California Proposition 118, the "Legislative Ethics Enforcement Initiative" (1990)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
See also: Redistricting in California
California Proposition 118 was on the June 5, 1990 ballot in California as an initiated constitutional amendment, where it was defeated. Its supporters knew it as the Legislative Ethics Enforcement Initiative of 1990.

Proposition 118, if it had passed, would have made changes in the legislative reapportionment process, in the timing of election of state senators and in laws regarding ethical standards for members of the California State Legislature.

Election results

Proposition 118
ResultVotesPercentage
Defeatedd No3,281,17767.01%
Yes 1,615,163 32.99%

Constitutional changes

California Constitution
Flag of California.png
Preamble
Articles
IIIIIIIVVVI
VIIVIIIIXXXA
XBXIXIIXIIIXIII A
XIII BXIII CXIII DXIVXVXVIXVIIIXIXXIX AXIX BXIX C
XXXXIXXII
XXXIVXXXV

Proposition 18 proposed these constitutional changes:

Ballot summary

The ballot summary said, "Amends state constitutional provisions governing redistricting procedures and criteria for Senate, Assembly and Congressional offices. Redistricting plan requires two-thirds vote of each house, approval by voters. Reschedules elections for all senatorial offices to second, sixth, tenth years following national census. Amends Constitution to create Joint Legislative Ethics Committee, directs Legislature establish ethical standards. Amends and adds statutes to: prohibit participation in legislation when legislator has personal interest; require legislators report gifts, honoraria of $50 or more; prohibit receipt of gifts from sources employing lobbyists; prohibit lobbying by former legislators for one year. Summary of Legislative Analyst's estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact: Limit on redistricting expenditures to one-half of costs of last redistricting (adjusted for cost-of-living changes) could reduce state costs by several millions of dollars each decade. However, requirement of electorate vote and possible court reapportionment could increase state costs, offsetting part or all of savings. Costs of legislative ethics provisions are probably minor."

Fiscal impact

The fiscal estimate provided by the California Legislative Analyst's Office said:

"The measure provides that the amount of public expenditures by the Legislature for redistricting shall be no greater than one-half of the amount that the Legislature spent in developing and adopting the redistricting plans that were based on the 1980 census, adjusted for changes in the cost of living. This provision could reduce state costs by several millions of dollars each decade. However, the provision requiring the electorate to vote on the reapportionment measures and the possible subsequent reapportionment by the courts could increase state costs, thereby offsetting part or all of the above savings."
"The costs of this measure associated with the conduct of Members and former Members of the Legislature are probably minor."

External links