Author

Ryan Byrne

Ryan Byrne is a staff writer at Ballotpedia. Contact us at editor@ballotpedia.org.

Signatures filed for D.C. ballot initiative on psilocybin mushrooms and entheogenic plants and fungi

On July 6, 2020, the campaign Decriminalize Nature D.C. reported filing 36,249 signatures with the D.C. Board of Elections for a ballot initiative on entheogenic plants and fungi. In Washington, D.C., the number of signatures required for a ballot initiative is equal to 5 percent of the district’s registered voters. As of May 31, there were 496,701 registered voters in Washington, D.C.; therefore, the signature requirement is 24,836 valid signatures.
Known as Initiative 81, the ballot initiative would declare that police shall treat the non-commercial cultivation, distribution, possession, and use of entheogenic plants and fungi as among the lowest law enforcement priorities. Initiative 81 would define entheogenic plants and fungi as species of plants and fungi that contain ibogaine, dimethyltryptamine, mescaline, psilocybin, or psilocyn. Examples include psilocybin mushrooms—also known as magic mushrooms or shrooms—peyote, and iboga. The ballot initiative would also ask the D.C. Attorney General and U.S. Attorney for D.C. to cease the prosecution of residents who engage with entheogenic plants and fungi.
The D.C. Board of Elections has 30 days from July 6 to determine if enough of the submitted signatures are valid for the initiative to appear on the November 3 ballot. D.C. also has a distribution requirement for signatures, requiring that the total number of submitted signatures include 5 percent of the registered electors in each of at least 5 of the city’s 8 wards.
In 2019, Denver, Colorado, became the first city to decriminalize psilocybin mushrooms. Denver Initiated Ordinance 301, which received 50.6 percent of the vote, declared that the adult use and possession of psilocybin mushrooms were of the city’s lowest law enforcement priorities. Initiated Ordinance 301 prohibited the city from spending resources on enforcing related penalties.
Voters in Oregon could decide a psilocybin-related initiative on November 3, 2020. The Oregon Psilocybin Society submitted signatures on June 29, 2020.


Signatures filed for Arizona ballot initiative designed to reduce prison sentences for persons convicted of non-dangerous offenses

The campaign Arizonans for Second Chances, Rehabilitation, and Public Safety (Second Chances Arizona) reported filing 397,291 signatures for a ballot initiative designed to reduce prison sentences for persons convicted of non-dangerous offenses and expand rehabilitative programs. At least 237,645 (about 59.8 percent) of the submitted signatures need to be valid for the initiative to go before voters on November 3, 2020.
The ballot initiative would define certain crimes as non-dangerous offenses, such as non-violent drug crimes. The ballot initiative would expand earned release credits for persons imprisoned for non-dangerous offenses; allow judges to impose sentences for non-dangerous offenses that are less than prescribed sentencing ranges and terms found in state code; and exclude those convicted of non-dangerous offenses from the process of charging a person as a repeat offender for multiple offenses at a single trial. The ballot initiative would also establish a Victim and First Responder Support Services Fund.
Through March 31, 2020, Second Chances Arizona received $1.27 million, with 99.8 percent from Alliance for Safety and Justice (ASJ). ASJ is a project of Tides Advocacy, a 501(c)(3) organization that provides grants to progressive charities and organizations. Along with ASJ, the ACLU of Arizona, American Conservative Union, American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) of Arizona, and FWD.us were involved in crafting the ballot initiative.
Roopali Desai, a lawyer who worked on the developing the proposal, said, “The idea here is that we’re wanting to have people in prison for long enough where it has a deterrent effect, but not so long that it breaks people to the point where they can’t reenter into society. I think voters really understand that, and they want people to have second chances.”
The process of verifying signatures could take until August 26, 2020. Secretary of State Katie Hobbs (D) has until July 31 to remove ineligible petition sheets. Counties then have until August 21, 2020, to conduct random samples. Hobbs will then have until August 26 to aggregate the random samples and announce whether the initiative will appear on the ballot.
Additional reading:


Signatures filed for Arizona ‘Invest in Ed’ initiative, which would enact an income tax surcharge for education funding

The campaign Invest in Education reported filing more than 435,000 signatures for a ballot initiative in Arizona to enact a 3.5 percent income tax, in addition to existing income taxes, on income above $250,000 (single filing) or $500,000 (joint filing). The initiative would distribute the revenue to teacher and classroom support staff salaries, teacher mentoring and retention programs, career and technical education programs, and the Arizona Teachers Academy. At least 237,645 (about 54.6 percent) of the submitted signatures need to be valid for the initiative to go before voters on November 3, 2020.
Invest in Education raised $956,338 through March 31, 2020, according to the most recent campaign finance report. The deadline for the next scheduled reports is July 15, 2020. Stand for Children, an organization that advocates for public education funding, provided $726,148 to Invest in Education. Amber Gould, a high school teacher and state director of the National Education Association, is chairperson of the campaign.
In 2018, Invest in Education collected signatures for a similar ballot initiative, which was certified for the ballot as Proposition 207. The Arizona Supreme Court removed Proposition 207 from the ballot on August 29, 2018, in a 5-2 opinion. Justices ruled that the petitions should have used the words percentage points, rather than the percent symbol to describe the tax increases, and stated that income tax brackets would no longer be adjusted for inflation. The Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry opposed the effort in 2018, contributing $911,812 to the committee opposing Proposition 207.
The process of verifying signatures could take until August 26, 2020. Secretary of State Katie Hobbs (D) has until July 31 to remove ineligible petition sheets. Counties then have until August 21, 2020, to conduct random samples. Hobbs will then have until August 26 to aggregate the random samples and announce whether the initiative will appear on the ballot.
Additional reading:


Signatures filed for Arizona ballot initiative on hospital worker minimum wage and new health insurance regulations

The campaign Healthcare Rising AZ reported filing 425,000 signatures for a ballot initiative to establish a minimum wage for hospital workers and enact several changes to healthcare insurance regulations. At least 237,645 (about 55.9 percent) of the submitted signatures need to be valid for the initiative to go before voters on November 3, 2020.
The ballot initiative would establish a minimum wage for direct care hospital workers, including nurses, aides, technicians, janitorial and housekeeping staff, food service workers, and non-managerial administrative staff. The minimum wage for hospital workers would increase 5 percent from the previous year over the course of four years, leveling out at $14.59 per hour.
The ballot initiative would enact several changes to healthcare insurance regulations, including prohibiting insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions under state law, providing the factors that insurance companies must use to determine premium rates, and prohibiting what the initiative calls surprise out-of-network bills, among other changes. The ballot initiative would also require private hospitals to meet national standards regarding hospital-acquired infections and empower the Arizona Department of Health Services to fine hospitals that do not meet those standards.
Healthcare Rising AZ has the support of the SEIU-UHW West, a labor union for healthcare workers that is based in California. Through March 31, the SEIU-UHW West and affiliated political committees have provided the campaign with $3.22 million. Sean Wherley, a spokesperson for the SEIU-UHW West, said, “SEIU-UHW’s goals are to help people in Arizona build Healthcare Rising Arizona to advocate for better and more affordable healthcare in the state and pass the ballot initiative.” Healthcare Rising AZ chairperson Jenny David, who is a registered nurse, said the campaign reached out to SEIU-UHW West about supporting the ballot initiative. David described the ballot initiative saying, “This package of improvements will fix a number of major problems in our state’s health care system to ensure that everyone can get the affordable coverage and safe care they need. These are sensible, important changes that we need to protect ourselves and ensure quality care.”
Opponents include the Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association. Ann-Marie Alameddin, the association’s CEO, stated, “This California-based union [SEIU-UHW West], famous for picketing hospitals, is asking Arizonans to vote for an initiative that won’t improve their health care and will end up costing them more. Moreover, it has a track record of using ballot initiatives not to improve health care in Arizona but to leverage its bargaining position with California hospitals.”
In 2020, the SEIU-UHW West is also supporting California Proposition 23, which would implement requirements for staffing, data reporting, and closures at dialysis clinics.
The process of verifying signatures could take until August 26, 2020. Secretary of State Katie Hobbs (D) has until July 31 to remove ineligible petition sheets. Counties then have until August 21, 2020, to conduct random samples. Hobbs will then have until August 26 to aggregate the random samples and announce whether the initiative will appear on the ballot.
Additional reading:


Campaign behind Arizona marijuana legalization ballot initiative files signatures for 2020 ballot

On July 1, the campaign Smart and Safe Arizona reported filing 420,000 signatures for a ballot initiative to legalize marijuana in Arizona. At least 237,645 (about 56.6 percent) of the submitted signatures need to be valid.
The process of verifying signatures could take until August 26, 2020. Secretary of State Katie Hobbs (D) has until July 31, 2020, to remove ineligible petition sheets. Counties then have until August 21, 2020, to conduct random samples. Hobbs will then have until August 26 to aggregate the random samples and announce whether the initiative will appear on the ballot.
The ballot initiative would legalize the possession, use, and sale of marijuana and would include a six-plant home-grow provision. The ballot initiative would provide local governments with the power to ban marijuana facilities and testing centers and give local control over elements of regulation, zoning, and licensing. Smart and Safe Arizona also included a provision to expunge some marijuana-related convictions.
In 2016, 51.3 percent of voters rejected a ballot initiative, titled Arizona Proposition 205, that would have legalized marijuana. One of the differences between Proposition 205 and this year’s ballot initiative is the proposed regulatory structure. Whereas Proposition 205 would have established a new government agency, the Department of Marijuana Licenses and Control, Smart and Safe Arizona’s proposal would make the Arizona Department of Health and Human Services responsible for adopting rules to regulate marijuana. The excise tax on marijuana sales is also 1 percentage point higher—16%—under this year’s proposal.
Smart and Safe Arizona raised $2.77 million through the most recent campaign finance filings on March 31. The deadline for the next scheduled reports is July 15, 2020. Harvest Enterprises, which is a marijuana business based in Tempe, contributed $1.03 million to Smart and Safe Arizona. Ballotpedia has not identified political action committees opposing the ballot initiative as of July 2. In 2016, opponents raised $6.37 million in their effort to defeat Proposition 205, while supporters raised $6.55 million.
Eleven states and Washington, D.C., have legalized the possession and personal use of marijuana for recreational purposes. Except in Illinois and Vermont, marijuana was legalized through the ballot initiative process.
Going into July, New Jersey and South Dakota were scheduled to vote on ballot measures to legalize recreational marijuana in November. Signatures have also been submitted for a legalization initiative in Montana.


California statewide ballot measures are finalized after one week delay

On July 1, 2020, California Secretary of State Alex Padilla (D) announced the list of ballot measures, along with their ballot order and official titles, for the election on November 3, 2020. The deadline for certifications was June 25, 2020, until Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed legislation (SB 300) that extended the deadline to July 1, 2020, for several legislative referrals.
There will be 12 ballot propositions on the general election ballot, including eight citizen-initiated measures and four legislative referrals. Since 2010, an average of 10 citizen-initiated measures have appeared on even-year ballots. Before the coronavirus pandemic struck California, an additional three campaigns were aiming to place their proposals on this year’s ballot.
On June 25, the California Association of Realtors (CAR) filed a conditional withdrawal for the group’s ballot initiative, which had never happened before in California. CAR conditioned withdrawal on the legislature passing a compromise measure, titled Proposition 19, and the legislation extending the deadline for Proposition 19 (and other legislative referrals).
Steve Reyes, chief counsel for the office of Secretary of State Padilla, agreed that a conditional withdrawal could occur. House Speaker Anthony Rendon (D-63) wrote to Secretary of State Padilla, stating, “At this point, you have no legal authority to remove Initiative #1864 from the November ballot. Our house will consider its legal options for challenging any removal of Initiative #1864 from the ballot, if that should occur.” As of July 1, Rendon had not taken legal action against Padilla for allowing CAR’s initiative to be withdrawn July 1. Legislation (SB 684) was introduced to prohibit conditional withdrawals from happening in the future.
Besides Proposition 19, the extended deadline allowed Proposition 18 to be certified for the ballot. Proposition 16 and Proposition 17—the other two legislative referrals—were passed on June 22.
You can read about each proposition certified for this year’s California ballot below:
*Proposition 14: Voters will decide a ballot initiative to give the state’s stem cell research institute another $5.5 billion via a bond issue. In 2004, voters passed a ballot measure to create a state stem cell research institute, which was funded with a $3 billion bond issue. Of that $3 billion, $132 million remained as of October 2019.
*Proposition 15: Proposition 15 would amend Proposition 13 (1978), which initiated a period in state politics known as the tax revolt. Proposition 13 required that residential, commercial, and industrial properties be taxed based on their purchase price. The tax is limited to no more than 1 percent of the purchase price (at the time of purchase), with an annual adjustment equal to the rate of inflation or 2 percent, whichever is lower. Proposition 15 would tax commercial and industrial properties based on market value, rather than their purchase price.
*Proposition 16: In 1996, voters approved Proposition 209, which prohibited the state from discriminating against or granting preferential treatment (such as affirmative action) on the basis of race, sex, or national origin in public employment, education, and contracting. Proposition 16 would repeal Proposition 209. Asm. Shirley Weber (D-79), the principal legislative sponsor of Proposition 16, said, “The ongoing pandemic, as well as recent tragedies of police violence, is forcing Californians to acknowledge the deep-seated inequality and far-reaching institutional failures that show that your race and gender still matter.” Ward Connerly, a leader of the campaign behind Proposition 209, responded to Proposition 16, saying, “I believe we would win by a landslide once we let people know what affirmative action is really about.”
*Proposition 17: Since 1974, California has allowed people convicted of felonies to vote after their imprisonment and parole sentence. Proposition 17 would allow people with felonies who are on parole to vote; therefore, the ballot measure would keep imprisonment as a disqualification for voting but remove parole status.
*Proposition 18: Voters will be asked whether 17-year-olds who will be 18 at the time of the next general election should be permitted to vote in primaries and special elections. As of July 1, 2020, 18 states, along with Washington, D.C., allowed 17-year-olds who will be 18 at the general election to vote in primaries.
*Proposition 19: Proposition 19 resulted from negotiations between the California State Legislature and California Association of Realtors (CAR). Proposition 19 would allow eligible homeowners to transfer their tax assessments anywhere within the state and allow tax assessments to be transferred to a more expensive home with an upward adjustment; require that inherited homes that are not used as principal residences, such as second homes or rentals, be reassessed at market value when transferred; and allocate additional revenue or net savings resulting from the ballot measure to wildfire agencies and counties.
*Proposition 20: Proposition 20 would amend or repeal several criminal sentencing and supervision laws passed during the second tenure of Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown (2011-2019). The ballot initiative would add  crimes to the list of violent felonies for which early parole is restricted, recategorize certain types of theft and fraud crimes as wobblers (chargeable as misdemeanors or felonies), and require DNA collection for certain misdemeanors.
*Proposition 21: After Proposition 10 was defeated in 2018, Californians will vote on a modified rent control ballot initiative this year. Proposition 21 would allow local governments to enact rent control on housing that was first occupied over 15 years ago, with an exception for landlords who own no more than two homes with distinct titles or subdivided interests.
*Proposition 22: Uber, Lyft, and Doordash are sponsoring Proposition 22, which would define app-based drivers as independent contractors and not employees, as well as enact several labor and wage policies. The ballot measure would override Assembly Bill 5 (AB 5), signed in September 2019, on the question of whether app-based drivers are employees or independent contractors. The ballot measure could be the most expensive this year, with the campaign behind Proposition 22 raising $110.7 million through March 31.
*Proposition 23: The SEIU-UHW West, a labor union for healthcare workers, is backing a second ballot initiative to enact policies related to dialysis clinics after votes rejected one in 2018. Proposition 23 would require chronic dialysis clinics to: have an on-site physician while patients are being treated; report data on dialysis-related infections; obtain consent from the state health department before closing a clinic; and not discriminate against patients based on the source of payment for care. In 2018, the SEIU-UHW West attempted to pass a ballot initiative to require dialysis clinics to issue refunds for profits above a threshold. DaVita and Fresenius Medical Care opposed the ballot initiative, raising more than $101 million between the two companies.
*Proposition 24: In 2018, Alastair Mactaggart, a real estate developer, funded a campaign to get the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA) on the ballot. His campaign withdrew its initiative after negotiating with the legislature to pass a version of the CCPA. Mactaggart is back with a proposal to expand the CCPA and create a state agency to enforce consumer data privacy laws. He didn’t want compromise legislation this time around, citing the state constitution’s limits on legislative alteration. “The only thing I want to make sure is they can’t undo the act,” said Mactaggart.
*Proposition 25: In 2019, California became the first state to pass a law ending cash bail for all detained suspects awaiting trials. Instead, the law would replace the state’s cash bail system with risk assessments. The American Bail Coalition, a nonprofit trade association, organized a political action committee to sponsor a veto referendum, which became Proposition 25, that would give voters the final word on the law.
Additional reading:


Californians to decide ballot measure on allowing 17-year-olds to vote in primaries and special elections

On June 26, the California State Legislature placed on the ballot a constitutional amendment to allow 17-year-olds who will be 18 at the time of the next general election to vote in primary elections and special elections. The constitutional amendment will appear on the ballot for November 3, 2020, or March 8, 2022, depending on the outcome of Senate Bill 300.

The California State Senate voted 31 to 7 to pass the amendment—Assembly Constitutional Amendment 4—on June 25, 2020. Senate Democrats, along with two Senate Republicans, voted for the amendment. Seven Senate Republicans opposed the amendment. The California State Assembly voted 56 to 13 to pass ACA 4 on June 26, 2020. Fifty-five Assembly Democrats, along with one Assembly Republican, supported the amendment. Twelve Assembly Republicans, along with one Assembly Democrat, voted against the amendment. As a constitutional amendment, the governor’s signature is not required for the issue to appear on the ballot.

California would be the 19th state to expand voting in primaries to 17-year-olds who will be 18 at the time of the next general election. Ohio was the first state to enact 17-year-old voting for primaries. Colorado was the most recent state, adopting the policy in 2019.

Since the constitutional amendment was passed on June 26, it missed the deadline of June 25, 2020, for the legislature to place measures on the November ballot. However, the legislature is considering Senate Bill 300 (SB 300), which would extend the deadline to July 1 for the constitutional amendment and several others. SB 300 will need to pass both legislative chambers and be signed by the governor.

Due to negotiations to withdraw a ballot initiative and SB 300, the constitutional amendment could be one of 12 or 13 measures on California’s November ballot this year.

Additional Reading:



California consumer privacy ballot initiative qualifies for November ballot

On June 24, the ninth—and final—ballot initiative qualified for the general election ballot in California. Titled the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020, the ballot initiative would expand the state’s consumer privacy law that was passed in 2018 and create a new government organization, called the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA), to enforce the law.

Californians for Consumer Privacy, which is leading the campaign behind the ballot initiative, needed to collect 623,212 valid signatures. On May 4, 2020, the campaign submitted 930,983 signatures. Therefore, 66.9 percent of the signatures needed to be valid. Counties conducted random samples of signatures, which projected that 77.5 percent were valid, allowing the ballot initiative to go before voters.

Alastair Mactaggart, a San Francisco-based real estate developer, filed the ballot initiative. He was the proponent of a different proposal that qualified for the ballot in 2018, but the ballot initiative was withdrawn after negotiations with the California State Legislature. Negotiations resulted in the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA), which his new proposal would amend and add additional provisions to.

With the new ballot initiative, Mactaggart said his intention “is to go to the ballot.” He described the CCPA of 2018 as a “great baseline. But I think there are additional rights that Californians deserve.” Unlike the CCPA, which the legislature passed, a ballot initiative can’t be amended without the approval of voters at the ballot box due to the state constitution’s limits on legislative alteration. “The only thing I want to make sure is they can’t undo the act,” said Mactaggart, “There is basically unlimited resources on one side of the fight. If you don’t do anything, they will win eventually.”

The CCPA (2018) was designed to require companies that store personal information to disclose to consumers what types of information are collected and allow consumers to request that certain businesses not disclose or sell their personal information. The ballot initiative would also require businesses to not share a consumer’s personal information upon the consumer’s request; provide consumers with an opt-out option for having their sensitive personal information used or disclosed for advertising or marketing; obtain permission before collecting data from consumers who are younger than 16; obtain permission from a parent or guardian before collecting data from consumers who are younger than 13; and correct a consumer’s inaccurate personal information upon the consumer’s request. It would also remove the ability of businesses to fix violations before being penalized for violations.

Through March 31, 2020, Californians for Consumer Privacy raised $4.75 million, with Mactaggart as the sole funder. Currently, there is no organized opposition. Mactaggart’s last proposal, which resulted in the CCPA being passed, was opposed by Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Microsoft, among others.

The signature verification deadline for statewide ballot initiatives in California was June 25, 2020. The consumer privacy initiative was the last initiative pending signature verification for the 2020 ballot. Citizens can collect signatures for veto referendums against adopted legislation, with the referendum signature verification deadline set for 31 days before the election. As of June 25, no veto referendum campaigns were active in California.

Additional Reading:



Californians to vote on ballot measure to provide state stem cell research institute with more money

With the signature verification deadline on June 25, the eighth citizen-initiated measure has qualified for the ballot in California. On June 22, the office of Secretary of State Alex Padilla announced that enough signatures had been collected for a ballot initiative to fund the state’s stem cell research institute with a $5.5 billion general obligation bond.

In 2004, voters approved Proposition 71, which created the institute, which is known as the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM); issued $3.00 billion in bonds to finance CIRM; and established a state constitutional right to conduct stem cell research. As of October 2019, CIRM had $132 million in funds remaining. On July 1, 2019, CIRM suspended applications for new projects due to depleted funds.

Californians for Stem Cell Research, Treatments & Cures is leading the campaign in support of the ballot initiative. Through June 22, the campaign had raised $2.07 million, with Robert N. Klein II providing $4.63 million of that total. Klein is chairperson of the campaign, and he was the chairperson of the campaign behind Proposition 71 in 2004. Klein also served as the first chair of the committee that governs CIRM. Klein is a real estate investor who cites his son’s Type 1 diabetes as one reason for his involvement in stem cell research.

Besides issuing a $5.5 billion grant for CIRM, the ballot initiative would also make changes to the institute’s structure, in part to provide more resources related to treatment access. CIRM has three working groups that advise the governing committee, one each for medical research funding, research standards, and facilities grants. The ballot initiative would create a fourth working group, which would focus on improving access to treatments and cures.

Californians last voted on a bond measure at the election on March 3, 2020. Proposition 13 would have issued $15 billion for school and college facilities, but 53 percent of voters rejected the proposal. Since 1993, voters have rejected 12 of 44 (27.3 percent) bond issues on the statewide ballot in California. Most of the bond measures (36 of 44) were legislative referrals. The remaining eight were citizen-initiated measures. Voters approved 75 percent of the legislature’s bond measures and 62.5 percent of citizen-initiated bond measures.

Unless the California State Legislature passes a bond measure for the general election ballot before June 25, which is the deadline to refer ballot measures, the stem cell bond ballot initiative will be the only bond issue on the California ballot in November.

Additional Reading:



Voters in California will decide a ballot initiative to enact new dialysis clinic requirements

Californians will vote on a ballot initiative related to dialysis clinics for the second general election in a row unless the proposal is withdrawn. On June 15, the office of California Secretary of State Alex Padilla announced that enough signatures were collected for a dialysis clinic-related ballot initiative to appear on the November 3 ballot. Proponents filed 1.01 million signatures in April. At least 623,212 of the signatures needed to be valid. Based on random samples, an estimated 739,326 signatures were valid.

The ballot initiative would require chronic dialysis clinics to: have an on-site physician while patients are being treated; report data on dialysis-related infections; obtain consent from the state health department before closing a clinic; and not discriminate against patients based on the source of payment for care.

In 2018, voters rejected a ballot initiative, titled Proposition 8, that would have required dialysis clinics to refund patients (or their insurers) for profits above a certain threshold. Proposition 8 was the most expensive ballot measure of 2018, with campaign committees receiving a combined $130.43 million. Opponents raised 85 percent ($111.48 million) of the $130.43 million. Contributors to the opposition campaign included DaVita ($67.03 million), Fresenius Medical Care North America (33.98 million), and U.S. Renal Care ($8.18 million). Supporters raised $18.94 million, with $17.87 million coming from the SEIU-UHW West.

Based on the most recent campaign finance filings on March 31, the conflict surrounding the union’s new ballot initiative involves the same organizations as Proposition 8. The SEIU-UHW West has raised $5.91 million. Opponents have raised $2.02 million, with DaVita and Fresenius each providing $1.01 million.

The ballot initiative is the seventh to qualify for the November 2020 ballot in California. The deadline for signature verification is June 25. Two ballot initiatives are currently undergoing a random sample of signatures. The California State Legislature also has until June 25 to refer measures to the general election ballot.

Additional Reading:



Bitnami