California Proposition 77 (2005)
From Ballotpedia
Contents |
California Proposition 77 was on the November 8, 2005 special statewide ballot[1] in California as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment where it was defeated.
The purpose of Proposition 77 was to change the way that legislative re-districting is done after every decennial census. Instead of the legislature re-drawing political boundaries, Proposition 77 proposed that the boundaries be re-drawn every ten years by a panel of three retired judges.
Political reformers who wanted to change the process of how legislative lines are re-drawn every ten years were disappointed in 2005, but got their wish in 2008 when voters approved Proposition 11.
California voters had considered and rejected other re-districting ballot propositions in the past, including Proposition 118 in 1990.
Over $30 million was spent on campaigns for and against Proposition 77.[2]
Ballot summary
The official summary provided to describe Proposition 76 said:
- Amends process for redistricting California’s Senate, Assembly, Congressional and Board of Equalization districts.
- Requires panel of three retired judges, selected by legislative leaders, to adopt new redistricting plan if measure passes and after each national census.
- Panel must consider legislative, public comments/hold public hearings.
- Redistricting plan effective when adopted by panel and filed with Secretary of State; governs next statewide primary/general elections even if voters reject plan.
- If voters reject redistricting plan, process repeats, but officials elected under rejected plan serve full terms.
- Allows 45 days to seek judicial review of adopted redistricting plan.
The ballot title for Proposition 77 said,"Should the California Constitution be amended to change the process of redistricting California's State Senate, State Assembly, Congressional and Board of Equalization districts, transferring the implementation of redistricting from the Legislature to a panel of three retired judges, selected by legislative leaders?"
Fiscal impact
The fiscal estimate provided by the California Legislative Analyst's Office said:
- One-time costs for a redistricting plan. State costs totaling no more than $1.5 million and county costs in the range of $1 million.
- Potential reduction in costs for each redistricting effort after 2010, but net impact would depend on decisions by voters.
Election results
| Proposition 77 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
 No
| 4,641,633 | 59.8% | ||
| Yes | 3,130,541 | 40.2% | ||
| Total votes | 7,772,174 | 100.00% | ||
| Voter turnout | NK% | |||
Campaigns
Yes on 77
Five different campaign committees formed to urge a "yes" vote on Proposition 77. Altogether, these groups spent about $12.2 million, compared to the $18.4 million spent urging a "no" vote.[2]
Some of the larger donors to the "yes" committees were:
- The Steve Poizner for Insurance Commissioner campaign; $1,250,000
- California Chamber of Commerce: $802,000
- California Republican Party: $799,000
- Steve Poizner: $500,000
- Alex Spanos: $500,000
- David Woodley Packard: $499,900
- William Bloomfield: $450,000
- John Doerr: $425,000[3]
No on 77
Five different campaign committees spent money opposing Proposition 77. These groups spent a total of $18,468,522.[2] Some of the larger donors to these campaign committees were:
- Stephen Bing: $4,000,000[4]
- Shangri-La Entertainment: $3,000,000
- California Democratic Party: $1,099,506[5]
- American Family Voices: $375,000
- Susan Ragon: $250,000
- Anne Earhart: $200,000
- Association of Trial Lawyers of America: $200,000[6]
- AFSCME: $111,431
Lawsuit to strike from ballot
- On July 21, 2005 Superior Court Judge Gail Ohanesian ruled that the qualifying signatures for Proposition 77 were gathered illegally and ordered it removed from the ballot. The basis for her decision was that Proposition 77 supporters had submitted one version of the measure to the California Attorney General to use as the basis for preparation of the official ballot title but used a different version on the petition forms that were circulated for signatures.
- On July 25, the California Third District Court of Appeal temporarily suspended the measure's removal from the ballot, allowing it to be included in the public review period for initiatives.
- On August 9, the Court of Appeal ruled that the discrepancies between the two versions of the initiative constituted "a clear violation of the constitutional and statutory procedure for the circulating of an initiative petition."
- On August 10, supporters of Proposition 77 appealed the August 9 decision to the California Supreme Court.
- On August 12, the California Supreme Court ruled that "it would not be appropriate to deny the electorate the opportunity to vote" on the measure, thereby placing Proposition 77 back on the ballot.[7]
See also
External links
- Official California Voter Guide to Proposition 77
- Text of Proposition 77
- Smart Voter Guide
- California Voter Foundation Guide
- Official election results
References
- ↑ The 2005 special elections in California
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Proposition 77 campaign spending
- ↑ Contributions to "Yes on 77"
- ↑ Stephen Bing donations to No on 77
- ↑ Donations to No on 77
- ↑ Campaign spending against Prop 77
- ↑ Special elections in California
