California Proposition 12, Farm Animal Confinement Initiative (2018)

Elections in California, 2018

• General election: Nov. 6
• Voter registration deadline: Oct. 22
• Early voting: Oct. 8 - Nov. 5
• Absentee voting deadline: Postmark Nov. 6

• Online registration: Yes
• Same-day registration: Yes
• Voter ID: No
• Poll times: 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.

---

On the ballot: U.S. Senate • U.S. House • Governor • Lt. Gov • Attorney General • Secretary of State • State executive offices • State Senate • State Assembly • Special state legislative • Supreme court • Appellate courts • Local judges • State ballot measures • Local ballot measures • School boards • Municipal • Recalls • Primaries in California, 2018

California Proposition 12
Election date November 6, 2018
Topic Treatment of animals and Food and agriculture
Status a Approved
Type State statute	Origin Citizens
List of California measuresCalifornia Proposition 68 - JuneCalifornia Proposition 69 - JuneCalifornia Proposition 70 - JuneCalifornia Proposition 71 - JuneCalifornia Proposition 72 - JuneCalifornia Proposition 1California Proposition 2California Proposition 3California Proposition 4California Proposition 5California Proposition 6California Proposition 7California Proposition 8California Proposition 10California Proposition 11California Proposition 12Submit

California Proposition 12, the Farm Animal Confinement Initiative, was on the ballot in California as an initiated state statute on November 6, 2018. The measure was approved.

A yes vote supported this initiative to: establish minimum space requirements based on square feet for calves raised for veal, breeding pigs, and egg-laying hens and ban the sale of (a) veal from calves, (b) pork from breeding pigs, and (c) eggs from hens when the animals are confined to areas below minimum square-feet requirements.

A no vote opposed this initiative, thus: keeping in place minimum space requirements based on animal movement—not square feet—for calves raised for veal, breeding pigs, and egg-laying hens and continuing to ban the sale of shelled eggs from hens—but not liquid eggs from hens, veal from calves, or pork from breeding pigs—that are confined to areas not meeting space requirements based on animal movement standards.

Election results

California Proposition 12
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		7,551,434	62.66%
No		4,499,702	37.34%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

Did California pass a similar ballot initiative in 2008?

In 2008, the Humane Society developed a ballot initiative, titled Proposition 2, to ban the confinement of pregnant pigs, calves raised for veal, and egg-laying hens in a manner that did not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs. Proposition 2 did not provide specific square feet when defining prohibited confinement. Rather, the size restrictions were based on animal behavior and movement. Opponents, such as the Association of California Egg Farmers, claimed this was too vague. Voters approved Proposition 2, and the law went into effect in 2015.

Proposition 2 did not ban the sale of veal from calves, pork from breeding pigs, and eggs from hens. The California State Legislature approved a law that banned the sale of shelled eggs from hens confined to areas that did not meet Proposition 2's standards. Regulators interpreted the law as requiring producers who wanted to sell shelled eggs in California as needing to provide hens at least 0.8 square feet per hen.

What did Proposition 12 change about farm animal confinement in California?

Proposition 12 of 2018, unlike Proposition 2, prohibited the confinement of calves raised for veal, breeding pigs, and egg-laying hens in areas below a specific number of square feet, rather than restrictions based on animal behavior and movement. Proposition 12 also banned the sale of (a) veal from calves, (b) uncooked pork from breeding pigs, and (c) shelled and liquid eggs from hens when the animals are confined to areas below minimum square-feet requirements.

Beginning in 2020, Proposition 12 was set to ban the confinement of:

• calves (young domestic cows) in areas with less than 43 square feet of usable floor space per calf and
• egg-laying hens (chickens, turkeys, ducks, geese, and guinea fowl) in areas with less than 1 square foot of usable floor space per hen.

Beginning in 2022, Proposition 12 was set to ban the confinement of:

• breeding pigs and their immediate offspring in areas with less than 24 square feet of usable floor space per pig and
• egg-laying hens in areas other than indoor or outdoor cage-free housing systems based on the United Egg Producers' 2017 cage-free guidelines, which define cage-free housing as areas that provide 1.0 to 1.5 square feet of usable floor space per hen and allow hens to move around inside the area.

How would Proposition 12 be enforced?

Proposition 12 made the California Department of Food and Agriculture and the California Department of Public Health responsible for the measure's implementation. Violations of the initiative were considered misdemeanors, with fines up to $1,000. Proposition 2 (2008) did not authorize a state department to enforce the confinement restrictions. Therefore, local law enforcement agencies were made de facto responsible for enforcing Proposition 2's size restrictions.

Who was behind the campaigns surrounding Proposition 12?

Proposition 12 set the Humane Society, in support of the initiative, against the Humane Farming Association, PETA, and the Friends of Animals, in opposition to the initiative. The Association of California Egg Farmers (ACEF) and National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) were also opposed to Proposition 12, arguing that the required changes would increase food prices and create meat and egg shortages. However, none of the agriculture-related trade associations, such as ACEF and NPPC, formed a political action committee (PAC) to oppose Proposition 12, leaving the conflict as one between PACs organized by groups focused on the treatment of animals.

Prevent Cruelty California, a ballot measure committee, led the campaign in support of Proposition 12. The Humane Society launched the campaign committee, which had raised $13.31 million. The largest contributor to the committee was the Open Philanthropy Action Fund, which provided $4.00 million. Josh Balk, vice president of the Humane Society, described that ballot initiative as "the most transformational step forward of all time in regards to animal protections." Tracy Reiman, executive vice president of PETA-Los Angeles, said Proposition 12 was a "regressive law that will keep hens in abhorrent conditions."

The ballot measure committee in opposition to Proposition 12, Californians Against Cruelty, Cages, and Fraud, was organized by the Humane Farming Association, an animal rights organization. The committee had raised $689,279 from the Humane Farming Action Fund. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and Friends of Animals also came out in opposition to Proposition 12. PETA spokesperson Ben Williamson explained the group's opposition, saying, "PETA doesn’t sell animals short. The Humane Society has a history of doing just that. … The only way to break the cruelty of animals is to keep them off your plate. You can do more good for animals by not eating them than by doing anything else." Balk responded to PETA's opposition, stating, "PETA wants California to go egg free, not cage free. But virtually every single animal protection group in the state is in agreement that Proposition 12 is a major step forward. PETA is the outlier here."

Aftermath

Sacramento County Superior Court ruling, 2022

On January 24, 2022, Sacramento County Superior Court Judge James Arguelles delayed enforcement of the restrictions on whole pork meat sales for retailers and grocers until six months after the state enacts final regulations. The delay did not apply to pork producers or suppliers, who must still comply with the space requirements for pigs that went into effect on January 1, 2022.

National Pork Producers Council v. Ross

See also: National Pork Producers Council v. Ross

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Does Proposition 12 violate the Interstate Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8) of the U.S. Constitution?
Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of California; appealed to U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals; appealed to United States Supreme Court
Ruling: Proposition 12 did not violate the Interstate Commerce Clause because Proposition 12 was not directed at interstate commerce and did not call for uniform practices throughout the U.S.; appealed to U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and United States Supreme Court; U.S. Supreme Court voted to uphold Proposition 12
Plaintiff(s): National Pork Producers Council and American Farm Bureau Federation	Defendant(s): Karen Ross (Secretary of California Department of Food & Agriculture), Sonia Angell (Director of the California Department of Public Health), and Xavier Becerra (California Attorney General)

  Source: United States District Court for the Southern District of California

On December 5, 2019, the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) and American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) filed a legal complaint requesting the U.S. District Court for Southern California to invalidate Proposition 12 on the grounds that the citizen-initiated measure violated the Interstate Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8) of the U.S. Constitution.

The Interstate Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution states that Congress has the power "regulate Commerce … among the several States." According to NPPC and AFBF, the Interstate Commerce Clause has the consequence of restricting "states from engaging in extraterritorial regulation." “The inevitable effect of Proposition 12 is to regulate out-of-state production," according to the plaintiffs. Furthermore, the plaintiffs stated, "Out-of-state producers must submit to California’s mandated production methods or lose access to California’s large market.”

Jonathan Lovvorn, senior vice president for animal protection litigation at the Humane Society, responded to the plaintiffs, saying, "It’s an industry out-of-step with the preponderance of consumers who find animal abuse unacceptable, yet is still trying to hold on to archaic practices – like those banned by Prop 12 – that inflict an immense amount of pain and suffering on animals."

The attorneys general of the following states signed a brief in support of the plaintiffs and against Proposition 12: Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia.

On April 27, 2020, Judge Thomas Whelan dismissed the case. He said that Proposition 12 was not directed at interstate commerce and did not call for uniform practices throughout the U.S. Judge Whelan wrote, "Thus, Proposition 12 does not regulate extraterritorially because it does not target solely interstate commerce and it regulates in-state and out-of-state conduct equally. Although there are upstream effects on out-of-state producers, those effects are a result of regulating in-state conduct." Judge Whelan also rejected the argument that Proposition 12 would be a substantial burden on pork producers, stating, "[a]lthough Proposition 12’s regulations may burden pork producers and result in a less efficient mode of operation, there is no burden on interstate commerce merely because it is less profitable than a preferred method of operation."

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) and American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) on July 28, 2021. The plaintiffs appealed to the United States Supreme Court. On March 28, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it would hear the case. Kitty Block, president and chief executive officer of the Humane Society of the United States, said, "We remain confident that the Supreme Court will reaffirm states’ legal authority to pass a law that prevents cruelty to animals, improves food safety and protects public health."

On May 11, 2023, the Supreme Court upheld Proposition 12 in a 5-4 ruling finding that states have a right to decide to regular products sold within the state. Justice Neil Gorsuch writing for the majority said, "Companies that choose to sell products in various States must normally comply with the laws of those various States. While the Constitution addresses many weighty issues, the type of pork chops California merchants may sell is not on that list."

North American Meat Institute v. Becerra

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Does Proposition 12 violate the Interstate Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8) of the U.S. Constitution?
Court: U.S. District Court for Central California and United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Plaintiff(s): North American Meat Institute	Defendant(s): Xavier Becerra (California Attorney General), Karen Ross (Secretary of California Department of Food & Agriculture), and Susan Fanelli (Acting Director of the California Department of Public Health)

  Source: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

On October 4, 2019, the North American Meat Institute (NAMI) filed a legal complaint requesting the U.S. District Court for Central California to invalidate Proposition 12 on the grounds that the citizen-initiated measure violated the Interstate Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8) of the U.S. Constitution. According to NAMI, "Proposition 12’s sales ban violates the Commerce Clause by erecting a protectionist trade barrier whose purpose and effect are to shield California producers from out-of-state competition." NAMI's request for a preliminary injunction was denied by the U.S. District Court for Central California and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On October 15, 2020, the Ninth Circuit issued its order, stating, "NAMI acknowledges that Proposition 12 is not facially discriminatory. The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Proposition 12 does not have a discriminatory purpose given the lack of evidence that the state had a protectionist intent."

On February 26, 2021, NAMI appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of the United States. In its brief, NAMI wrote, "[The] Ninth Circuit’s decision conflicts with the decisions of other federal courts of appeals on the question whether the Constitution limits a State’s ability to extend its police power beyond its territorial borders through a trade barrier dictating production standards in other States and countries." On March 29, 2021, 20 states filed an amici curiae brief supporting NAMI's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The U.S. Supreme Court denied NAMI's petition on June 28, 2021.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The official ballot title was as follows:

“

Establishes New Standards for Confinement of Certain Farm Animals; Bans Sale of Certain Non-Complying Products. Initiative Statute.

”

Ballot summary

The official ballot summary was as follows:

“

Establishes new minimum space requirements for confining veal calves, breeding pigs, and egg-laying hens. Requires egg-laying hens be raised in cage-free environment after December 31, 2021. Prohibits certain commercial sales of specified meat and egg products derived from animals confined in noncomplying manner. Defines sales violations as unfair competition. Creates good faith defense for sellers relying upon written certification by suppliers that meat and egg products comply with new confinement standards. Requires State of California to issue implementing regulations.

”

Fiscal impact

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

The fiscal impact statement was as follows:

“

Potential decrease in state and local tax revenues from farm businesses, likely not to exceed the low millions of dollars annually. Potential state costs ranging up to ten million dollars annually to enforce the measure.

”

Full text

The ballot initiative amended California Health and Safety Code. The following underlined text was added and struck-through text was deleted:

Prevention of Cruelty to Farm Animals Act SECTION 1. This Act shall be known and may be cited as the Prevention of Cruelty to Farm Animals Act. SECTION 2. The purpose of this Act is to prevent animal cruelty by phasing out extreme methods of farm animal confinement, which also threaten the health and safety of California consumers, and increase the risk of foodborne illness and associated negative fiscal impacts on the State of California. SECTION 3. Section 25990 of the California Health and Safety Code is hereby amended to read: In addition to other applicable provisions of law,: (a) a person A farm owner or operator within the State of California shall not tether or confine knowingly cause any covered animal, to be confined in a cruel manner. on a farm, for all or the majority of any day, in a manner that prevents such animal from: (a) Lying down, standing up, and fully extending his or her limbs; and (b) Turning around freely (b) A business owner or operator shall not knowingly engage in the sale within the State of California of any: (1) Whole veal meat that the business owner or operator knows or should know is the meat of a covered animal who was confined in a cruel manner. (2) Whole pork meat that the business owner or operator knows or should know is the meat of a covered animal who was confined in a cruel manner, or is the meat of immediate offspring of a covered animal who was confined in a cruel manner. (3) Shell egg that the business owner or operator knows or should know is the product of a covered animal who was confined in a cruel manner. (4) Liquid eggs that the business owner or operator knows or should know are the product of a covered animal who was confined in a cruel manner. SECTION 4. Section 25991 of the California Health and Safety Code is hereby amended to read: For the purposes of this chapter, the following terms have the following meanings: (a) “Breeding pig” means any female pig of the porcine species kept for the purpose of commercial breeding, who is 6 months or older or pregnant. (b) “Business owner or operator” means any person who owns or controls the operations of a business. (c) “Cage-free housing system” means an indoor or outdoor controlled environment for egglaying hens within which hens are free to roam unrestricted; are provided enrichments that allow them to exhibit natural behaviors, including, at a minimum, scratch areas, perches, nest boxes, and dust bathing areas; and within which farm employees can provide care while standing within the hens’ usable floor space. Cage-free housing systems include, to the extent they comply with the requirements of this subsection: (1) “Multi-tiered aviaries” in which hens have access to multiple elevated platforms that provide hens with usable floor space both on top of and underneath the platforms; (2) “Partially-slatted systems” in which hens have access to elevated flat platforms under which manure drops through the flooring to a pit or litter removal belt below; (3) “Single-level all litter floor systems” bedded with litter, and in which hens have limited or no access to elevated flat platforms; and (4) Any future systems that will comply with the requirements of this subsection. (a)(d) “Calf raised for veal” means any calf of the bovine species kept for the purpose of producing the food product described as veal (e) “Confined in a cruel manner” means any one of the following acts: (1) Confining a covered animal in a manner that prevents the animal from lying down, standing up, fully extending the animal’s limbs, or turning around freely; or (2) After December 31, 2019, confining a calf raised for veal with less than 43 square feet of usable floor space per calf; or (3) After December 31, 2021, confining a breeding pig with less than 24 square feet of usable floor space per pig; or (4) After December 31, 2019, confining an egg-laying hen with less than 144 square inches of usable floor space per hen; or (5) After December 31, 2021, confining an egg-laying hen with less than the amount of usable floor space per hen required by the 2017 edition of the United Egg Producers’ Animal Husbandry Guidelines for U.S. Egg-Laying Flocks: Guidelines for Cage-Free Housing, or in an enclosure other than a cage-free housing system. (b)(f) “Covered animal” means any pig during pregnancy, calf raised for veal, breeding pig, or egg-laying hen who is kept on a farm. (c)(g) “Egg-laying hen” means any female domesticated chicken, turkey, duck, goose, or guinea fowl kept for the purpose of egg production. (d)(h) “Enclosure” means any cage, crate, or other a structure (including what is commonly described as a “gestation crate” for pigs; a “veal crate” for calves; or a “battery cage” for egg laying hens) used to confine a covered animal or animals. (e)(i) “Farm” means the land, building, support facilities, and other equipment that are wholly or partially used for the commercial production of animals or animal products used for food or fiber; and does not include live animal markets., establishments at which mandatory inspection is provided under the Federal Meat Inspection Act, or official plants at which mandatory inspection is maintained under the Federal Egg Products Inspection Act. (j) “Farm owner or operator” means any person who owns or controls the operations of a farm. (f)(k) “Fully extending his or her the animal’s limbs” means fully extending all limbs without touching the side of an enclosure, including, in the case of egg-laying hens, fully spreading both wings without touching the side of an enclosure or other egg laying hens or another animal. (l) “Liquid eggs” means eggs of an egg-laying hen broken from the shells, intended for human food, with the yolks and whites in their natural proportions, or with the yolks and whites separated, mixed, or mixed and strained. Liquid eggs do not include combination food products (including pancake mixes, cake mixes, cookies, pizzas, cookie dough, ice cream, or similar processed or prepared food products) that are comprised of more than liquid eggs, sugar, salt, water, seasoning, coloring, flavoring, preservatives, stabilizers, and similar food additives. (g)(m) “Person” means any individual, firm, partnership, joint venture, association, limited liability company, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, or syndicate. (h) “Pig during pregnancy” means any pregnant pig of the porcine species kept for the primary purpose of breeding. (n)“Pork meat” means meat, as defined in 3 CCR 900 as of August 2017, of a pig of the porcine species, intended for use as human food. (o) “Sale” means a commercial sale by a business that sells any item covered by this chapter, but does not include any sale undertaken at an establishment at which mandatory inspection is provided under the Federal Meat Inspection Act, or any sale undertaken at an official plant at which mandatory inspection is maintained under the Federal Egg Products Inspection Act. For purposes of this section, a sale shall be deemed to occur at the location where the buyer takes physical possession of an item covered by section 25990 of this chapter. (p) “Shell egg” means a whole egg of an egg-laying hen in its shell form, intended for use as human food. (i)(q) “Turning around freely” means turning in a complete circle without any impediment, including a tether, and without touching the side of an enclosure or another animal. (r) “Uncooked” means requiring cooking prior to human consumption. (s) “Usable floor space” means the total square footage of floor space provided to each covered animal, as calculated by dividing the total square footage of floor space provided to the animals in an enclosure by the number of animals in that enclosure. In the case of egg-laying hens, “usable floor space” shall include both ground space and elevated level flat platforms upon which hens can roost, but shall not include perches or ramps. (t) “Veal meat” means meat, as defined in 3 CCR 900 as of August 2017, of a calf raised for veal intended for use as human food. (u) “Whole pork meat” means any uncooked cut of pork (including bacon, ham, chop, ribs, riblet, loin, shank, leg, roast, brisket, steak, sirloin or cutlet) that is comprised entirely of pork meat, except for seasoning, curing agents, coloring, flavoring, preservatives and similar meat additives. Whole pork meat does not include combination food products (including soups, sandwiches, pizzas, hot dogs, or similar processed or prepared food products) that are comprised of more than pork meat, seasoning, curing agents, coloring, flavoring, preservatives, and similar meat additives. (v) “Whole veal meat” means any uncooked cut of veal (including chop, ribs, riblet, loin, shank, leg, roast, brisket, steak, sirloin or cutlet) that is comprised entirely of veal meat, except for seasoning, curing agents, coloring, flavoring, preservatives, and similar meat additives. Whole veal meat does not include combination food products (including soups, sandwiches, pizzas, hot dogs, or similar processed or prepared food products) that are comprised of more than veal meat, seasoning, curing agents, coloring, flavoring, preservatives and similar meat additives. SECTION 5. Section 25992 of the California Health and Safety Code is hereby amended to read: This chapter shall not apply: (a) During scientific or agricultural medical research. (b) During examination, testing, individual treatment or operation for veterinary purposes. (c) During transportation. (d) During rodeo exhibitions, state or county fair exhibitions, 4-H programs, and similar exhibitions. (e) During the slaughter of a covered animal in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 19501) of Part 3 of Division 9 of the Food and Agricultural Code, relating to humane methods of slaughter, and other applicable law and regulations. (f) To a breeding pig during the seven five (5) day period prior to the breeding pig's expected date of giving birth, and any day that the breeding pig is nursing piglets. (g) During temporary periods for animal husbandry purposes for no more than six (6) hours in any twenty-four (24) hour period, and no more than twenty-four (24) hours total in any thirty (30) day period. SECTION 6. Section 25993 of the California Health and Safety Code is hereby amended to read: (a) The California Department of Food and Agriculture and the California Department of Public Health shall jointly promulgate rules and regulations for the implementation of this Act by September 1, 2019. (b) Any person who violates any of the provisions of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) or by imprisonment in the county jail for a period not to exceed 180 days or by both such fine and imprisonment. In addition, a violation of section 25990(b) of this chapter constitutes “unfair competition” as defined in Section 17200 of the Business and Professions Code and is punishable as prescribed in Chapter 5 (commencing with section 17200) of Part 2 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code. (c) The provisions of this chapter relating to cruel confinement of covered animals and sale of products shall supersede any conflicting regulations, including conflicting regulations pursuant to the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 2, Subdivision 6, Chapter 6. SECTION 7. Section 25993.1 is hereby added to the California Health and Safety to read: It shall be a defense to any action to enforce section 25990(b) of this chapter that a business owner or operator relied in good faith upon a written certification by the supplier that the whole veal meat, whole pork meat, shell eggs, or liquid eggs at issue was not derived from a covered animal who was confined in a cruel manner, or from the immediate offspring of a breeding pig who was confined in a cruel manner. SECTION 8. This Act shall be amended only by a statute approved by a vote of four fifths of the members of both houses of the Legislature. Any amendment of this Act shall be consistent with and further the purposes of this Act. SECTION 9. If any provision of this Act, or the application thereof to any person or circumstances, is held invalid or unconstitutional, that invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect other provisions or applications of this Act that can be given effect without the invalid or unconstitutional provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Act are severable.

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2018

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 11, and the FRE is 33. The word count for the ballot title is 18, and the estimated reading time is 4 seconds. The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 12, and the FRE is 33. The word count for the ballot summary is 80, and the estimated reading time is 21 seconds. In 2018, for the 167 statewide measures on the ballot, the average ballot title or question was written at a level appropriate for those with between 19 and 20 years of U.S. formal education (graduate school-level of education), according to the FKGL formula. Read Ballotpedia's entire 2018 ballot language readability report here.

Support

Prevent Cruelty California led the campaign in support of the initiative. The Humane Society of the United States sponsored Prevent Cruelty California.

Supporters

Officials

• Sen. Henry Stern (D-27)

Former officials

• Sen. Dean Florez (D-16)

Municipalities

• Encinitas City Council

Organizations

• The Humane Society of the United States
• The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
• San Francisco Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
• San Diego Humane Society
• Marin Humane Society
• Yolo County Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
• The Humane League
• Mercy For Animals
• Compassion in World Farming
• Animal Equality
• Animal Legal Defense Fund
• Animal Protection and Rescue League
• Compassion Over Killing
• FixNation
• Heaven on Earth Society for Animals
• In Defense of Animals
• Bark Avenue Foundation
• Compassion Champs
• Santa Paula Animal Rescue Inc.
• The Gentle Barn
• Animal Welfare Institute
• Harvest Home Animal Sanctuary
• The Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association
• Center for Food Safety
• Farm Forward
• National Consumers League
• Organic Consumers Association
• Center for Biological Diversity
• Roots of Change
• Jewish Initiative for Animals
• Evangelicals for Social Action
• CreatureKind
• Shamayim V’aretz Institute

Individuals

• Ellen DeGeneres, television host

Arguments

• Wayne Pacelle, president of the Human Society, said, "Californians know that locking farm animals in tight cages for the duration of their lives is cruel and compromises food safety. All animals deserve humane treatment, especially those raised for food."
• Josh Balk, vice president of the Humane Society, said, “Chickens are put in barren, wire cages the size of your microwave oven, with six to eight other chickens. Mother pigs are put in pens so small they can’t turn around for up to four years. I think most Californians believe we have a moral obligation to ensure that all animals are protected from cruelty.”

Official arguments

Crystal Moreland, state director of the Humane Society of the United States, James Reynolds, professor of Large Animal Medicine and Welfare at the Western University College of Veterinary Medicine, and Andrew Decoriolis, director of strategic programs and engagement for Farm Forward, wrote the official argument found in the state voter information guide in support of Proposition 12:

“ YES ON PROP. 12—STOP ANIMAL CRUELTY The Humane Society of the United States, ASPCA, and nearly 500 California veterinarians endorse Prop. 12. Voting YES prevents baby veal calves, mother pigs, and egg-laying hens from being crammed inside tiny cages for their entire lives. It will eliminate inhumane and unsafe products from these abused animals from the California marketplace. Voting YES reduces the risk of people being sickened by food poisoning and factory farm pollution, and helps family farmers. VOTE YES ON PROP. 12 TO: PREVENT CRUELTY TO ANIMALS. It’s cruel to confine a baby calf in a tiny cage. Taken away from his mother shortly after birth, he’s confined in that abusive way until he’s sent to slaughter—at just four months old. A mother pig shouldn’t be locked in a tiny, metal cage where she can barely move. She’s trapped, forced to live in this small amount of space for nearly four years. It’s wrong to cram a hen tightly in an overcrowded, wire cage for her entire life. She’s forced to eat, sleep, defecate, and lay eggs in the same small space every single day. PROTECT OUR FAMILIES FROM FOOD POISONING AND FACTORY FARM POLLUTION. In the past decade, there have been recalls of nearly a billion eggs from caged chickens because they carried deadly Salmonella. Scientific studies repeatedly find that packing animals in tiny, filthy cages increases the risk of food poisoning. Even Poultry World, a leading egg industry publication admitted, “Salmonella thrives in caged housing.” That’s why the Center for Food Safety and National Consumers League both endorse YES on Prop. 12. The American Public Health Association called for a moratorium on new animal confinement operations because they pollute the air and ground water, and diminish the quality of life for nearby homeowners. HELP FAMILY FARMERS AND GROW THE CALIFORNIA ECONOMY. Mega-factory farms that cage animals cut corners and drive family farmers out of business. By voting YES on Prop. 12 we can create sensible standards that keep family farmers in business—and allow them to grow. Since cage-free farms employ more workers, this measure would create more jobs for hardworking farming families. That’s why California family farmers and the United Farm Workers endorse Prop. 12. A COMMON-SENSE REFORM • Prop. 12 strengthens a decade-old animal cruelty law and provides ample phase-in time for producers to shift to cage-free practices. • Over 200 major food companies like Walmart, McDonald’s, Taco Bell, Burger King, Safeway, and Dollar Tree have committed to using cage-free products. • A dozen states have passed laws addressing the cruel caging of farm animals. • The YES vote is endorsed by Catholic, Presbyterian, Episcopal, Methodist, Jewish, Evangelical, and Unitarian faith leaders, and local animal shelters across California. We wouldn’t force our dog or cat to live in a filthy, tiny cage for her whole life; we shouldn't allow any animal to endure such suffering either. All animals, including farm animals, deserve protection from cruelty and abuse. ”

Opposition

Californians Against Cruelty, Cages, and Fraud led the campaign in opposition to the initiative. The Humane Farming Association (HFA) sponsored Californians Against Cruelty, Cages, and Fraud. HFA labeled the measure the rotten egg initiative.

Opponents

• Association of California Egg Farmers
• California Farm Bureau Federation
• Friends of Animals
• Humane Farming Association (HFA)
• National Pork Producers Council
• People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)

Arguments

Animal welfare organizations

• The Humane Farming Association stated, "The Humane Society of the United States is once again deceiving voters, flip-flopping on the issue of cages, and perpetuating the suffering of millions of egg-laying hens throughout California. The inescapable reality is that, had Prop 2 actually accomplished what HSUS promised, California would be cage free at this very moment. Rather than correcting its historic failure, HSUS is now misusing our state's ballot measure process with a whole new set of false promises. This betrayal of voters and farm animals must be soundly defeated."
• Tracy Reiman, executive vice president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals in Los Angeles, said, "We must not ingrain cruelty by passing a regressive law that will keep hens in abhorrent conditions. We know that chickens are thinking, feeling beings that want to truly spread their wings, not be confined to a prison with thousands of others."

Agriculture organizations

• The Association of California Egg Farmers issued the following statement: "With this new initiative now calling for full compliance by the end of 2021, HSUS is reneging on the original agreement and this expedited timeline may result in supply disruptions, price spikes and a shortage of eggs for sale."
• Jim Monroe, spokesperson of the National Pork Producers Council, said, "Livestock production practices should be left to those who are most informed about animal care — farmers — and not animal rights activists. Additionally, changes in housing systems, which come with significant costs that increase food prices, should be driven by consumer purchasing decisions, not the agenda of any activist group."
• Jamie Johansson, president of the California Farm Bureau Federation, said, “All Proposition 12 does is allow trial lawyers to file predatory lawsuits against egg farmers, who provide some of the healthiest food on the planet. Proposition 12 would push egg prices higher in the state that already suffers from the nation’s highest poverty rate.”

Official arguments

Bradley Miller, president of the Humane Farming Association, Peter Brown, advisory board member of Friends of Animals, and Lowell Finley, treasurer of Californians Against Cruelty, Cages, and Fraud, wrote the official argument found in the state voter information guide in opposition to Proposition 12:

“ Vote NO: Prevent Cruelty, Cages, and Fraud. The DC-based Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is once again buying its way onto California’s ballot, deceiving voters, flip-flopping on the issue of cages, and perpetuating the suffering of millions of egglaying hens. Falsely promoted as a “cage-free” measure, Proposition 12, in fact, explicitly legalizes the continued use of egg-factory cages for years to come. Proposition 12 is the result of a public relations alliance between HSUS and the egg industry’s national trade association, United Egg Producers. At taxpayer expense, they are misusing California’s initiative process in order to replace our current henhousing law with the guidelines of United Egg Producers. Proposition 12 legalizes the cruel cages Californians overwhelmingly voted to prohibit ten years ago. California’s current law (Prop. 2) states that egg-laying hens be given enough room to: “. . . fully spread both wings without touching the side of an enclosure or other egg-laying hens.” Proposition 12 would repeal that voter-enacted law in order to allow egg factories to provide each hen with just ONE SQUARE FOOT of cage or floor space. Proposition 12 is a cruel betrayal of farm animals and of California voters. Due to the negligent drafting of 2008’s Prop. 2, millions of egg-laying hens still suffer in egg-factory cages throughout California. Nevertheless, the egg-buying public has been told repeatedly that Prop. 2 successfully “banned” those cages. For an entire decade that has been HSUS’s most cherished promotional claim. Now, without so much as a passing mention that California was supposed to be cage free by 2015— proponents are back with yet another set of false promises. Only this time they say Californians will have to wait for the year 2022! And even that date is tentative. Proposition 12 was expressly written to allow the Legislature to make changes at any time without the consent of voters. Proposition 12 does nothing to help pigs or calves. For misdirection, the very same people who botched Prop. 2, and who promised that California would be “cage-free” by 2015, are now claiming that Proposition 12 will regulate the practices of out-of-state pork and veal producers. No one should fall for that ploy. Even in the unlikely event that Proposition 12’s constitutionally flawed provisions survive the inevitable years of legal challenges (the defense of which comes at taxpayer expense), Congress is already advancing legislation to render all such interstate regulations null and void. And while claiming to regulate other states, Proposition 12 allows the cruel confinement of dairy calves right here in California! Proposition 12 is a reckless exploitation of California’s initiative process which not only harms farm animals, but it also puts in grave danger a wide array of existing consumer, animal, and environmental protection laws. This rotten egg initiative should be decisively rejected. Find out why People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals; Friends of Animals; the Humane Farming Association; Californians Against Cruelty, Cages, and Fraud; and many others all OPPOSE Proposition 12. ”

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for California ballot measures

Total campaign contributions:
Support:	$13,312,539.22
Opposition:	$689,278.60

There was one ballot measure committee, Prevent Cruelty California, a Humane Society Committee, registered in support of Proposition 12. The committee had raised $13.31 million and spent $13.27 million. The largest contributor to the committee was the Open Philanthropy Action Fund, which provided $4.00 million.

There was one committee, Californians Against Cruelty, Cages, and Fraud, registered to oppose Proposition 12. The committee had raised $689,279, with the Humane Farming Action Fund as the sole donor.

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in support of Proposition 12:

Committees in support of Proposition 12 Supporting committees Cash contributions In-kind services Cash expenditures Prevent Cruelty California, a Humane Society Committee $12,577,453.02 $735,086.20 $12,532,159.35 Total $12,577,453.02 $735,086.20 $12,532,159.35

Totals in support Total raised: $13,312,539.22 Total spent: $13,267,245.55

Donors

The following were the donors who contributed $500,000 or more to the support committee:

Donor	Cash	In-kind	Total
Open Philanthropy Action Fund	$4,000,000.00	$0.00	$4,000,000.00
Deborah Stone	$2,650,000.00	$0.00	$2,650,000.00
The Humane Society of the United States	$1,757,500.00	$411,605.87	$2,169,105.87
Django Bonderman	$500,000.00	$0.00	$500,000.00
Zoe Bonderman	$500,000.00	$0.00	$500,000.00
Kyle Vogt	$500,000.00	$0.00	$500,000.00

Opposition

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in opposition to Proposition 12:

Committees in opposition to Proposition 12 Opposing committees Cash contributions In-kind services Cash expenditures Californians Against Cruelty, Cages, and Fraud $550,500.00 $138,778.60 $302,554.32 Total $550,500.00 $138,778.60 $302,554.32

Totals in opposition Total raised: $689,278.60 Total spent: $441,332.92

Donors

The following was the top donor who contributed to the opposition committee:

Donor	Cash	In-kind	Total
Humane Farming Action Fund	$550,500.00	$138,778.60	$689,278.60

Reporting dates

In California, ballot measure committees filed a total of five campaign finance reports in 2018. The filing dates for reports were as follows:

Campaign finance reporting dates for November 2018 ballot
Date	Report	Period
1/31/2018	Annual Report for 2017	1/01/2017 - 12/31/2017
4/30/2018	Report #1	1/01/2018 - 3/31/2018
7/31/2018	Report #2	4/01/2018 - 6/30/2018
9/27/2018	Report #3	7/01/2018 - 9/22/2018
10/25/2018	Report #4	9/23/2018 - 10/20/2018
1/31/2019	Annual Report for 2018	10/21/2018 - 12/31/2018

Methodology

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

Media editorials

Support

• East Bay Express: "Yes on strengthening cage-free farm regulations."
• Los Angeles Times: "It’s heartening that both farmers and buyers acknowledge the importance of improving animal welfare standards. But it’s also important that animal welfare standards be more than suggestions or good-hearted gestures to be undertaken when it’s convenient and withdrawn when it’s not. That’s why it’s important to have a law like Proposition 12 in place."
• Marin Independent Journal: "Proposition 12 extends humane cage-free requirements to other farm animals. It includes a provision giving farmers and ranchers time to make needed improvements. Even though these animals are being raised and handled to be food, it doesn’t mean humane treatment can’t also be part of the process."
• Monterey Herald: "While we would prefer, as we do with most ballot measures, the Legislature deal with these issues, improving the lives of hens, pigs and calves was the right thing to do in 2008. It still is. Vote yes on Proposition 12."
• San Diego Free Press: "This is an incremental improvement, opposed by those who want to preserve the status quo and those who insist on all or nothing."
• San Francisco Bay Guardian: "This one’s not easy. Prop. 12 would set stricter rules for the confinement of farm animals. It would require more space for chickens, veal calves, and breeding pigs. The Human Society and the ASPCA support it."
• Santa Cruz Sentinel: "The measure most likely would have little cost other than decreased tax revenue from farms and egg producers who might decide to get out of the egg or meat products business – which is the argument by farm industry opponents to Prop. 12 who say it may drive them out. As for the cost to consumers, McDonald’s, a major purchaser of eggs, has said the fast-food chain wouldn’t be raising prices as a result of producers having to go with cage-free hens."
• The Mercury News: "Some farmers argue that the end result will be increased prices for consumers. But McDonald’s said it wouldn’t be raising prices at all as a result of going with cage-free hens. And even if it did, it’s a small price to pay for substantially improving the lives of millions of hens, pigs and calves. Vote yes on Proposition 12."

Opposition

• Bakersfield Californian: "Now, along comes Proposition 12, which appears to be an attempt to clarify the caging requirements in Proposition 2. But some supporters of Proposition 2 are crying fowl. [Yes, it’s a pun.] They claim they were sold out by the Humane Society of the United States, which has teamed up with California egg producers to push back on caging requirements in exchange for expanding the sales prohibition and using the ballot measure for fundraising. Californians should opt out of this food fight by just voting NO."
• Los Angeles Daily News/The San Bernardino Sun: "It makes more sense for the Legislature to tackle this issue without the emotion and misinformation that accompanies a political campaign for a ballot measure. We recommend that voters say “No” to Proposition 12."
• San Francisco Chronicle: "Since Prop. 2’s passage, California egg production has dropped significantly and egg prices have risen by 33 percent, according to the California Farm Bureau. The new measure is also an effective fundraising issue for the primary proponent, the Humane Society of the United States. The Chronicle recommended a “no” vote on the first proposition, saying the ballot box is not the place to regulate this aspect of California agriculture. That is also true this time, and voters should reject Prop. 12."
• The Fresno Bee/The Sacramento Bee: "Voters should reject Proposition 12, which would ban the sale of eggs, uncooked pork and veal from farms that don’t meet new space requirements for hens, pigs and calves. ... This is one more example of an issue that should have been resolved in the Legislature, not foisted upon voters through a ballot initiative."
• The Orange County Register: "But the first red flag that something is askew here is the opposition to Proposition 12 by the well-known animal rights activist group, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals."
• The Press Democrat: "California voters took the lead in protecting egg-laying hens a decade ago. Farmers responded by investing in new cages to comply with the new law, and they are responding to consumer preferences and demands of their clients in the food service industry by increasing production of cage-free eggs. There’s no need for another new set of rules, or to have one deadline for retailers and an accelerated one for farmers. The Press Democrat recommends a no vote on Proposition 12."
• The San Diego Union-Tribune: "Animal-rights advocates say this means chickens should be allowed to stretch their wings — which requires at least 2 square feet. State regulators have not accepted this standard. But the Humane Farming Association, a San Rafael organization that lobbies for improved conditions for farm animals, says Proposition 12 amounts to “a step backward” for chickens. Because of this flaw — and because of ample signs that consumer pressure is leading grocers and farmers to care much more about the health of farm animals — The San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board recommends a no vote on Proposition 12."
• The San Luis Obispo Tribune: "“It keeps hens in cages until 2022 and then leaves them in crammed warehouses with one square foot of space thereafter. We think we can do more and we should do more,” PETA spokesman Ben Williamson told The Los Angeles Times. That’s concerning. Animal welfare groups need to stop fighting, join forces and at least attempt to write a measure that has their broad support."

Background

Did Californians approve a similar measure in 2008?

See also: California Proposition 2, Standards for Confining Farm Animals (2008)

In 2008, voters approved California Proposition 2. The Humane Society of the United States sponsored the committee Californians for Humane Farms, which spent more than $10.43 million to support Proposition 2. Opponents, organized as Californians for Sage Food, expended $8.82 million to oppose Proposition 2.

California Proposition 2 (2008)
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		8,203,769	63.5%
No		4,731,738	36.5%

Official results from the California Secretary of State

The measure prohibited the confinement of pregnant pigs, calves raised for veal, and egg-laying hens in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs. Proposition 2 took effect on January 1, 2015, which gave farmers six years to make the required changes.

The following map illustrates the election results of the ballot initiative:

Did Proposition 2 set size limits for animal confinments?

Proposition 2 did not provide specific square feet when defining prohibited confinement. Rather, the size restrictions were based on animal behavior. The initiative stated that pregnant pigs, calves raised for veal, and egg-laying hens could not be confined in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs.

Opponents claim restrictions too vague

The lack of a predetermined size for confinements led to egg producers suing the state in three lawsuits—JS West v. State of California, Cramer v. Harris, and Association of California Egg Farmers v. California. JS West, a commercial egg producer, and William Cramer, an egg farmer from Riverside County, contended that Proposition 2's restrictions on animal confinements were vague. In both cases, the courts ruled in favor of the state government. In 2011, JS West's litigation was dismissed because the law had not yet come into effect.

Cramer's complaint stated that because Proposition 2 did not outline minimum cage sizes for egg-laying hens, no one could be certain what size confinement allowed chickens to lay down, stand up, extend their limbs, and turn around freely. Therefore, according to Cramer, Proposition 2 violated the federal due process clause. In 2015, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the ballot initiative was not too vague. The Court of Appeals ruled, "Because hens have a wing span and a turning radius that can be observed and measured, a person of reasonable intelligence can determine the dimensions of an appropriate confinement that will comply with Proposition 2."

The Association of California Egg Farmers' complain was similar to Cramer's but claimed that the initiative violated the state due process clause, rather than the federal due process clause. The court ruled that defining area in terms of animal behavior, rather than square inches, did not make Proposition 2 too vague.

State sets rules for confinment size

In 2013, the California Department of Food and Agriculture issued a regulation to require in-state or out-of-state egg producers that sell eggs in California to provide egg-laying hens with at least 116 square inches (0.81 square feet) per bird. While the regulation was not meant to act as an interpretation of Proposition 2, the ballot initiative was considered when crafting the rule, according to state veterinarian Dr. Annette Jones. She said, "We actually did hire some scientists at UC Davis to do a study for us, to kind of give us their feel, based on some field trials that they did, of how much space [was required]."

Cage-free design unclear

Californians for Humane Farms, which sponsored the campaign to support Proposition 2, said the initiative would have required egg producers to shift to cage-free egg production. Paul Shapiro, a senior director for the Humane Society, stated, "At the time that Proposition 2 was voted on, the egg producers and the animal advocates all agreed that it would require a de-facto shift away from caged confinement to cage-free egg production."

Proposition 2, however, did not include explicit language stating that egg producers needed to provide hens with cage-free facilities. Furthermore, Proposition 2 did not create or authorize a government agency to enforce the ballot initiative. As the initiative designated violations as misdemeanors, local law enforcement agencies were made de facto responsible for enforcing Proposition 2's size restrictions.

Which states had restrictions on farm animal confinement?

As of 2018, there were 12 states that restrict at least one form of farm animal confinement. In Arizona, California, Florida, Massachusetts, and Ohio restructions were approved through the ballot initiative process.

Path to the ballot

See also: California signature requirements and Laws governing the initiative process in California

Process in California

In California, the number of signatures required for an initiated state statute is equal to 5 percent of the votes cast in the preceding gubernatorial election. Petitions are allowed to circulate for 180 days from the date the attorney general prepares the petition language. Signatures need to be certified at least 131 days before the general election. As the verification process can take multiple months, the secretary of state provides suggested deadlines for ballot initiatives.

The requirements to get initiated state statutes certified for the 2018 ballot:

• Signatures: 365,880 valid signatures were required.
• Deadline: The deadline for signature verification was June 28, 2018. However, the secretary of state suggested deadlines for turning in signatures of March 7, 2018, for initiatives needing a full check of signatures and April 24, 2018, for initiatives needing a random sample of signatures verified.

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 initiative 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 initiative does not make the ballot.

Initiative #17-0026

Proponents filed two versions of the initiative: Initiative #17-0026 and Initiative #17-0042. The committee backing the measure selected Initiative #17-0026 to collect signatures for. Initiative #17-0042 would have set a later effective date for the cage-free egg-laying hen requirement of 2024, whereas Initiative #17-0026 was designed to set the effect date for 2022.

On August 29, 2017, Cheri Shankar submitted a letter requiring ballot language for Initiative #17-0026. The attorney general's office issued a title and summary for the initiative on November 2, 2017, allowing proponents to begin collecting signatures. On February 22, 2018, the committee backing the initiative reported collecting at least 25 percent of the required signatures. Proponents had until May 1, 2018, to file 365,880 valid signatures to get the measure on the ballot for a future election.

In late April 2018, the Humane Society of the United States announced that supporters had collected 664,969 signatures. Counties had until June 22, 2018, to conduct a random sample of signatures. On June 22, 2018, Secretary of State Alex Padilla said his office received more than the 365,880 required signatures, qualifying the measure for the ballot. The random sample that counties conducted indicated that 474,289 signatures were valid.

Compared to the 15 ballot initiatives certified for the ballot in California in 2016, a 55.0 percent validation requirement was about seven percentage points below the average for an initiative to make the ballot. The 15 ballot initiatives from 2016 had an average validation requirement of 61.9 percent, with a range between 58.1 and 67.4 percent.

Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired AAP Holding Company, Inc. and The Monaco Group to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $2,199,613.72 was spent to collect the 365,880 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $6.01.

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting 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 requirements

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

2018 measures

• 2018 ballot measures
• Treatment of animals on the ballot
• Food and agriculture on the ballot
• 2018 legislative sessions

California

• California ballot measures
• California ballot measure laws

News and analysis

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

External links

• Initiative #17-0026

Support

• Prevent Animal Cruelty/Yes on 12 website
• Yes on Prop 12 Facebook
• Yes on Prop 12 Twitter
• Yes on Prop 12 Instagram

Opposition

• Stop the Rotten Egg Initiative/No on 12 website
• Stop the Rotten Egg Inititive/No on 12 Facebook