if they can find them. The measure stops sales, it doesn’t create new criminal penalties."
• The Mercury News Editorial Board: "This is California voters’ chance to send Big Tobacco a message. Vote yes on Proposition 31. Stop the sale of flavored tobacco products that the Centers for Disease Control says are even more addictive than regular tobacco products."
• The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board: "Now, voters have a chance to reinstate the ban by voting “yes.” If Prop. 31 fails, flavored products will stay on shelves, although several communities have already passed local bans prohibiting them."

Opposition

• The Daily Breeze Editorial Board: "A 'No' vote overturns the law. In our view, this is the correct vote and it’s no contest. Banning the sale of flavored tobacco products is based on the premise that banning them is necessary to keep children from smoking tobacco and going down the path of addiction. This premise is nonsensical for the obvious reason that it’s already illegal for minors to purchase tobacco products."
• The San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board: "Newsom and the Legislature are not powerless in discouraging vaping. The 12.5 percent increase in excise taxes on vaping products they approved last year took effect on July 1. That straightforward approach is smarter. The San Diego Union-Tribune recommends a “no” vote on Proposition 31."
• The Orange County Register Editorial Board: "While proponents of banning flavors act like only children find fruit or candy-like flavors appealing, adults do, too. And for people looking to break smoking habits, flavors make it easier to make the switch. From a public health perspective, it is utterly nonsensical to reduce the desirability of what for many is a life-saving smoking cessation tool. ... Vote 'No' on Prop. 31."

Background

Bans on flavored tobacco product sales

As of 2020, California and Massachusetts had adopted bans on the sale of flavored tobacco products, including flavored e-cigarettes and menthol cigarettes. New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island had adopted bans on the sale of flavored e-cigarettes but not menthol cigarettes.

San Francisco Proposition E (2018)

See also: San Francisco, California, Proposition E, Ban on the Sale of Flavored Tobacco (June 2018)

In 2017, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance that banned the sale of flavored tobacco. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company launched a veto referendum campaign to repeal the ordinance. The signature drive was successful, placing the ordinance on the ballot as Proposition E. Voters approved Proposition E, thus upholding the board's ordinance; 68.4% voted to adopt the ordinance.

R.J. Reynolds provided $12.9 million to the campaign to overturn the ban. The campaign to uphold the ban received $3.2 million, including $2.3 million from former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Senate Bill 793

In August 2020, the California State Legislature passed Senate Bill 793 (SB 793), which Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed on August 28, 2020.

In the California State Assembly, the vote was 58-1. Asm. William Brough was the one vote against SB 793. However, 15 (of 19) Republicans did not vote on the legislation; 5 (of 60) Democrats did not vote on the legislation.

In the California State Senate, the vote was 34-0. All 29 Senate Democrats, along with 5 Senate Republicans, voted for SB 793. Six (of 11) Republicans did not vote on the legislation.

Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis (D), Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, and Common Sense were listed as the sources of SB 793.

Vote in the California State Assembly August 24, 2020
Requirement: Simple majority of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 40  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	58	1	20
Total percent	73.42%	1.26%	25.32%
Democrat	55	0	5
Republican	3	1	15

Vote in the California State Senate August 28, 2020
Requirement: Simple majority of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 21  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	34	0	6
Total percent	85.00%	0.00%	15.00%
Democrat	29	0	0
Republican	5	0	6

California veto referendum ballot measures

See also: List of California veto referendum ballot measures

A veto referendum is a type of citizen-initiated ballot measure that asks voters whether to uphold or repeal a law passed by the state legislature. Opponents of the law collect signatures to place the veto referendum on the ballot, with the aim of voters deciding to repeal the law. In California, voters have voted on 50 veto referendums, upholding laws 21 times (42%) and repealing laws 29 times (58%).

In 1912, Californians voted on a statewide veto referendum for the first time. The most recent veto referendum was on the ballot in 2022.

Number of California veto referendums
Total veto referendums	Laws upheld	Laws repealed	Year of last measure
50	21	29	2022

The veto referendum ballot measure is also known as a popular referendum, people's veto, or citizen's veto. There are 23 states that have a process for veto referendums. Voters in California approved a constitutional amendment that enacted processes for ballot initiative and veto referendum in 1911.

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in California

Process in California

In California, the number of signatures required for a veto referendum is equal to 5 percent of the votes cast in the preceding gubernatorial election. Petitions are allowed to circulate for 90 days from the date the targeted bill was signed. Signatures for referendums need to be certified at least 31 days before the general election. As the verification process can take multiple months, the secretary of state recommends submitting signatures before the certification deadline.

The requirements to get veto referendums certified for the 2022 ballot:

• Signatures: 623,212 valid signatures
• Deadline for bills passed in 2020 or 2021: 90 days after the date that the governor signs the targeted bill.

Signatures are first filed with local election officials, who determine the total number of signatures submitted. If the total number is equal to at least 100 percent of the required signatures, then local election officials perform a random check of signatures submitted in their counties. If the random sample estimates that more than 110 percent of the required number of signatures are valid, the referendum is eligible for the ballot. If the random sample estimates that between 95 and 110 percent of the required number of signatures are valid, a full check of signatures is done to determine the total number of valid signatures. If less than 95 percent are estimated to be valid, the referendum does not make the ballot.

Stages of this referendum

On August 31, 2020, three individuals—Aaron Agenbroad, Jaime Rojas, and Beilal Mohamad-Ali Chatila—filed the veto referendum. Attorney General Xavier Becerra released petition language on September 10, 2020, for the veto referendum, which allowed proponents to begin collecting signatures.

Proponents had until December 10, 2020, to collect 623,212 valid signatures. On December 7, the secretary of state's office reported that signatures were filed for the veto referendum. Counties reported a raw count of 1,023,529 signatures, of which 60.9% needed to be valid. On January 22, 2020, the state office announced that an estimated 76.41% of the submitted signatures were valid, allowing the measure to appear on the ballot.

Sponsors of the measure hired 2020 Ballcamp LLC to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $13,699,810.05 was spent to collect the 623,212 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $21.98.

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in California

Click "Show" to learn more about voter registration, identification requirements, and poll times in California.

How to cast a vote in California

Poll times All polls in California are open from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Pacific Time. An individual who is in line at the time polls close must be allowed to vote. Registration Check your voter registration status here. To vote in California, an individual must be a U.S. citizen and California resident. A voter must be at least 18 years of age on Election Day. Pre-registration is available at 16 years of age. Pre-registration automatically registers voters when they turn 18. On October 10, 2015, California Governor Jerry Brown (D) signed into law Assembly Bill No. 1461, also known as the New Motor Voter Act. The legislation, which took effect in 2016, authorized automatic voter registration in California for any individuals who visit the Department of Motor Vehicles to acquire or renew a driver's license. Automatic registration California automatically registers eligible individuals to vote when they complete a driver's license, identification (ID) card, or change of address transaction through the Department of Motor Vehicles. Online registration See also: Online voter registration California has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website. Same-day registration California allows same-day voter registration. Californians must be registered to vote at least 15 days before Election Day. If the registration deadline has passed for an upcoming election, voters may visit a location designated by their county elections official during the 14 days prior to, and including Election Day to conditionally register to vote and vote a provisional ballot. The state refers to this process as Same Day Voter Registration. Residency requirements To register to vote in California, you must be a resident of the state. State law does not specify a length of time for which you must have been a resident to be eligible. Verification of citizenship See also: Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States California's constitution requires that voters be U.S. citizens. When registering to vote, proof of citizenship is not required. Individuals who become U.S. citizens less than 15 days before an election must bring proof of citizenship to their county elections office to register to vote in that election. Verifying your registration The site Voter Status, run by the California Secretary of State's office, allows residents to check their voter registration status online. Voter ID requirements California does not require voters to present photo identification. However, some voters may be asked to show a form of identification when voting if they are voting for the first time after registering to vote by mail and did not provide a driver license number, California identification number, or the last four digits of their social security number. The following list of accepted ID was current as of March 2023. Click here for the California Secretary of State page to ensure you have the most current information. “ Current and valid photo identification provided by a third party in the ordinary course of business that includes the name and photograph of the individual presenting it. Examples of photo identification include, but are not limited to, the following documents: driver's license or identification card of any state; passport; employee identification card; identification card provided by a commercial establishment; credit or debit card; military identification card; student identification card; health club identification card; insurance plan identification card; or public housing identification card. Any of the following documents, provided that the document includes the name and address of the individual presenting it, and is dated since the date of the last general election…: utility bill; bank statement; government check; government paycheck; document issued by a governmental agency; sample ballot or other official elections document issued by a governmental, agency dated for the election in which the individual is providing it as proof, of residency or identity; voter notification card issued by a governmental agency; public housing identification card issued by a governmental agency; lease or rental statement or agreement issued by a governmental agency; student identification card issued by a governmental agency; tuition statement or bill issued by a governmental agency; insurance plan card or drug discount card issued by a governmental agency; discharge certificates, pardons, or other official documents issued to the individual by a governmental agency in connection with the resolution of a criminal case, indictment, sentence, or other matter; public transportation authority senior citizen and disabled discount cards issued by a governmental agency; identification documents issued by governmental disability agencies; identification documents issued by government homeless shelters and other government temporary or transitional facilities; drug prescription issued by a government doctor or other governmental health care provider; (R) property tax statement issued by a governmental agency; vehicle registration issued by a governmental agency; or vehicle certificate of ownership issued by a governmental agency. ”

See also

2022 measures

• 2022 ballot measures
• Tobacco on the ballot
• 2022 legislative sessions

California

• California ballot measures
• California ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls