2005 California special election

Last updated

2005 California special election
Flag of California.svg
  2004 November 8, 2005 2006  
Registered15,891,482 [1]
Turnout50.14% [1]

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

Contents

Summary

The California special election of 2005 was held on November 8, 2005, after being called by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on June 13, 2005. California voters rejected all eight ballot propositions. Propositions 73, 76, and 77 were initiative constitutional amendments while the others were initiative statutes. The election was believed to have been the most expensive in California history. Lobby groups spent hundreds of millions of dollars on gathering signatures and advertising for this election.

Schwarzenegger called the election to allow voters to decide on propositions regarding teacher tenure requirements (Proposition 74), the use of union dues for political campaign contributions (Proposition 75), state budgetary spending limits (Proposition 76), and redistricting (Proposition 77). Schwarzenegger originally proposed a fifth proposition on the issue of public pension, but dropped that proposition amid criticism that the proposition would eliminate death benefits to widows of police and firefighters who died in the line of duty [2] The four propositions that made it to the ballot eventually came to be known as Governor Schwarzenegger's reform agenda. The governor claimed his agenda would clear the way for correction of the problems he was elected to solve.

An alliance of public sector unions expended $24 million campaigning against Schwarzenegger's fiscal reform, with the California Teachers Association expending an additional $56 million and going so far as to mortgage its Sacramento headquarters to fund more campaign spending. [3] Schwarzenegger likewise spent nearly $8 million of his own fortune campaigning. The tenor was highly divisive, with Schwarzenegger calling his opponents “stooges” and at one point Warren Beatty leading a bus full of public employees to follow the governor and shout down his events. [4]

All Governor Schwarzenegger's other fiscal reform agenda initiatives were defeated by wide margins. [5] It had been the most expensive election in California history. [6] As the results came out in Sacramento a public union boss waived a broom over his head while state employees chanted “sweep, sweep, sweep”. [7] SEIU's use of compulsory fees on nonmembers to fund its campaign was later found illegal by the U.S. Supreme Court in Knox v. Service Employees International Union, Local 1000 .

Four other propositions appeared on the ballot because they qualified for the next statewide elections. The four other propositions were:

Final results

PropositionPassTitleYes VotesPct.No VotesPct.
73NMinor's Pregnancy3,130,06247.43,465,62952.6
74NTeacher Tenure2,987,01044.93,662,93255.1
75NPublic Union Dues3,092,49546.53,551,01153.5
76NSpending/Funding2,522,32737.94,115,38862.1
77NRedistricting2,673,53040.53,920,48759.5
78NRx Drug Discounts2,719,99941.53,821,95758.5
79NRx Drug Rebates2,523,80338.93,950,76361.1
80NElectric Regulation2,189,12634.34,182,37465.7
Y - Proposition passed
N - Proposition did not pass

Propositions

Proposition 73: Parental Notification

Summary

Amends California Constitution to bar abortion on unemancipated minor until 48 hours after physician notifies minor's parent/legal guardian, except in medical emergency or with parental waiver. Permits judicial waiver of notice based on clear and convincing evidence of minor's maturity or minor's best interests. Physician must report abortions performed on minors and State shall compile statistics. Authorizes monetary damages for violation. Minor must consent to abortion unless mentally incapable or in medical emergency. Permits judicial relief if minor's consent to abortion is coerced.

Opinion Polls

SourceYesNoUndecidedSpread
PPIC (10/16-23)42%48%10%NO +6
Survey USA (10/15-17)60%38%2%YES +22
Survey USA (9/30-10/2)59%39%2%YES +20
Field Poll (8/19-29)45%44%10%EVEN
PPIC (8/8-15)44%48%10%NO +4
Field Poll (6/13-19)48%43%9%YES +5

Results

OptionVote CountPercentage
Yes3,130,06247.4%
No3,465,62952.6%

Proposition 74: Public School Teachers Tenure

Summary

Increases length of time required before a teacher may become a permanent employee from two complete consecutive school years to five complete consecutive school years; measure applies to teachers whose probationary period commenced during or after the 2003-2004 fiscal year. Authorizes school boards to dismiss a permanent teaching employee who receives two consecutive unsatisfactory performance evaluations.

Opinion Polls

SourceYesNoUndecidedSpread
PPIC (10/16-23)46%48%6%NO+2
Survey USA (10/15-17)53%45%1%YES +8
Survey USA (9/30-10/2)55%44%2%YES +10
PPIC (9/12-19)43%47%10%NO +4
Field Poll (8/19-29)46%37%17%YES +9
PPIC (8/8-15)49%42%9%YES +7
Field Poll (6/13-19)61%32%7%YES +29

Results

OptionVote CountPercentage
Yes2,987,01044.9%
No3,662,93255.1

Proposition 75: Union Dues - Political Contributions

Summary

Prohibits public employee labor organizations from using dues or fees for political contributions unless the employee provides prior consent each year on a specified written form. Prohibition does not apply to dues or fees collected for charitable organizations, health care insurance, or other purposes directly benefiting the public employee. Requires labor organizations to maintain and submit to the California Fair Political Practices Commission records concerning individual employees' and organizations' political contributions; those records are not subject to public disclosure.

Opinion Polls

SourceYesNoUndecidedSpread
PPIC (10/16-23)46%46%8%Even
Survey USA (10/15-17)56%42%2%YES +14
Survey USA (9/30-10/2)60%37%3%YES +23
Field Poll (8/19-29)55%32%13%YES +23
PPIC (8/8-15)48%33%9%YES +15
Field Poll (6/13-19)57%34%9%YES +23

Results

OptionVote CountPercentage
Yes3,092,49546.5%
No3,551,01153.5%

Proposition 76: State Spending Limits

Summary

Changes state minimum school funding requirements (Proposition 98), permitting suspension of minimum funding, but terminating repayment requirement, and eliminating authority to reduce funding when state revenues decrease. Excludes above-minimum appropriations from schools' funding base. Limits state spending to prior year total plus revenue growth. Shifts excess revenues from schools/tax relief to budget reserve, specified construction, debt repayment. Requires Governor to reduce state appropriations, under specified circumstances, including employee compensation, state contracts. Continues prior year appropriations if new state budget delayed. Prohibits state special funds borrowing. Requires payment of local government mandates.

Opinion Polls

SourceYesNoUndecidedSpread
PPIC (10/16-23)30%62%8%NO +32
Survey USA (10/15-17)54%41%5%YES +13
Survey USA (9/30-10/2)58%36%6%YES +22
PPIC (9/12-19)26%63%11%NO +37
Field Poll (8/19-29)19%65%16%NO +46
PPIC (8/8-15)28%61%11%NO +33
Field Poll (6/13-19)35%42%23%NO +7

Results

OptionVote CountPercentage
Yes2,522,32737.9%
No4,115,38862.1%

Proposition 77: Redistricting

Summary

Amends state Constitution's process for redistricting California's Senate, Assembly, Congressional and Board of Equalization districts. Requires three-member panel of retired judges, selected by legislative leaders, to adopt new redistricting plan if measure passes and again after each national census. Panel must consider legislative, public proposals/comments and hold public hearings. Redistricting plan becomes effective immediately when adopted by judges’ panel and filed with Secretary of State. If voters subsequently reject redistricting plan, process repeats. Specifies time for judicial review of adopted redistricting plan; if plan fails to conform to requirements, court may order new plan.

Opinion Polls

SourceYesNoUndecidedSpread
PPIC (10/16-23)36%50%14%NO +14
Survey USA (10/15-17)54%41%5%YES +13
Survey USA (9/30-10/2)59%36%5%YES +23
PPIC (9/12-19)33%50%17%NO +17
Field Poll (8/19-29)32%46%22%NO +14
PPIC (8/8-15)34%49%17%NO +15
Field Poll (6/13-19)35%46%19%NO +11

Results

OptionVote CountPercentage
Yes2,673,53040.5%
No3,920,48759.5%

Proposition 78: Drug Discounts

Summary

Establishes discount prescription drug program, overseen by the Department of Health Services. Enables certain low - and moderate - income California residents to purchase prescription drugs at reduced prices. Imposes $15 application fee, renewable annually. Requires Department's prompt determination of residents' eligibility, based on listed qualifications. Authorizes Department to contract with pharmacies to sell prescription drugs at agreed-upon discounts negotiated in advance, and to negotiate rebate agreements with drug manufacturers. Permits outreach programs to increase public awareness. Creates state fund for deposit of rebate payments from drug manufacturers. Allows program to be terminated under specified conditions.

Opinion Polls

SourceYesNoUndecidedSpread
PPIC (9/12-19)43%38%19%YES +5
Field Poll (8/19-29)49%31%20%YES +18
Field Poll (6/13-19)57%26%17%YES +31

Results

OptionVote CountPercentage
Yes2,719,99941.5%
No3,821,95758.5%

Proposition 79: Drug Discounts (Consumer Groups Backed)

Summary

Provides for prescription drug discounts to Californians who qualify based on income-related standards, to be funded through rebates from participating drug manufacturers negotiated by California Department of Health Services. Rebates must be deposited in State Treasury fund, used only to reimburse pharmacies for discounts and to offset administration costs. At least 95% of rebates must go to fund discounts. Prohibits new Medi-Cal contracts with manufacturers not providing the Medicaid best price to this program, except for drugs without therapeutic equivalent. Establishes oversight board. Makes prescription drug profiteering, as defined, unlawful.

Opinion Polls

SourceYesNoUndecidedSpread
PPIC (9/12-19)34%40%26%NO +6
Field Poll (8/19-29)42%34%24%YES +8
Field Poll (6/13-19)48%33%19%YES +15

Results

OptionVote CountPercentage
Yes2,523,80338.9%
No3,950,76361.1%

Proposition 80: Electricity Regulation

Summary

Subjects electric service providers, as defined, to control and regulation by California Public Utilities Commission. Imposes restrictions on electricity customers' ability to switch from private utilities to other electric providers. Provides that registration by electric service providers with Commission constitutes providers' consent to regulation. Requires all retail electric sellers, instead of just private utilities, to increase renewable energy resource procurement by at least 1% each year, with 20% of retail sales procured from renewable energy by 2010, instead of current requirement of 2017. Imposes duties on Commission, Legislature and electrical providers.

Opinion Polls

SourceYesNoUndecidedSpread
Field Poll (8/19-29)33%35%32%NO +2

Results

OptionVote CountPercentage
Yes2,189,12634.3%
No4,182,37465.7%

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2004 California Proposition 58</span> Budget referendum

Proposition 58 was a California ballot proposition on the March 2, 2004 ballot. It passed with 4,535,084 (71.2%) votes in favor and 1,841,138 (28.8%) against. It was officially called the California Balanced Budget Act. It requires the state legislature to pass a balanced budget every year, which means that budgeted recurrent expenditure, including repayment of past debt, does not exceed estimated revenue. The act does not require that capital works programs be funded out of current revenues. The California Constitution has always allowed bond issues for specified capital works, above a certain value. Bond measures must be approved by a statewide ballot.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2005 California Proposition 74</span>

Proposition 74 (2005) was a ballot proposition in the 2005 California special election that intended to extend probationary periods for the state's public school teachers from two years to five before attaining tenure. It failed at the polls, with 55% of voters rejecting it.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2005 California Proposition 75</span>

Proposition 75 was a ballot proposition in the California special election, 2005.

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

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">1996 California Proposition 218</span> Adopted initiative constitutional amendment on taxation

Proposition 218 is an adopted initiative constitutional amendment which revolutionized local and regional government finance and taxation in California. Named the "Right to Vote on Taxes Act," it was sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association as a constitutional follow-up to the landmark property tax reduction initiative constitutional amendment, Proposition 13, approved in June 1978. Proposition 218 was approved and adopted by California voters during the November 5, 1996, statewide general election.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 California Proposition 4</span> Failed ballot proposition on abortion

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.

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

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.

Consumer Watchdog is a non-profit, progressive organization which advocates for taxpayer and consumer interests, with a focus on insurance, health care, political reform, privacy and energy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008–2012 California budget crisis</span>

The U.S. state of California had a budget crisis in which it faced a shortfall of at least $11.2 billion, and projected to top $40 billion over the 2009–2010 fiscal years.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2010 California elections</span>

The California state elections, November 2010 were held on November 2, 2010.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2010 California Proposition 23</span> Referendum on 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">November 2012 California elections</span>

The California state elections was held on Election Day, November 6, 2012. On the ballot were eleven propositions, various parties' nominees for the United States presidency, the Class I Senator to the United States Senate, all of California's seats to the House of Representatives, all of the seats of the State Assembly, and all odd-numbered seats of the State Senate.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2014 California elections</span>

In California state elections, 2014 was the first year in which the top statewide offices were elected under the nonpartisan blanket primary, pursuant to Proposition 14, which passed with 53% voter approval in June 2010. Under this system, which first went into effect during the 2012 election year, all candidates appear on the same ballot, regardless of party. In the primary, voters may vote for any candidate, regardless of their party affiliation. The top two finishers, regardless of party, then advance to face each other in the general election in November.

Knox v. Service Employees International Union, 567 U.S. 298 (2012), is a United States constitutional law case. The United States Supreme Court held in a 7–2 decision that Dianne Knox and other non-members of the Service Employees International Union did not receive the required notice of a $12 million assessment the union charged them to raise money for the union's political fund. In a tighter 5–4 ruling, the court further held that the long-standing precedent, the First Amendment requirement that non-union members covered by union contracts be given the chance to "opt out" of special fees was insufficient. Setting new precedent, the majority ruled that non-members shall be sent notice giving them the option to opt into special fees.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Arnold Schwarzenegger and LGBT rights</span> Overview of the relationship between Arnold Schwarzenegger and LGBT rights

Arnold Schwarzenegger was an early opponent of same-sex marriage in the United States, including during his Governorship of California. As an elected official he opposed legal recognition of same-sex marriage but otherwise he supported LGBT rights legislation, including civil unions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2022 California elections</span>

The 2022 California elections took place on November 8, 2022. The statewide direct primary election was held on June 7, 2022.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2024 California elections</span>

The 2024 California elections will take place on November 5, 2024. The statewide direct primary election was held on March 5, 2024.

The following is a list of ballot measures which were on the ballot for the 2022 United States elections. Some were held prior to the federal elections on November 8. Many were initiated by state legislatures, while others were initiated by public petitions.

The following is a list of ballot measures, whether initiated by legislators or citizens, which have been certified to appear on various states' ballots during the 2024 United States elections as of 6 September 2024.

References

  1. 1 2 "Historical Voter Registration and Participation" (PDF). California Secretary of State.
  2. Governor gives up on overhaul of public pensions
  3. Malanga, Steven. "The Beholden State How public sector unions broke California". City Journal . No. Spring 2010. Manhattan Institute for Policy Research . Retrieved April 14, 2015.
  4. Marinucci, Carla (November 6, 2005). "Beatty crashes governor's party". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved April 14, 2015.
  5. Richard Hasen, Assessing California's Hybrid Democracy, 97 Cal. L. Rev. 1501 (2009).
  6. Thomas, Bryan (November 10, 2005). "A Weary State is Left Facing Hefty Price Tag". The Daily Californian. Archived from the original on January 18, 2016. Retrieved April 14, 2015.
  7. Chronicle political writers (November 9, 2005). "Californians say no to Schwarzenegger". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved April 14, 2015.

Academic institutions

Government agencies

Independent sites

Affiliated sites