Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.
California Proposition 43, Constitutional Right to Have One's Vote Counted Amendment (March 2002)
| California Proposition 43 | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
| Election date |
|
| Topic Constitutional rights and Election administration and governance |
|
| Status |
|
| Type Legislatively referred constitutional amendment |
Origin |
California Proposition 43 was on the ballot as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment in California on March 5, 2002. It was approved.
A "yes" vote supported amending the constitution to state that "a voter who casts a vote in an election in accordance with the laws of this state shall have that vote counted." |
A "no" vote opposed amending the constitution to state that "a voter who casts a vote in an election in accordance with the laws of this state shall have that vote counted." |
Election results
|
California Proposition 43 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
|
|
3,391,678 | 71.51% | ||
| No | 1,351,179 | 28.49% | ||
Measure design
Proposition 43 amended the California Constitution to explicitly state that "a voter who casts a vote in an election in accordance with the laws of this state shall have that vote counted."[1]
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title for Proposition 43 was as follows:
| “ | Right to Have Vote Counted. Legislative Constitutional Amendment. | ” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary for this measure was:
| “ | This measure amends the California Constitution to declare that a voter who casts a vote in an election in accord with the laws of this state shall have that vote counted. | ” |
Full Text
The full text of this measure is available here.
Fiscal impact
- See also: Fiscal impact statement
The fiscal estimate provided by the California Legislative Analyst's Office said:
- "No additional cost to state or local governments."
Support
Supporters
- Assembly member John Longville[1]
- President of the League of Women Voters of California Barbara B. Inatsugu[1]
- Executive Director of California Common Cuase James K. Knox[1]
Arguments
Official arguments
The following supporting arguments were presented in the official voter guide for Proposition 43:[1]
| “ | WHY DO WE NEED PROPOSITION 43?
In the 2000 presidential election, confusion over which ballots should or should not count led to a substantial delay in determining which candidate won in Florida. Many votes were not counted due to problems with equipment, questions about whether votes were validly cast, and uncertainty about which candidate some voters had selected. In an effort to ensure that all votes cast in accordance with Florida law were counted, local election officials began hand recounts of ballots. Those recounts demonstrated that vote tallying machines were less than perfect, and that votes had been missed in the original tally. Unfortunately, election officials were unable to complete hand counts before a deadline for certifying the state’s vote. This deadline fell more than a month before the President was to take office, leaving adequate time to complete hand recounts. Nevertheless, citing this deadline, the United States Supreme Court and the Florida Secretary of State effectively stopped hand counts and certified election results using incomplete vote totals. As a result, thousands of voters did not have their votes counted, even though they cast their votes in accordance with Florida law. WHAT DOES PROPOSITION 43 DO? Proposition 43 adds a section to the California Constitution that reads “A voter who casts a vote in an election in accordance with the laws of this state shall have that vote counted.” By voting YES, you ensure that your vote will not be discarded because someone thought there wasn’t enough time to count your vote. If you follow all the applicable election laws when you vote, you should have the right to have your vote counted. Proposition 43 is not a referendum on the 2000 presidential election. Instead it is an effort to declare, before an election controversy arises, the principles that should guide the counting of validly cast votes in an election. Proposition 43 does not change laws regarding recounting ballots or determining voter intent. In addition, the approval of Proposition 43 will make effective a law that allows courts to extend post-election deadlines that prevent the proper counting of votes. This will help ensure that what happened in Florida doesn’t happen here. IS PROPOSITION 43 NECESSARY? The laws that govern the elections process in California attempt to ensure the integrity and smooth operation of our elections. But when these laws conflict with one another, there is no guarantee which law will prevail. Proposition 43 expressly provides that you have a constitutional right to have your vote counted, regardless of problems that arise after you cast your vote. The right to vote is meaningless if you can’t be sure that your vote will be counted. Elections shouldn’t be decided by courts or government officials—elections should be decided by the citizens who vote in them. Proposition 43 helps ensure that this is the case.[2] |
” |
Opposition
Opponents
- Co-Chair of Voter Information Alliance Gary B. Wesley[1]
- Co-Chair of Voter Information Melvin L. Emerich[1]
Arguments
Official arguments
The following opposing arguments were presented in the official voter guide for Proposition 43:[1]
| “ | This proposed amendment to the California Constitution
sounds good. It would add a section to provide that “(a) voter who casts a vote in an election in accordance with the laws of this state shall have that vote counted.” But what, if anything, would Proposition 43 really do? Maybe just promote ambitious litigation over the outcome of elections. MISSING BALLOTS: In California, a voter may cast a vote by mailing in an absentee ballot or voting at a polling place. What if some ballots were lost, damaged or destroyed before being counted? Would that invalidate the election if the missing ballots could have changed the outcome? When a ballot is missing, how would it be determined whose ballot is missing and how it had been completed? DEFECTIVE BALLOTS: Then, there is the problem of partially marked ballots—indentations and “hanging chad”—votes not counted by the vote-counting machine because the voter did not fully clear the chad. Before the Florida debacle, most of us had never even heard the word “chad” or given any thought to whether we had fully punched through a hole and cleared away the “chad” in making each ballot choice. By demanding that every vote be counted, Proposition 43 could invite all kinds of litigation over whether all votes have, indeed, been counted. The outcome of some elections could remain uncertain for long periods of time. The truth is that far more mistakes are surely made in casting ballots— than in securing and counting them. Moreover, the main problem with elections is not that some votes are cast but not counted. THE REAL PROBLEM IS THAT MOST CITIZENS DO NOT VOTE AT ALL, AND OUR CHOICE OF CANDIDATES IS TOO OFTEN A CHOICE BETWEEN TWO OR MORE UNQUALIFIED PERSONS. What we need is public financing of election campaigns— at least for all state elected offices. Otherwise, candidates will continue to be recruited by—and beholden to—the special interest groups and wealthy corporations that provide the campaign money.[2] |
” |
Path to the ballot
The California State Legislature voted to put Proposition 43 on the ballot via Assembly Constitutional Amendment 9 of the 2001-2002 Regular Session (Resolution Chapter 114, Statutes of 2001).[1]
| Votes in legislature to refer to ballot | ||
|---|---|---|
| Chamber | Ayes | Noes |
| Assembly | 79 | 0 |
| Senate | 39 | 0 |
See also
External links
Footnotes
