California Proposition 33, Automobile Insurance Persistency Discounts (2012)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Proposition 33
Flag of California.png
Click here for the latest news on U.S. ballot measures
Quick stats
Type:State statute
Referred by:Petition signatures
Topic:Insurance
Status:Defeatedd
California Proposition 33, the "Prices Based On Driver’s History Of Insurance Coverage" Initiative, was on the November 6, 2012 ballot as an initiated state statute, where it was defeated..[1]

If Proposition 33 had been approved, it would have allowed insurers to set prices based on whether the driver previously carried insurance coverage with any insurance company.[2] Insurers would have been able to offer discounts to new customers who could prove they were continuously covered by any licensed auto insurance company over the previous five years. Insurers would have been allowed to increase the cost of insurance to drivers without continuous coverage over the previous five years.[2] These discounts are known as "persistency discounts" or "loyalty discounts" and under current California law, insurance companies can only offer them to existing customers.[3]

Proposition 33 was similar to Proposition 17, which was on the June 8, 2010 ballot. Proposition 17 was narrowly defeated. Unlike Proposition 17, Proposition 33 exempted soldiers and those who have been unemployed for 18 months or less from paying more after a lapse in persistency.[4]

The fight over Proposition 33, and automobile insurance persistency discounts and surcharges for lack of prior continuous coverage in general, began in 1988, when Proposition 103 was approved. Proposition 103 forbids insurers from using the absence of prior coverage, in and of itself, as a factor in setting automobile insurance rates.[5] which Proposition 33 would allow.

About $21 billion worth of automobile insurance is sold every year in California.[6]

Election results

See also: 2012 ballot measure election results
California Proposition 33
ResultVotesPercentage
Defeatedd No6,737,57155.0%
Yes 5,510,282 45.0%
These final, certified, results are from the California Secretary of State.

Text of measure

See also: Complete text of Proposition 33 and Ballot titles, summaries and fiscal statements for California's 2012 ballot propositions

Ballot title

Auto Insurance Companies. Prices based on Driver's History of Insurance Coverage. Initiative Statute.

Note: The original title given to Proposition 33 by election officials during the petition circulation stage was, "Changes Law to Allow Auto Insurance Companies to Set Prices Based on a Driver's History of Insurance Coverage. Initiative Statute."

Official summary

The state's official voter guide included two summaries for each statewide ballot measure. One summary, in bullet-point format, appeared in the long-form description of each measure. A shorter form of the summary appeared on the ballot label in the front of the voter guide, where there was a short description of each measure.

The long-form summary for Proposition 33 said:

  • Changes current law to allow insurance companies to set prices based on whether the driver previously carried auto insurance with any insurance company.
  • Allows insurance companies to give proportional discounts to drivers with some history of prior insurance coverage.
  • Will allow insurance companies to increase cost of insurance to drivers who have not maintained continuous coverage.
  • Treats drivers with lapse as continuously covered if lapse is due to military service or loss of employment, or if lapse is less than 90 days.

The short-form (ballot label) summary for Proposition 33 said:

"Changes current law to allow insurance companies to set prices based on whether the driver previously carried auto insurance with any insurance company. Allows proportional discount for drivers with some prior coverage. Allows increased cost for drivers without history of continuous coverage."

Neither of the two summaries in the final voter guide was identical to the summary that was originally given to Proposition 33, when its sponsors sought a summary prior to circulating petitions to qualify the measure for the ballot. The summary that was given by election officials to Proposition 33 at that time said:

"Changes current law to permit insurance companies to set prices based on whether the driver previously carried auto insurance with any insurance company. Allows insurance companies to give proportional discounts to drivers with some prior insurance coverage. Will allow insurance companies to increase cost of insurance to drivers who have not maintained continuous coverage. Treats drivers with lapse as continuously covered if lapse is due to military service or loss of employment, or if lapse is less than 90 days."

Fiscal impact

See also: Fiscal impact statements for California's 2012 ballot propositions

(This is a summary of the initiative's estimated "fiscal impact on state and local government" prepared by the California Legislative Analyst's Office and the Director of Finance.)

Probably no significant fiscal effect on state insurance premium tax revenues.

Support

Logo of the "Yes on 33" campaign

Supporters

  • Don Perata, former California State Senate president pro tempore. He said, "This initiative does what most states have done successfully and allows the consumer to control the discount. This is not a party issue. This is a fairness question, and as a legislator and policymaker, I always supported the portability of this discount. It just makes sense."[8]
  • Milo Pearson, former Deputy Commissioner for Rate Regulation at the California Department of Insurance. He wrote, "Proposition 103 was passed in 1988 and, with one exception mentioned below, eliminated the ability for drivers to move to another auto insurance company and take the persistency discount with them. It is my view that Proposition 103 has done many good things for automobile insurance consumers over the years, but this is not one of them. It is simply unfair to penalize the vast majority of drivers in this state who follow the law by not allowing this discount to be portable. Opponents of Proposition 33 argue that insurance premiums for that small percent of drivers who drive without insurance will increase substantially if Proposition 33 passes. However, there is absolutely no evidence that this will be the case."[9]
  • Pete Conaty, retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel and veteran's advocate. He wrote, "When California had a law similar to Prop. 33 from 1996 to 2002, rates did not go up and the number of uninsured motorists dropped by almost half. This incentive to bring the uninsured into the system has earned Prop. 33 the support of the California Association of Highway Patrolmen, which wants safer streets and more insured drivers.The provisions and benefits found in Prop. 33 would offer millions of California drivers while addressing a real problem specific to veterans and others who experience a lapse in their policies. Prop. 33 helps veterans save money upon re-entry into civilian life."[10]

Supporters also included:

  • USAA
  • American Legion
  • Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) of California
  • American GI Forum
  • California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce
  • The Greenlining Institute
  • Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC)
  • CDF Firefighters Local 2881
  • California Association of Highway Patrolmen
  • Willie Brown, Former Democratic Speaker of the Assembly
  • Jim Brulte, Former Republican Senate Minority Leader
  • Former Lieutenant Governor of California, Cruz Bustamante
  • American Agents Alliance
  • Slavic American Chamber of Commerce
  • Merced Filipino Chamber of Commerce
  • Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce
  • Asian American Business Women’s Association
  • Asian Business Association of Orange County
  • Asian Americans in Commercial Real Estate
  • Council for Asian American Business Associations
  • Southeast Asian Community Center
  • Asian Business Association of Los Angeles
  • Chinese Chamber of Commerce of Los Angeles
  • AP3CON
  • Global Network Solutions
  • Corona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
  • Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Alameda County
  • South Bay Latino Chamber of Commerce
  • San Francisco African American Chamber of Commerce
  • The Greater Phoenix Urban League
  • Central Valley Asian Pacific American Chamber of Commerce
  • Salvadoran American Leadership Fund
  • Annenberg Chinese Students and Alumni Association
  • Chinese American Citizens Alliance
  • Search to Involve Pilipino Americans
  • South Bay Association of Chambers of Commerce
  • Rosemead Chamber of Commerce
  • Central Valley Asian Pacific American Chamber of Commerce
  • Asian American Business Women Association
  • Esquivel, Rosemead School Board member
  • Valley Industry and Commerce Association

Arguments in favor

The arguments presented in favor of Proposition 33 in the state's official voter guide included:

  • "California law requires all drivers to buy automobile insurance. Approximately 85% of California drivers follow the law and buy insurance. If you follow the law and maintain continuous automobile insurance coverage, you are currently eligible for a discount, but only if you stay with the same insurance company. Current law punishes you for seeking better insurance or trying to get a better deal by taking away your discount for being continuously insured."
  • "Proposition 33 corrects this problem and offers this discount to consumers who maintain automobile insurance with any company."
  • "Proposition 33 allows you to shop for a better insurance deal."
  • "The reward you get for being responsible and following the law is yours to keep under Proposition 33, even if you exercise your right to move to a different insurance company. That is why some insurance companies like Proposition 33 and others don’t. It creates competition. Your neighborhood insurance agents support Proposition 33 because it will force insurance companies to compete for your business."
  • "It is simple. It makes sense."
  • "You should get the discount that you have earned, regardless of which insurance company you pick."
  • "Proposition 33 also encourages those who don’t have insurance to obtain it, because Proposition 33 makes it easier to earn the continuous coverage discount. You get a share of the discount for every full year you are insured. The longer you are insured, the greater the discount. This encourages uninsured drivers to become insured and make our roads safer."
  • "If you are active military, Proposition 33 says you will not lose the discount. That’s why our military families, led by the American GI Forum and Veterans of Foreign Wars, say Yes on Proposition 33."
  • "If you are laid off or furloughed, Proposition 33 allows you to keep your status as a continuously covered driver for up to 18 months."
  • "Under Proposition 33, driving age children get the discount whether they are living with their parents or are away at school."
  • "Proposition 33 allows you to miss payments for 90 days for any reason and remain eligible for this discount."

Donors

Total campaign cash Campaign Finance Ballotpedia.png
as of November 3, 2012
Category:Ballot measure endorsements Support: $17,100,000
Circle thumbs down.png Opposition: $275,700

George Joseph, who chairs insurance company Mercury General, was the dominant donor to the Proposition 33 campaign.[3] Joseph, a billionaire, was the 385th richest man in American in 2011.[4]

These are the $10,000 and over donors to the "yes" campaign as of Saturday, November 3, 2012:

Donor Amount
George Joseph $16,922,127
College Student Insurance Service $15,000
Del Sol Group, Inc. $15,000
Abernathy Insurance Agency $14,000
Calgard Associates $10,000
Rancho Simi Insurance Agency $10,000
John Peakes Insurance Agency $10,000
Eric Waller $10,000

Opposition

Logo of the "No on 33" campaign

Opponents

  • Mark Savage, Senior Attorney for Consumers Union (publisher of Consumer Reports magazine): "Prop 33 will give insurance companies far more power to raise rates on millions of good drivers who deserve a break, not a rate hike. Allowing insurance companies to base their auto premiums primarily on continuous coverage will make insurance coverage unaffordable for many low-income drivers."[11]
  • Carmen Balber, Consumer Advocate for Consumer Watchdog: “Lies and deception are at the heart of this insurance billionaire’s campaign for Prop 33, because he can’t win if the public knows the truth: Prop 33 allows insurance companies to charge good drivers more.”[11]
  • Richard Holober, Executive Director of the Consumer Federation of California, said, "When was the last time a billionaire insurance magnate spent a fortune to save you money? Never. This proposition is nothing more that an insurance tycoon's self-enrichment scheme."[12]

The arguments against Proposition 33 in the state's official voter guide were submitted by:

  • Harvey Rosenfield. Rosenfield is the founder of Consumer Watchdog.
  • Elisa Obadashian. Obadashian is the director of the West Coast Office and State Campaigns for Consumer's Union, which is the policy and advocacy division of Consumer Reports.
  • Nan Brasmer. Brasmer is the president of the California Alliance for Retired Americans.
  • DeAnn McEwen, RN. McEwen is the president of the California Nurses Association.
  • Richard Holober. Holober is the executive director of the Consumer Federation of California.
  • Jamie Court. Court is the president of Consumer Watchdog.

Members of the "Stop Prop 33" coalition included:[13]

  • California Alliance for Retired Americans[14][15]
  • California Democratic Party[16]
  • California Federation of Teachers
  • California Labor Federation
  • California Nurses Association
  • Consumer Action
  • Consumers for Auto Reliability & Safety
  • Consumer Federation of California
  • Consumers Union (publisher of Consumer Reports magazine)
  • Consumer Watchdog
  • Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
  • National Organization for Women California
  • Older Women’s League of CA
  • Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment
  • American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
  • Bend the Arc: A Jewish Partnership for Justice
  • Berkeley-East Bay Gray Panthers
  • Black Economic Council
  • Breakthrough Communities
  • California Bike Coalition
  • California Church Impact
  • California Conference of Machinists
  • California Young Democrats
  • Center for Sustainable Neighborhoods
  • Chinese American Institute for Empowerment
  • Courage Campaign
  • CREDO
  • Equal Justice Society
  • Friends Committee on Legislation of California
  • Former California Insurance Commissioner and Congressman John Garamendi[17]
  • International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers, Local 21
  • Jericho, Voice for Justice
  • Latino Business Chamber of Greater Los Angeles
  • Latino Voter’s League
  • Lutheran Office of Public Policy
  • Morongo Basin Democratic Club
  • National Asian American Coalition
  • PolicyLink
  • PresentePAC+
  • Public Advocates
  • Public Employees Union, Local 1
  • Service Employees International Union 1000 California
  • The Public Interest Law Project/California Affordable Housing Law Project
  • The Utilities Reform Network
  • United Policyholders
  • Urban Habitat

Arguments against

The arguments in opposition to Proposition 33 presented in the state's official voter guide included:

  • "It’s another deceptive insurance company trick to raise auto insurance rates for millions of responsible drivers in California."
  • "Mercury Insurance spent $16 million on a similar initiative in 2010. Californians rejected it. Now they’re at it again. Mercury Insurance’s billionaire chairman George Joseph has already spent $8 million to fund Proposition 33. When was the last time an insurance company billionaire spent a fortune to save you money?"
  • "Proposition 33 unfairly punishes anyone who stopped driving for a good reason but now needs insurance to get back behind the wheel."
  • "Proposition 33 'will allow insurance companies to increase cost of insurance,' according to the Attorney General’s Official Summary—even on motorists with perfect driving records."
  • "Proposition 33 is a cleverly worded initiative that says one thing and does another. Beware: the California Department of Insurance has said the so-called 'continuous coverage discount' scheme 'will result in a surcharge' for many California drivers. That’s why Consumers Union, the policy and advocacy division of Consumer Reports, opposes Prop. 33."
  • "Proposition 33 raises insurance rates for students completing college who now need to drive to a new job."
  • "Proposition 33 raises insurance rates for people who dropped their coverage while recuperating from a serious illness or injury that kept them off the road."
  • "Prop. 33 deregulates the insurance industry, making big insurance companies less accountable—which is why this measure is 99% funded by an insurance billionaire whose company, Mercury Insurance, has a record of overcharging consumers. The California Department of Insurance says Mercury has "a deserved reputation for abusing its customers and intentionally violating the law with arrogance and indifference.'"
  • "It penalizes responsible drivers who did not need auto insurance in the past."
  • "Prop. 33 allows insurance companies to charge dramatically higher rates to customers with perfect driving records, just because they had not purchased auto insurance at some point during the past five years. Drivers must pay this unfair penalty even if they did not own a car or need insurance at the time."
  • "In states where the Proposition 33 surcharge is legal, the result is higher premiums."

Donors

Total campaign cash Campaign Finance Ballotpedia.png
as of November 3, 2012
Category:Ballot measure endorsements Support: $17,100,000
Circle thumbs down.png Opposition: $275,700

These are the $10,000 and over donors to the "no" campaign as of Saturday, November 3, 2012:

Donor Amount
California Nurses Association $97,500
Consumer Watchdog $95,616
Campaign for Consumer Rights $30,000
Consumer Federation of California $19,930
Cotchette, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP $10,000

Editorial opinion

See also: Endorsements of California ballot measures, 2012

"Yes on 33"

2012 propositions
Flag of California.png
June 5
Proposition 28
Proposition 29
November 6
Proposition 30
Proposition 31
Proposition 32
Proposition 33
Proposition 34
Proposition 35
Proposition 36
Proposition 37
Proposition 38
Proposition 39
Proposition 40
DonationsVendors
EndorsementsFull text
Ballot titlesFiscal impact
Local measures
  • The Orange County Register: "When it comes to pricing insurance, it's best to match risk and reward, and the only way to match risk with reward is by using information about past behavior. Insurance markets fail when that information is not forthcoming. Or when it is deliberately withheld, as it currently is in California, thanks to Proposition 103, passed in 1988."[18]
  • The Redding Record Searchlight: "Allowing a comparable discount for drivers who've been insured under any company will increase competition for drivers' business, and in the long run that can only be good for overall rates."[19]

"No on 33"

  • The Bakersfield Californian: "Just as they did with Prop. 17 in 2010, voters should say no to this flawed and deceptive measure in November. California already has a well-regulated and competitive auto insurance market. Let's keep it that way."[20]
  • The Bay Area Reporter: "While purporting to save drivers money, this initiative statute really gives insurance companies virtually unlimited authority to hike rates."[21]
  • The Contra Costa Times: "Proposition 33: Insurance changes: We recommend no. Billionaire George Joseph, chairman of Mercury Insurance, is back again with a new version of the law voters rejected two years ago."[22]
  • The Daily Democrat (Woodland, California): "This is another blatant attempt by insurance billionaire George Joseph to change auto insurance law in a way that helps his company, Mercury General Corp."[23]
  • The Fresno Bee: "California voters have a basic question to answer when deciding Proposition 33, a self-interested initiative funded by billionaire George Joseph, founder of Mercury General Corp. Should Mercury and other auto insurance companies be allowed to charge higher rates for people who are new to auto insurance, or are reentering the auto insurance market after having dropped coverage? The answer should be a resounding no."[24]
  • The Long Beach Press-Telegram: "One of the most irritating things about California's flawed initiative process is that any well-heeled special interest with an agenda can waste voters' time with a self-interested ballot measure, and bombard them with ads that make it sound as though it benefits the voters instead of the promoter. Doubly irritating is when the special interest doesn't take no for an answer but wastes our time and his money on another attempt."[25]
  • The Los Angeles Daily News: "There is no good reason such people should be punished for their nondriving period. Once they need or are able to drive again, the law says they have to buy insurance. When they comply with that law, they should not be hit with a surcharge that could last five years."[26]
  • The Los Angeles Times: "Proposition 33 might help Mercury induce more drivers to switch insurers. But raising the cost of coverage for those without insurance doesn't help anyone on California's roads."[27]
  • The Marin Independent Journal: "This is an example of a change that deserves to be vetted by legislative hearings."[28]
  • The Merced Sun-Star: "Any discount for some motorists requires a rate increase for others."[29]
  • The Modesto Bee: "Don’t let George Joseph hijack that process to advance narrow economic agendas. Voters said no to Mercury in 2010, and should say no again on Proposition 33."[30]
  • The North County Times: "We see no reason to change the current ban on charging higher rates to the previously uninsured. A person's likelihood of causing a vehicle collision tomorrow would not seem to hinge on whether they had insurance last week or not."[31]
  • The Press-Enterprise: "...a different and self-interested agenda drives this measure: poaching lucrative customers from rivals while encouraging less desirable customers to go elsewhere. Californians have no reason to reward that kind of special-interest scheme."[32]
  • The Sacramento Bee: "Current law seeks to ease the entry of people new to auto insurance and the re-entry of others who have gone off insurance for a time. In today's harsh economy, many drivers are looking for ways to cut expenses, and unfortunately may eliminate auto insurance. We should not change state law in a way that would discourage motorists from buying insurance. Nor should we encourage them to drive uninsured, which costs all of us."[33]
  • The San Bernardino Sun: "It's a retread of the 2010 ballot proposition, and it deserves rejection too."[34]
  • The San Diego Union-Tribune: "It is a ballot measure built on a misperception and driven by an assumption that hasn’t been proved."[35]
  • The San Francisco Chronicle: "The owner of Mercury Insurance wants to loosen state insurance laws so he can offer more discounts. Consumer activists warn that the change will lead to significant surcharges on new customers."[36]
  • The San Francisco Bay Guardian: "The bottom line is this is about Joseph's bottom line, and he isn't spending tens of millions of dollars in order to save you money."[37]
  • The San Jose Mercury News: "Voters should once again see through Mercury's longstanding attempts to change state insurance law in a way that would not only discourage some motorists from buying auto polices, but would also encourage them to drive without any coverage, which costs the rest of us."[38]
  • The Santa Cruz Sentinel: "Voters should once again see through Mercury's longstanding attempts to change state insurance law in a way that would not only discourage some motorists from buying auto polices, but would also encourage them to drive without any coverage, which costs the rest of us."[39]
  • The Ventura County Star: "In The Star's view, any proposal that would tend to increase the number of uninsured drivers is a bad move. It's a threat to everyone on the road, including conscientious drivers who might enjoy the discount Proposition 33 is dangling in front of voters on Nov. 6."[40]

Polling information

See also: Polls, 2012 ballot measures

The California Business Roundtable, in conjunction with Pepperdine University, conducted polls on Proposition 33.[41]


Date of Poll Pollster In favor Opposed Undecided Number polled
October 7-10, 2012 California Business Roundtable 54.0% 34.3% 11.7% 830
October 21-28, 2012 California Business Roundtable 48.8% 37.4% 13.8% 2,115

Path to the ballot

Clipboard48.png
See also: California signature requirements

Sponsors of Proposition 33 needed to collect 504,760 signatures by January 9, 2012 to qualify the measure for the ballot. Its supporters turned in over 800,000 signatures in mid-November 2011, several months before the deadline.[42] On January 18, 2012, the California Secretary of State announced that the initiative had qualified for the ballot.[42]

The letter requesting a title and summary for Proposition 33 was signed by Mike D’Arelli. D'Arelli is the executive director of the American Agents Alliance, an insurance trade group.[43]

Cost of signature collection:

The cost of collecting the signatures to qualify Proposition 33 for the ballot came to $1,700,916.

The signature vendor was Arno Political Consultants.

See also: California ballot initiative petition signature costs

Lawsuits

See also: List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2012

Sacramento County Superior Court lawsuit

Supporters of Proposition 33 filed a lawsuit in Sacramento County Superior Court saying that the ballot title and summary provided by the Attorney General of California are inaccurate and misleading. The lawsuit also said that arguments opposing Proposition 33 submitted for the state's official voter guide by its opponents are inaccurate. The lawsuit asked that the title be changed, and that what supporters said are inaccurate arguments from opponents not be allowed into the voter guide.[44]

In the part of the lawsuit that sought to have the official ballot summary changed, supporters said, "The Ballot Label and Ballot Title and Summary prepared by the Attorney General for Proposition 33 contain inaccurate language that is highly likely to prejudice voters against the measure...Specifically, the Ballot Label and Ballot Title and Summary state that Proposition 33 changes current law to allow insurance companies to 'set prices.' This is not true. Under California law, insurance companies cannot simply set prices, and Proposition 33 will not change this fact." The lawsuit needed to be resolved before August 13, when the official voter guides go to press.[45]

In the part of the lawsuit that objected to arguments filed against Proposition 33 by its opponents, the lawsuit said that the anti-argument that said "Proposition 33 unfairly punishes anyone who stopped driving for a good reason but now needs insurance to get back behind the wheel" should be stricken from the voter guide in its entirety because, they said, this statement is "false and misleading."[45]

Sacramento Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley rejected the lawsuit. This rejection was described by Proposition 33 opponent Jamie Court of Consumer Watchdog as a "total victory" for opponents.[46]

External links

BP-Initials-UPDATED.png
Suggest a link

Basic information:

Supporters:

Opponents:

References

  1. Sacramento Bee, "Auto rate initiative qualifies for California ballot," January 18, 2018
  2. 2.0 2.1 California General Election Official Voter Guide, "Prop 33"
  3. 3.0 3.1 Los Angeles Times, "Insurance exec contributes $8.1 million to initiative campaign," September 13, 2011
  4. 4.0 4.1 Los Angeles Times, "A bad 'discount' on car insurance," September 21, 2011
  5. California Insurance Code Section 1861.02 (c)
  6. California Secretary of State, "Legislative Analyst's Analysis of Proposition 33"
  7. Sacramento Bee, "California Republican Party endorses auto rate initiative," February 26, 2012
  8. 8.0 8.1 Insurance Journal, "Auto Insurance Discount Initiative May be Gaining Bipartisan Endorsement," March 16, 2012
  9. http://www.foxandhoundsdaily.com/2012/11/history-tells-us-why-to-vote-yes-on-proposition-33-more-insured-drivers-lower-rates/
  10. http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/opinion/ci_21715542/pete-conaty-prop-33-will-lower-california-car
  11. 11.0 11.1 Consumer Federation of California, "Consumer groups: Proposition 33 is a lemon," Nov. 1, 2012 (timed out)
  12. YubaNet.com, "Growing Coalition to Stop Prop 33's Auto Insurance Hikes," Aug. 9, 2012
  13. Consumer Federation of California, "No on 33 Endorsers" (timed out)
  14. California Alliance for Retired Americans, "CARA Positions on Ballot Measures for November 2012"
  15. The Modesto Bee, "BRASMER: Prop. 33 targets seniors for insurance rate hike," Oct. 29, 2012
  16. Walnut Patch, "Democratic Party Picks State Ballot Measures to Support," July 30, 2012
  17. MarketWatch, "Statement of Congressman John Garamendi: Vote No on Proposition 33" (Press Release), Nov. 2, 2012
  18. Orange County Register, "Prop. 33 (car insurance premiums): Yes," September 27, 2012
  19. Redding Record Searchlight, "Editorial: Auto-insurance ballot measure is pro-competition," September 24, 2012
  20. Bakersfield Californian, "State's drivers don't need Prop. 33," September 14, 2012
  21. Bay Area Reporter, "Editorial: State ballot measures," September 20, 2012
  22. Contra Costa Times, "Summary of our endorsements on state propositions," September 22, 2012
  23. Daily Democrat, "Democrat endorsements: Propositions," October 14, 2012
  24. Fresno Bee, "EDITORIAL: Proposition 33 is still a bad idea," October 1, 2012
  25. Long Beach Press Telegram, "Endorsement: No on Proposition 33 -- One company returns with same self-serving insurance measure voters already rejected in 2010," September 24, 2012
  26. Los Angeles Daily News, "Endorsement: No on Proposition 33 -- One company returns with same self-serving insurance measure voters already rejected in 2010," September 23, 2012
  27. Los Angeles Times, "No on Proposition 33," September 20, 2012
  28. Marin Independent Journal, "Editorial: IJ recommendations on state Propositions 30-33," October 11, 2012
  29. Merced Sun-Star, "Our View: Voters shouldn't let firm undo insurance law," September 26, 2012
  30. Modesto Bee, "Voters shouldn't let firm undo insurance laws," September 26, 2012
  31. North County Times, "No on 33," September 22, 2012
  32. Press-Enterprise, "No on 33," September 27, 2012
  33. "Sacramento Bee," "Endorsements: Prop. 33 is an old jalopy with a new coat of paint," September 15, 2012 (dead link)
  34. San Bernardino Sun, "Auto insurance measure a retread," September 23, 2012
  35. San Diego Union-Tribune, "No on Prop. 33: It’s just not fair," September 23, 2012
  36. San Francisco Chronicle, "Editorial: Chronicle recommends," October 5, 2012
  37. San Francisco Bay Guardian, "Endorsements 2012: State ballot measures," October 3, 2012
  38. San Jose Mercury News, "No on warmed-over Prop. 33," September 26, 2012
  39. Santa Cruz Sentinel, "Editorial: Endorsement: No on warmed-over Prop. 33," September 26, 2012
  40. Ventura County Star, "Editorial: Prop. 33 benefits insurers more than car owners," September 1, 2012
  41. Ventura County Star, "Support plummets for initiative to label genetically engineered foods," October 11, 2012
  42. 42.0 42.1 Sacramento Bee, "Backers of California auto rate initiatives submit signatures," November 16, 2011
  43. Los Angeles Times, "Mercury chairman backs another auto-insurance discount initiative," August 12, 2011
  44. Fresno Bee, "Lawsuit says voter guide statements incorrect," July 31, 2012
  45. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named titlelaw
  46. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named frawley