California Proposition 29, 2012

Elections in California
Federal government Presidential elections 1852 1856 1860 1864 1868 1872 1876 1880 1884 1888 1892 1896 1900 1904 1908 1912 1916 1920 1924 1928 1932 1936 1940 1944 1948 1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 Primary elections Democratic 2000 2004 2008 Republican 2000 2004 2008 2012 United States Senate elections 1950 1980 1982 1986 1988 1992 1992 (special) 1994 1998 2000 2004 2006 2010 2012 2016 Congressional elections At-Large (1849-1863) 1864 1866 1868 1870 1872 1874 1876 1878 1880 1882 1884 1886 1888 1890 1892 1894 1896 1898 1900 1902 1904 1906 1908 1910 1912 1914 1916 1918 1920 1922 1924 1926 1928 1930 1932 1934 1936 1938 1940 1942 1944 1946 12th (1946) 1948 1950 1952 1954 1956 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 11th (2006) 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Special elections to the House 5th (2005) 48th (2005) 36th (2007) 12th (2008) 10th (2009) 32nd (2009) 36th (2011) 34th (2017)
State government (executive) Gubernatorial elections 1849 1851 1853 1855 1857 1859 1861 1863 1867 1871 1875 1879 1882 1886 1890 1894 1898 1902 1906 1910 1914 1918 1922 1926 1930 1934 1938 1942 1946 1950 1954 1958 1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2003 (recall) 2006 2010 2014 2018 Lieutenant gubernatorial elections 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 Attorney General elections 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 Secretary of State elections 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 Treasurer elections 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 Controller elections 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 Insurance Commissioner elections 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 Superintendent of Public Instruction elections 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014
State government (legislative) State Senate elections 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Special State Assembly elections 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Special
State government (judicial) Court of Appeals elections 1994 1998 2002 2006
Propositions 1910-1919 1911 4 7 8 1960-1969 1964 14 1970-1979 1972 11 17 1978 8 13 Briggs Initiative 1980-1989 1982 8 1986 64 65 1988 98 99 1990-1999 1994 187 1996 196 209 215 218 1998 6 10 227 2000-2009 2000 21 22 36 39 2003 53 54 2004 1A 55 56 57 58 59 60 60A 61 62 63 64 65 66 69 71 2005 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 2006 81 82 83 85 87 89 90 2008 91 92 93 94, 95, 96, and 97 98 and 99 1A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2009 1A 1B 1C 1D 1E 1F 2010-2019 2010 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2012 29 30 32 34 37 38 39 2014 1 2 41 42 45 46 47 48 2016 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 Full list
Elections by year State elections Nov 1992 Nov 1994 Nov 1996 Nov 1998 Nov 2000 Nov 2002 Nov 2004 Nov 2005 Nov 2006 Feb 2008 Jun 2008 Nov 2008 May 2009 Jun 2010 Nov 2010 Jun 2012 Nov 2012 2014 Jun 2016
Los Angeles Mayoral elections 1896 1898 1900 1902 1904 1906 1909 (M) 1909 (N) 1911 1913 1915 1917 1919 1921 1923 1925 1929 1933 1937 1938 1941 1945 1949 1953 1957 1961 1965 1969 1973 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005 2009 2013 General elections 2009 2011 2013 City Attorney elections 2009 Board of Supervisors elections 1980 1996 2006 2008 2010 2012
San Diego Mayoral elections 2000 2004 2005 (special) 2008 2012 2013–14 (special) 2016 City Council elections 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016
San Francisco Mayoral elections 1975 1979 1983 1987 1991 1995 1999 2003 2007 2011 2015 Board of Supervisors elections 1977 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 General elections Mar 2004 Nov 2004 Nov 2005 Jun 2006 Nov 2006 Nov 2007 Feb 2008 Jun 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2009 Jun 2010 Nov 2010 Nov 2011 Jun 2012 Nov 2012 Nov 2013
San Jose Mayoral elections 2014

Proposition 29, the California Cancer Research Act, is a California ballot measure that was defeated by California voters at the statewide election on June 5, 2012.

The measure would have placed a $1 excise on tobacco products into a protected fund to finance medical research on smoking-related illnesses, strengthen California’s smoking prevention and cessation programs, and enforce the state’s existing tobacco laws.

The independent California Legislative Analyst's Office projected that the measure would have generated approximately $855 million in first year, declining slightly but predictably (about 3% annually due to decrease in the number of smokers) every year thereafter. ^[1]

The measure would have created a nine-member committee charged with administering direct revenues. This oversight committee was to be composed of cancer-research medical professionals, University of California Chancellors, and representatives of national disease advocacy groups. The measure restricted administration costs to no more than 2% of its direct tax revenues.^[2]

The California Cancer Research Act was widely supported by cancer advocates, including cancer survivor Lance Armstrong and the American Cancer Society.^[3]

Detail

How CCRA revenue would have been spent

According to the independent California Legislative Analyst's Office, revenue raised by the measure would have been spent as follows:^[4]

• Approximately $75 million annually: Maintaining existing tobacco tax revenue streams to ensure that the California Proposition 99 (1988), California Proposition 10 (1998), General Fund and Breast Cancer programs funded by existing tobacco taxes are not negatively impacted by the excise tax increase;
• 60% (approximately $468 million annually): Research of cancer and tobacco-related disease "for the purpose of grants and loans to support research into the prevention, early detection, treatments, complementary treatments and potential cures of lung cancer and other types of cancer, cardiovascular disease, emphysema and other tobacco related diseases, including but not limited to coronary heart disease, and chronic obstructive lung disease";
• 15% (approximately $117 million annually): Facilities and capital equipment for research "for the purposes of grants and loans to provide facilities, including but not limited to those building, building leases and capital equipment as my be found necessary and appropriate by the Committee, to further biomedical, epidemiological, behavioral, health services, and other research whose primary focus is to identify and refine promising prevention, early detection, treatments, complementary treatments, rehabilitation and potential cures of lung cancer and other types of cancer, cardiovascular disease, emphysema and other tobacco related diseases";
• 20% (approximately $156 million annually): Tobacco prevention and cessation to the state’s existing tobacco control program. These funds would be divided between the California Department of Public Health (80%) and the California Department of Education (20%) for their existing programs to prevent and reduce the use of tobacco.
• 3% (approximately $23 million annually): Tobacco law enforcement "to support law enforcement efforts to reduce cigarette smuggling, tobacco tax evasion, and counterfeit tobacco products, to reduce illegal sales of tobacco products to minors, and to enforce legal settlement provisions and conduct law enforcement training and technical assistance activities for tobacco related statues".
• No more than 2% (approximately $16 million annually): Administration.

Oversight

The measure would have created a 9-member governing committee charged with administering the fund. The California Cancer Research Act Oversight Committee was to be composed of:^[5]

• 3 University of California chancellors;
• 3 "selected from among Cancer Center Directors of National Cancer Institute designated cancer centers located within the State of California" (appointed by the California Governor)
• 1 "affiliated with a California Academic Medical Center who is a practicing physician with expertise in the prevention, treatment or research of cardiovascular disease" (appointed by the California Governor)
• 2 "selected from among California representatives of California or national disease advocacy groups whose focus is tobacco-related illness, at least one of whom shall be a person who has been treated for a tobacco related illness." (appointed by Director of California Department of Public Health)
• A Committee to establish a peer review process for selection of grants modeled on the process used by the National Institutes of Health.

Ballot qualification

The California Secretary of State confirmed that The California Cancer Research Act had qualified for California’s next statewide ballot on August 24, 2010, after its supporting coalition submitted 633,453 voter signatures for verification in June 2010. To qualify, the measure required 433,971 signatures, or more.^[6]

Election results

Results by county.

Tax on Cigarettes for Cancer Research

Choice	Votes	%
No	2,592,791	50.2
Yes	2,568,715	49.8
Total votes	5,161,506	100.00
Registered voters and turnout	23,713,027

^[7]

See also

• Tobacco in the United States
• California Proposition 10 (1998)

References

External links

• Letter to Attorney General Requesting Ballot Title
• Full Text of the California Cancer Research Act
• Opposition Website
• Clickable Map from the Secretary of State to county-by-county returns and results for Proposition 29