This is an archive of a past election.
See for current information.
LWV League of Women Voters of California Education Fund If you appreciate our service to voters, please consider helping us with a donation.
Smart Voter
State of California November 4, 2014 Election
Proposition 46
Drug and Alcohol Testing of Doctors. Medical Negligence Lawsuits
State of California

Initiative Statute - Majority Approval Required

Fail: 2,376,817 / 33.2% Yes votes ...... 4,774,364 / 66.8% No votes

See Also: Index of all Propositions

Results as of Dec 14 10:50am, 100.0% of Precincts Reporting (24435/24435)
Information shown below: Summary | Fiscal Impact | Yes/No Meaning | Official Information | Arguments |

Should California require random drug testing of doctors, require doctors to check a statewide database before prescribing certain drugs, and raise the cap on noneconomic damages in medical negligence lawsuits?

Summary Prepared by the State Attorney General:

  • Requires drug and alcohol testing of doctors and reporting of positive test to the California Medical Board.
  • Requires Board to suspend doctor pending investigation of positive test and take disciplinary action if doctor was impaired while on duty.
  • Requires doctors to report any other doctor suspected of drug or alcohol impairment or medical negligence.
  • Requires health care practitioners to consult state prescription drug history database before prescribing certain controlled substances.
  • Increases $250,000 cap on pain and suffering damages in medical negligence lawsuits to account for inflation.

Fiscal Impact from the Legislative Analyst:
State and local government costs from raising the cap on medical malpractice damages ranging from tens of millions to several hundred million dollars annually, offset to some extent by savings from requirements on health care providers.

Meaning of Voting Yes/No
A YES vote on this measure means:
The cap on medical malpractice damages for such things as pain and suffering would be increased from $250,000 to $1.1 million and adjusted annually for future inflation. Health care providers would be required to check a statewide prescription drug database before prescribing or dispensing certain drugs to a patient for the first time. Hospitals would be required to test certain physicians for alcohol and drugs.

A NO vote on this measure means:
The cap on medical malpractice damages for such things as pain and suffering would remain at $250,000 and not be subject to annual inflation adjustments. Health care providers would not be required to check a statewide prescription database before prescribing or dispensing drugs. Hospitals would not be required to test physicians for alcohol and drugs.

Official Sources of Information
Arguments Submitted

Summary of Arguments FOR Proposition 46:
46 saves lives. It prevents substance abuse by doctors and patients and holds negligent doctors accountable. Estimates show 18% of health professionals have an abuse problem in their lifetimes. Medical negligence is this country's third largest cause of death. Prescription drug overdoses are epidemic. A cure is overdue. Vote Yes.

Summary of Arguments AGAINST Proposition 46:
Trial lawyers wrote Prop. 46 to make millions from medical malpractice lawsuits. We will pay, and could lose our trusted doctors--as many doctors and specialists are forced to leave California, moving to states with more affordable medical- liability insurance. Protect your wallet and access to healthcare. No on 46.
Contact FOR Proposition 46:
Your Neighbors For Patient Safety
969 Colorado Boulevard, Suite 103
Los Angeles, CA 90041
(310) 395-2544

Contact AGAINST Proposition 46:
No on 46--Patients and Providers to Protect Access and Contain Health Costs
1510 J Street, Suite 120
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 706-1001

  Official Information

Secretary of State

Campaign Finance Data


  • Funding Summary for Prop 46 - the most complete information: everything on this page plus funding, news articles, endorsements, ads. From MapLight and the Smart Voter team of LWV California Education Fund
  • Cal-Access - Details of committee campaign finance filings submitted to the Secretary of State.
Nonpartisan Information

League of Women Voters


Pros & Cons: Santa Clara County

Pros & Cons: Alameda County
  • Oct. 27, 7:00 to 9:00 pm, Fremont Main Library, 2400 Stevenson Blvd., Fremont
News and Analysis

KPCC Coverage

KQED News Election Watch
This election is archived. Any links to sources outside of Smart Voter may no longer be active. No further links will be added to this page.
Links to sources outside of Smart Voter are provided for information only and do not imply endorsement.

California Home Page || Statewide Links || About Smart Voter || Feedback
Created: July 23, 2015 14:59 PDT
Smart Voter <>
Copyright © League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
The League of Women Voters neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office or political parties.