2008 California Proposition 4

Last updated
Proposition 4
Parent Notif. Before Terminating Minor’s Pregnancy
Results
Choice
Votes %
Check-71-128-204-brightblue.svg Yes6,220,47348.04%
Light brown x.svg No6,728,47851.96%
Valid votes12,948,951100.00%
Invalid or blank votes00.00%
Total votes12,948,951100.00%
Registered voters/turnout17,304,42874.83%

2008 California Proposition 4 results map by county.svg
Results by county
Source: California Secretary of State [1]

Proposition 4, or the Abortion Waiting Period and Parental Notification Initiative, also known to its supporters as Sarah's Law, was an initiative state constitutional amendment in the 2008 California general election. [2] [3] [4]

Contents

The initiative would prohibit abortion for un-emancipated minors until 48 hours after physician notifies minor's parent, legal guardian or, if parental abuse has been reported, an alternative adult family member.

Proposition 4 was rejected by voters on November 4, 2008.

Specific provisions

The proposed initiative, if enacted as a constitutional amendment, would:

Fiscal Impact

Supporters

Arguments in favor of Prop. 4

Notable arguments that have been made in favor of Prop. 4 include:

Donors

As of September 27, 2008, the six largest donors to Prop. 4 are:

Path to ballot and prior attempts at passage

The signature-gathering drive to qualify the 2008 Parental Notification petition for the ballot was conducted by petition management firm Bader & Associates, Inc. at a cost of $2,555,000. [6]

Proposition 4 represents the third time that California voters will have considered the issue of a parental notification/waiting period for abortion. The two previous, unsuccessful, initiatives were California Proposition 85 (2006) and California Proposition 73 (2005).

When Prop 73 lost in 2005, some supporters thought that a similar measure would fare better in a general election. However, Prop 85 did worse. Unlike 85 or 73, Proposition 4 allows an adult relative of the minor seeking an abortion to be notified, if the minor's parents are abusive.

Camille Giulio, a spokeswoman for the pro-4 campaign said that the November 2008 election represents a better opportunity for parental notification legislation because:

YearPropositionVotes for % forVotes against % against
2005 [12] Prop 73
3,676,592
47.2%
4,109,430
52.8%
2006 [13] Prop 85
3,868,714
45.8%
4,576,128
54.2%
2008 [1] Prop 4
4,761,465
48.0%
5,157,174
52.0%

Opposition to Prop. 4

The Campaign for Teen Safety is the official ballot committee against the proposition.

Arguments against Prop. 4

Notable arguments that have been made against Prop. 4 include:

Consultants

The No on 4 campaign has hired the Dewey Square Group [15] as a consultant. [16]

Donors to opposition

As of September 27, some of the top donors to the opposition campaign were:

Lawsuit filed over Prop. 4 language

Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California and others filed a lawsuit with the Sacramento County Superior Court in early August to strike out all references to "Sarah" and "Sarah's Law" and "other misleading language in the voter's guide" for Proposition 4. The title "Sarah's Law" refers to the case of 15-year-old "Sarah" who died as a result of an abortion in 1994. Proposition 4's ballot language in the official voter's guide suggests that "Sarah" might have been saved had her parents known about her abortion. Opponents of Proposition 4 argue that "Sarah" was not considered a minor in Texas, where the abortion was performed, and that she already had a child with a man who claimed to be her common-law husband. If this is the case, the proposed law, Proposition 4, would not have helped her, since it wouldn't have applied to her. Based on this reasoning, opponents asked that the references to Sarah be stricken. [19]

Judge Michael Kenny of the Sacramento Superior Court ultimately ruled against the opponents, allowing the original proposed ballot language and arguments, including references to Sarah, to stay in the official California voter's pamphlet.

Polling information

The Field Poll has conducted and released the results of four public opinion polls on Proposition 4, in July, August, September, and October. [20] [21] [22]

Mark DiCamillo, director of the polling agency, said he believes the current version is running stronger because Latinos overwhelmingly favor it and are expected to vote in higher-than-usual numbers in November. [23]

Month of PollIn FavorOpposedUndecided
July 200848 percent39 percent13 percent
August 200847 percent44 percent9 percent
September 200849 percent41 percent10 percent
October 200845 percent43 percent12 percent

Newspaper endorsements

Editorial boards in favor

Editorial boards opposed

Results

Proposition 4
ChoiceVotes %
Light brown x.svg No6,728,47851.96
Yes6,220,47348.04
Valid votes12,948,95194.22
Invalid or blank votes794,2265.78
Total votes13,743,177100.00
Source: November 4, 2008, General Election Statement of Vote

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1994 California Proposition 187</span> Ballot initiative

California Proposition 187 was a 1994 ballot initiative to establish a state-run citizenship screening system and prohibit illegal immigrants from using non-emergency health care, public education, and other services in the State of California. Voters passed the proposed law at a referendum on November 8, 1994. The law was challenged in a legal suit the day after its passage, and found unconstitutional by a federal district court on November 11. In 1999, Governor Gray Davis halted state appeals of this ruling.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2005 California special election</span>

The California special election of 2005 was held on November 8, 2005 after being called by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on June 13, 2005.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2005 California Proposition 73</span> 2005 California ballot proposition

Proposition 73, the Parental Notification Initiative, would have amended the California Constitution to bar abortion on an unemancipated minor until 48 hours after physician notifies minor's parent/legal guardian, except in medical emergency or with parental waiver. The amendment permitted a judicial waiver of notice based on clear and convincing evidence of the minor's maturity or best interests. The minor's physician must report abortions performed on minors and State shall compile statistics. The amendment authorized monetary damages for violation. The minor must consent to abortion unless mentally incapable or in medical emergency. Permits judicial relief if minor's consent to abortion is coerced.

Many jurisdictions have laws applying to minors and abortion. These parental involvement laws require that one or more parents consent or be informed before their minor daughter may legally have an abortion.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2006 California Proposition 85</span> 2006 California ballot proposition

California Proposition 85, the Parental Notification Initiative, was a proposition on the ballot for California voters in the general election of November 7, 2006. It was similar to the previous year's Proposition 73. It failed by a vote of 46%-54%.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 California Proposition 8</span> Ballot proposition and state constitutional amendment passed in November 2008

Proposition 8, known informally as Prop 8, was a California ballot proposition and a state constitutional amendment intended to ban same-sex marriage; it passed in the November 2008 California state elections and was later overturned in court. The proposition was created by opponents of same-sex marriage in advance of the California Supreme Court's May 2008 appeal ruling, In re Marriage Cases, which followed the short-lived 2004 same-sex weddings controversy and found the previous ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Proposition 8 was ultimately ruled unconstitutional by a federal court in 2010, although the court decision did not go into effect until June 26, 2013, following the conclusion of proponents' appeals.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 California elections</span>

The California state elections, November 2008 were held on November 4, 2008 throughout California. Among the elections taking place were those for the office of President of the United States, all the seats of California's delegation to the House of Representatives, all of the seats of the State Assembly, and all of the odd-numbered seats of the State Senate. Twelve propositions also appeared on the ballot. Numerous local elections also took place throughout the state.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 California Proposition 6</span> Rejected statutory initiative

California Proposition 6, also known as the Safe Neighborhoods Act and The Runner Initiative, is a statutory initiative that appeared on the November 2008 ballot in California. This proposition was rejected by voters on November 4 of that year.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 California Proposition 3</span> Californian law

Proposition 3 is a law that was enacted by California voters by means of the initiative process. It is a bond issue that authorizes $980 million in bonds, to be repaid from state's General Fund, to fund the construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation, furnishing and equipping of children's hospitals. The annual payment on the debt authorized by the initiative is approximately $64 million a year. Altogether, the measure would cost about $1.9 billion over 30 years out of California's general fund.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 California Proposition 5</span> 2008 California ballot proposition

California Proposition 5, or the Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act was an initiated state statute that appeared as a ballot measure on the November 2008 ballot in California. It was disapproved by voters on November 4 of that year.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 California Proposition 11</span> Ballot measure in California

Proposition 11 of 2008 was a law enacted by California voters that placed the power to draw electoral boundaries for State Assembly and State Senate districts in a Citizens Redistricting Commission, as opposed to the State Legislature. To do this the Act amended both the Constitution of California and the Government Code. The law was proposed by means of the initiative process and was put to voters as part of the November 4, 2008 state elections. In 2010, voters passed Proposition 20 which extended the Citizen Redistricting Commission's power to draw electoral boundaries to include U.S. House seats as well.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 California Proposition 7</span> 2008 California ballot proposition

California Proposition 7, would have required California utilities to procure half of their power from renewable resources by 2025. In order to make that goal, levels of production of solar, wind and other renewable energy resources would more than quadruple from their current output of 10.9%. It would also require California utilities to increase their purchase of electricity generated from renewable resources by 2% annually to meet Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) requirements of 40% in 2020 and 50% in 2025. Current law AB32 requires an RPS of 20% by 2010.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2010 California Proposition 23</span> Ballot proposition concerned with environmental regulations

Proposition 23 was a California ballot proposition that was on the November 2, 2010 California statewide ballot. It was defeated by California voters during the statewide election by a 23% margin. If passed, it would have suspended AB 32, a law enacted in 2006, legally referred to its long name, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. Sponsors of the initiative referred to their measure as the California Jobs Initiative while opponents called it the Dirty Energy Prop.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2010 California Proposition 20</span> Approved Congressional Redistricting Initiative

A California Congressional Redistricting Initiative, Proposition 20 was on the November 2, 2010 ballot in California. It was approved by 61.2% of voters. Election officials announced on May 5 that the proposition had collected sufficient signatures to qualify for the ballot. The measure is known by its supporters as the VOTERS FIRST Act for Congress.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2012 California Proposition 34</span> Failed California ballot measure

Proposition 34 was a California ballot measure that was decided by California voters at the statewide election on November 6, 2012. It sought to repeal Proposition 17, originally passed by voters in 1972, thus abolishing the death penalty in California.

Albin Rhomberg is an American anti-abortion activist and physicist based in Sacramento, California.

Abortion in Colorado is legal at all stages of pregnancy. It is one of seven states without any term restrictions as to when a pregnancy can be terminated.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2022 California Proposition 1</span> Abortion and contraception proposition

Proposition 1, titled Constitutional Right to Reproductive Freedom and initially known as Senate Constitutional Amendment 10 (SCA 10), is a California ballot proposition and state constitutional amendment that was voted upon in the 2022 general election on November 8. Passing with more than two-thirds of the vote, the proposition amended the Constitution of California to explicitly grant the right to an abortion and contraceptives, making California among the first states in the nation to do so with Michigan and Vermont. The decision to propose the codification of abortion rights in the state constitution was precipitated in May 2022 by Politico's publishing of a leaked draft opinion showing the United States Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, reversing judicial precedent that previously held that the United States constitution protected the right to an abortion.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2022 Michigan Proposal 3</span> Abortion and contraception initiative

2022 Michigan Proposal 3, the Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative, also known as Reproductive Freedom for All, was a citizen-initiated proposed constitutional amendment in the state of Michigan, which was voted on as part of the 2022 Michigan elections. The amendment, which passed, codified reproductive rights, including access to abortion, in the Constitution of Michigan.

References

  1. 1 2 "Votes For and Against – November 4, 2008, State Ballot Measures" (PDF). California Secretary of State. 2009. Archived from the original (PDF) on November 15, 2012. Retrieved March 12, 2019.
  2. "Parental notification measure makes Calif. ballot". San Francisco Chronicle . May 30, 2008. Archived from the original on June 9, 2008. Retrieved March 12, 2019.
  3. "Parental notification -- Again!". Los Angeles Times . May 31, 2008. Archived from the original on June 1, 2008. Retrieved March 12, 2019.
  4. Prah, Pamela M. (July 24, 2008). "Social issues crowd state ballots". Stateline.org. Archived from the original on July 30, 2008. Retrieved March 12, 2019.
  5. "2007 Initiative Analysis: Child Abuse Reporting Enforcement Act of 2008 (Amendment #1-S)". California Legislative Analyst's Office . June 11, 2007. Retrieved March 12, 2019.
  6. 1 2 3 "Campaign Finance: FRIENDS OF SARAH, YES ON PROP 4, THE PARENTAL OR ALTERNATIVE FAMILY MEMBER NOTIFICATION LAW, MAJOR FUNDING BY DON SEBASTIANI & JIM HOLMAN & OTHERS TO REFORM CHILD PROTECTION LAWS IN CA". California Secretary of State . Retrieved March 12, 2019.
  7. Rolland, David (June 29, 2008). "Schwarzenegger on Jim Holman's anti-abortion initiative". Last Blog On Earth. Archived from the original on October 11, 2008. Retrieved March 12, 2019.
  8. Pearson, Margaret (October 3, 2008). "Proposition 4 protects girls". Los Angeles Times . Archived from the original on October 11, 2008. Retrieved March 12, 2019.
  9. 1 2 "Proposition 4 Arguments - Voter Information Guide 2008". California Secretary of State . 2008. Archived from the original on December 8, 2008. Retrieved March 12, 2019.
  10. Ainsworth, Bill (April 14, 2008). "Abortion notification backers not giving up". San Diego Union-Tribune . Archived from the original on September 28, 2008. Retrieved March 12, 2019.
  11. Nieves, Evelyn (October 2, 2008). "Parental notice for abortion back on Calif. ballot". Hollister Free Lance. Associated Press . Retrieved March 12, 2019.
  12. "STATEMENT OF VOTE, Summary Page" (PDF). California Secretary of State. 2005. Archived from the original (PDF) on November 15, 2012. Retrieved 2008-11-05.
  13. "STATE BALLOT MEASURES" (PDF). California Secretary of State. 2006. Archived from the original (PDF) on November 15, 2012. Retrieved 2008-11-05.
  14. "Look out for Prop 4 & Prop 8". California National Organization for Women . June 27, 2008. Archived from the original on December 2, 2008. Retrieved March 12, 2019.
  15. "Dewey Square Group". SourceWatch . October 11, 2017. Retrieved March 12, 2019.
  16. "CAMPAIGN FOR TEEN SAFETY - NO ON 4 - A PROJECT OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD AFFILIATES OF CALIFORNIA: Expenditures made". California Secretary of State . Retrieved March 12, 2019.
  17. "Breakdown of donations for California ballot measures". San Jose Mercury News . Associated Press. August 1, 2008.[ permanent dead link ]
  18. "CAMPAIGN FOR TEEN SAFETY - NO ON 4 - A PROJECT OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD AFFILIATES OF CALIFORNIA: All Contributions". California Secretary of State . Retrieved March 12, 2019.
  19. "Activists File Lawsuit to Strike "Sarah's Law" Language from CA Ballot Initiative". Feminist Majority Foundation . August 5, 2008. Archived from the original on November 15, 2018. Retrieved March 12, 2019.
  20. Field, Mervin; DiCamillo, Mark (July 22, 2008). "Low awareness but initial voter backing of five statewide ballot measures – Props. 1, 2, 4, 7 AND 11 – July Poll" (PDF). Field Research Corporation. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 17, 2008. Retrieved March 12, 2019.
  21. Field, Mervin; DiCamillo, Mark (September 26, 2008). "Voters narrowly favoring Prop. 4, the Parental Notification of Abortion by Minors Initiative – September Poll" (PDF). Field Research Corporation. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 27, 2008. Retrieved March 12, 2019.
  22. Field, Mervin; DiCamillo, Mark (November 1, 2008). "Voters Closely Divided on Prop. 4 (Parental Notification for Teen Abortion). Two of the Four State Bond Measures Receiving More than 50% Support – October Poll" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on November 21, 2008. Retrieved March 12, 2019.
  23. Marelius, John (September 26, 2008). "Third abortion initiative given chance of passing". San Diego Union-Tribune . Archived from the original on October 28, 2008. Retrieved March 12, 2019.
  24. "Notify parents: Proposition 4 responds to critics' objection". San Diego Union Tribune . September 23, 2008. Archived from the original on September 26, 2008. Retrieved March 12, 2019.
  25. "California Prop. 4 Editorial: Parents have a right to know about daughter's abortion". Orange County Register . September 23, 2008. Archived from the original on October 7, 2008. Retrieved March 12, 2019.
  26. "No on Prop. 4". Los Angeles Times . September 25, 2008. Archived from the original on November 1, 2008. Retrieved March 12, 2019.
  27. "California Proposition 4 would undermine abortion rights". San Francisco Chronicle . September 18, 2008. Archived from the original on October 20, 2008. Retrieved March 12, 2019.

Further reading

Supporters

Opponents