Proposition 67: Ban on Single-Use Plastic Bags.
Should the law passed by the Legislature banning single-use plastic bags be allowed to go into effect?
In 2014, the California Legislature passed, and the governor signed, Senate Bill (SB 270), a law that prohibited certain retail stores statewide from providing single-use carryout bags to customers. The law, sometimes known as “the plastic bag ban,” also prohibited the stores from selling or distributing a recycled paper bag at the point of sale unless the stores charged at least 10 cents per bag. The law required stores to retain the money collected from bag sales and to use the money only for specified purposes, such as covering the cost of providing carryout bags. SB 270 would have gone into effect on July 1, 2015; however, its implementation was suspended in February 2015 when this referendum qualified for the state ballot.
Proposition 67 is a referendum that asks voters to approve or reject SB 270. A YES vote on Proposition 67 means that SB 270 will go into effect. A NO vote means that SB 270 will not go into effect.
Some 150 California cities and counties (about 40% of the state’s population), have their own single-use carryout bag laws. Those cities and counties are not covered by SB 270, and their laws will remain in place regardless of the vote on Proposition 67.
Another proposition on this ballot, Proposition 65, could affect the implementation of Proposition 67. Proposition 65 would require that the 10-cent fee for carryout bags go to a new environmental fund, instead of being retained by stores. If both measures pass, the one with the most votes would prevail. Thus, if Proposition 67 receives the most votes, the 10-cent fee would be retained by the stores; if Proposition 65 receives the most votes, the 10-cent fee would go to the environmental fund, but the rest of Proposition 67 would still be implemented.
Proposition 67 would have a relatively small fiscal effect on state and local governments, including a minor increase in state administrative costs and possible minor local government savings from reduced litter and waste management costs.