2004 California Proposition 71
# 2004 California Proposition 71

Elections in California :

Federal government

U.S. President

1852

1856

1860

1864

1868

1872

1876

1880

1884

1888

1892

1896

1900

1904

1908

1912

1916

1920

1924

1928

1932

1936

1940

1944

1948

1952

1956

1960

1964

1968

1972

1976

1980

1984

1988

1992

1996

Dem

Rep

2000

Dem

Rep

2004

Dem

Rep

2008

Dem

Rep

2012

Dem

Rep

2016

Dem

Rep

2020

Dem

Rep

2024

Dem

Rep

U.S. Senate

1849

1850

1852 sp

1856

1857 sp

1860

1860 sp

1868

1872

1873

1873 sp

1878

1880

1885

1886 sp

1887

1891

1891 sp

1893

1895 sp

1897

1900 sp

1903

1905

1909

1911

1914

1916

1920

1922

1926

1928

1932

1934

1938

1940

1944

1946

1946 sp

1950

1952

1954 sp

1956

1958

1962

1964

1968

1970

1974

1976

1980

1982

1986

1988

1992

1992 sp

1994

1998

2000

2004

2006

2010

2012

2016

2018

2022

2022 sp

2024

2028

U.S. House of Representatives

1849

1851

1852

1854

1856

1859

1861

1863

1864

1867

1868

1871

1872

1875

1876

1879

1880

1882

1884

1886

1888

1890

1892

1894

1896

1898

1900

1902

1904

1906

1908

1910

1912

1914

1916

1918

1920

1922

1924

1926

1928

1930

1932

1934

1936

1938

1940

1942

1944

1946

12th sp

1948

1950

1952

1954

1956

1958

1960

1962

1964

1966

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1987

5th sp

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2001

32nd sp

2002

2004

2005

5th sp

48th sp

2006

50th sp

2007

36th sp

2008

12th sp

2009

10th sp

32nd sp

2010

2011

36th sp

2012

2014

2016

2017

34th sp

2018

2020

25th sp

2022

22nd sp

2024

30th

45th

47th

vte :

State government

Executive Governor

1849

1851

1853

1855

1857

1859

1861

1863

1867

1871

1875

1879

1882

1886

1890

1894

1898

1902

1906

1910

1914

1918

1922

1926

1930

1934

1938

1942

1946

1950

1954

1958

1962

1966

1970

1974

1978

1982

1986

1990

1994

1998

2002

2003 (recall)

2006

2010

2014

2018

2021 (recall)

2022

2026

Lieutenant governor

1954

1958

1962

1966

1970

1974

1978

1982

1986

1990

1994

1998

2002

2006

2010

2014

2018

2022

Attorney general

1970

1974

1978

1982

1986

1990

1994

1998

2002

2006

2010

2014

2018

2022

Secretary of state

1970

1974

1978

1982

1986

1990

1994

1998

2002

2006

2010

2014

2018

2022

Treasurer

1994

1998

2002

2006

2010

2014

2018

2022

Controller

1994

1998

2002

2006

2010

2014

2018

2022

Insurance commissioner

1994

1998

2002

2006

2010

2014

2018

2022

Superintendent

1994

1998

2002

2006

2010

2014

2018

2022

Board of equalization

2018

2022

Legislature Senate

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

2022

2024

Special

Assembly

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

2021 (79th sp)

2022 (17th sp)

2024

Special

Judiciary Court of appeals

1994

1998

2002

2006

Elections by year

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2005

2006

2008

Feb

Jun

Nov

2009

2010

Jun

Nov

2012

Jun

Nov

2014

2016

2018

2020

2022

2024

vte :

State propositions

1910–1919

1911

4

7

8

1960–1969

1964

14

1970–1979

1978

6

8

13

1980–1989

1982

8

1986

64

65

1988

98

99

1990–1999

1994

187

1996

196

209

215

218

1998

6

10

227

2000–2009

2000

21

22

36

39

2003

53

54

2004

1A

55

56

57

58

59

60

60A

61

62

63

64

65

66

69

71

2005

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

2006

81

82

83

85

87

89

90

2008

91

92

93

94, 95, 96, and 97

98 and 99

1A

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

2009

1A

1B

1C

1D

1E

1F

2010–2019

2010

13

14

15

16

17

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

2012

29

30

32

34

37

38

39

2014

1

2

41

42

45

46

47

48

2016

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

2018

68

69

70

71

72

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

2020–2029

2020

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2022

1

26

27

28

29

30

31

Full listvte :

Los Angeles County

Los Angeles County Board of supervisors

1980

1996

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

2022

2024

Ballot measures

1980

A

2008

R

2012

B

J

2016

M

Elections

2020

2022

Los Angeles Mayor

1896

1898

1900

1902

1904

1906

1909 (sp)

1909

1911

1913

1915

1917

1919

1921

1923

1925

1929

1933

1937

1938

1941

1945

1949

1953

1957

1961

1965

1969

1973

1977

1981

1985

1989

1993

1997

2001

2005

2009

2013

2017

2022

City attorney

2009

Ballot measures

1986

U

2017

S

Elections

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

2019 (sp)

2020

2022

2023 (sp)

2024

Long Beach Mayor

1994

1998

2002

2006

2010

2014

2018

2022

vte :

Orange County

Orange County Board of supervisors

2018

2020

2022

2024

District attorney

2018

Anaheim Mayor

2002

2006

2010

2014

2018

2022

Irvine Mayor

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

vte :

Sacramento

Mayor

2000

2004

2008

2012

2016

2020

2024

vte :

San Diego County

San Diego County Board of supervisors

2020

San Diego Mayor

1887

1889

1891

1893

1895

1897

1899

1901

1903

1905

1907

1909

1911

1913

1915

1917

1919

1921

1923

1925

1927

1929

1931

1932

1935

1939

1943

1947

1951

1955

1959

1963

1967

1971

1975

1979

1983 (sp)

1984

1986 (sp)

1988

1992

1996

2000

2004

2005 (sp)

2008

2012

2013–14 (sp)

2016

2020

2024

City attorney

2004

2008

2012

2016

2020

City council

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

Special

vte :

San Francisco

Mayor

1959

1963

1967

1971

1975

1979

1983 (recall)

1983

1987

1991

1995

1999

2003

2007

2011

2015

2018 (sp)

2019

2024

District attorney

2019

2022 (recall)

2022 (sp)

2024

Board of supervisors

1977

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

2022

Board of education

2018

2022 (recall)

Elections

2004

Mar

Nov

2005

2006

Jun

Nov

2007

2008

Feb

Jun

Nov

2009

2010

Jun

Nov

2011

2012

Jun

Nov

2013

2022

Feb

vte :

San Jose

Mayor

1974

1978

1982

1986

1990

1994

1998

2002

2006

2010

2014

2018

2022

vte :

Other localities

Bakersfield

Mayoral elections:

2004

2008

2012

2016

2020

Fresno

Mayoral elections:

1996

2000

2004

2008

2012

2016

2020

Oakland

Mayoral elections:

1994

1998

2002

2006

2010

2014

2018

2022

Riverside

Mayoral elections

San Bernardino

Mayoral elections:

2005

2009

2014

2018

2022

Stockton

Mayoral elections:

2008

2012

2016

2020

vte :

vte :

Proposition 71 of 2004 (or the California Stem Cell Research and Cures Act) is a law enacted by California voters to support stem cell research in the state. It was proposed by means of the initiative process and approved in the 2004 state elections on November 2. The Act amended both the Constitution of California and the Health and Safety Code.

The Act makes conducting stem cell research a state constitutional right. It authorizes the sale of general obligation bonds to allocate three billion dollars over a period of ten years to stem cell research and research facilities. Although the funds could be used to finance all kinds of stem cell research, it gives priority to human embryonic stem cell research.

Proposition 71 created the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), which is in charge of making "grants and loans for stem cell research, for research facilities, and for other vital research opportunities to realize therapies" as well as establishing "the appropriate regulatory standards of oversight bodies for research and facilities development". The Act also establishes a governing body called the Independent Citizen's Oversight Committee (ICOC) to oversee CIRM.

Proposition 71 is unique in at least three ways. Firstly, it uses general obligation bonds, which are usually used to finance brick-and-mortar projects such as bridges or hospitals, to fund scientific research. Secondly, by funding scientific research on such a large scale, California is taking on a role that is typically fulfilled by the U.S. federal government. Thirdly, Proposition 71 establishes the state constitutional right to conduct stem cell research. The initiative also represents a unique instance where the public directly decided to fund scientific research.

By 2020, the funding from proposition 71 was mostly used, and so the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine expected to shut down if it did not receive additional funding. For that reason, another ballot initiative has been initiated as part of the 2020 California elections. This initiative, known as Proposition 14, will authorize $5.5 billion in state general authorization bonds to fund the stem cell research at the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. The initiative passed with 51% of the vote, so the stem cell research will continue.

## Provisions

Proposition 71 states that "This measure shall be known as the California Stem Cell Research and Cures Act”. That is therefore the official citation. However, the measure is also headed as the California Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative. The Act is long and complex. It amends the state constitution by adding "Article 35 – Medical Research". This article establishes the CIRM and guarantees a right to conduct stem cell research. Proposition 71 also amends the Health and Safety Code, by introducing a provision in Part 5 of Division 106 called "Chapter 3 – California Stem Cell Research and Cures Bond Act". This chapter, among other provisions, establishes the ICOC.

## The new institute

### ICOC membership

* (5 members) the chancellors of University of California at San Francisco, Davis, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Irvine.
* (12 members) the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, the Treasurer, and the Controller each appoints a member from each of the following three categories:
   * A California university, excluding the ones mentioned above.
   * A California nonprofit academic and research institution that is not part of the University of California.
   * A California life science commercial entity that is not actively engaged in researching or developing therapies with pluripotent or progenitor stem cells.
* (2 members) the Governor appoints two members, each from the following disease advocacy groups: Alzheimer's and spinal cord injury.
* (2 members) the Lieutenant Governor appoints two members, each from the following disease advocacy groups: type II diabetes and multiple sclerosis, or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.
* (2 members) the Treasurer appoints two members, each from the following disease advocacy groups: type I diabetes and heart disease.
* (2 members) the Controller appoints two members, each from the following disease advocacy groups: cancer and Parkinson's disease.
* (1 member) the Speaker of the Assembly appoints a member from a mental health disease advocacy group.
* (1 member) the President pro Tempore of the Senate appoints a member from an HIV/AIDS disease advocacy group.
* (2 members) A chairperson and vice chairperson who shall be elected by the ICOC members.

### CIRM membership

CIRM may have up to 50 employees, who are exempt from civil service. CIRM is divided in three working groups.

* Scientific and Medical Research Funding Working Group; has 23 members:
   * Seven ICOC patient advocates who must be from California.
   * Fifteen stem-cell experts who cannot be from California.
   * The ICOC chair.
* Scientific and Medical Accountability Standards Working Group; has 19 members:
   * Five ICOC patient advocates who must be from California.
   * Nine stem-cell experts.
   * Four ethicists.
   * The ICOC chair.
* Scientific and Medical Research Facilities Working Group; has 11 members:
   * Six members from the Research Funding Work Group.
   * Four real estate specialists who must be from California.
   * The ICOC chair

## Background

Human embryonic stem cell research became a public issue in 1998 when two teams of scientists developed "methods for culturing cell lines derived, respectively, from: (1) cells taken from the inner cell mass of early embryos, and (2) the gonadal ridges of aborted fetuses". Since then, this type of research has sparked intense controversy in the United States.

Ever since 1996, Congress has attached to the Health and Human Services appropriations bill (which regulates the funding for the National Institutes of Health) a provision known as the "Dickey–Wicker Amendment". This amendment, named after the former representative Jay Dickey, Republican from Arkansas, prohibits the use of federal monies to fund "research that destroys or seriously endangers human embryos, or creates them for research purposes".

In 1999, however, the General Counsel of the Department of Health and Human Services issued a legal opinion arguing, "that the wording of the law might permit an interpretation under which human embryonic stem cell research could be funded". This interpretation stipulated that the government could fund this research so long as the embryos used had been destroyed by researchers privately paid. Although the Clinton administration adopted this interpretation and wrote the corresponding guidelines, it did not have the time to enforce them. The issue would pass on to the next administration.

On August 9, 2001, President George W. Bush announced his administration's policy regarding human embryonic stem cell research. The President opted to fund only research on the existing 60 cell lines. The small number of cell lines quoted by the President surprised many scientists. Furthermore, they were concerned about the availability and quality of these lines. Scientists also worried about the impact the president's policy could have on the American research community. The United States, they argued, lags behind other countries where governments support stem cell research. This, in turn, could cause American scientists to move to these countries.

Proposition 71 represents a response to the federal policy. The idea for this proposition came about after the California legislature blocked a billion-dollar measure to fund stem cell research. Robert N. Klein II, a real-estate developer from Palo Alto, whose son suffers from diabetes and whose mother has Alzheimer's, became the leader of the campaign effort to pass Proposition 71, and spent three million dollars of his own money in the campaign.

## Campaign

### Proponents

The Coalition for Stem Cell Research and Cures comprised a broad group of people and organizations that included: 22 Nobel laureates; celebrities such as Christopher Reeve, Sharyn Rossi, Monica Siegenthaler, Brad Pitt, Saba Motakef, and Michael J. Fox; a number of elected officials such as State Treasurer Phil Angelides, and State Controller Steve Westly, and State Senator Deborah Ortiz; more than fifty patient and disease advocacy groups (e.g., Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, Alzheimer's Association California Council, Sickle Cell Disease Foundation of California), medical groups and hospitals (e.g., California Medical Association, Children's Hospital-Los Angeles), groups representing Latinos and African Americans (e.g. National Coalition of Hispanic Organization, California NAACP), women's advocacy groups (e.g., Planned Parenthood, California NOW) and faith-based organizations (e.g. Catholics for a Free Choice).

The Republican Party opposed this initiative, but two key Republican figures endorsed it. They were George P. Shultz, the U.S. Secretary of State in the Reagan Administration and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Although Schwarzenegger did not endorse it until October 18, 2004, his support may have helped to solidify the proposition's lead in the polls.

This campaign raised approximately $25 million. The contributors included such prominent figures as Bill Gates, who donated $400,000; Pierre M. and Pamela Omidyar, the founders of eBay who together gave $1 million; Gordon Gund, the owner of the Cleveland Cavaliers basketball team, who contributed $1 million; Herbert M. Sandler, chairman of the board of World Savings Bank, who gave $500,000; John Doerr, a Silicon Valley venture capitalist, who donated $2 million; and William Bowes Jr., a founder of Amgen (a biotech company), who gave $600,000.

### Opposition

Those who opposed Proposition 71 included the Roman Catholic Church, Orange County Republicans, and the California Pro-Life Council, an affiliate of the National Right to Life Committee. Among the politicians in this group were State Senator Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks) and Orange County Treasurer-Tax Collector John Moorlach. The Hollywood actor Mel Gibson also joined the efforts to defeat this initiative. Conservative groups, however, were not the only ones opposing Prop. 71; organizations such as the California Nurses Association (CNA), the Green Party, the Center for Genetics and Society, Our Bodies Ourselves, among others, were also against the initiative.

Two prominent groups campaigning to defeat the initiative were the Pro-Choice Alliance Against Proposition 71 and Doctors, Patients, and Taxpayers for Fiscal Responsibility. These two groups lacked the wide range of endorsements that the proponents had (however, the Pro-Choice Alliance Against Proposition 71 was endorsed by seven organizations and a number of university professors). On the Doctors, Patients, and Taxpayers for Fiscal Responsibility website (which no longer exists) there were only fourteen members listed. Among these members were Dr. Vincent Fortanasce, a physician; Diane Beeson, a medical sociologists; Carol Hogan, a spokesperson for the California Catholic Bishops; and Dr. H Rex Greene, an oncologist and hospital administrator.

The four organizations campaigning against the initiative raised almost $400,000. The main contributors were the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, which donated $50,000 and Howard Ahmanson Jr., founder and president of Fieldstead & Company, who gave $95,000.

### Analysis

Initial analysis and discussion of need for analysis was done in 2007

Sociologist Ruha Benjamin offers the first in-depth analysis of Proposition 71 in People's Science: Bodies and Rights on the Stem Cell Frontier (Stanford University Press 2013). Too frequently the debate over stem cell research devolves in to simple judgments—good or bad, life-saving medicine or bioethical nightmare, symbol of human ingenuity or our fall from grace—ignoring the people affected. Benjamin moves the terms of debate to focus on the shifting relationship between science and society, on the people who benefit—or don't—from Proposition 71 and what this says about democratic commitments to an equitable society. Benjamin discusses issues of race, disability, gender, and socio-economic class that serve to define certain groups as more or less deserving in their political aims and biomedical hopes.

## Results of vote

Proposition 71 :

| Choice | Votes | % |
| - | - | - |
| Yes | 7,018,059 | 59.05 |
| No | 4,867,090 | 40.95 |
| Valid votes | 11,885,149 | 94.40 |
| Invalid or blank votes | 704,534 | 5.60 |
| Total votes | 12,589,683 | 100.00 |
| Registered voters/turnout | 16,557,273 | 76.04 |
