Irvine-based Weedmaps – the very popular website that guides cannabis fans to stores – recently announced it would stop listing illegal retailers later this year. The decision is a rare dose of good news for the legal marijuana industry in California.

The Weedmaps site features information on the products offered by hundreds of sellers in the Golden State, details on the special sales they are offering, information on different products and consumer reviews of dispensaries and their inventories. It is considered such a key part of the marijuana scene in California that one legal seller told the Los Angeles Times that its decision to not list illegal stores would wipe out 80 percent of them.

The Newsom administration has been pressuring Weedmaps for months to stop listing illegal stores, which far outnumber legal stores in the Golden State. Because they don’t pay taxes – and don’t cover expensive safety packaging and product testing – illegal shops can have a price advantage of 40 percent or more on legal dispensaries.

Legal shops decried unfair competition

After Proposition 64 passed in 2016 – legalizing the sale of recreational marijuana in California as of Jan. 1, 2018 – the legal cannabis industry’s initial complaints were about the slowness of the state in providing permits to pot shops and about the refusal of three-quarters of cities and counties to authorize such shops.

But as 2018 unfolded, the focus of complaints shifted to what legal stores saw as deeply unfair competition from illegal stores. As CalWatchdog reported, state officials announced in February that only $345.2 million was generated in revenue from sales, excise and cultivation taxes in 2018 – about a third of what was expected. This led the state’s Cannabis Advisory Committee to blast the “fragmented and uncoordinated” law enforcement response to illegal cannabis sales.

This and other complaints led Gov. Gavin Newsom to seek and receive an increase of at least 74 percent in enforcement funding in the 2019-20 state budget, which will allow the state to add more than 200 new enforcement and compliance positions by July 2020.

The legal industry in recent months has been heartened by efforts in Los Angeles to target illegal dispensaries by turning off their utilities and citing not just shop owners and employees but landlords. There have also been raids in Mendocino, Sonoma, Siskiyou, Trinity and Riverside counties that seized nearly 300,000 marijuana plants being grown without a license. Authorities also seized 20 tons of cannabis in June in Santa Barbara County, which has unexpectedly emerged as a major growing area since Proposition 64’s passage.

Analyst: Illegal shops’ market share growing

But the good news was followed by a report this month from BDS Analytics, which tracks cannabis sales data, that illegal stores appeared to be increasing their market share in California. As of June, state residents were buying three times more marijuana from illegal stores than legal ones.

Industry experts say illegal shops don’t just have a pricing advantage. Since many emerged after California voters approved the sale of marijuana for medicinal purposes in 1996, they had a 20-year head start on legal sellers in establishing relationships with growers and building customer bases.

But Newsom, for one, never expected a smooth start to the legal California cannabis industry. In 2016, while campaigning for Proposition 64, he said he believed it would take the industry “five to seven years” to hit its stride after legal sales began.

State officials, from Gov. Gavin Newsom on down, have been sympathetic to the struggles of California’s legal marijuana industry since recreational sales at shops became legal Jan. 1, 2018, so long as local governments gave their OK.

This sympathy was on display in recent weeks as the Legislature finalized work on the 2019-20 state budget. It includes provisions that will allow marijuana growers and sellers to operate with provisional permits for up to five years.

As of mid-June, state officials reported only 39 cannabis retail store had received regular licenses, while more than 2,700 were operating with temporary or provisional permits. The state’s record was somewhat better with growers – 208 had regular licenses versus the 1,500-plus who had provisional permits.

But while marijuana lobbyists welcome the regulatory relief, there is growing frustration over why it is needed: the slowness of the state to process store and grower licenses. One state agency acknowledges it has 60 vacancies in the unit that reviews grower permit applications.

Illegal sellers actually increasing market share

The frustration is even more acute over the failure of state and local authorities to crack down on the illegal sellers and growers who are able to charge at least 20 percent less than those operating legally. That’s because they don’t have to pay taxes or for licenses, pot testing and child-proof packaging. A report last week from BDS Analytics and Arcview Market said that illegal sellers had such an advantage that they were actually gaining market share in California, making it likely that state forecasts of tax revenue from legal sales will continue to fall short of state predictions.

The Newsom administration is aware of concerns from legal sellers and recently launched a #WeedWise public information campaign to urge the public to only use legal outlets. The Associated Press reported Friday that the state also has begun a crackdown on illegal growers, albeit one that’s starting with relatively few resources.

A crackdown launched earlier in Los Angeles has not yielded nearly as much progress as either city officials or legal cannabis sellers hoped. A May 29 report in the Los Angeles Times found that even though city officials had done better than most in streamlining the application process for legal stores – allowing 182 to open – there were even more illegal dispensaries open selling cheaper products.

A police union official told the newspaper that since Proposition 64 was enacted in 2016, clearing the way for recreational sales, using the LAPD’s limited resources to crack down on illegal sales had been a low priority for the department.

But the Times reported that the L.A. City Attorney’s Office has been more aggressive in recent months, including targeting the landlords who rent store space to illegal dispensaries with fines and threats of escalating penalties.

While pot shop owners can be hidden behind corporate filings and thus be tough to hold accountable, landlords can be determined quickly through property tax records.

San Diego crackdown successfully focused on landlords

San Diego officials began a landlord-oriented crackdown on illegal pot stores in spring 2016. Some 20 months later, police said they continued to struggle to shut down illegal delivery services operating in the city, but that illegal storefront sales were no longer a problem.

Meanwhile, the state that pioneered approval of recreational marijuana use – Colorado – is bragging about how well its program has done. In 2018, the state took in tax revenue of $267 million on marijuana sales. It has a population of 5.7 million.

In 2018, California took in tax revenue of $345 million on marijuana sales. It has a population of 39.6 million – just under seven times larger than Colorado. That means Colorado took in more than five times as much in cannabis taxes per capita than the Golden State.

In his final weeks on the job, Ma’s predecessor as treasurer – John Chiang
– announced that he no longer believed the Cannabis Banking Working Group that he chaired for two years could come up with a solution to a basic problem: Most banks do not want to provide services to marijuana growers, delivery services and shop owners until federal regulators or Congress and President Donald Trump approved changes in federal policy. Though more than 30 states have legalized the medicinal and recreational use of cannabis, under federal law, it remains a Schedule 1 – meaning very serious – illegal drug.

“[The federal government] must either remove cannabis from its official list of banned narcotics or approve safe harbor legislation that protects banks serving cannabis businesses from prosecution,” Chiang said at a Dec. 27 public meeting of the Cannabis Banking Working Group.

But with the recreational marijuana industry off to a much-slower start than expected since 2016’s Proposition 64 began allowing recreational sales on Jan. 1, 2018, state elected officials are under pressure to help the industry. While other lawmakers have focused on reducing taxes and regulations and making it easier to get permits, Hertzberg and Ma see providing basic financial services as crucial to normalizing legal recreational cannabis and to limiting the corruption and employee safety risk of having a multi-billion-dollar cash-only industry.

That’s why Hertzberg introduced Senate Bill 51, which would let individuals or companies in the private sector seek state charters that would allow them to create credit unions and banks of limited scope specifically for the cannabis industry. The special banks could provide checking services allowing marijuana companies to “open and use checking accounts, make or receive electronic payments, or accept credit or debit cards.”

Oversight of the new banks would be assigned to the newly created Cannabis Limited Charter Bank and Credit Union Advisory Board, whose board would include the state treasurer and controller.

Last year, Hertzberg offered Senate Bill 930, a similar measure that easily passed the state Senate and two Assembly committees before dying in murky circumstances in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Ma co-sponsored that measure while still serving as a state senator.

In a recent Capitol Weekly story, Hertzberg’s spokeswoman suggested that SB 930 failed because of then-Gov. Jerry Brown’s tacit opposition.

“The bill itself this year is probably going to be extremely similar to last year, but a few outside aspects have changed,” said Katie Hanzlik. “We guessed that there wasn’t quite as much of an appetite in the previous administration, so the good thing on that front is that we have a new administration, and it’s our understanding that Gov. Newsom is really open to this whole field of cannabis and making this industry work in the state.”

While lieutenant governor, Newsom was perhaps the highest-profile supporter of Proposition 64.

The first legislative hearing on SB 51 has not yet been scheduled.

The Ballotpedia overview of Proposition 64 reflected the conventional wisdom at the time it passed: “Local governments were also allowed to completely ban the sale of marijuana from their jurisdictions.” The text of the ballot measure stated: “Allows local regulation and taxation of marijuana.”

And as CalWatchdog has reported, 80 percent of local governments have declined to authorize the opening of local pot stores.

But last week, the state Office of Administrative Law approved rules crafted by the state Bureau of Cannabis Control that say marijuana sales by delivery services can operate in any community – even if local governments object.

This led to an immediate backlash – and strong hints that the rules will lead to a court fight.

“This decision puts the public safety needs of communities across the state at risk,” Carolyn Coleman, executive director of the League of California Cities, said in a statement.

“We are deeply concerned with the adoption of the new cannabis regulations, which allow for the delivery of cannabis anywhere in the state. We are already having trouble enforcing a new and complex industry, and this allowance will only make enforcement even more difficult,” California Police Chiefs Association President David Swing told the Sacramento Bee.

Marijuana industry officials disputed the idea that the deliver-anywhere ruling went against the spirit of Proposition 64 or its language. They said the ruling reflected the will of Californians, who approved the measure 57 percent to 43 percent – a 2 million vote cushion.

But even some supporters of Proposition 64 appeared unsure if the cannabis bureau’s ruling squared with what the ballot measure said. Assemblyman Ron Bonta, D-Oakland, told the Associated Press that he thought only medicinal marijuana deliveries should be allowed. Bonta thinks clarifying new legislation may be in order.

Even with such legislation, lawsuits over the state regulations appear inevitable. California has decades of history of courts being asked to interpret poorly or vaguely written ballot measures approved by voters.

City attorney says Sonoma should defy state

The city of Sonoma could also be a flash point for local defiance of the state. After the cannabis bureau concluded that there should be no limits on recreational marijuana deliveries, the Sonoma Index-Tribune reported last month that Sonoma City Attorney Jeff Walter recommended to City Council members that they maintain their ban on recreational pot deliveries.

Walter criticized the rules as being “very vague” and said he did not consider them a legally binding “statute.”

“I think we should stay that course [of banning recreational deliveries] pending outcome of that regulation and the challenges that are likely to be against it,” he said.

Questions about the legality of marijuana deliveries are also coming from other quarters. On Monday, the Sacramento Bee reported that California Highway Patrol officers continue to arrest drivers and seize cannabis that they find during traffic stops of vehicles used for deliveries.

A CHP spokesperson told the Bee that “in order to legally transport cannabis in California for commercial purposes, a person must possess the appropriate [state] license and comply with [cannabis bureau] administrative regulations.”

Two licensed marijuana distributors who had $257,000 seized from them by the CHP have filed a lawsuit to try to get the money back. They insist that they had the proper credentials when the money was taken.

Six-plus months into the beginning of California’s experiment with legal recreational marijuana, a review of Proposition 64’s effects shows a mixed and complicated record. Here’s a look at four broad categories:

Availability of legal pot stores: Even though local governments had nearly 14 months from when Proposition 64 was adopted in November 2016 and when it took effect this Jan. 1, local officials have been in no hurry to implement the law – either because of continuing disdain for recreational marijuana or sluggish bureaucracies.

The most recent Southern California News Group study, updated June 11, found that just 30 percent of cities (144 of 482) had permitted any recreational or medicinal marijuana sales and just 30 percent of counties (18 or 58) allowed such sales in their unincorporated areas.

The assumption that many budget-stressed cities would eagerly embrace recreational marijuana sales because of lucrative tax revenue – a source of funds not available with untaxed medicinal marijuana sales – has not been borne out. The Southern California News Group reports that fewer than one in seven cities have licensed recreational pot shops.

Marijuana supplies: Even in cities and counties which allow pot sales, availability of cannabis has reportedly been tight in many areas since July 1. That’s when provisions of state law went into effect requiring legal sellers to use new child-proof packaging and to test their products for the presence of mold and pesticides.

The Fox News team serving Sacramento and Central Valley TV markets reported last week that several dispensaries in the region “have empty shelves and have had to turn away customers and lay off staff.” The pot shortages could last, Fox reported, because of another shortage: in state labs certified to test marijuana for purity and healthfulness.

Criminal justice: A report issued earlier this month by the state Attorney General’s Office showed the number of marijuana-related arrested in 2017 in California had plunged 56 percent – going from about 14,000 in 2016 to a little more than 6,000.

Why didn’t the numbers drop even more? Because while possession of up to 1 ounce of marijuana is now legal, possession of larger amounts and growing cannabis is not. Selling pot without a license and using it in restricted areas or before driving remain crimes.

Elsewhere on the criminal justice front, Sacramento County District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert has won praise from social justice activists for using a provision in Proposition 64 to reduce or dismiss old marijuana convictions that are no longer classified as crimes under the measure’s weakened rules.

Sacramento Bee columnist Marcos Bretón has praised Schubert – long seen as something of a strict law-and-order conservative – for her policy.

The Bee reported that San Francisco and San Diego counties have similar efforts under way.

State pot tax revenue: In May, the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office reported total state tax revenue from the first quarter of the year was running more than 60 percent below expectations.

But the LAO remains optimistic that revenue from cannabis will rebound.

As reported by The Motley Fool website – which is keeping close tabs on the emerging legal marijuana industry as a possible lucrative investment niche – the LAO recently adjusted downward its forecast of how much the state would get from from its 15 percent excise tax on legal marijuana sales during fiscal 2018-19. But the reduction was only a modest 2 percent – going from $643 million to $630 million.

Under the newly passed resolution, no city department, agency or employee “shall use any city funds or resources to assist in the enforcement of federal drug laws related to cannabis.”

The action comes after Attorney General Jeff Sessions rescinded multiple Obama-era memos that had adopted a policy of non-interference with pot-friendly state laws, in what essentially allowed legalization efforts to take effect without federal interference.

“In light of threats by Attorney General Sessions regarding a misguided crackdown on our democratic decision to legalize recreational cannabis, we have become what may be the first city in the country to declare ourselves a sanctuary city for cannabis,” Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguin tweeted this week.

Sessions called the decision a “return to the rule of law.” And while he didn’t outright direct more prosecutions of marijuana crimes, the move outraged proponents of legalization.

“Increased federal enforcement of marijuana will have serious social and economic consequences,” the Berkeley resolution reads. “Uncertainty about potential enforcement and or enforcement itself may force established medical and adult-use cannabis-related businesses to close or move underground, which could impede the development of the newly regulated market and threaten public safety.”

While several states, including California, have legalized pot, it is still illegal under federal law.

“I believe we can balance public safety and resisting the Trump administration,” Mayor Arreguin reportedly said at Tuesday’s City Council meeting. “We’re keeping with the strong position Berkeley is a sanctuary for people in our community.”

However, the move is largely symbolic as there’s little the city could do to stop federal authorities from cracking down on commercial marijuana operations.

In 2016, under Proposition 64, California voted to legalize the drug and it went into effect at the start of this year. Under the new law, adults 21 and over can use marijuana for recreational use.

For the liberal enclave, it’s just the latest act of defiance, as the city has been outspoken in its opposition to the Trump agenda on issues like immigration and climate change.

And in an even more unorthodox move, the city is exploring creating its own crypto-currency in an attempt to establish more independence from Washington by holding an initial coin offering (ICO).

President Trump called out Berkeley specifically last February following violent protests over a planned speech by provocateur Milo Yiannopoulous.

“If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view – NO FEDERAL FUNDS?” Trump tweeted, highlighting the conflict between the White House and the city.

With the legal sale of recreational marijuana a week away, local governments across California have adopted policies on where and when permitted legal sellers can operate, following the ground rules set up by

But despite more than 13 months of lead time, state officials still haven’t figured out how to deal with a crucial problem: the fact that federally regulated banks can’t accept deposits or have any financial relationship with marijuana vendors or growers, given that pot sales and consumption remain illegal under federal law.

Cash-only medical marijuana dispensaries authorized by a 1996 ballot measure have long been plagued by armed robberies. With recreational pot sales expected to be a multibillion-dollar industry, pot-related crime could skyrocket.

Two separate proposals have emerged after what state officials say are months of discussions.

One under consideration by Gov. Jerry Brown’s administration seems a long shot given that it relies on the cooperation of the Trump administration – specifically Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who has opposed individual states’ efforts to legalize marijuana for recreational use.

The Los Angeles Times recently reported that the state had met with 65 banks and credit unions, as well as with federal regulators, about having one bank in California established as a clearinghouse for all marijuana-related accounts of various banks throughout the state. The “central correspondent” bank would process all transactions involving pot dollars.

Seeking assist from federal government after suing it 24 times

Brown administration officials appeared hopeful that this concept would go over well with federal regulators because, at least in theory, it would make it easier to keep close track of marijuana industry finances, and to spot suspicious payments or transfers of funds.

The problem for California is that this proposal is built on the presumption that the federal government wants to help the state – which has already sued the Trump administration 24 times. While federal regulators have met with state officials on the pot-banking issue, the final decision on whether to cooperate is up to Sessions. At a Nov. 29 press conference, he said his office was taking a hard look at rolling back Obama administration rules that let states allow recreational marijuana after basic public safety and health standards were met.

“It’s my view that the use of marijuana is detrimental, and we should not give encouragement in any way to it, and it represents a federal violation, which is in the law and is subject to being enforced,” Sessions said, according to the McClatchy News Service. “We are working our way through to a rational policy, but I don’t want to suggest in any way that this department believes that marijuana is harmless and people should not avoid it.”

Chiang: Consider setting up a state bank for pot transactions

The second proposal – touted by state Treasurer John Chiang at a Nov. 7 news conference – is to have the state study the feasibility of opening its own bank to deal with marijuana financial transactions. That was based on the recommendations of Chiang’s cannabis bank working group.

The group’s 32-page report also suggested California work with other states in setting up a network of such institutions. But the report noted the many obstacles to establishing such a bank, including the likelihood that it ultimately would still be subject to federal regulation and thus to Sessions’ objections.

Chiang told reporters at his November news conference that “a definitive, bulletproof solution will remain elusive” without changes in federal banking laws.

But the 2018 gubernatorial candidate said that “is not an excuse for inaction.”

The Trump administration has made clear that it will not look the other way when it comes to de facto state legalization of marijuana, as the Obama administration did. Instead, White House press secretary Sean Spicer last week said the states that have approved the use of recreational pot – California is one of eight – would face a reckoning because marijuana use remains a federal crime under the Controlled Substances Act.

State Democrats immediately denounced the possibility of a federal crackdown and took a defiant tone, starting with Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, a key sponsor of Proposition 64, the ballot measure approved with 56 percent support in November that sets up the framework for legal pot sales and use beginning Jan. 1, 2018. Newsom released a letter that called Spicer “grossly uninformed” for saying legal pot could make the opioid epidemic worse and warned that a federal intervention would help “drug cartels and criminals” by keeping the sale of marijuana a black-market, illegal practice.

Xavier Becerra, recently installed as state attorney general, also vowed in a statement that he would “protect the interests of California” from federal intrusion.

A Los Angeles Times report quoted attorneys as saying California could argue that it has a legal right to control drug rules within its borders.

Constitution gives federal government final say

But legal websites and U.S. history suggest that a federal government that is determined to enforce federal laws would be a very difficult obstacle for a state to overcome.

“The Supremacy Clause is a clause within Article VI of the U.S. Constitution which dictates that federal law is the ‘supreme law of the land,’” the FindLaw website notes. “This means that judges in every state must follow the Constitution, laws and treatises of the federal government in matters which are directly or indirectly within the government’s control. Under the doctrine of preemption, which is based on the Supremacy Clause, federal law preempts state law, even when the laws conflict.”

A federal crackdown could come in several forms:

1. Drug Enforcement Administration agents could stage raids on pot farms and dispensaries, as they did memorably in 2012 at Oakland’s massive Oaksterdam medical pot outlet. U.S. marshals and IRS agents joined in the raid.
2. Federal authorities could warn property owners that their land and buildings would be seized unless they evict pot farmers or dispensaries.
3. The federal government can compel cooperation through a lawsuit. An Associated Press analysis noted that this is what happened in 2010, when a federal suit forced Arizona to scrap an immigration law that the Justice Department said trampled on federal authority.
4. The federal courts can also compel action, such as what happened last year in Kentucky, when a county clerk who objected to issuing licenses for same-sex marriage was overruled.
5. The Treasury, Justice and Homeland Security Departments can all use existing laws to hammer banks and credit unions that accept deposits that can be linked in any way to marijuana-generated funds or if they provide any services to dispensaries. “Financial institutions face significant risk for violating federal law if they offer banking services to marijuana-related businesses,” an American Bankers Association web page warns. “The federal statutory barriers include the Controlled Substance Act, USA Patriot Act, Bank Secrecy Act, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and other federal statutes.” The RICO law in particular gives law enforcement wide latitude to classify activities that may seem in a gray area as illegal, which is why it’s long been a target of advocates of legal reform.

These five ways the Trump administration could crack down on a state attempting to legalize recreational drug use are only the short list. In an era in which sweeping executive orders have become the norm, Attorney General Jeff Sessions – an ardent foe of legal pot – could ask President Trump to withhold federal funds for law enforcement or health programs from defiant states.

While Spicer was emphatic about a new federal approach to state marijuana laws, he offered no timetables for action. Sessions has so far focused on other issues in his first weeks at the Justice Department.

Proposition 64’s

State Sen. Holly Mitchell, D-Los Angeles, won headlines last week for her pointed questions about whether the state will be able to meet its requirement of issuing marijuana sales permits and establishing a system to implement the 15 percent state tax on pot sales by Jan. 1, 2018, as it is supposed to under Proposition 64.

The primary immediate problem is uncertainty about what the Trump administration will do, if anything, to push back on the eight states that have legalized marijuana. The Obama administration for the most part stayed out of the way of states that liberalized pot rules.

If President Trump – who made controversial warnings about worsening crime a hallmark of his campaign – wanted to crack down, he has potent options. Federal law still considers marijuana possession a crime and still bans banks and credit unions from taking deposits made from marijuana sales. In Colorado –  home to what is so far the biggest state experiment in pot legalization – some banks appear to be looking the other way or having a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy about pot dispensary deposits. Others permit marijuana companies to use their accounts to pay state taxes or employees but not to have the full range of banking services.

If Trump’s Treasury Department ordered stricter enforcement targeting all drug money in the financial system, that could make it far more difficult for California to meet its Jan. 1 target under Proposition 64.

Various uncertainties about possible “government actions” led the Legislative Analyst’s Office to release a short report last week saying marijuana tax revenue shouldn’t be included in the 2017-18 state budget.

Some cities still oppose ‘normalizing pot’

The LAO was not just talking about the federal government. At the local government level, some cities and counties are implementing rules to block what they call the “normalization” of pot use.

There’s now a new front in their war on Proposition 64 that goes beyond using zoning regulations to make it difficult or impossible for pot shops to open: private cultivation.

Proposition 64 allows residents older than 21 to grow up to six marijuana plants at a time. It allows local government to pass rules on pot cultivation so long as they don’t create such obstacles that they create a “de facto ban,” according to Sacramento attorney Richard Miadich, who helped write the proposition. 

But several cities around California – including Elk Grove, Galt, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Ana and Poway – have already adopted temporary bans on indoor cultivation.

Other cities are putting up obstacles by requiring costly permits and setting conditions on growing. The list includes three cities in the Coachella Valley – Indian Wells, Rancho Mirage and Palm Desert.

Indian Wells has the strictest rules. The city requires home growers to pay a $141 annual fee and to pay for a government background check to prove they have not been convicted of a drug felony in the previous five years. It also requires permit holders to allow city inspectors access to their homes and mandates that pot can only be grown in locked rooms with adequate ventilation.

Lawsuits likely over local permit fees, conditions

UC Irvine Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinksy told the Desert Sun newspaper that he thinks Indian Wells’ law wouldn’t stand up to a lawsuit.

If that’s so, many local laws could be at risk. Fontana will charge $411 for an individual permit. Leaders in Fillmore, a town in Ventura County, discussed having individual permits cost as much as $737.

In Orange County, Aliso Viejo and San Juan Capistrano have adopted ordinances requiring permits for indoor cultivation. But they have not yet set how much the permits will cost.

These concerns about local crackdowns on marijuana and a potential federal crackdown have created uncertainty about what Proposition 64 will look live in five to 10 years, after lawsuits are settled and private cultivation becomes more common.

There are striking differences in the expectations of two state agencies. The Department of Consumer Affairs predicts 6,000 pot shops will eventually open while the Board of Equalization only expects 1,700.

Californians voted in ways that would be expected for such a strongly Democratic-leaning electorate, except on the issue of the death penalty. That isn’t too surprising, either, given that Californians — despite their left-of-center tilt — have long been supportive of tough-on-crime measures and have consistently supported the death penalty.

Voters rejected, by 54 percent to 46 percent, Proposition 62, which would have repealed the death penalty and replaced it with life in prison without parole for murderers. They approved, with nearly 51 percent of the vote, the alternative Proposition 66. That measure streamlines the appeals process so the state can more quickly execute death row inmates.

Despite such “toughness,” voters overwhelmingly approved Gov. Jerry Brown’s sentencing-reform measure (Proposition 57) that would allow early release for some felons. There have been some increases in crime rates following the passage in 2014 of Proposition 47 (reducing some drug felonies to misdemeanors), but California voters remain committed to reducing some types of prison sentences.

On Election Day, voters also were strongly supportive of tax and spending measures. They approved, 54 percent to 46 percent, Proposition 51, which authorizes $9 billion in general-obligation bonds to modernize K-12 public schools. State bond measures are not direct tax increases, but they do increase the debt secured by the state’s general fund. That means legislators will have to allocate money to pay the service on the debt. They create pressure for tax hikes, or for spending cuts in other areas.

Voters also approved Proposition 55 by a hefty margin (62 percent to 38 percent), which will extend by 12 years the “temporary” personal-income tax increases included in the tax-raising Proposition 30 from 2012. The increases are applied on earnings of more than $250,000 for single filers and more than $500,000 for joint filers. Voters also agreed to boost the cigarette tax by $2 a pack — and other tobacco and nicotine products by equivalent amounts — by approving Proposition 56.

In a fairly close tally (51 percent to 49 percent), voters rejected Proposition 53, which was opposed by the business community and labor unions and would have subjected major infrastructure projects ($2 billion or more) to a statewide vote if they used revenue bonds. Such bonds are funded by revenues from the project (i.e., tolls) rather than general tax revenues. A variety of local tax increases also passed. California voters have moved a long way from the days of the 1970s-era tax revolt.

On social issues, Californians voted Tuesday in a reliably liberal way, as well. They supported, 63 percent to 37 percent, Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s measure (Proposition 63) requiring background checks to purchase ammunition. They rejected an effort, by 8 percentage points, to require actors in adult films to wear condoms. They upheld a controversial new law (Proposition 67) banning grocery stores from handing out those single-use plastic bags and turned back an effort by the plastic-bag industry (Proposition 65) to redirect any bag fees from grocery stores to a state environmental fund. The latter was designed as payback to grocers and grocery unions for their role in the legislative deal that led to the plastic bag ban.

In another victory for liberal activists, voters approved — by an overwhelming 72 percent to 28 percent margin — Proposition 58, which overturns the state’s ban on bilingual education in public schools. That’s an educational program in which immigrant kids are taught largely in their native language. It was largely banned in 1998 by Proposition 227, whose supporters were concerned that native Spanish speakers were not learning English quickly enough. Prop. 58 did not get much attention this year, and its ballot designation suggested that a vote for 58 was a vote for preserving English proficiency.

Voters did, however, OK a significant political-reform measure by a wide margin (64 percent to 36 percent). Proposition 54 requires that the final version of any bill in the state Legislature be available in print for 72 hours, thus eliminating those controversial gut-and-amend bills in which new language is inserted at the last minute without public or media scrutiny. The measure also gives the public expanded rights to record the Legislature.

California voters also joined voters in Massachusetts, Nevada and (probably, based on close results) Maine in legalizing the recreational use of marijuana. Several other states approved medical marijuana – something that’s been legal in California since Proposition 215 passed in 1996. Given California’s immense size, this vote (Proposition 64) is viewed as a massive boost to an already-emerging marijuana industry – and to similar votes in other states in coming elections.

Voters approved Proposition 52, which extends a Medi-Cal hospital fee program that allows the state to collect federal reimbursements. It was backed by most of the state’s political establishment. Also passed was Proposition 59, which was an advisory vote asking whether state officials should support a constitutional amendment overturning the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which invalidated certain limits on campaign spending. This was a largely meaningless initiative, but it garnered 52 percent of the vote.

Finally, voters rejected, 54 percent to 46 percent, a measure (Proposition 61) that would have capped the prices state agencies pay for prescription drugs. Opponents ran an aggressive campaign that no doubt contributed to its failure.

None of this was particular surprising, which is a surprise in and of itself. As the rest of the country defied the predictions, California went along with flow.

Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org.