California Proposition 41, County Voting Equipment Bond Measure (March 2002)

California Proposition 41
Election date March 5, 2002
Topic Bond issues
Status a Approved
Type Bond issue	Origin State Legislature

California Proposition 41 was on the ballot as a bond issue in California on March 5, 2002. It was approved.

A "yes" voted supported the state issuing $200 million in general obligation bonds to provide money to counties to purchase new voting equipment.

A "no" voted opposed the state issuing $200 million in general obligation bonds to provide money to counties to purchase new voting equipment.

Election results

California Proposition 41
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		2,474,372	51.55%
No		2,325,348	48.45%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Fiscal impact statement

The fiscal impact statement was as follows:

“

State costs of about $255 million over ten years to pay off both the principal ($200 million) and interest ($55 million) costs of the bonds. Payments of about $26 million per year. One-time county costs of about $67 million statewide to match state funds. Additional annual county operating costs for new voting systems in the several tens of millions of dollars statewide.

”

Support

Supporters

• Assembly Majority Leader Kevin Shelley
• Secretary of State Bill Jones
• League of Women Voters of California
• Congress of California Seniors
• California Common Cause
• California Public Interest Research Group

Arguments

The following supporting arguments were presented in the official voter guide:

“ If you are reading this, you are a person who takes your right and responsibility to vote seriously. California Common Cause, the California Public Interest Research Group, and the California Secretary of State join us in urging you to vote “Yes” on Proposition 41—the Voting Modernization Bond Act. The Secretary of State’s official analysis says: “Innovations in voting technology provide significant benefits—including ease of use, accessibility, accelerated reporting of results, meeting the needs for multiple ballots and multiple language ballots, improvements in security, and reduced costs.” In its editorial, one major newspaper outlined the issues clearly: “California now elects its leaders through a hodge-podge of vote-counting systems (including) punch cards that feature the Florida-famous chad. “It’s time to bring this wide range of systems up to date. The punch-card system produces errors that can disqualify an entire ballot. New methods greatly speed up vote counting and guard against fraud. “Citizens need to know that their votes count, and in a disputed race, the results can be reliably checked. “[Proposition 41], by Assemblyman Kevin Shelley, a San Francisco Democrat, calls for a $200 million bond…to buy new vote tabulating machinery.” Secretary of State Bill Jones, a Republican who is the state’s chief elections officer, called for this bond last November. This bipartisan support indicates it’s time to update the way California votes. The Secretary of State has decertified punch card voting systems because they are obsolete, but counties need funding for new equipment. Here are some facts for you to consider: 1) 11.4 million of California’s 15.7 million registered voters cast ballots on punch-card systems. 2) The “hanging chad” phenomenon can occur on a system used by 6.5 million voters. 3) Two-thirds of California’s voters are using decades old systems and these aging voting machines need to be replaced as soon as possible. In the last five months our nation has fought against terrorism. President Bush named the effort “Enduring Freedom.” There is no freedom greater than the right to choose our own government. Protecting that freedom requires investing in the infrastructure of public safety and national security It is no less important to invest in the very infrastructure of democracy. We urge you to vote “Yes” on the Shelley-Hertzberg Voting Modernization Bond Act. ”

Opposition

Opponents

• Asm. Dennis Mountjoy
• Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
• National Tax Limitation Committee

Arguments

The following opposing arguments were presented in the official voter guide:

“ Californians owe billions and billions of dollars for already approved bonds. In fact, the current bond debt for a family of four is $2987. If you add interest payments, each family’s debt obligation soars. At the beginning of last year, Californians sent government tax collectors $8 billion more than they anticipated. What happened to all that money? The politicians spent it. Sacramento politicians hate to say “no” to any requests made by special interest groups asking for tax dollars for one program or another. Last year’s $8 billion of overcollected taxes should have been returned to taxpayers. Instead, politicians spent every last dime! Now the same politicians want to reach into your pockets for more money, asking you to approve another bond. Last year, every dollar you earned from January 1 until April 30 went to government for one tax or another. You pay sales tax, income tax, and property tax. You pay taxes on your telephone, water, gas and electricity. You pay taxes on gasoline at the pumps, fees for driver’s licenses, smog checks, and vehicle registration. You pay fees for dog licenses, fishing licenses—it goes on and on. IF ELECTED OFFICIALS SIMPLY SPENT OUR MONEY WISELY, THE TAXES AND GOVERNMENT FEES WE ALREADY PAY WOULD BE MORE THAN ENOUGH! We can all agree that California would benefit by Proposition 41’s updated voter election systems. It is always nice to have the latest technology. But politicians should buy these new voting machines with the tax dollars we already send them. CALIFORNIA FAMILIES SHOULD NOT BE EXPECTED TO PAY MORE BECAUSE SACRAMENTO POLITICIANS CARELESSLY SPENT LAST YEAR’S $8 BILLION TAX SURPLUS. It is foolish to sink further in debt simply because political leaders were unwilling to make tough decisions. Bonds are debts. Bonds accumulate interest. In the end, we are the ones who will ultimately pay the bill for new bonds! VOTE “NO” ON PROPOSITION 41. ”

Path to the ballot

A simple majority vote was needed in each chamber of the California State Legislature to refer the measure to the ballot for voter consideration.

Proposition 41 was voted onto the ballot by the California State Legislature via Assembly Bill 56 of the 2001–2002 Regular Session (Chapter 902, Statutes of 2001).

Votes in legislature to refer to ballot
Chamber	Ayes	Noes
Assembly	71	7
Senate	29	8

See also

2002 Measures

• 2002 Measures
• Election administration and governance on the ballot
• Bond issues on the ballot
• 2002 legislative sessions

California

• California ballot measures
• California ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

• March 2002 Voter Guide