Effective November 16, the California Department of Public Health issued an updated guidance for the use of face coverings, mandating that a face covering is required at all times when outside of the home, with some exceptions.

Some exemptions include:

• Persons in a car alone or solely with members of their own household
• Persons who are working in an office or in a room alone
• Persons who are actively eating or drinking that they are able to maintain a distance of at least six feet away from persons who are not members of the same household
• Persons who are outdoors and maintaining at least 6 feet of social distancing from others not in their household. Such persons must have a face covering with them at all times and must put it on if they are within 6 feet of others who are not in their household.
• Persons who are obtaining a service involving the nose or face for which temporary removal of the face covering is necessary to perform the service
• Workers who are required to wear respiratory protection
• Persons who are specifically exempted from wearing face coverings by other CDPH guidance

The following individuals are exempt from wearing face coverings at all times:

• Persons younger than two years old. These very young children must not wear a face covering because of the risk of suffocation.
• Persons with a medical condition, mental health condition, or disability that prevents wearing a face covering. This includes persons with a medical condition for whom wearing a face covering could obstruct breathing or who are unconscious, incapacitated, or otherwise unable to remove a face covering without assistance. Such conditions are rare. 
• Persons who are hearing impaired, or communicating with a person who is hearing impaired, where the ability to see the mouth is essential for communication.
• Persons for whom wearing a face covering would create a risk to the person related to their work, as determined by local, state, or federal regulators or workplace safety guidelines. 

Note: Persons exempted from wearing a face covering due to a medical condition who are employed in a job involving regular contact with others must wear a non-restrictive alternative, such as a face shield wit ha drape on the bottom edge, as long as their condition permits it.

Read more here: ​https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-19/guidance-for-face-coverings.aspx

California voters had an opportunity to vote on 14 ballot measures during the 2020 General Presidential Election. An overview with the results of these ballot measures are outlined below:

Prop 14: Stem Cell Research Institute Bond Initiative
Proposition 14 was approved by voters with a 51.1% YES vote. This measure will issue $5.5 billion in general obligation funds for the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), which was established to fund stem cell research. The bond funds, less 7.5 percent for operational costs, would be spent on grants to entities that conduct research, trials, and programs related to stem cells, as well as start-up costs for facilities.

Proposition 15: Tax on Commercial and Industrial Properties for Education and Local Government
Proposition 15 was not approved by voters with a 52% NO vote. This measure would have increased funding for K-12 public schools, community colleges, and local governments by requiring that commercial and industrial real estate property be taxed on current market value. 

Proposition 16: Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment
Proposition 16 was not approved by voters with a 57.1% NO vote. This measure would have repealed Prop. 209, passed in 1996, from the California Constitution. Proposition 209 stated that discrimination and preferential treatment were prohibited in public employment, public education, and public contracting on account of a person's or group's race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin. Proposition 209 banned the use of affirmative action involving race-based or sex-based preferences in California. 

Proposition 17: Voting Rights Restoration for Persons on Parole Amendment
Proposition 17 was approved by voters with a 58.6% YES vote. This measure will amend the California constitution to allow people on parole for felony convictions to vote in California. 

Proposition 18: Primary Voting for 17-Year-Olds Amendment
Proposition 18 was not approved by voters with a 56% NO vote. This measure would have allowed 17-year-olds who will be 18 at the time of the next general election to vote in primary elections and special elections.

Proposition 19: Property Tax Transfers, Exemptions, and Revenue for Wildfire Agencies and Counties Amendment
Proposition 19 was approved by voters with a 51.1% YES vote. This measure will permit homeowners who are 55, severely disabled, or whose homes were destroyed by wildfire or disaster, to transfer their primary residence's property tax base value to a replacement residence of any value, anywhere in the state. 

Proposition 20: Criminal Sentencing, Parole and DNA Collection Initiative
Proposition 20 was not approved by voters with a 61.8% NO vote. This measure would have limited access to parole programs established for non violent offenders who have completed the full term of their primary offense by eliminating eligibility for certain offenses. It would authorize felony charges for specified theft crimes currently chargeable only as misdemeanors, including some theft crimes where the value is between $250 and $500.

Proposition 21: Local Rent Control Initiative
Proposition 21 was not approved by voters with a 59.8% NO vote. This measure would have amended state law to allow local governments to establish rent control on residential properties over 15 years old and allows local limits on annual rent increases to differ from current statewide limit. It would have allowed rent increases in rent-controlled properties of up to 15 percent over three years at the start of new tenancy.

Proposition 22: App-Based Drivers as Contractors and Labor Policies Initiative
Proposition 22 was approved by voters with a 58.6% YES vote. This measure will consider app-based drivers to be independent contractors and not employees or agents. This will override AB5 on the question of whether app-based drivers are employees or independent contractors.

Proposition 23: Dialysis Clinic Requirements Initiative
Proposition 23 was not approved by voters with a 63.6% NO vote. This measure would have required at least one licensed physician on site during treatment at outpatient kidney dialysis clinics; authorized CDPH to exempt clinics from this requirement if there was a shortage of qualified licensed physicians. 

Proposition 24: Consumer Personal Information Law and Agency Initiative
Proposition 24 was approved by voters with a 56.2% YES vote. This measure will permit consumers to prevent businesses from sharing personal information, correct inaccurate personal information, and limit businesses' use of "sensitive personal information." It will also establish the California Privacy Protection Agency to additionally enforce and implement consumer privacy law and impose fines. 

Proposition 25: Replace Cash Bail with Risk Assessments Referendum
Proposition 25 was not approved by voters with a 56.4% NO vote. This measure would have replaced the money bail system (for obtaining release from jail before trial) with a system based on determination of public safety and flight risk, and limits detention of a person in jail before trial for most misdemeanors.