2010 California Proposition 20

Last updated

A California Congressional Redistricting Initiative, Proposition 20 was on the November 2, 2010 ballot in California. It was approved by 61.2% of voters. [1] Election officials announced on May 5 that the proposition had collected sufficient signatures to qualify for the ballot. [2] The measure is known by its supporters as the VOTERS FIRST Act for Congress.

Contents

The Congressional Redistricting Initiative:

Ballot language was filed by Charles Munger, Jr., who was also Proposition 20's largest financial supporter. Munger, the son of billionaire Charlie Munger, was a supporter of Proposition 11 in 2008, which created a new way for political districts to be drawn for California's state legislators and its state Board of Equalization.

A competing initiative that also qualified for the November 2 ballot, California Proposition 27 (2010), sought to repeal Proposition 11.

Proposition 20 and Proposition 27 each had a so-called "poison pill" provision. This means that if they both received a majority vote, the proposition that received the highest majority vote is the law that would go into effect. Since Proposition 20 passed but Proposition 27 did not, neither provision was triggered.

Ballot language

Ballot title
Text of Proposition 20, the "Voters FIRST Act for Congress"
Official summary
Removes elected representatives from the process of establishing congressional districts and transfers that authority to recently authorized 14-member redistricting commission comprised of Democrats, Republicans, and representatives of neither party.
Summary of estimated fiscal impact
No significant net change in state redistricting costs. [3]

Congressional redistricting

If this initiative had not succeeded, the next Governor of California and members of the California State Legislature would have chosen how to draw lines for the 53 U.S. Congressional districts California was determined to be entitled to after the 2010 census.

From 2000 to 2010, the population in California underwent a major shift eastward, with people moving to California's inland areas from its coastal enclaves. This meant that California's congressional district boundaries would certainly undergo major upheaval after the 2010 census. As one example, the San Francisco Bay Area had grown less than 1% since the last redistricting, while the Central Valley area had grown by 21%. Los Angeles County had grown 5%, while San Diego, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Imperial Counties had grown by 17%. [4]

Another notable factor is that California's population hadn't grown much relative to the population of the rest of the United States, There were fears at the time that California might even have proportionally shrunk and that it could lose one or two seats in Congress. [4] In the end, California's representation in Congress remained the same, which was the first time the state had not increased its congressional representation since the reapportionment following the 1920 census.

Constitutional changes

Proposition 20 amended three sections of Article XXI of the California Constitution.

The three sections are:

Support

Supporters

Charles Munger launched the campaign to qualify the Congressional Redistricting Initiative for the 2010 ballot. Munger was also a key supporter of 2008's Proposition 11, having given about $2 million to that effort. [5]

The New York Times characterized Proposition 20's supporters as "an unlikely collection of election-reform groups, civil rights nonprofits and former officials from both major parties who say that the current system of redistricting has left politicians unaccountable." [6]

Supporters of Proposition 20 included:

A full list of the supporters of Proposition 20 is available from the "Yes on Proposition 20" website.

Arguments in favor

Arguments were submitted to the official California Voter Guide on behalf of a "yes" vote on Proposition 20, as were rebuttals to the arguments provided by Prop 20 opponents. The signers of these arguments were:

The arguments made on behalf of Proposition 20 focus on these themes:

Opposition

Opposition to Proposition 20 was primarily driven by the supporters of Proposition 27.

Donors against

Two campaign committees officially registered in opposition to Proposition 20. They are:

Through September 22, neither of the committees specifically aimed at Proposition 20 had received any contributions to speak of. However, due to the fact that California Proposition 27 contains "poison pill" language with respect to Proposition 20, any money spent to promote a "yes" vote on Proposition 27 amounts to money spent to hurt Proposition 20, and vice versa.

That main campaign committee endorsing a "yes" vote on California Proposition 27 raised millions of dollars, including a substantial amount of money from 17 members of California's delegation to the U.S. Congress as well as members of the California State Legislature such as State Rep. Charles Calderon, a $100,000 donor to the "Yes on 27" campaign.

Arguments against

Arguments were submitted to the official California Voter Guide urging a "no" vote on Proposition 20, as were rebuttals to the arguments provided by Prop 20 supporters. The signers of these arguments were:

The themes of the main arguments they made against Proposition 20 (and in favor of Proposition 27) are:

Editorial opinion

Yes on Prop 20

Newspapers that editorialized in favor of Proposition 20 include:

No on Prop 20

Path to the ballot

694,354 signatures were required to qualify the initiative for the ballot. Supporters turned in 1,180,623 signature in mid-March 2010, and election officials announced on May 5, 2010 that after an inspection process, the signatures met or exceeded the minimum threshold for ballot qualification. [2]

The petition drive management company hired to collect the signatures was National Petition Management. NPM was paid $1,937,380 (through May 6) for their signature-gathering services. [24]

Results

Proposition 20 [25]
ChoiceVotes %
Check-71-128-204-brightblue.svg Yes5,743,16261.3
No3,637,06238.7
Valid votes9,380,22491.0
Invalid or blank votes922,1009.0
Total votes10,302,324100.00

Basic information

Supporters

Opponents

Further reading

Related Research Articles

<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 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 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 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">2008 California Proposition 10</span> Ballot measure in California

California Proposition 10, also known as the California Alternative Fuels Initiative, was an unsuccessful initiated state statute that appeared on the November 2008 ballot in California. Proposition 10 was funded by Clean Energy Fuels Corp., a corporation owned by T. Boone Pickens. Clean Energy Fuels Corp. is the nation's leading operator of natural gas vehicle fueling stations.

<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> 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 27</span> Ballot measure in California

Proposition 27 was an unsuccessful ballot proposition on the November 2, 2010 ballot in California, placed there by the initiative process. If approved, this measure would have repealed California Proposition 11 (2008), which authorized the creation of the California Citizens Redistricting Commission to draw the electoral boundaries for State Assembly and State Senate districts. It would also have modified the provision in California law that says that proposed congressional districts can not be subjected to a veto referendum.

<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">2010 California Proposition 19</span> Failed measure to legalize marijuana

California Proposition 19 was a ballot initiative on the November 2, 2010, statewide ballot. It was defeated, with 53.5% of California voters voting "No" and 46.5% voting "Yes." If passed, it would have legalized various marijuana-related activities, allowed local governments to regulate these activities, permitted local governments to impose and collect marijuana-related fees and taxes, and authorized various criminal and civil penalties. In March 2010, it qualified to be on the November statewide ballot. The proposition required a simple majority in order to pass, and would have taken effect the day after the election. Yes on 19 was the official advocacy group for the initiative and California Public Safety Institute: No On Proposition 19 was the official opposition group.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2012 California Proposition 39</span> Ballot measure in California modifying corporate tax burdens

Proposition 39 is a ballot initiative in the state of California that modifies the way out-of-state corporations calculate their income tax burdens. The proposition was approved by voters in the November 6 general election, with 61.1% voting in favor of it.

<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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Redistricting in California</span>

Redistricting in California has historically been highly controversial. Critics have accused legislators of attempting to protect themselves from competition by gerrymandering districts. Conflicts between the governor and the legislature during redistricting often have only been resolved by the courts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2016 California Proposition 64</span> 2016 California voter initiative that legalized recreational cannabis

The Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA) was a 2016 voter initiative to legalize cannabis in California. The full name is the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act. The initiative passed with 57% voter approval and became law on November 9, 2016, leading to recreational cannabis sales in California by January 2018.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2018 California Proposition 6</span> Failed amendment to the Constitution of California

California Proposition 6 was a measure that was submitted to California voters as part of the November 2018 election. The ballot measure proposed a repeal of the Road Repair and Accountability Act, which is also known as Senate Bill 1. The measure failed with about 57% of the voters against and 43% in favor.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 California Proposition 18</span> 2020 California ballot proposition

The 2020 California Proposition 18 would allow 17-year-olds to vote in primary and special elections if they will turn 18 by the subsequent general election.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 California Proposition 19</span> Successful property tax ballot initiative

California Proposition 19 (2020), also referred to as Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 11, is an amendment of the Constitution of California that was narrowly approved by voters in the general election on November 3, 2020, with just over 51% of the vote. The legislation increases the property tax burden on owners of inherited property to provide expanded property tax benefits to homeowners ages 55 years and older, disabled homeowners, and victims of natural disasters, and fund wildfire response. According to the California Legislative Analyst, Proposition 19 is a large net tax increase "of hundreds of millions of dollars per year."

<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 on 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 codify the right. 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. The decision reversed judicial precedent that previously held that the United States constitution protected the right to an abortion.

References

  1. ""California Secretary of State", "State Ballot Measures, Election Results, November 2, 2010"". Archived from the original on November 5, 2010. Retrieved November 5, 2010.
  2. 1 2 "Sacramento Bee, "Ballot measure to expand Prop 11 to Congress OK'd", May 5, 2010". Archived from the original on August 11, 2010. Retrieved October 11, 2010.
  3. "July 2 version of the ballot label for Proposition 20, Congressional Redistricting" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 22, 2010. Retrieved October 11, 2010.
  4. 1 2 Marelius, John (November 16, 2009). "Inland population tilt will reshape districts". sandiegouniontribune.com.
  5. "From The Capitol, "Redistricting Commission repeal gets boost from House Dems", February 2, 2010".
  6. Shih, Gerry (October 7, 2010). "Tackling Redistricting With Money and Zeal". The New York Times via NYTimes.com.
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 6 "Official Voter Guide for Proposition 20" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on October 13, 2010. Retrieved October 11, 2010.
  8. "KQED-TV, "Give Redistricting Back To Legislature?", December 29, 2009". Archived from the original on October 11, 2010. Retrieved October 11, 2010.
  9. "Contra Costa Times editorial: We recommend yes on Proposition 20, no on 27". September 3, 2010.
  10. "Props. 20, 27: The flip sides of real change". Lompoc Record.
  11. "Long Beach Press-Telegram, "Yes on Prop. 20, no on Prop. 27", September 13, 2010". Archived from the original on October 24, 2010. Retrieved October 11, 2010.
  12. "Los Angeles Daily News, "Vote yes on Prop. 20, no on Prop. 27 for a much improved political system", September 14, 2010". Los Angeles Daily News . Archived from the original on October 13, 2010. Retrieved October 11, 2010.
  13. "Drawing the lines". September 24, 2010 via LA Times.
  14. "North County Times, "Yes on Prop. 20, No on 27", August 31, 2010".
  15. "Editorial: Prop: 20: Extend redistricting reform to Congress". September 17, 2010.
  16. "Riverside Press Enterprise, "Yes on 20; no on 27", September 7, 2010".
  17. "San Bernardino Sun, "Vote to improve our government", September 28, 2010". Archived from the original on October 13, 2010. Retrieved October 11, 2010.
  18. Board, The San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial (September 7, 2010). "Redistricting reforms must advance". sandiegouniontribune.com.
  19. "Santa Rosa Press Democrat, "Yes on Prop. 20, no on 27"". Archived from the original on December 23, 2010. Retrieved October 11, 2010.
  20. "Santa Cruz Sentinel, "As We See It: Yes on 20, No on 27", October 3, 2010". Archived from the original on October 6, 2010. Retrieved October 11, 2010.
  21. "San Gabriel Valley Tribune, "Yes on Prop. 20 for fair districts", September 28, 2010". Archived from the original on October 13, 2010. Retrieved October 11, 2010.
  22. "Ventura County Star, "Prop. 20: Yes Prop. 27: No way", September 2, 2010".
  23. "Sacramento Bee, "Leave redistricting reform alone - No on Propositions 20 and 27", September 17, 2010". Archived from the original on September 28, 2010. Retrieved October 11, 2010.
  24. "California Secretary of State - CalAccess - Campaign Finance". cal-access.sos.ca.gov.
  25. "For the November 2, 2010, Statewide General Election County Summary Status". California Secretary of State's office. November 3, 2010. p. 37. Archived from the original on November 5, 2014. Retrieved November 3, 2010.