California Proposition 119, Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission Act (1990)
- See also: Redistricting in California
- See also: Redistricting in California
Proposition 119, if it had been enacted, would have created an "Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission" for the purpose of reapportioning Assembly and Senate, Congressional, and Board of Equalization districts. It also would have changed the election cycle for state senators.
The lengthy text of the initiative defined, in minute detail, what it thought should be the boundaries of all the state's assembly, senate, U.S. congressional, and equalization districts.
|I • II • III • IV • V • VI • VII • VIII • IX • X • XA • XB • XI • XII • XIII • XIII A • XIII B • XIII C • XIII D • XIV • XV • XVI • XVIII • XIX • XIX A • XIX B • XIX C • XX • XXI • XXII • XXXIV • XXXV|
If Proposition 119 had been approved, it would have:
- Repealed Article XXI of the California Constitution.
- Amended Section 1 of Article IV.
- Added an entirely new Article IV A.
- Amended Section 2 of Article IV.
Text of measure
The ballot title was:
- "Amends state Constitution. Requires 12-person Commission, appointed by retired appellate justices, adjust boundaries of California Senatorial, Assembly, Congressional, and Board of Equalization districts. Commissioners appointed from nominees of nonpartisan, non-profit state organizations. Requires Commission review plans submitted by registered voters and adopt plan or amended plan which complies with standards. Each district's population may vary no more than 1% from average district population. Senatorial districts formed from two adjacent Assembly districts, Board of Equalization districts from 10 adjacent Senate districts. Elections held for all Senate and Assembly seats in 1992. Summary of Legislative Analyst's estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact: Requires Legislature to transfer $3.5 million to the Independent Citizens Redistricting Fund in 1990-91 for expenses of commission. Transfers thereafter, every 10 years, adjusted for changes in the Consumer Price Index, resulting in the reduction of reapportionment costs by several millions of dollars each decade. If Supreme Court undertakes redistricting, state costs would increase thereby offsetting part or all of above savings."
- See also: Fiscal impact statement
The fiscal estimate provided by the California Legislative Analyst's Office said::
- "The measure requires the Legislature to transfer $3.5 million from legislative funds to the Independent Citizens Redistricting Fund in 1990-91 for expenses of the commission. No other public monies may be appropriated or expended for redistricting. The Legislature must make transfers to the fund every 10 years thereafter, adjusted for changes in the Consumer Price Index, and reduced to account for any previously unexpended funds. As a result of this limit, reapportionment costs in the state could be reduced by several millions of dollars each decade. However, if the task of adopting a reapportionment plan fell to the Supreme Court, state costs would increase, thereby offsetting part or all of the above savings."
State of California
|Ballot measures by year||
1910 | 1911 | 1912 | 1914 | 1915 | 1916 | 1919 | 1920 | 1922 | 1924 | 1926 | 1928 | 1930 | 1932 | 1933 | 1934 | 1935 | 1936 | 1938 | 1939 | 1940 | 1942 | 1944 | 1946 | 1948 | 1949 | 1950 | 1952 | 1954 | 1956 | 1958 | 1960 | 1962 | 1964 | 1966 | 1968 | 1970 | 1972 | 1973 | 1974 | 1976 | 1978 | 1980 | 1982 | 1984 | 1986 | 1988 | 1990 | 1992 | 1993 | 1994 | 1996 | 1998 | 2000 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2006 (local) | 2008 | 2008 (local) | 2009 | 2009 (local) | 2010 | 2010 (local) | 2011 (local) | 2012 | 2012 (local) | 2014 | 2016 |
|State executive offices||
Governor | Attorney General | Secretary of State | Controller | Treasurer | State Auditor | Superintendent of Public Instruction | Commissioner of Insurance | Secretary of Agriculture | Secretary for Natural Resources | Director of Industrial Relations | President of Public Utilities |