presents
Voter's Edge California Voter Guide
Get the facts before you vote.
Brought to you by
MapLight
League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
California State Library@CAStateLibrary
November 3, 2020 — California General Election
Invest in unbiased information

With your support, we can reach and inform more voters.

Donate now to spread the word.

State of California
Proposition 25 — Yes or No on Getting Rid of Bail Referendum - Majority Approval Required

To learn more about measures, follow the links for each tab in this section. For most screenreaders, you can hit Return or Enter to enter a tab and read the content within.

REFERENDUM ON LAW THAT REPLACED MONEY BAIL SYSTEM WITH A SYSTEM BASED ON PUBLIC SAFETY AND FLIGHT RISK.  

A "Yes" vote approves, and a "No" vote rejects, law replacing money bail with system based on public safety and flight risk.

Fiscal impact: Increased costs possibly in mid hundreds of millions of dollars annually for a new process for release from jail prior to trial. Decreased county jail costs, possibly in high tens of millions of dollars annually.

Put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures 

What is this proposal?

Easy Voter Guide — Summary for new and busy voters

Information provided by The League of Women Voters of California Education Fund

The way it is now

Prop 25 asks voters to decide if the state should get rid of bail. When a person is charged witha crime, they may have to stay in jail while waiting for a trial. One way that people are released from jail is by paying bail. Bail is money used to guarantee that a person will return to court. The state passed a law in 2018 that would replace bail with a new system. This law has not yet gone into effect. Under the new system, people charged with less serious crimes would be released without having to pay bail. Courts would determine if people charged with more serious crimes should be released. A judge could keep someone in jail if the judge decides they are a danger to the public or might not return to court. Certain people released from jail could be required to check in with a probation officer or wear a tracking device.

What if it passes?

Voting “yes” on Prop 25 would get rid of the bail system and allow the state’s new law to go into effect. People charged with less serious crimes would be released before trial. Judges would decide if people charged with more serious crimes should be released or kept in jail, based on whether they are considered a danger to the public or might not return to court. Voting “no” on Prop 25 would keep the state’s current bail system in place.

Budget effect

Getting rid of bail would cost state and local governments in the mid hundreds of millions of dollars each year. Counties would save in the high tens of millions of dollars each year due to lower jail costs.

People FOR say

  • The current bail system is unfair; if you cannot afford bail, you must stay in jail.
  • Prop 25 means that decisions will be based on public safety, not a person’s ability to pay.

People AGAINST say

  • The state’s new system could discriminate against African Americans, Latinos and people who live in low-income neighborhoods.
  • Releasing people from jail will make our communities less safe.

Pros & Cons — Unbiased explanation with arguments for and against

Information provided by League of Women Voters of California Education Fund

The Question

Should the law enacted by the California Legislature to replace the current money bail system be approved?

The Situation

In 2018, the Legislature passed SB10, which would do away with the money bail system so that people arrested or arraigned in court might not have to post bail in order to stay free pending their trial. SB10 did not go into effect because this referendum was filed.

Currently, the State Constitution provides that people arrested and placed in county jail have the right to release before their trial. The trial courts must consider the (1) seriousness of the crime involved, (2) person’s prior criminal record, and (3) likelihood of the person appearing at court for the trial.

In some instances, a person can be released from jail before trial just on his/her promise to appear at the trial. In other instances, the person must provide a financial guarantee that he/she will appear. In those cases, the person can put up their own assets as the financial guarantee, to be returned when he/she shows up at the trial. Or the person can arrange for a bail insurance policy to provide the financial guarantee. Bail insurance companies charge non-refundable fees to provide these financial guarantees.

The Proposal

Prop 25 would allow SB10 to go into effect. SB10 would eliminate the cash bail system. The legislation would replace the cash bail system with risk assessments to determine whether a detained suspect should be released before their trial. To do this, the state would create a system of risk assessments which would categorize suspects as low risk, medium risk, or high risk. Suspects deemed as having a low risk of failing to appear in court and a low risk to public safety would be released from jail, while those deemed a high risk would remain in jail, with a chance to argue for their release before a judge. Those deemed a medium risk could be released or kept in jail. In some cases, many people suspected of misdemeanors would be automatically release.

Fiscal effect

Prop 25 would impact both state and local costs, but how much is uncertain and would depend on how it would be interpreted and implemented. The new release process would increase the workload for state trial courts, district attorneys and public defenders. These costs could be in the mid hundreds of millions of dollars annually. On the other hand, there could be reduced jail costs if fewer people are being held in jail or for shorter time periods.

Supporters say

  • The current system favors rich defendants who can easily make bail and keeps poor defendants and defendants of color in jail.
  • People who are eventually found not guilty or not even charged may be stuck with large debts to pay off the bail or the fees. 

Opponents say

  • The intentions of SB10 are good, but its provisions may effectively result in more people being jailed than under the current situation.
  • Prop 25 will cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars a year, overburdening courts and creating a new bureaucracy.

Measure Details — Official information about this measure

YES vote means

A YES vote on this measure means: No one would pay bail to be released from jail before trial. Instead, people would either be released automatically or based on their assessed risk of committing another crime or not appearing in court if released. No one would be charged fees as a condition of release.

NO vote means

A NO vote on this measure means: Some people would continue to pay bail to be released from jail before trial. Fees may continue to be charged as a condition of release.

Summary

Source: California Attorney General's Office - Official Voter Information Guide p. 72

OFFICIAL TITLE AND SUMMARY
PREPARED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

PROPOSITION 25.
REFERENDUM ON LAW THAT REPLACED MONEY BAIL SYSTEM WITH A SYSTEM BASED ON PUBLIC SAFETY AND FLIGHT RISK. 

A “Yes” vote approves, and a “No” vote rejects, a 2018 law that:

  • Replaced the money bail system (for obtaining release from jail before trial) with a system based on a determination of public safety and flight risk.
  • Limits detention of a person in jail before trial for most misdemeanors.

SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S ESTIMATE OF NET STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FISCAL IMPACT:

  • Increased state and local costs possibly in the mid hundreds of millions of dollars annually for a new process for releasing people from jail prior to trial. Unclear whether some of the increased state costs would be offset by local funds currently spent on this type of workload.
  • Decreased county jail costs possibly in the high tens of millions of dollars annually.
  • Unknown net impact on state and local tax revenues generally related to people spending money on goods rather than paying for release from jail prior to trial.

https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2020/general/pdf/complete-vig.pdf#page=72

 

Background

Source: California Legislative Analyst's Office - Official Voter Information Guide pp. 72-74

BACKGROUND

RELEASE FROM JAIL BEFORE TRIAL CAN OCCUR IN TWO WAYS

Placement in Jail After Arrest. People charged with a crime must attend various trial court proceedings before the actual case can be heard in trial court. The first court proceeding—also known as arraignment—involves the court telling people of the charges filed against them and appointing an attorney if needed. Some people who are arrested are taken to county jail before arraignment. County sheriffs running the jail can choose to release the person immediately or place the person in the jail.

Release From Jail Before Trial. Under the State Constitution, people arrested and placed into county jail—except for certain felony crimes—have the right to release before trial. The Constitution specifies that these people shall be released under conditions that are not excessive. When making decisions related to releasing a person before trial, trial courts must consider the (1) seriousness of the crime the person is accused of, (2) person’s prior criminal record, and (3) likelihood of the person appearing in court. The courts may use different pieces of information, including risk assessment tools (discussed in more detail below), to help make these decisions. Under state law, people generally are released from jail before trial in one of two ways:

  • Own Recognizance. Trial courts can release people on their “own recognizance” (OR), which generally refers to a person’s promise to appear at future required court proceedings. County sheriffs running jails can also release people on OR under certain conditions.
  • Bail. People can be released on bail. Bail generally refers to a financial guarantee that a person will appear in court as required.

Pretrial Risk Assessment Tools. To help with decisions about whether to release people prior to trial, most courts and counties use tools to assess the risk (or likelihood) that a person released will commit a new crime or fail to appear in court. These tools were developed based on research that shows people with certain traits (such as being younger) are more likely to commit a new crime or fail to appear in court. The tools assign points based on people’s traits. For example, one tool assigns more points to people who are younger than 22 years of age as they are more likely to commit crimes than older people. Similarly, people who failed to appear in court multiple times in the past are less likely to appear in the future and would receive more points. A person’s risk level is determined by the total number of points received. This risk level is then used to help decide if the person should be released and under what conditions.

RELEASE ON BAIL

Bail Amount Determined by Each Trial Court. State law requires that the trial court in each county adopt a bail schedule. This schedule lists the amount of bail needed for release for each crime. Bail schedules generally vary by county but require more bail for more serious crimes. For example, the current Los Angeles County bail schedule requires $20,000 for forgery and $250,000 for arson of a home.

Bail Provided in Two Ways. These ways are:

  • Provided by Person to Court. A person can provide cash, property, or other items to the trial court that equals the amount of bail required for release. This is generally returned if the person appears in court as required.
  • Provided by Bail Agent. A person can pay a nonrefundable fee to a bail agent to buy a bail bond that is backed by an insurance company. This fee is typically no more than 10 percent of the person’s bail amount. By providing the bond, the bail agent agrees to pay the full bail amount if the person does not appear in court as required. If this happens, the bail agent can seek repayment from the person.

Failure to Appear Rarely Results in Payment of Full Bail Amount. If a person does not appear in court as required, the court can decide that bail is owed. State law defines when the full bail amount must be paid. For example, bail is not paid if the person is returned to custody by law enforcement or by bail recovery staff (sometimes called “bounty hunters”) within 180 days of the court’s decision. Bail is also not paid in other cases, such as if the court fails to properly notify the insurance company that bail must be paid. As a result, bail is actually paid in only a small number of cases. Counties and cities receive this paid bail.

Bail Bond Industry Regulated by State. This includes licensing about 2,500 bail agents and monitoring the fee charged for a bail bond set by about 20 insurance companies that back such bonds. The state also investigates and can administratively address complaints against bail agents and insurance companies. Additionally, the state works with local governments to prosecute criminal violations by bail agents and insurance companies in the courts. The state charges fees to help support regulation costs.

In 2018, the bail industry issued about $6 billion in bail bonds and collected about $560 million in bail bond fees. Insurance companies are required to pay a 2.4 percent state insurance tax on these fees—about $13 million in 2018.

RELEASE FROM JAIL CAN OCCUR AT DIFFERENT TIMES BEFORE TRIAL

Release Process Before Arraignment. People can generally be released from jail before arraignment after providing bail as listed in the bail schedule for certain crimes. In some counties, trial courts can allow other entities (such as county probation departments) to release certain people on OR before arraignment. These people can be required to obey certain conditions (such as regularly checking in with county probation staff). Those who do not provide bail or are not released on OR are detained until arraignment.

Release Process After Arraignment. At arraignment, the court decides whether to (1) hold people in jail, (2) change the amount of bail required for release, or (3) release the person on OR. People who are not released on OR and unable to provide the required bail generally are held in county jail. The court can require those who are released to obey certain conditions. In some cases, people are charged fees related to pretrial release. For example, a person may be charged for the cost of electronic monitoring, which may be a condition ordered by the court. The court can modify these decisions until trial or until the case is otherwise resolved.

PASSAGE OF NEW BAIL AND PRETRIAL LAW

IN 2018 In 2018, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed a law—Senate Bill (SB) 10—to eliminate bail and change the processes for getting released from jail before trial. This law would have gone into effect on October 1, 2019. However, this did not happen because a referendum on SB 10 qualified for this ballot in January 2019. Under the State Constitution, when a referendum on a new state law qualifies for the ballot, the law goes on hold until voters determine whether to put it in effect. 

https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2020/general/pdf/complete-vig.pdf#page=72

Impartial analysis / Proposal

Source: California Legislative Analyst's Office - Official Voter Information Guide pp. 74-75

PROPOSAL

Determines Whether New Bail and Pretrial Law Goes Into Effect. Proposition 25 is a referendum on SB 10 and will determine whether the bill will go into effect. A “yes” vote means SB 10 will go into effect and a “no” vote rejects SB 10. Specifically, approval of this proposition would (1) eliminate release on bail, (2) create a new process for release before arraignment, and (3) change the existing process for release at arraignment.

ELIMINATES RELEASE ON BAIL

Proposition 25 eliminates release from county jail on bail before trial.

CREATES NEW PROCESS FOR RELEASE BEFORE ARRAIGNMENT

Require Automatic Release for Most Misdemeanor Crimes. This proposition requires people placed in county jail for most misdemeanors, which are less serious crimes than felonies, to be automatically released within 12 hours of being placed in jail. Certain people placed in jail for misdemeanors, such as those placed in jail for domestic violence or who have failed to appear in court more than two times in the past year, would not be automatically released.

Release for Felonies and Some Misdemeanors Require Assessment. This proposition requires that people placed in jail for (1) felonies and (2) misdemeanors that are ineligible for automatic release be assessed for their risk of committing a new crime or failing to appear in court if released. Assessment staff would collect certain information, including each person’s risk level as determined by a pretrial risk assessment tool. Staff would generally be required to release people found to be low risk. Depending on rules made by each trial court, certain medium risk people would also be released by assessment staff or by a judge. People who are released could be required to obey certain conditions. These conditions could include supervision, such as regular check-ins with county probation staff or electronic monitoring. However, the conditions of low-risk people could not include supervision. The court could change the conditions for good cause. Unlike current law, no fees could be charged as a condition of release. High-risk people, medium-risk people who are not released, and certain others (such as those charged with certain severe felonies, including murder or arson of a home) would remain in county jail until arraignment. Assessment and any release would need to be completed no later than 36 hours from a person being placed in jail.

Trial Courts Responsible for Pretrial Assessment. Proposition 25 makes state trial courts responsible for pretrial assessment. This includes various activities, such as: (1) determining risk levels using pretrial risk assessment tools, (2) collecting additional information related to a person’s risk, (3) releasing certain people based on their risk level, and (4) suggesting conditions of pretrial release to the court. The trial court could use court employees as assessment staff or contract with certain local public agencies (such as the county probation department) to perform these activities. If neither the court nor an existing local public agency would be willing or able to do so, the court could contract with a new local public agency created specifically to perform these activities.

CHANGES PROCESS FOR RELEASE AT ARRAIGNMENT

At arraignment, people in jail would generally be released on OR. District attorneys could request a hearing to detain people in jail until trial regardless of whether they were previously released. People would only be detained in certain circumstances—such as if the court decided there were no conditions that could ensure they would not commit a crime or fail to appear in court. Those released could be required to follow certain conditions but could not be charged fees as a condition of release. After arraignment, the district attorney or public defender could request a detention hearing in certain circumstances, such as if there was new evidence in the case. The court could modify OR decisions and conditions of release in certain circumstances, such as if new information was provided by pretrial assessment staff. 

https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2020/general/pdf/complete-vig.pdf#page=74

Financial effect

Source: California Legislative Analyst's Office - Official Voter Information Guide p. 75

FISCAL EFFECTS

Proposition 25 would impact both state and local costs. The actual size of these effects is uncertain and would depend on how the proposition is interpreted and implemented. For example, it is unclear how many people the courts would release pretrial and the conditions they would be required to follow. As such, the effects could be higher or lower than the estimates below.

Increased State and Local Pretrial Release Costs. The new pretrial release process would increase workload for state trial courts, as well as county district attorneys and public defenders. For example, there would be workload related to the new detention hearings. This increase in workload could be offset by reductions in other workload. For example, workload from hearings about the amount of bail required would be eliminated.

Additionally, state costs would increase as the state trial courts would be responsible for pretrial assessment. The state would also likely have increased supervision costs, such as due to an increase in the number of people being supervised after being released pretrial.

In total, increased state and local pretrial costs could be in the mid hundreds of millions of dollars annually. This amount is less than 1 percent of the state’s current General Fund budget. The actual size of the increase in costs would depend on various factors. Major factors include the number of people released pretrial, their conditions of release (such as how much supervision is required), and the costs of these conditions. It is unclear whether some of the increased state costs would be offset by existing local government spending on pretrial workload.

Decreased County Jail Costs. This proposition would reduce county jail populations. This is largely because more people would likely be released pretrial on OR rather than remain in jail. For example, some people who would have been unable to pay bail would be released under the new pretrial process. However, some of this decline in the jail population could be offset by other factors. For example, some people—who otherwise would have been released on bail—could end up being detained until trial. On net, we estimate that the reduction in the jail population would reduce costs to local county jails, possibly in the high tens of millions of dollars annually. The actual decrease would depend on the number of people placed into jail as well as release decisions made by the courts. These resources would likely be redirected to other county activities.

Impact on State and Local Tax Revenues. This proposition would impact both state and local tax revenues. On the one hand, it would reduce state and local tax revenues. For example, insurance companies would no longer pay taxes on bail bond fees. On the other hand, state and local tax revenues could increase. For example, people could buy goods with money that would have otherwise been spent on bail bond fees. If these goods were subject to sales taxes, this would increase both state and local tax revenues. The total net impact on state and local tax revenues is unknown. 

https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2020/general/pdf/complete-vig.pdf#page=75

Published Arguments — Arguments for and against the ballot measure

Arguments FOR

Arguments are the opinions of the authors, and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. 

Yes on 25 replaces money bail with a fairer, safer and less costly process. Currently, if a person can afford to pay a bail bond company, they go free until trial. If they can't afford to pay, even if they're innocent, they stay in jail. That's blatant discrimination. Vote YES.

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR:
Yes on Prop. 25, End Money Bail
1130 K Street, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95814
(213) 373-5225
info@yesoncaprop25.com
yesoncaprop25.com

— Source: California Secretary of State / Official Voter Information Guide p. 13

Arguments FOR

Arguments are the opinions of the authors, and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. 

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 25

Now is the time to replace California’s money bail system with one based on safety and fairness.

End money bail. Vote YES on Proposition 25 for a safer, fairer and less costly system.

MONEY BAIL IS UNFAIR:

Under the current money bail system, if you can afford to pay bail, you go free until your trial. If you can’t afford bail, you must stay in jail. So, the rich can go free, even when accused of serious violent crimes, while the poor stay in jail even when innocent or accused of low-level nonviolent offenses. Money bail doesn’t make us safer, and it results in gross injustice.

Just one example, senior citizen Kenneth Humphrey was accused of stealing $5 and a bottle of cologne. He was forced to wait in jail nearly a year before his court date, not because he was dangerous, but because he couldn’t pay bail. A California appellate court ruled Mr. Humphrey was “imprisoned solely due to poverty.” Unfortunately, there are thousands of these stories.

MONEY BAIL IS UNSAFE:

Proposition 25 means decisions will be based on risk to our safety, not a person’s ability to pay. Judges will determine whether a person poses a risk of committing new crimes or fleeing when deciding who is held pretrial— decisions won’t be made based on the size of the person’s wallet.

Proposition 25 makes our communities safer by ensuring jail space is reserved for those who are actually dangerous and shouldn’t be released, instead of the poor.

MONEY BAIL IS COSTLY:

Proposition 25 will save taxpayers tens of millions of dollars a year. Under the current system, approximately 46,000 Californians await trial or sentencing in local jails because they can’t afford money bail, costing taxpayers $5 million every day.

Let’s end money bail. Vote YES on Proposition 25 for a SAFER, FAIRER, LESS COSTLY system.

INNOCENT PEOPLE SUFFER:

The money bail system can force innocent people to plead guilty to crimes they didn’t commit.

When the innocent can’t afford a nonrefundable fee of $5,000 or more to a bail bond company, but also can’t afford to stay in jail, risking their jobs or homes while they await their trial, some will plead guilty, resulting in a permanent criminal record. In jail, most will receive little or no mental healthcare, and for many, incarceration will make their existing conditions worse.

A YES vote helps ensure innocent people will no longer be forced to languish in jail or plead guilty to crimes they didn’t commit.

Vote YES on Proposition 25.

THE PREDATORY MONEY BAIL INDUSTRY DOESN’T CARE ABOUT OUR COMMUNITIES:

But don’t expect the money bail industry to go quietly. It’s a $2 billion for-profit industry, led by predatory bail bond insurance corporations that get rich off the poor. Proposition 25 ends an unjust system that profiteers off working people, which is why the money bail industry is spending millions to fight this measure.

Safety should be our guiding principle, not the size of anyone’s wallet.

Vote YES on Proposition 25.

www.YesOnCAProp25.com

LENORE ANDERSON, President
Californians for Safety and Justice

DIANA BECTON, Contra Costa County District Attorney

HEIDI L. STRUNK, President
Mental Health America of California 

https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2020/general/pdf/complete-vig.pdf#page=76

— Source: California Secretary of State - Official Voter Information Guide pp. 76-77

Arguments AGAINST

Arguments are the opinions of the authors, and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. 

Prop. 25 was written by Sacramento politicians to take away every Californian's option to post bail and replaces this right with a DISCRIMINATORY system of computer-generated PROFILING administered by government bureaucrats—costing taxpayers hundreds of millions a year. Prop. 25 is unfair, unsafe and costly. Vote NO on Prop. 25.

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AGAINST:
No on Prop 25—Stop the Unfair, Unsafe and Costly Ballot Proposition
(916) 209-0144
info@stopprop25.com
StopProp25.com

— Source: California Secretary of State / Official Voter Information Guide p. 13

Arguments AGAINST

Arguments are the opinions of the authors, and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. 

ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 25

PROP. 25 ELIMINATES THE RIGHT TO BAIL FOR EVERY CALIFORNIAN

California’s justice system guarantees that people accused of a non-violent crime have the CHOICE of securing their release by posting bail or by order of a judge. But Prop. 25 replaces this right with an automated system of computergenerated predictive modeling based on mathematical algorithms administered by 58 different counties. Read why civil rights leaders, law enforcement, victims’ rights groups and county officials all say NO on Prop. 25.

CIVIL RIGHTS GROUPS WARN: PROP. 25 IS MORE BIASED AGAINST MINORITIES AND THE POOR
Prop. 25 imposes a computer-based system of algorithms to make important criminal justice decisions. Civil rights groups like the NAACP oppose Prop. 25 because it will create more biased outcomes against people of color and those from economically disadvantaged areas.

  • “Prop. 25 will be even more-discriminatory against African-Americans, Latinos and other minorities. Computer models may be good for recommending songs and movies, but using these profiling methods to decide who gets released from jail or who gets a loan has been proven to hurt communities of color.”—Alice Huffman, President, California State Conference of the NAACP

PROP. 25: MAKES COMMUNITIES LESS SAFE
California’s experiment with “zero bail” during the coronavirus pandemic had disastrous results as many defendants were arrested—released back on the streets and committed new crimes within hours—and then rearrested the same day. Prop. 25 will make “zero bail” permanent, which is why law enforcement throughout the state oppose it.

  • “Prop. 25 will endanger public safety and makes it harder for police and sheriff’s departments to do our jobs.”—Chad Bianco, Riverside County Sheriff

PROP. 25: DENIES JUSTICE
California’s current system provides justice by ensuring people accused of a crime appear for trial and holds defendants accountable for their actions if they don’t.

  • “Prop. 25 destroys one of the best tools our communities have to make sure defendants appear and face their day in court.”—Christine Ward, Executive Director, Crime Victims Alliance

PROP. 25: COSTS TAXPAYERS HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS EACH YEAR
Prop. 25 forces counties to create a new bureaucracy to determine who will and will not get released from jail pending trial. This new state mandate will cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars to implement at a time when state and county budgets are facing historic budget cuts due to the coronavirus.

  • “Prop. 25 will cost state and local governments several hundred million dollars each year. This will force us to cut vital public services or raise taxes, something our local communities can’t afford right now.”—Sue Frost, Sacramento County Supervisor

PROP. 25: OVERBURDENS ALREADY OVER-CROWDED COURTS
Prop. 25 replaces a bail system that works well at almost no cost to taxpayers with a new system that requires additional court hearings to overrule the computer’s decision, leading to even longer delays in our backlogged justice system.

  • “Imagine a spouse, son, daughter or close friend stuck in jail at the mercy of computers and the bureaucracy, instead of having the immediate choice of getting out on bail or the ability to speak directly to a judge.”— Quentin L. Kopp, Retired California Superior Court Judge

VOTE NO ON PROP. 25!

ALICE HUFFMAN, President
California State Conference of the NAACP

CHRISTINE WARD, Executive Director
Crime Victims Alliance

QUENTIN L. KOPP, Retired California Superior Court Judge

https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2020/general/pdf/complete-vig.pdf#page=77

— Source: California Secretary of State - Official Voter Information Guide pp. 76-77

Replies to Arguments FOR

Arguments are the opinions of the authors, and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. 

REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 25

PROP. 25: UNFAIR, UNSAFE AND COSTLY

Written by Sacramento politicians, Prop. 25 eliminates the option to post bail for every Californian and replaces this right with a county-administered system of COMPUTERBASED PROFILING to determine who goes free and who stays behind bars pending trial. Read why civil rights groups, crime victims’ advocates, law enforcement and local officials all say NO on Prop. 25.

PROP. 25 IS UNFAIR

Prop. 25’s computer profiling has been shown to discriminate against minorities and people from neighborhoods with higher concentrations of immigrants and low-income residents, which is why civil rights groups like the NAACP and United Latinos Vote say NO on Prop. 25.

PROP. 25 IS UNSAFE Bail is an important constitutional right and ensures defendants satisfy the terms of their jail release and appear for trial and holds them accountable if they don’t. California’s recent experiment with “zero bail” during the coronavirus pandemic was disastrous, with many defendants arrested, released, and rearrested multiple times in one day. Prop. 25 would make zero bail permanent, which is why law enforcement and victims’ rights groups say NO on Prop. 25.

PROP. 25 IS COSTLY

Prop. 25 will require additional court hearings to overrule a computer’s decision, causing more delays in our already backlogged courts. As cities and counties face historic budget deficits and devastating cuts to essential services, Prop. 25 will cost local governments and California hundreds of millions of dollars more each year to build and administer a new bureaucracy—which is why local officials and taxpayer advocates say NO on Prop. 25.

VOTE NO ON PROP. 25!

ALICE HUFFMAN, President
California State Conference of the NAACP

CHRISTINE WARD, Executive Director
Crime Victims Alliance

JOE COTO, President
United Latinos Vote 

https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2020/general/pdf/complete-vig.pdf#page=76

— Source: California Secretary of State - Official Voter Information Guide pp. 76-77

Replies to Arguments AGAINST

Arguments are the opinions of the authors, and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. 

REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 25

Money bail is a discriminatory and discredited system.

Help us end it. Vote YES on Prop. 25.

Today, the rich can pay their bail and get out of jail, no matter how violent the crime charged. Money bail is unjust and unfair.

Why should poor people charged with nonviolent misdemeanors sit in jail while the rich get out, simply because they can’t afford to pay bail? They shouldn’t. Money bail is only a “right” for those who can afford it. People don’t even get their bail money back if they’re innocent or charges get dropped.

The massive bail industry, including Bankers Insurance Company and Lexington National Insurance Corporation, are spending their billions to protect their profits and preserve a broken, discriminatory system. They oppose Prop. 25 out of greed. You can see how they’re funding their NO campaign at http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Measures.

Prop. 25 replaces money bail with a system where judges make determinations based on safety. Computer algorithms don’t make the decisions, judges do.

According to the Judicial Council of California, Proposition 25 “will gather information and provide reports to aid judges in the decision about whether a defendant is a risk to the public or likely to return to court if released before trial.”

Prop. 25 also adds transparency and public review to eliminate bias and racial disparities.

Prop. 25 has NOTHING to do with “zero bail,” a temporary public health response to COVID-19.

For real social justice reform—finally—help change the system by voting YES on Prop. 25.

Let’s end money bail once and for all!

STEVEN BRADFORD, Vice-Chair
California Legislative Black Caucus

LESLI CALDWELL, County Chief Public Defender, Retired

JESSICA BARTHOLOW, Policy Advocate
Western Center on Law & Poverty 

https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2020/general/pdf/complete-vig.pdf#page=77

— Source: California Secretary of State - Official Voter Information Guide pp. 76-77

Who gave money?

Contributions

Yes on Proposition 25

Total money raised: $15,101,289
Bar graph showing total amount relative to total amount for this entire campaign.

No on Proposition 25

Total money raised: $8,061,575
Bar graph showing total amount relative to total amount for this entire campaign.

Below are the top 10 contributors that gave money to committees supporting or opposing the ballot measures.

Yes on Proposition 25

1
Arnold, John
$5,000,000
2
Connie E. Ballmer and affiliated entities
$3,000,000
2
Steven A. Ballmer and affiliated entities
$3,000,000
3
Quillin, Patty
$1,000,000
4
Action Now Initiative, LLC
$500,000
4
Delaney, Quinn
$500,000
4
Steyer, Tom
$500,000
5
SEIU Local 2015 Issues PAC
$400,000
6
SEIU California State Council (Nonprofit 501(c)(5))
$355,000
7
California State Council of Service Employees Issues Committee
$250,000
7
Schusterman, Lynn
$250,000

No on Proposition 25

1
Triton Management Services, LLC(Herbert G. Mutter)
$2,369,934
2
AIA Holdings Inc.
$880,490
3
Seaview Insurance Company
$679,966
4
American Surety Company
$672,265
5
Bankers Insurance Company and affiliated entities
$541,601
6
Lexington National Insurance Corporation
$492,040
7
DMCG, Inc.
$354,000
8
All Pro Bail Bonds, Inc.
$202,000
9
United States Fire Insurance Company
$188,801
10
Bankers Insurance Company
$186,395

More information about contributions

Yes on Proposition 25

By State:

Washington 39.74%
Texas 36.43%
California 22.18%
Oklahoma 1.66%
39.74%36.43%22.18%

By Size:

Large contributions (99.98%)
Small contributions (0.02%)
99.98%

By Type:

From organizations (12.23%)
From individuals (87.77%)
12.23%87.77%

No on Proposition 25

By State:

California 70.54%
Florida 9.31%
Indiana 8.38%
Maryland 6.12%
Other 5.65%
70.54%9.31%8.38%

By Size:

Large contributions (99.93%)
Small contributions (0.07%)
99.93%

By Type:

From organizations (94.83%)
From individuals (5.17%)
94.83%

More information

Videos (6)

— September 9, 2020 KCET
Prop 25 eliminates cash bail in California and lets judges decide if suspects should be held or freed before trial. Supporters say the state spends too much detaining those who can’t afford bail. Civil rights groups oppose cash bail but say this could allow judges to detain more people deemed high-risk. Bail businesses, which earn a premium for advancing money, say they make communities safer.
— October 4, 2020 League of Women Voters of San Diego
Ballot measures can sometimes feel like trick questions. We at the League of Women Voters are dedicated to providing non-partisan "prop talks" to help break down each measure. We will present the pros and cons of how these policies will impact your day to day life.
If Proposition 25 passes, it would eliminate cash bail, which requires suspects to pay a cash bond to be released from jail while waiting for their trial.
Si se aprueba la Proposición 25, se eliminaría la fianza en efectivo, que requiere que los sospechosos de algún delito paguen.
— October 12, 2020 League of Women Voters of Cupertino-Sunnyvale
This video covers all 12 Propositions, Measure 25 starts at time: 47:15
— October 18, 2020 League of Women Voters of Southwest Santa Clara Valley

Events (5)

Contact Info

Yes on Proposition 25
Yes on Prop. 25, End Money Bail
Email info@yesoncaprop25.com
Phone: (213) 373-5225
Address:
1130 K Street, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95814
No on Proposition 25
No on Prop 25—Stop the Unfair, Unsafe and Costly Ballot Proposition
Email info@stopprop25.com
Phone: (916) 209-0144
Use tabs to select your choice. Use return to create a choice. You can access your choices by navigating to 'My Choices'.

Get the Easy Voter Guide for this measure in these languages

Who supports or opposes this measure?

Yes on Proposition 25

Organizations (94)

Elected & Appointed Officials (49)

No on Proposition 25

Organizations (58)

Elected & Appointed Officials (92)

Please share this site to help others research their voting choices.

PUBLISHING:PRODUCTION SERVER:PRODUCTION