California ballot news

EXCLUSIVE: Ballotpedia AG Race Tracker - 8 contests up in the air

2010 AG Elections
Main Page
Candidates for SOS
2010 Election information
Primary elections Statewide elections, 2010
Attorney General news headlines

By Joseph Kastner

In Ballotpedia's coverage of the 2010 State Attorney General elections, this is our first race-tracking prediction of predicted outcomes.

Thirty attorney general elections are scheduled for November 2, 2010. Of the 30 seats up for election, 20 are currently held by a Democrat and 10 by a Republican.

In three of the seats up for election, the incumbent cannot run again because of term limits. Of the three incumbent but limited-out attorney generals, two are Democrats and one is Republican:

• The Democratic Attorney Generals of Arizona (Terry Goddard) and Rhode Island (Patrick Lynch) are term-limited out.
• The Republican Attorney General of Michigan who is limited-out is Mike Cox.

Several incumbent attorney generals have chosen not to run for re-election, in most cases because they are running for a different office. As of mid-April 2010, it is known that seven incumbent attorney generals who could run again (five are Democrats and two are Republicans) are voluntarily choosing not to seek re-election.

• Democratic attorney generals who are voluntarily choosing not to run for re-election are Jerry Brown (California), Richard Blumenthal (Connecticut), Thurbert E. Baker (Georgia), and Drew Edmondson (Oklahoma). Of these five, Goddard, Brown, Baker, and Edmondson have sought each of their respective state's governorships; both Baker and Edmondson failed to receive their party's nomination in the primary while Brown and Goddard have successfully moved on to the general election in November. Blumenthal, on the other hand, is in the hunt for the United States Senate seat held by outgoing Democratic Senator Chris Dodd.
• Republican attorney generals who could run again, but have said they will not, are Bill McCollum (Florida) and Henry McMaster (South Carolina), both of whom had sought each of their respective state's governorships; each of them eventually failed to secure their party's nomination.

At this point in the 2010 election cycle, all signature-filling deadlines in each of the respective 30 states with attorney general elections have lapsed. There remain five states who still have yet to hold a primary election; these states include Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin.

For each of the 30 State Attorney General races in 2010, I have placed the expected outcome in one of 7 classifications. The 7 classifications are Safe Democrat, Likely Democrat, Leans Democrat, Toss-up, Leans Republican, Likely Republican and Safe Republican. These are the standard 7 classifications typically used by organizations such as Congressional Quarterly when assessing the likely outcomes of races for U.S. Congress and governor.

For the methodology of this racetracking analysis, see State Attorney Generals/Election Racetracking

Month	Safe D	Likely D	Lean D	Tossup	Lean R	Likely R	Safe R
August	4	7	3	8	1	5	2

Out of the 30 State Attorney General positions up for election this year, six are guaranteed at this point in time to remain with the political party that currently occupies it. Four Democratic AGs (in Arkansas, Delaware, Maryland, and Massachusetts) and two Republican AGs (in Idaho and Nebraska) are incumbents who face no major party competition this November. The Republican Party of Delaware still has a few days left to select a candidate to run against Beau Biden, but it seems likely this office will remain unchallenged going into November.

Here is a breakdown of which states have been placed in the five other categories:

• Toss ups: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Michigan, Ohio, and Oklahoma.
• Likely Ds: Connecticut, Illinois, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont
• Likely Rs: North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, and Wisconsin
• Lean Ds: California, Iowa, and Minnesota
• Lean Rs: Alabama

Altogether, 14 races are in the Lean-Safe Democratic category, and 8 races are in the Lean-Safe Republican category. If the 8 toss-up races split at 4-4, that will represent a pick-up of 2 attorney general seats for the Republican Party.

In Hughson, California, the vote is overwhelming to recall 3 members of the city council

HUGHSON, California: In idyllic Hughson, a peach-and-almond farming community of 4,000 nestled in Stanislaus County, voters went to the polls on Tuesday, August 24 and overwhelmingly voted to remove 3 of their city council members from office.^[1]

The August 24 recall vote was the culmination of an effort launched in February 2010 by "Citizens for Better City Government" to recall Thom Crowder, Doug Humphreys and Ben Manley. In each of the 3 separate recall elections held on August 24, the vote to recall exceeded 85%.^[2],^[3]

Recall organizers said that their effort to recall Crowder, Humphreys and Manley was motivated by a Stanislaus County civil grand jury report that found that the trio violated California's public meeting law and conspired to fire City Manager Joe Donabed.^[4] After the August 24 vote, Josh Whitfield, a spokesperson for the recall group, said, "Tonight marks the end of corruption in Hughson. The voters have spoken. Corruption did not stand tonight and it will not stand tomorrow."^[1]

The Hughson City Council has five members on it altogether. The two who were not subject to the recall vote were Matt Beekman and Mayor Ramon Bawanan. George Carr, Jeramy Young and Jill Silva were elected on August 24 to replace Crowder, Humphreys and Manley on the city council.

The lengthy lead-up to the recall vote on August 24 was marked by colorful rhetoric and remarks. One recall target, Thom Crowder, referred to those in favor of the recall as "contentious little rats".^[5] He also referred to recall organizers as "pea brains" and "disingenuous scumbags" and said "I'm not afraid of these knuckleheads."^[6]

California lawmakers race to the finish to get initiative bills passed

By Kyle Maichle

SACRAMENTO, California: With eight days remaining before the deadline to pass any bill in the California Legislature, lawmakers are racing to get initiative legislation passed and sent to the Governor's desk. Five bills with one more step to move onto the Governor's desk awaits the final voting days of session^[7].

Since lawmakers returned from summer recess on August 2, 2010, a bill banning persons convicted of election fraud from accepting employment as a paid circulator was approved by the Senate and sent to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger for his signature. Assembly Bill 2101 was the first out of the five bills to be sent to the Governor. Other Assembly bills that are scheduled for a final vote in the Senate are Assembly Bill 1832 that increases filing fees for initiatives on an incremental basis^[8] along with Assembly Bill 2088 which ends signature verification for recall petitions^[9].

Two Senate bills are also awaiting one more step to move onto the Governor's desk. Senate Bill 1202, which would require the top five contributors of a ballot measure to be published in the California Voter Guide, passed the Assembly on August 19, 2010, by a 52-26 vote^[10]. Due to amendments made by the Assembly, the bill is being sent back to the Senate for final approval^[10]. Senate Bill 1203 got scheduled on the Assembly's voting calendar on August 19, 2010, after being placed on inactive status. The bill that would require petition circulators to wear a badge indicating their legal status, was placed on inactive status by Rep. Charles Calderon's request on June 28, 2010^[11].

The final voting day of the California Legislature's 2009-2010 session is on August 31, 2010^[7].

California may be the first state to regulate campaign social networking

By Kyle Maichle

SACRAMENTO, California: The California Fair Political Practices Commission may require campaigns to abide by disclaimer requirements for materials they disseminate through social networking websites. ^[12]

Commissioners on the FPPC want to extend the current disclaimer rules to communications that involve text messages, Twitter messages, and web videos. The new requirements would apply to campaigns in support or opposition of a ballot measure or a statewide candidate in California. ^[12]

With Twitter messages limited to 145 characters, free speech advocates are questioning if the new requirements towards tweets would be constitutional. Allison Hayward of the Center for Competitive Politics said: “it’s the fact that you have a limited space to say something and the government is telling you that you have to use some of that for what they think should be saying.” ^[12]

Constitutional law experts think that the new requirements would withstand legal challenges. Eugene Volkoh, a law professor at UCLA said: "the Supreme Court has said that it is ok to impose speech requirements." Volkoh also said: "it makes sense that the same rules would pretty much apply the same way to online communications including web pages, emails and Twitter." ^[12]

The Board of Commissioners on the FPPC will meet in October of 2010 to vote on the proposed rules. ^[12] If approved, California would be the first state in the nation to impose disclaimer requirements on campaign related social networking. ^[12]

In California State Legislature, Democrats are more impacted by term limits than Republicans

By Justin Haas

California was one of the first states to pass state legislative term limits. This occurred in 1990, when its voters approved the California Term Limits Proposition. These term limits will impact more Democrats than Republicans in the 2010 state legislative elections in California.

Are lobbyists as much of a threat to the I&R process as the legislatures?

San Francisco, California:

Tim Mooney, partner in Silver Bullet LLC and self-proclaimed pioneer of the "signature bluff" strategy, brought an idea into the limelight about lobbyists being a threat to the I&R process at the Global Forum. Mainstream I&R activists have always focused in on state officials being the biggest concern.

His explanation was that lobbyists who engage in social activity with the legislatures are able to do just as much as, if not more than, initiatives & veto referendum petitions.

Unions ask judge to take the Adachi Initiative off the ballot

SAN FRANCISCO, California: Several public employee unions filed a lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court on August 10 to try to remove the Adachi Initiative from the November ballot.^[13]

Plaintiffs in the case include Kathern Alba-Swanson, Elvira James, Blue Walcer, Ron Dicks, Maria Guillen, San Francisco Firefighters Local 798, International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers Local 21, SEIU Local 1021, San Francisco Municipal Executives' Association and the San Francisco Police Officers Association filed a lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court to try to remove Proposition B from the November ballot.^[13]

The lawsuit was filed against San Francisco election chief John Arntz in his official capacity and also against Jeff Adachi and Craig Weber as "real parties in interest". Craig Weber is an accountant who served on the San Francisco Grand Jury on pension reform for two years. He is also the treasurer of the Adachi Initiative "Yes on B" campaign.^[14]

The 60-page complaint filed to open the lawsuit makes a variety of claims. It says:

• Proposition B, if enacted, will violate the employees' contractual rights to their benefits.^[15]
• The petitions used to gather signatures for the measure were misleading and violated state election law.^[15]
• The petition form that was circulated did not include a "notice of intention document".^[16]
• The petition that was circulated did not mention Craig Weber. ^[16]
• The petition that was circulated did not include the entire text of the proposed legislation.
• Circulators who sought signatures on the petition misrepresented the nature of the proposed legislation to voters, using phrases such as "save the schools," "help the poor," “patch pot holes,” and “help poor people." Potential petition signers who asked for a copy of the text of the measure were not given a copy of the text of the measure and were instead presented with a political flyer.
• Proposition B violates the single-subject rule.
• According to a press release issued by one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, "California’s constitution protects vested retirement security rights as it recognizes the contractual rights of employees once they have reached retirement and are receiving benefits. The Adachi/Weber measure takes awy those rights without providing anything in return. In essence, in circulating their unlawful petition, Adachi and Weber are interfering with the constitutional rights of employees who worked their whole lives for the City of San Francisco under certain expectations relating to their retirement security."
• The same press release additionally says, "...the Adachi/Weber measure unlawfully violates City employees’ constitutionally protected right to due process. Hidden within this poorly drafted measure lurks a 'poison pill' which states that if a City employee succeeds in a legal challenge against the measure after enactment, rather than celebrating a legal victory, City employees instead would face a five year cap on compensation. This provision is both poor public policy and radically unconstitutional, as all citizens of California have a constitutionally protected right to seek court redress for unlawful legislation."

The "Yes on B" campaign disputes every assertion in the lawsuit. A spokesperson said, "Every step to get this measure on the ballot in November was followed and sanctified by The City Attorney, the Department of Elections and the over 77,000 people of San Francisco who signed the petition. Measure B is about pension reform and enabling the city to develop an independent funding stream so that we are not reliant upon one-time, quick fixes in order to fill escalating budget deficits, preserve vital city services and protect jobs."^[13]

California AG double-dipping state pension program?

SACRAMENTO, California: Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown stole the California political spotlight in late-July 2010 when he laid into the governmental employees of Bell, a city located outside Los Angeles that is one of the poorest in the state, after the Los Angeles Times "reported that the city manager makes almost $800K a year and stands to receive a pension worth $30 million." ^[17] He called the outlandish salaries "shocking and beyond belief" and called for a full scale investigation into the matter. ^[18] As a state public employee himself, however, local political watchdog groups question whether Brown's words and actions in this regard are a bit hypocritical.

Overseen by the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, also known as CalPERS, the Legislators' Retirement System (LRS), established in 1947, operates as a special pension program for elected constitutional officers, legislative statutory officers, and members of the state legislature prior to November 7, 1990. The LRS operated in relative obscurity until the passage of Proposition 140 in 1990, which limited the number of terms that California state senators and representatives can stay in office and, perhaps most importantly in regards to this issue, eliminated pensions for state lawmakers. As a result, only thirteen working public officials are members of the independent pension program. Still, even in light of this attempt at local governmental reform, the law "prevents" either CalPERS or LRS from answering questions pertaining to specific members.

In spite of this obstacle, the Orange County Watchdog combed through the LRS actuarial statements and found an individual who matches Jerry Brown's age and salary. If this is indeed Jerry Brown, there appears to be a discrepancy in the records according to the Watchdog. The LRS has this person listed as having served twenty-five to twenty-nine years in public office; again, if this is Brown, he should only have sixteen years of service. Sterling Clifford, a spokesman for the Brown gubernatorial campaign, claims that neither he nor the attorney general's office know what is going on here. He did, however, note that Brown "started receiving an annual pension of about $20,000 when he turned 60 in 1998 and pocketed it every year until he assumed the attorney general’s office, when it was suspended." ^[19] What is at issue here is tens of thousands of state taxpayer dollars - if he served sixteen years, Brown's annual LRS pension salary would come to $73,720; if, however, it was twenty-five years or more, as LRS actuarial statements appear to suggest, it would be $110,580. This comes to a difference of $36,860.

Federal judge refuses to issue stay on Prop 8 ruling

By Kyle Maichle

SAN FRANCISCO, California: Federal judge Vaughn Walker refused to issue a stay on a August 4, 2010, ruling that overturned Proposition 8^[20].

Under the decision, same-sex marriages in California can resume on August 18, 2010, unless a stay is imposed by a higher court. Attorneys representing Prop 8 supporters are asking the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to issue a temporary stay before the August 18th deadline. An appeal on Judge Walker's ruling was filed on August 5, 2010 in the Ninth Circuit^[20].

Over 18,000 same-sex marriages that took place before Prop 8 would be restored under Walker's ruling. The marriages came in response to a May 2008 California Supreme Court ruling that found bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. The state's highest court affirmed the passage of Proposition 8 in 2009 by citing that voters had the right to amend their constitution^[20].

California legislature yanks Prop 18, the water bond, from November ballot

SACRAMENTO, California: The California State Legislature voted on August 9 to remove Proposition 18 from the November 2, 2010 ballot.^[21]

Anna Caballero (D-Salinas) wrote the legislation delaying the measure. She said, "This year is a very tough time given the economic situation."^[21]

The effort to postpone the water bond from 2010 to 2012 began on June 29, 2010, when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said that he was going to ask the California State Legislature to yank Proposition 18 from the November ballot. He needed a 2/3rds vote in the legislature to accomplish that objective. Schwarzenegger said he did not think Proposition 18 could win in 2010, which is why he wanted it off the ballot, with the objective of trying again in a different election season.^[22] The state legislature had to vote by mid-August on the question of removing Proposition 18 from the ballot.^[23]

Nationally, the removal of Proposition 18 from the November ballot was the ninth time that a measure that was legally certified for the ballot was subsequently removed. Removals occur for a variety of reasons, including judicial and legislative actions.

Day Five marks the end of the 2010 Global Forum

By Bailey Ludlam

SAN FRANCISCO, California: It's official, the third 2010 Global Forum on Modern Direct Democracy has come to a close.

In a final gathering, speakers drew together the numerous concepts discussed and dissected during the five day conference. All agreed on at least one concept - the need for continuous communication and dialogue. Victor Cuesta of Las Palmas University noted that as the European Citizens' Initiative is implemented and mechanisms for discussion are proposed and utilized, it is important to continue communication not only among citizens but also with parliament and legislators.

The forms of communication and participation among citizens is a topic that remains to be debated. Grace Cainoy Weitman of Empowerment Congress in Los Angeles shared some of her experiences in attempts to rally the local communities. Weitman noted that most of the time local problems such as road and sewer issues can be addressed through community discussions. In Los Angeles, California Empowerment Congress holds annual summits and works with the community throughout the year to create better connections between office holders and residents. While Weitman notes that most of the time issues can be addressed more easily after talking about the problems with the community, the sheer size of a region can make communication difficult.

On a global perspective, Amjad Atallah of the New America Foundation Middle East Task Force illustrated the sheer importance of communication in countries where direct democracy has yet to be implemented and totalitarian regimes currently exist. In the Middle East, he said, globalization and new media are acting as accelerators for not only concepts of direct democracy but also information in general. However, the use of new media to discuss these concepts and spread the ideas throughout the regions, is not quite as easy as one might think. Unlike, places like the United States where social networking sites can help launch or win a campaign, the use of social media in other parts of the world is far more restricted.

Additionally, Attalah noted that the largest hindrance of the establishment of direct democracy in countries like those in the Middle East is the contradictions by democratic countries. For example, the United States is a symbol of freedom but when Arabs are stopped in airports to be verified and searched the contradictions in United States policies is highlighted and leads to discouragement and doubts in direct democracy.

In the spirit of continued communication a "wildcard box" was used throughout the five day conference to collect questions and suggestions by conference attendees. All submitted questions were added to a voting system that the crowd participated anonymously following forum discussions. Participants voted on a scale of 1 to 10. Additionally, attendees were identified as either U.S. or foreign attendees to analyze differences in opinion. According to sponsors, results of the votes will be made available on the 2010 Global Forum website.

The conference, although rich with information and speakers, was not only for learning but for the sharing of ideas, drawing people around the world together and implementing the suggestions and ideas made at the conference. In closing, Joe Mathews read the draft of the San Francisco Declaration on Direct Democracy.

The draft of the 2010 San Francisco Declaration on Direct Democracy can be found here.

Federal judge overturns California's Proposition 8

Complete text of the decision

SAN FRANCISCO, California: In a 138-page decision in the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, released on Wednesday, August 4 at 4 p.m. Pacific, federal judge Vaughn Walker has ruled that California Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution and is therefore invalid and unenforceable.^[24]

Sentences excerpted from the ruling include, "Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians...", "Stereotypes and misinformation have resulted in social and legal disadvantages for gays and lesbians...", "The right to marry protects an individual's choice of marital partner regardless of gender..." and "Domestic partnerships do not satisfy California's obligation to allow plaintiffs to marry."

According to Walker's decision, Prop 8 violated both the due process and equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution. He also wrote, "Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples."^[25]

Perry v. Schwarzenegger was filed on May 22, 2009 with the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The non-jury trial began on January 11, 2010.^[26]

Celebrated attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies filed the lawsuit on behalf of the plaintffs.^[27]

The lawsuit was sponsored by the American Foundation for Equal Rights, led by Chad Griffin, and financed in part by Rob Reiner.^[28]

Day 4 of Global Forum highlights how direct democracy can affect policy.

By Kyle Maichle

SAN FRANCISCO, California: The fourth day of the 2010 Global Forum on Modern Direct Democracy highlighted how initiatives, referendums, and citizen involvement can affect public policy. The first speech of the day came from California Democratic Party Chairman Art Torres. Torres, who is also a former state lawmaker, blasted critics who think that citizen initiatives are responsible for the state’s fiscal crisis. Torres mentioned studies that point the cause to legislative-referred initiatives that increased spending while citizen initiatives resulted in less spending. In addition, Torres called on the Legislature to impose contribution limits towards initiative campaigns and banning ballot initiatives that negatively impact the state budget.

Wayne Pacelle of the Humane Society of the United States discussed about how his organization uses the initiative process. Pacelle said that the animal rights organization uses initiatives as a last resort when the law permits it. The leader of the Humane Society also said that initiatives can be used as a tool to hold lawmakers, lobbyists, and parties accountable. Pacelle stated during his remarks that initiative campaigns has allowed his organization to hold accountable hunting and agricultural lobbyists that block animal rights legislation.

The first panel discussion of the day talked about alternative methods of direct democracy. Alice Siu, a political science professor at Stanford University, talked about how she uses citizen panels as part of conducting scientific polls. The method Siu mentioned was involving citizen panels in addition to polls that use random sampling. The Professor also said that the system is used in other nations and could be expanded to the United States. Mark Linder and Greg Greenaway discussed about how citizen involvement successfully affected housing and redevelopment policy in California's Bay Area region. Greenaway said that citizen discussion panels were successful in convincing the City Council and Mayor of San Jose to spend money on redeveloping all of its neighborhoods instead of Downtown San Jose.

The Second panel of the day talked about constitutional conventions. J.H. Snider of Maryland discussed the campaign he is leading to get the state's voters to change their constitution. Snider talked about the challenges campaigns could face in 2010 in changing their constitutions, but is optimistic that the current political climate could play in his favor. Iowa and Michigan will also put constitutional convention questions on the November 2010 ballot in addition to Maryland.

John Woodcock, a former Connecticut state lawmaker, talked what went right and wrong during the 2008 campaign he led to bring a constitutional convention. Woodcock said that campaigns in support of changing their constitutions need to narrow their focus down to one or two issues in order to be successful. Woodcock, who now leads Connecticut Citizens for Ballot Initiative, said that his efforts in 2008 have made initiative and referendum a fringe issue in Connecticut's 2010 elections. Manfred Brandt of Germany and Adrian Schmid of Switzerland also talked about the European model of constitutional conventions. Both of the speakers said that changing a constitution at the local or national level in Europe is a more deliberate process in which takes years instead of months.

The rest of the afternoon was divided into breakout sessions on issues ranging from building trans-partisan coalitions to using direct democracy at the local level.

The evening ended with movie night at HUB which is located in the San Francisco Chronicle building. There were movies about direct democracy in other nations being shown along with a viewing of World Vote Now. World Vote Now is a effort in bringing a global initiative and referendum process.

The final day of the forum on Wednesday will focus the future of direct democracy along with the declaration of best practices from the forum. A full downloadable schedule of the July 30-August 4 forum can be found here.

For up to the minute reports, make sure to follow the live tweets at #IR2010.

Day Three of the 2010 Global Forum

By Bailey Ludlam

SAN FRANCISCO, California: As quickly as the global forum arrived, it is already half-way complete. Monday, August 2, marked not only the half-way point of the conference but also the beginning of the global portion and the end of the focus on the United States' form of direct democracy.

In opening remarks California Secretary of State Debra Bowen highlighted some of the many complicated issues in the United States and noted the importance of disclosure and reforming direct democracy into a better tool for citizens around the world. Californians, she said, "do look at the merits and where the money [for a ballot measure] is coming from," prior to making a final decision at the ballot box. This, she said, can be seen clearly in the defeat of measures like this June's Proposition 17 which was primarily funded by Mercury Insurance. However, despite voters actions, Bowen said that disclosure is vital. In keeping with the idea of transparency and disclosure Bowen reported that the secretary of state's office is thinking about launching a wiki-style website where state voters could have an "interactive discussion" about ballot measures.

Voters in the United States have cast ballots for years but in other parts of the world some countries are still struggling not only with the use of direct democracy but the concept itself. Jung-Ok Lee, Korea Democracy Foundation and co-president of the 2009 Global Forum on Modern Direct Democracy in Seoul/Korea, said, although keywords like "global," "democracy," and "modern" are extremely important, the concepts are still very challenging. "Most still think democracy is an old Greek concept," said Lee.

According to David Altman, professor, The Catholic University of Chile, only 18 countries have used some form of direct democracy. Several countries, he said, include direct democracy in their constitutions but are not regulated, making it difficult to practice.

"Democracy is a living being. It's never ready. You can't say, 'there is democracy.' It has to develop, grow and change," said Gerald Häfner, Member of European Parliament.

To highlight the many different forms of direct democracy speakers from Taiwan, Switzerland, Brazil, India, the United Kingdom and Nigeria took the stage. One point of dispute among forum attendees was whether some forms of democracy (e.g. plebiscites) should be categorized as "direct democracy." Grover Norquist of the Americans for Tax Reform gave a U.S. perspective on the discussion saying that just throwing a measure on the ballot does not always mean that voters have a choice.

Legislatures around the world vary in their activity and influence on direct democracy. Some directly place measures on the ballot, others require that measures be submitted to the legislature prior to being referred to the ballot. Courts, too, have an important role in the process said speakers. In the United States, ballot measures are constantly being challenged on the basis of the single-subject rule. Specifically, in California, according to Dan Kolkey, a former associate justice of the California Court of Appeal and former counsel to Governor Wilson, noted that courts have a tendency to prefer to rule on measures post-election and are cautious to make amendments or remove measures prior to ballots being cast.

Andreas Auer, C2D and law professor, said that in countries like Switzerland and Uruguay, measures are reviewed prior to elections. The difference, he noted, is in the length of the process. In Switzerland, for example, the process before qualifying a measure for the ballot can last four or five years. The impact of court rulings pre or post-elections can be huge, said Joe Grodin, former justice of the California Supreme Court and professor UC Hastings. As a former state supreme court justice Grodin said he has encountered several measures that were written in a confusing manner and pre-election disqualification was certainly necessary. But the court's, he said, need to think their decisions through thoroughly.

Direct democracy around the world is complex not only in definition but in practice as well. One issue, however, that most countries are slowly beginning to tackle is the role technology plays in the process. In the United States, court cases across the country are pending on the validity of using electronic signatures on petitions. Europe, on the other hand, has accepted the practice of using the internet and is currently in the process of developing rules and regulations. Primarily spurred by the adoption of the "European Citizens' Initiative" and the many different countries that plan to be involved in the new process, technology is key said Carsten Berg.

Kim Alexander of the California Voter Foundation said she is concerned that privacy and transparency will disappear with the implementation of electronic petitions and signatures for the ballot measure process. Michael Marrubio of Verafirma, one of the leading companies advocating for the use of e-signatures in California, assured the panel and the audience, that electronic signatures are secure and are encrypted to ensure protection of personal identities and fraud.

Others highlighted concerns about the impact on direct democracy itself. Could technology lead to too much involvement? Ross Day of Common Sense for Oregon said "no." Day argued that while you can access a lot of information online, you can also more easily ignore information. "I would email people I know supported these measures but they would delete, delete, delete," he said. Alexander, however, argued otherwise. She noted that voter fatigue is something that happens even today.

Prior to the end of the technological debate, Day demonstrated a machine, known as "Petey," that he said will soon be at grocery stores and other public locations in the state of Oregon. "Petey" is a computer kiosk that allows citizens to read the petition and print it out prior to signing. Once signed the petitions are dropped in a locked box on the side. Expanding on the project, Day said that possibly one day they may include videos with the petitions so citizens can become more educated on the issues. The machine, contrary to the e-signature discussion, does not currently accept electronic signatures.

In closing Eugene Kim of Blue Oxen led an informal discussion with attendees on the possible impacts and concerns about social networking. Most attendees said that while they were excited for the advancements in technology and the possibility to may even one day vote via the internet, they were concerned with transparency and privacy. While some argued that technology and time would weed out bad programs or services that violated such concerns as privacy, others remained skeptical. Most attendees agreed, however, that technology is here and can help reform direct democracy into a better tool for citizens around the world.

A full downloadable schedule of the July 30-August 4 forum can be found here.

For up to the minute reports, make sure to follow the live tweets at #IR2010.

Day 2 of Global forum highlights issues in the U.S. initiative process

By Kyle Maichle

SAN FRANCISCO, California: The second day of the Global Forum on Modern Direct Democracy continued on August 1, 2010. The focus was on how the media, money, and lawsuits affect the initiative process in the United States.

The first panel of the day featured attorneys who discussed about the legal system affecting the initiative process. James Harrison, a California-based lawyer, said that the big issue affecting the initiative process is lawyers trying to draft ballot questions in secret. Harrison told that drafting questions in secret are a way for Attorneys to gain a better summary and title from their respective Attorney’s General. Ross Day, who represents Common Sense Oregon, talked about how federal courts across the U.S. handle initiative legislation. The attorney said that federal courts nationwide have been split on upholding legislation that is considered by experts "anti-initiative". One example was licensing of petition companies. Day also criticized the proposed ‘’Ohio Ballot Integrity Act’’ sponsored by State Rep. Jennifer Garrison (D-OH) that would require petition companies to be licensed. Day argued that the initiative process could be affected in other states if they take Oregon's lead on licensing petition companies.

Ned Crosby of the Minnesota-based Jefferson Center talked to forum attendees about how citizen assemblies could be a new way to expand direct democracy. Crosby talked about how citizen assemblies are popular in Canada. In addition, Crosby described Oregon’s system of initiative review panels as a model for expanding citizen assemblies.

The second panel of the day debated about the role of money from special interest groups. Panelists including Roy Ulrich of Common Cause-California and Allison Hawyard from the Center for Competitive Politics debated if greater campaign finance disclosure would curb special interest spending. One of two ideas brought up was to introduce more disclosure during the drafting and signature gathering processes. The other idea that was mentioned was to have the sponsor of television or radio advertisements mentioned through a voice-over message in the ad. The idea came after panelists discussed the role of Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) spending millions of dollars to influence energy-related ballot measures in California. PG&E’s involvement have been a key indicator if measures have passed or failed

During the lunch session, Ballotpedia’s Bailey Ludlam discussed the Tuesday Count and the Ballot Measure Scorecard. Ludlam discussed how these two programs help readers keep abreast of new measures being qualified or struck down in court. These efforts have been mentioned as a best practice for data collection in relation to direct democracy.

Later in the afternoon panel, the issue of how the media portrays the initiative process was discussed. John Fund, a writer for the Wall Street Journal, felt that media bias against citizen initiative comes from journalists in the Eastern U.S. who are not accustomed to the process. Fund argued that the initiative process is dominated mostly by the Midwestern and Western states. Also, other members of the panel discussed if the decreasing number of investigative and political journalists would affect the perception of initiatives. Patrick McGuigan of CapitolBeatOK said that only over 300 journalists in the U.S. cover news relating to state government. When asked about non-profit organizations could solve the problem by employing their own investigative journalists, the response differed from panel members. John Fund said that credibility would be gained only: “if the product is accurate and durable.” Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake.com, argued that the decline of investigative journalism comes from think tanks packaging stories to the media combined with fewer journalists writing the stories on tight deadlines.

Former U.S. Senator Mike Gravel (D-Alaska) also spoke to forum attendees. The Senator advocated during his speech to have the initiative process expanded to the national level. When detailing his plan, Gravel felt that 65 percent of Americans would have to approve the process through a national referendum and not on an act of Congress. The Senator also argued that corporations and labor unions should be banned from influencing any national initiative campaign.

Day 2 ended with a reception at the St. Francis Yacht Club near the Golden Gate Bridge. The reception was hosted by Swiss Consulate General Julius Anderegg.

A full downloadable schedule of the July 30-August 4 forum can be found here. Day 3 continues on August 2, 2010 with panel discussions on global initiative rights and social networking.

For up to the minute reports, make sure to follow the live tweets at #IR2010.

Day One of the 2010 Global Forum

By Bailey Ludlam

SAN FRANCISCO, California: The last day in July marked only the first full day of the 2010 Global Direct Democracy Forum. As promised, the first day of the forum was an event jam-packed with speakers and information on initiative and referendum.

Just prior to opening the forum to a series of panelists and speakers scheduled throughout the day, Paul Jacob, the president of Citizens in Charge Foundation posed one main question to the crowd - "Do you trust the people?"

Democracy, he said, "can be like two wolves and a lamb," noting that people can be wrong when casting their ballots but added that whether people agree or disagree on an issue is besides the point. "If you want a government of and by the people, you might want the people to have a say," highlighting the importance to defend the right to direct democracy.

Without delay, speakers delved into the nitty-gritty details of California's initiative process. Specifically, panelists addressed the question of whether "the state's process was ruining or saving the state." Initiating the California centered discussion, David Lesher of the Public Policy Institute of California opened with recent research findings about California voters. "Californians have a love hate relationship with the initiative process," he said. According to an opinion poll, 74% of polled California voters said they believe the initiative process highlights important issues not addressed by the California State Legislature. However, 64% said they would change the current initiative process.

The majority of speakers agreed with the notion that the initiative process in California is a good "safety valve" to resolve conflicts, but all noted that some problems must be addressed to improve the process. Some of the addressed problems included: special interest domination of the initiative process, a lack of time to circulate petitions, the need for a second process which would include lower thresholds for the average citizen to qualify an initiative and the need for discussion and deliberation between voters and the state legislature.

Maintaining the theme of initiative reform, Ohio Rep. Jennifer Garrison underscored the struggles faced in the "Buckeye state." Fraud, she said, is alive and well. "We are proud of having citizen initiatives in Ohio because it does give citizens a voice that may not otherwise be heard," but that process, noted Garrison, is taken over by special interests. One of the solutions to the many problems highlighted by the senator, she suggested, is a proposed bill known as the Ohio Ballot Integrity Act.

According to the introduced bill summary, the proposed legislation aims to address: the use of petition circulators convicted of fraud; require that circulators register with the secretary of state; require the notarization of statements; establish a training program for circulators; license petition entities; and introduce new disciplinary action against petition entities for fraud and abuse of the petition process.^[29] Rep. Garrison said she expects a vote in the Senate once the legislature reconvenes. The bill passed in the House 75-24 in March 2010.

The representative's proposal, however, fell flat amongst forum attendees according to an informal electronic vote following the discussion. Brandon Holmes of the Citizens in Charge Foundation argued against the proposed reform. From 1999-2008 research, he said, has shown that of every 4.7 million filed signatures, only 1 fraud conviction has been made. Most fraud is not deliberate but accidental. Bills that impose restrictions on residents and the use of paid signatures is not only an infringement on the First Amendment but has little effect on election fraud, said Holmes.

Friday's forum did not only center on reform and problems with the current initiative process. The first day closed at SPUR (San Francisco Planning + Urban Research Association) with encouraging remarks on the importance of direct democracy. In an unexpected call, Ralph Nader described the initiative process as "the citizens' ace in the hole" and argued that the initiative and referendum process should be looked as a resource and not as a secondary measure to the representative system in the United States. Even though, he said, corporations learn every years how better to use and gain from the initiative system, it is important to remember that the United States Constitution states "we are the people" and not "we are the corporations."

Nader's remarks were followed by brief speeches by Wall Street Journal's John Fund, Gerald Haefner of European Parliament, and Krist Novoselic, former Nirvana bassist and chair of FairVote.org. "I could have picked a sexier issue than election reform," but emphasized that real reform is developed and accomplished through the initiative and referendum process.

A full downloadable schedule of the July 30-August 4 forum can be found here. Saturday, August 1, will continue the conversation on the initiative process in the United States and include a panel on the media.

For up to the minute reports, make sure to follow the live tweets at #IR2010.

Opening reception highlights the beginning of 2010 Global Forum

By Kyle Maichle

SAN FRANCISCO, California: The 2010 Global Forum on Direct Democracy began with an opening reception at San Francisco's Hastings College of Law on July 30, 2010. Convention attendees had the chance to meet one another during the two hour event. Over 360 participants worldwide are expected to attend the multi-day forum.

Three speakers from the United States in the initiative and referendum rights movement spoke during the reception. Dane Walers, the Founder of the Initiative & Referendum Institute, spoke about the last conference held on U.S. initiative rights in 1999. Waters said that the difference between this conference and the one in 1999 is the high level of support from allied organizations. Waters also said that the lack of support during the last conference in 1999 made it difficult to be successful. A total of 23 organizations in the U.S. and across the globe are co-sponsoring the event along with the Citizens in Charge Foundation and the Initiative and Referendum Institute- Europe.

Eric O'Keefe, the Chairman and CEO of the Sam Adams Alliance, talked about the importance of the initiative process as a check and balance on government. O’Keefe advocated during his speech that the U.S. should have binding referendum at the national level towards key issues including taxes, social security, and health care reform. The Chairman argued that the U.S. government’s handling of the current recession is one reason why Americans should adopt direct democracy at the national level. A total of 26 American states and the District of Columbia allow their citizens to engage in the initiative process.

The reception ended with brief remarks and a song from Kim Alexander of the California Voter Foundation. Alexander along with other attendees sung about the May 2009 special election in California. There were six ballot propositions during the election that were aimed towards fixing the state’s budget crisis. Propositions 1A to 1F were mentioned in the song Alexander wrote. The measures were part of a budget and tax increase agreement between Legislators and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger^[30],^[31]. Five out the six of the measures were defeated by the voters.

The conference continues on July 31, 2010 with the first full day of seminars^[32].

California's Prop 14 opponents file lawsuit

SAN FRANCISCO, California: A group of plaintiffs including Richard Winger filed the first of what is expected to be several lawsuits against Proposition 14, the Top Two Primaries Act in San Francisco Superior Court on July 29.^[33]

The lawsuit filed Friday challenges two provisions in Proposition 14 and asks the court to block enforcement of the new law until legislation has been enacted that removes the two contested provisions. They are:

• A provision in Prop that orders write-in votes in runoffs to be discarded.
• A provision in Prop 14 that prevents some candidates from listing their party affiliation/preference on the ballot.

Gautam Dutta is the attorney for the group of plaintiffs. He said that voters did not know about Prop 14's ban on write-in votes because the ban was not described in the state's voter guide: "They'll be throwing their votes away without even being told that by voting for a write-in, your vote won't count."

Other lawsuits challenging Prop 14 are expected.

Term limits proposition qualifies for February 2012 ballot in California

SACRAMENTO, California: Three months before California voters will decide about the ten statewide propositions on the November 2, 2010 ballot, an initiated constitutional amendment that would allow California state legislators to stay in office longer has qualified for the state's February 2012 ballot.

If voters approve the Term Limits Initiative, it will amend Section 2 of Article IV of the California Constitution to replace the separate 8 and 6-year term limits on future California State Senators and Assemblymembers, respectively, with a 12-year limit on combined service. Current and former members of the California Legislature would not be affected.

California voters first approved term limits on their state legislature in 1990, when they passed Proposition 140. The state's voters have previously rejected attempts to allow legislators to stay in office longer, most recently in 2008, when voters defeated Proposition 93.

Majestic Realty bankrolled the petition signature drive to qualify the measure for the ballot.

Democratic majorities in state senates at greater risk than Republican majorities, analyst says

By Geoff Pallay and Leslie Graves

While much of the country has been focusing on whether Congress will change hands, the importance of the state level elections is beginning to draw attention.

Across the country, there are 1,971 senate seats in the 50 states. Forty-three states are holding state senate elections this fall -- with a grand total of 1,167 seats up for grabs. Translation: 59 percent of all state senate seats are up for election.

According to Louis Jacobson, a staff writer for PolitiFact, partisan dominance will be at stake in 12 of the 43 states.^[34]

When looking at states with elections this fall, the percentage of seats up for election jumps even higher. Nearly 70 percent of all seats in senates with elections this fall are up for election.

Meanwhile, the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) reports that whichever party resides in the White House typically performs poorly during midterm elections for state level offices. In fact, only twice in the last 110 years -- 1934 and 2002 -- has the party that controlled the White House outperformed its opposition in state elections.^[35]

Voter sentiment in California swings against marijuana legalization

California:

While early polls showed support for marijuana legalization, a Field Poll taken from June 22-July 5, 2010 of 1,005 likely voters showed that more voters (48%) now oppose Proposition 19, the Marijuana Legalization Initiative, than support (44%) it.^[36]

Date of Poll	Pollster	In favor	Opposed	Undecided
July 8-11, 2010	SurveyUSA	50%	40%	11
April 20, 2010	SurveyUSA	56%	42%	3
May 9-16, 2010	PPIC	49%	48%	3
June 22-July 5, 2010	Field	44%	48%	8
July 23-25, 2010	PPP	52%	36%	12

Proposition 19 is ahead in 3 voter segments: Democrats, people in the Bay Area and young voters.^[37]

Global Forum on direct democracy set to start on July 30

SAN FRANCISCO, California: The 2010 Global Forum on Modern Direct Democracy is set to open on Friday, July 30 at the U.C. Hastings School of Law in San Francisco, California. The conference, sponsored by IRI Europe and the Citizens in Charge Foundation, is the 3rd annual gathering of direct democracy scholars, activists and journalists and the first such gathering to take place in the United States.

After 5 packed days of presentations and workshops, the conference closes on Wednesday, August 4.

Ballotpedia's Bailey Ludlam and Kyle Maichle are covering the event live via Twitter #prop and daily updates on Ballotpedia.

The event is the first time in close to a decade that America's direct democracy/ballot measure community has come together to trade ideas, present papers and research, and analyze laws and trends. Confirmed speakers include Paul Jacob, Bob Stern, Tracy Westen, Bryan Merica, David Jung, Ned Crosby, Mark Baldassare of PPIC, Joseph Grodin (former California Supreme Court justice), Mike Gravel, Jon Coupal, Ward Connerly, Wayne Pacelle, Rick Jacobs of the Courage Campaign, Ethan Leib and Pete Peterson.

Co-sponsors and partner organizations include the Center for Governmental Studies, Ballotpedia, ID Media, Kimball Petition Management, Common Sense California, the Sam Adams Alliance, the University of California Hastings College of the Law, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, New America Foundation, the Korea Democracy Foundation, IRI Asia, National Voter Outreach, the Humane Society of the United States and the Initiative & Referendum Institute.

Tobacco tax measure heading to California's 2012 ballot

SACRAMENTO, California: Sponsors of a Tobacco Tax for Cancer Research Act submitted signatures on July 1 to qualify their measure for the California ballot. Since the deadline for the November 2, 2010 ballot has passed, the tobacco tax measure, if election officials say that enough valid signatures were submitted, will go on a statewide ballot in 2012.^[38]

Key supporter Don Perata said, "We're going to be in a big fight. In that sense, getting the signatures was really the easy part."^[38]

If the measure is approved by voters, it will impose these new taxes:

• A separate excise tax on every distributor of cigarettes at the rate of fifty mills for each cigarette sold.
• Every cigarette dealer or wholesaler will have to pay a floor stock tax for each cigarette in his or her possession at the rate of fifty mills for each cigarette.

The new taxes would generate about $855 million a year, at least until a decline in cigarette smoking anticipated by the proposition's supporters kicks in. That money would be divided as follows:

• 60 cents of every dollar would fund research on causes, prevention and treatment of cancer and other smoking-related illnesses.
• 20 cents would fund smoking cessation and tobacco use prevention programs.
• 15 cents would fund research facilities and equipment.
• 3 cents would fund anti-tobacco and anti-smuggling enforcement.
• 2 cents per dollar would be allocated for administrative costs.

Schwarzenegger wants $11 billion water bond pulled off ballot

SACRAMENTO, California: Just one day after Proposition 18 was given its official November ballot number, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said he wanted the measure pulled off the ballot.^[22]

Schwarzenegger will have to get a 2/3rds vote in the California State Legislature to get the measure yanked.

He said in a statement: "After reviewing the agenda for this year, I believe our focus should be on the budget -- solving the deficit, reforming out-of-control pension costs and fixing our broken budget system...It's critical that the water bond pass.... I will work with the Legislature to postpone the bond to 2012 and avoid jeopardizing its passage."^[22]

Two legislators, Darrell Steinberg and Dave Cogdill, immediately supported Schwarzenegger's position. Cogdill said, "While I believe we must immediately invest in our water future, timing is everything and I'm willing to wait to bolster voter understanding of this critical measure."^[39]

DeMaio open bidding initiative may have fallen short on signatures

SAN DIEGO, California: The 130,000-some signatures submitted to qualify the San Diego Competition and Transparency in City Contracting Initiative may have fallen short of the 96,834 valid signatures required for qualification.^[40]

The San Diego County Registrar of Voters conducted a random sampling test of 3% of the signatures. That test looked at 4,033 signatures and found that 3,212 were signatures of registered voters and 30 of the signatures were duplicates. Applying a formula, they decided that only 74,732 of the 134,441 submitted signatures, or 55%, are valid.

DeMaio has the option of requesting a full check of the signatures. This would cost about $150,000, and these costs would have to be paid by the supporters of the initiative. The county won't look at the signatures until and unless DeMaio's group pays the signature validation costs in advance. This puts supporters of the measure in a time bind, since August 6 is the deadline for certifying a measure for the November ballot.^[41]

California's November propositions get their numbers

SACRAMENTO, California:

California's November ballot propositions got their numbers today:^[42]

Type	Title	Subject	Description
CISS	Proposition 19	Marijuana	Legalize and tax marijuana
CICA	Proposition 20	Elections	Congressional district lines to be re-drawn by a committee
CISS	Proposition 21	Taxes	Increase vehicle license fees by $18 a year to fund state parks
CICA	Proposition 22	State spending	State government prohibited from taking designated types of local funds
CISS	Proposition 23	Environment	Suspend AB 32, the "Global Warming Solutions Act" until unemployment falls below 5.5%
CISS	Proposition 24	Taxes	Eliminates three business tax breaks
CICA	Proposition 25	State spending	State budget and tax increases can be passed with a simple majority vote, rather than current 2/3rds requirement
CICA	Proposition 26	Taxes	Voters must give permission before any new taxes can be imposed
CICA	Proposition 27	Elections	Return task of redistricting to the California State Legislature (repealing Prop 11)

Battle between unions and business moves to local ballots in California

Earlier in 2010, pundits thought that the November 2010 ballot in California was shaping up to be an epic battle between unions and business interests. However, most of the ballot propositions that would have brought out the big guns on both sides did not qualify for the ballot.

At the same time, several local ballot measures on the June 8, 2010 ballot such as Chula Vista Measure G and Oceanside Measure K suggest that the fight between unions and business is reaching its highest pitch of intensity on local ballots, especially in San Diego County.^[43]

Measure G was approved by about 56% of Chula Vista voters on June 8. It says that unions can no longer require so-called "project labor agreements" on city-funded construction jobs.

Over 130,000 signatures were submitted to qualify the San Diego Competition and Transparency in City Contracting Initiative for the November ballot. This measure, too, is seen as a pushback against union dominance of city contracts and will be fiercely contested by local unions.^[44]

Four more initiatives added in last-minute California qualification

SACRAMENTO, California:

Nine initiated propositions and only one legislative referral have qualified for the November 2, 2010 ballot in California. On the June 24 deadline for making the cut, the Office of the California Secretary of State announced that the Final Four had slipped in under the wire and onto the ballot. The nine successful initiated measures join one referred measure (Water Bonds). Although the deadline for initiated measures has now passed, the California State Legislature still has several weeks to add additional referred measures to the November ballot.

Some ballot measure watchers say that the theme of the 2010 ballot is taxes, government spending and fiscal policy. Three of the newly-certified California measures support that observation. One measure would allow the state budget (but not tax increases) to be enacted with a simple majority vote of the California legislature versus the current 2/3rds requirement. Another says that voters must give permission before any new taxes can be imposed and a third measure eliminates three corporate tax breaks.

The fourth newly-certified measure will allow a different set of trend-spotters to claim that the 2010 ballot is all about The War of Redistricting.

Of the nine initiated measures on the November ballot, 4 propose new statutes, while 5 would amend the California Constitution.

Two major initiatives make the cut for California's November ballot

SACRAMENTO, California: A temporary suspension of AB 32, California's landmark global warming law, has qualified for the November 2, 2010 ballot and so has the "State Government Can't Take Local Government Funds" Initiative.^[45],^[46]

The initiative qualifications were announced on June 22 by the California Secretary of State's office in the waning days before June 24, the final day for any statewide measures to make the November ballot. Sponsors of 5 other initiatives anxiously await word.

The two initiatives whose sponsors were made happy on June 22 are at the heart of several central California concerns in the 2010 election: Jobs and the environment in one ring, and an epic battle between state and local government budget control in another ring.

The proposed Suspension of AB 32 is known by its supporters as the "Jobs Initiative". It says that AB 32 should be suspended until the unemployment rate in California has been below 5.5% for at least 4 consecutive quarters. The state's current unemployment rate is at about 12%.

Capistrano Unified recall election certified for November ballot

SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, California: A vote about whether to recall Ken Lopez-Maddox and Mike Winsten from their positions as trustees of the Capistrano Unified School District in Orange County has been scheduled on the November 2, 2010 ballot.^[47]

The recall effort was launched in January 2010.^[48] 65,903 signatures were submitted to election authorities on May 14.^[49]

A group called "Parents for Local Control" is sponsoring the recall effort with the backing of the local teacher's union. When the recall election was certified, they issued a statement saying, "The voters of south Orange County are highly motivated to remove and replace both Ken Maddox and Mike Winsten from the CUSD Board of Trustees at the earliest possible opportunity."^[47]

In response to the certification of the recall vote, recall target Mike Winsten said, "It's one thing to get a recall election certified; it's quite another to convince the voters to un-elect someone they previously elected by a 65 to 35 percent margin. The demographics of this district don't support the public employee union agenda, and that was obvious (during the strike) to everyone with eyes wide open."^[47]

Lopez-Maddox said, "I understand the teachers union is dissatisfied with their (imposed employment) contract, but it's my responsibility to put the children of the school district first. Every day the news from Sacramento gets worse. It is my responsibility to make sure our school district remains solvent and do all I can to protect programs important to children and their parents."^[47]

The November recall vote is the third recall vote in Capistrano Unified in the last several years.

Initiative to give California legislators more time in office coming up short on signatures

SACRAMENTO, California: California ballot watchers were surprised on June 16 by an announcement from the backers of the California Term Limits Initiative (2010) that they have likely fallen short of the number of signatures required to qualify for the November 2 ballot.^[50]

Debra Bowen, California's Secretary of State had earlier announced that validity rates from the state's 58 counties were such that she was ordering a full verification of signatures on the petitions submitted by proponents.^[51] The full verification procedure takes at least 30 days, which means that a final determination will not be made on whether enough signatures were turned in until after the state's June 24 deadline for determining what will be on the November ballot.

The measure, which will allow state legislators to stay in office for more years than they are allowed under Proposition 140, can still qualify for a future year's ballot, if the full-check procedure says that supporters turned in sufficient signatures.

694,354 valid signatures are required for qualification. Supporters of the term limits-modification plan include the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor and the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce. They paid about $1.4 million for signatures on the measure.

California Primary Roundup - Harris, Cooley, and Dunn win big

By Joseph Kastner

SACRAMENTO, California: In addition to the large amount of ballot measures, both locally and statewide, the voters of California went to the polls on Tuesday, June 8, 2010 to decide who (on the Republican side) would run for Secretary of State against incumbent Democrat Debra Bowen as well as who (on both sides) would compete to be the next State Attorney General in November.

Although it would not be until March 2010 when Democratic incumbent State Attorney General Jerry Brown officially announced his candidacy in the state's gubernatorial contest, District Attorney of San Francisco Kamala D. Harris wasted no time in launching her campaign for the statewide position in November 2008, a full ten months before Brown had even filed official paperwork with the Secretary of State Office to establish an exploratory committee. ^{[52] [53]} In the months that followed, six other Democratic candidates would also enter the state attorney general race, including California State Assembly Majority Leader Alberto Torrico and former-Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo. Despite predictions from across the state that the nomination of Harris on the Democratic ticket was all but assured, Facebook Chief Privacy Officer Chris Kelly proved to be the most aggressive challenger to her campaign. ^[54]

And despite both Kelly and Harris being at each other's throats throughout the primary campaign, particularly in the last two weeks before the election, the campaign results on June 8, 2010 showed that the gap between Harris, who ultimately won the Democratic primary contest, and Kelly was nowhere near as close as press coverage seemed to suggest. It appears as though all the negativity Kelly launched against Harris backfired on him as Alberto Torrico, who, in large part, had been lost in the media coverage of the race, came within a percentage point of breaking even with the former Facebook CPO.

2010 Race for Attorney General - Democratic Primary [55]
Candidates		Percentage
Kamala Harris (D)		33.1%
Chris Kelly (D)		15.9%
Alberto Torrico (D)		14.9%
Ted Lieu (D)		10.5%
Rocky Delgadillo (D)		10.1%
Pedro Nava (D)		9.9%
Mike Schmier (D)		5.6%
Total votes		1,676,360

On the Republican side of the state attorney general contest, the field of candidates vying for the party nomination was certainly less crowded, but just as competitive. The primary race pitted moderate Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley against conservative favorite John Eastman, former Chapman Law School dean, and State Senator Tom Harman. Cooley has been severely criticized, particularly from State Senator Harman's attorney general campaign, for being soft on crime as a direct result of his stance against the state's three strikes law. In particular, Harman and other conservative critics saw it would be a conflict of interest if he received the party nomination for state attorney general considering his active collaboration with progressive state political activists, such as San Francisco District Attorney Kamalan Harris - who seemed likely to capture the Democratic nomination in the race - in weakening the three strikes law. However, it was not Harman who received the support of state conservative tea party activists, but rather the other challenger for the Republican nomination, John Eastman. The former dean was able to garner endorsements from such high profile figures as author/radio host Mark Levin in addition to prominent conservative Republican organizations like the California Congress of Republicans and the National Organization for Marriage.

Regardless of his credible efforts to compete with Cooley, who outspent him 3-to-1, Eastman was only able to close the gap on election day by thirteen percent, which, on his website, the law school dean blamed largely on early voting.

2010 Race for Secretary of State - Republican Primary [55]
Candidates		Percentage
Steve Cooley (R)		47.3%
John Eastman (R)		34.2%
Tom Harman (R)		18.5%
Total votes		1,555,709

Media attention in the Republican primary contest for California Secretary of State mainly focused on Orly Taitz who is the leading figure in the nation questioning Barack Obama's eligibility as President of the United States and demanding he release his birth certificate to prove he is an official resident of the country. Taitz challenged former football player Damon Dunn for the party nomination. And in spite of the press coverage her campaign brought to the race - for better or worse - Taitz failed to make a significant impact, drawing only twenty-five percent of the votes away from Dunn.

2010 Race for Secretary of State - Republican Primary [56]
Candidates		Percentage
Damon Dunn (R)		74.3%
Orly Taitz (R)		25.7%
Total votes		1,447,827

Signatures filed to recall indicted San Jacinto council members

SAN JACINTO, California: The San Jacinto Corruption Recall Active Movement (SCRAM) submitted signatures on June 1 in the hopes of forcing a recall election on four members of the San Jacinto City Council who are under indictment. For each recall target, about double the required number of 2,815 signatures was submitted.^[57]

City Council members Jimmie Dale Stubblefield, Jr., John Mansperger, James Potts and Jim Ayres are targeted in the recall effort. The four politicians were indicted in November 2009 in a corruption probe launched by Riverside County District Attorney Rod Pacheco. The allegations in the indictment are that they laundered "tens of thousands of dollars in campaign money as well as tax fraud, bribery, perjury and filing false government documents."^[2]

Number of submitted signatures:

• Signatures to recall Jim Ayres: 4,874
• Signatures to recall John Mansperger: 4,832
• Signatures to recall Jim Potts: 4,884
• Signatures to recall Dale Stubblefield: 4,909^[57]

Dale Stubblefield

John Mansperger

James Potts

Jim Ayres

Two redistricting initiatives likely to duke it out on California's November ballot

SACRAMENTO, California: Now that supporters of the "Financial Accountability in Redistricting Act" have filed their qualifying signatures with election officials, it appears likely that Californians will be choosing between two very different redistricting proposals on their November 2 ballot.

The "Financial Accountability in Redistricting Act" will substantially repeal Proposition 11, which voters approved in 2008 by the narrow margin of 50.9%.

Meanwhile, the Congressional Redistricting Initiative is also headed for the 2010 ballot. It would extend the provisions of 2008's Prop 11 to cover even more political offices in the state.

The two redistricting initiatives heading for the November ballot set up an epic California battle between Charles Munger, who supported Proposition 11 and is supporting its extension, and California's U.S. Congressional delegation, which has lined up to financially support the elimination of Prop 11.

Californians tweet their opinions during "Tweet a Prop"

SACRAMENTO, California: Today Ballotpedia is sponsoring a "Tweet-a-Prop" event from 1-5 p.m. PST to help encourage conversation about the 5 statewide ballot propositions on the June 8 ballot.

Only an hour into the tweet-a-thon and already the debate is hot with commentary from both supporters and opponents of the five statewide measures. Most popular among tweeters has been Proposition 15. If enacted, the measure assess fees on registered lobbyists in California and use the additional revenue to provide some funding for political campaigns for those running for the Office of the Secretary of State of California.

Check out our main event page with instructions on how to participate!

June 8 statewide propositions:

Type	Title	Subject	Description	Result
LRCA	Proposition 13	Taxes	Seismic retrofitting should not add to property's tax assessed value
LRCA	Proposition 14	Elections	Top two primary vote getters move to general regardless of party affiliation
LRSS	Proposition 15	Elections	Public funding of politician's campaigns
CICA	Proposition 16	Elections	New two-thirds vote requirement for local public electricity providers
CISS	Proposition 17	Regulation	Discount for those who have had continuous auto insurance coverage

California businessman arrested for conspiring to secretly fund recall campaign

LAKE ELSINORE, California: Businessman Michel Knight has been arrested "on suspicion of conspiring to hide his financial involvement" in the unsuccessful effort to recall Thomas Buckley from the Lake Elsinore City Council in .^[58] The election about whether to recall Buckley took place on February 23, 2010.

Knight owns Trevi Entertainment Center, a bowling alley and arcade complex, in Lake Elsinore.

Knight was arrested by Riverside County district attorney's investigators. He is charged with perjury, filing false documents and violating campaign disclosure requirements, as well as conspiracy to commit those particular crimes. If convicted on all six charges, he could be sentenced to as many as five years in prison.

Recall target Buckley believes that Knight "engineered and bankrolled" the recall campaign because of Buckley supported revoking a live-entertainment permit at Trevi.

PG&E spending on Proposition 16 tops $46 million

SACRAMENTO, California: With a little less than two weeks before the June 8, 2010 election, Pacific Gas & Electric has given $46.1 million to the campaign to pass Proposition 16.^[59]

PG&E's latest contributions were $2 million on May 24 and $6.5 million on May 21.^[60]

Campaign spending on Proposition 16 tops that of the other 4 measures on the June 8 ballot. The proposition with the second-most spending on it is Proposition 17, where approximately $15 million has been donated.

If Proposition 16 is approved by voters, it will take a two-thirds vote of the electorate before a public agency could enter the retail power business. This will make it more difficult than it is currently for local entities to form either municipal utilities, or community wide clean electricity districts called Community Choice Aggregators (CCAs). Forming a local municipal utility or a CCA, if this measure is enacted, will require the approval, through election, of 2/3rds of the voters who live in the area of the would-be local municipal utility or CCA.^[61]

"Repeal Corporate Loophole" initiative sponsors file sigs in California

SACRAMENTO, California: Sponsors of an initiated state statute that would stop several corporate tax breaks from going into effect in 2010 and 2012 filed 800,000 signatures with election authorities on May 12, versus a requirement of 433,971 signatures.^[62] The California Teachers Association is the main sponsor of the initiative.

The breaks were approved by the California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. The initiative could stop eligible corporations from receiving $2.5 billion in tax breaks per year.^[63]

The targeted tax breaks include:

• The "single-sales factor". This allows multi-state corporations to choose whether they will be taxed on property, payroll or sales.^[64]
• Loss carry-backs. This allows corporations that are experiencing losses in California's current economy to get refunds for taxes paid up to two years previously.
• Tax credit-sharing. This allows companies with more tax credits than they can use to distribute the tax credits to affiliates.

"Stop Hidden Taxes" supporters file 1.1 million signatures in California

SACRAMENTO: California: A "Stop Hidden Taxes" Initiative is headed for the November 2, 2010 ballot in California after its supporters filed 1.1 million qualifying signatures on May 7. ^[65] Election officials have until June 24 to inspect the signatures and announce a decision about whether the measure does qualify for the state's November 2 ballot. The initiative was the 8th initiative intended for the November ballot to have signatures filed on its behalf.

The proposed initiative would require a two-thirds supermajority vote in the California State Legislature to pass many fees, levies, charges and tax revenue allocations that under existing rules can be enacted by a simple majority vote.^[66] Supporters of the initiative call it the "Stop Hidden Taxes" initiative, because they believe that fees, levies, and so on imposed by the California government amount to taxes, and should therefore require the same supermajority vote required to enact income or sales tax increases.

According to Allen Zaremberg, president of the California Chamber of Commerce, "The Stop Hidden Taxes initiative will prohibit politicians from using a loophole to raise even more taxes by disguising them as fees. Right now, elected officials at the state and local level pass higher taxes by labeling taxes as “fees” so they can pass or increase them with a 50% vote instead of the two-thirds required by law – and in the case of many local taxes, enact them without a public vote. We need the Stop Hidden Taxes initiative to close this loophole. Higher taxes and fees make it more difficult for businesses to stay in California – the very businesses that employ Californians, create jobs and generate revenue for our state. Increasing employment and growing the economy are crucial to California’s recovery."^[67]

Pass California budget with majority vote? Prop turns in sigs

SACRAMENTO: California: A Passing the Budget On Time Act may be on the November 2, 2010 ballot in California. Supporters turned in about 1.1 million signatures to election officials on May 6.^[68] The proposal is an initiated constitutional amendment.

The goal of the proposal is to end the current requirement in the state that two-thirds of the members of the California State Legislature must vote in favor of the state's budget in order for a budget to be enacted. It also requires state legislators to forfeit their pay in years where they have failed to pass a budget in a timely fashion.

James C. Harrison and Thomas A. Willis filed the initial language for the proposal with the California Secretary of State on October 14, 2009.

The fate of the Harrison-Willis proposal, which would lower the vote threshold to pass a budget, contrasts with that of a widely-discussed but (in 2010) unsuccessful effort to lower the vote threshold required to raise taxes.

Congressional redistricting proposition qualifies for California's Nov ballot

SACRAMENTO, California: The VOTERS FIRST Act for Congress has qualified for the November 2, 2010 ballot in California.^[69] Supporters of the proposition submitted 1,180,623 signatures to election officials, versus a requirement of 694,354 signatures.

The VOTERS FIRST initiative, if approved by voters, will:

• Add the task of re-drawing congressional district boundaries to the commission created by Proposition 11.
• Define a "community of interest" as "a contiguous population which shares common social and economic interests that should be included within a single district for purposes of its effective and fair representation. Examples of such shared interests are those common to an urban area, an industrial area, or an agricultural area, and those common to areas in which the people share similar living standards, use the same transportation facilities, have similar work opportunities, or have access to the same media of communication relevant to the election process."

Ballot language was filed by Charles Munger. He was a supporter of Proposition 11 in 2008, which created a new way for political districts to be drawn for California's state legislators and its state Board of Equalization.

At the same time that Munger's initiative seeks to expand Proposition 11, a competing initiative that may also qualify for the November 2 ballot, the Financial Accountability in Redistricting Act, seeks to repeal Proposition 11.

The congressional redistricting initiative is the third ballot proposition to qualify for California's November ballot, and the 8th to qualify on the year (5 others are on the June 8, 2010 ballot).

The petition drive management company hired to collect the signatures was National Petition Management. NPM was paid $1,937,380 (through May 6) for their signature-gathering services.^[70]

Parcel tax elections in 9 California school districts on May 4 (updated May 8)

California: On Tuesday, May 4, voters in 9 California school districts rendered verdicts on parcel tax measures. All the elections were held on a mail-in ballot basis and each required a 2/3rds supermajority vote for enactment.

Approved:

• Acalanes Union High School District parcel tax, Measure A (May 2010).
• Menlo Park City School District parcel tax, Measure C (May 2010)
• Portola Valley School District parcel tax, Measure D (May 2010)
• Palo Alto Unified School District parcel tax, Measure A (May 2010)
• Fremont Union High School District parcel tax, Measure B (May 2010)
• Lakeside Joint School District parcel tax, Measure C (May 2010)
• Union Elementary School District parcel tax, Measure H (May 2010)

Defeated:

• Pasadena Unified School District parcel tax, Measure CC (May 2010)
• Loma Prieta Elementary Schools parcel tax, Measure G (May 2010)

Signatures filed for initiative to suspend AB 32

SACRAMENTO, California: In e-mails to the press on May 3, the campaign behind California Jobs Initiative, the Suspension of AB 32 (2010) said that they had turned in over 800,000 signatures to California election officials to qualify their measure for the November 2, 2010 ballot. 433,971 valid signatures are required.^[71]

Louise Bedsworth, a research fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California, predicted in April that total campaign spending on this proposition, if it succeeds in gaining a spot on the November ballot, could top the $154 million record set in 2006 by Proposition 87.^[72]

If campaign spending on the initiative does reach that level, it could be because supporters and opponents view the battle over the suspension of AB-32 as symbolic in the larger national debate over global warming. Steven Maviglio, speaking for a group that wants to keep AB-32 intact, said, "...this could be a ground zero for the battle for the future of clean energy."^[72]

The attempt to suspend AB 32 joined four other campaigns whose sponsors have submitted signatures and are awaiting word. The Jobs Initiative campaign will hear by June 24 at the latest whether it has qualified.

Signatures filed, awaiting certification in California:

Type	Title	Subject	Description	Random sample deadline
CICA	Congressional Redistricting	Elections	Congressional district lines to be re-drawn by a committee	May 25
CICA	Term Limits	Term limits	Reduce total number of years a state legistor can serve from 14 to 12
CISS	Funding for State Parks	Taxes	Increase vehicle license fees by $18 a year to fund state parks	June 11
CICA	State Gov't Can't Take Local Funds	State spending	State government prohibited from taking designated types of local funds
CISS	Jobs Act	Environment	Suspend AB 32, the "Global Warming Solutions Act" until unemployment falls below 5.5%

Initiative sponsors set to file signatures in California

SACRAMENTO, California: In the waning days of the time available to qualify an initiative for the November 2, 2010 ballot in California, initiative sponsors will be filing signatures the week of May 3.

• Sponsors of California Jobs Initiative, the Suspension of AB 32 (2010) said they're filing on Monday, May 3.^[73]

• Other initiative sponsors who may submit signatures this week include the sponsors of an effort to lower the percentage of the vote required to pass a local school bond or tax measure, a parental notification before abortion initiative, a plan to end some corporate tax breaks, a measure about hospital taxes, a "Stop Hidden Taxes" proposal and an effort to repeal Proposition 11 (2008).

Four other groups have already filed, and two propositions are already qualified.

Signatures have been filed and are pending verification for these propositions:

Type	Title	Subject	Description	Random sample deadline
CICA	Congressional Redistricting	Elections	Congressional district lines to be re-drawn by a committee	May 25
CICA	Term Limits	Term limits	Reduce total number of years a state legistor can serve from 14 to 12
CISS	Funding for State Parks	Taxes	Increase vehicle license fees by $18 a year to fund state parks	June 11
CICA	State Gov't Can't Take Local Funds	State spending	State government prohibited from taking designated types of local funds

Every prospective initiative that has a chance of making it on the November ballot has significant financial backing. John Matsusaka, president of the Initiative & Referendum Institute, has studied the I&R process since 1991, and he says that the number of signatures required to qualify for the California ballot go well beyond the capacity of volunteer, grassroots organizations: "Nobody ever gets that many signatures with volunteers. I can't recall an initiative ever getting on the ballot in California with volunteers."^[74]

State park funding measure submits signatures in California

SACRAMENTO, California: Supporters of the California Funding for State Parks Initiative (2010) filed signatures with California election officials in late April 2010 in order to qualify the measure for the November 2, 2010 ballot. The measure is a proposal to increase vehicle license fees in the state by $18 a year in order to raise about $500 million a year in a dedicated fund for the state's 278 parks. The new fee would apply to about 28 million vehicles.^[75]

The state parking-funding measure joins two other proposals currently awaiting signature verification. If these three are certified for the ballot, they will bring the total of certified propositions for the November ballot to 5, since a marijuana legalization measure and a water bond are already on that ballot.

Type	Title	Subject	Description	Random sample deadline
CICA	Congressional Redistricting	Elections	Congressional district lines to be re-drawn by a committee	May 25
CICA	Term Limits	Term limits	Reduce total number of years a state legistor can serve from 14 to 12
CISS	Funding for State Parks	Taxes	Increase vehicle license fees by $18 a year to fund state parks	June 11

Prop 8 closing arguments scheduled for June 16

SAN FRANCISCO, California: Closing arguments in the trial on a federal lawsuit seeking to overturn Proposition 8 have been tentatively scheduled for June 16. The lawsuit says that California's ban on same-sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution.

The federal judge in the case, Vaughn Walker, heard two weeks of testimony in January 2010. Since then, he has been studying papers and briefs filed by both sides, and adjudicating a variety of procedural issues in the case, including questions about access to internal campaign documents.^[76]

Younger people and men support marijuana legalization

California: A SurveyUSA poll conducted on April 20 of 500 voters indicated that while 56% of those surveyed support legalizing marijuana, 75% of those under 35 support legalization and 65% of men support legalization.^[77]

Some trouble spots for those who support this November's California Marijuana Legalization Initiative are groups of voters who oppose legalization:

• In the age group of voters over 65, 54% are opposed to marijuana legalization.
• A minority of women (46%) support legalization.
• A minority of Hispanics (45%) support legalization.^[78]

Antonio Villaraigos recall campaign launched

LOS ANGELES, California: An effort to recall Antonio Villaraigosa from his position as Mayor of Los Angeles, California has been launched by activists who are concerned about his leadership of the city, especially when it comes to financial management.^[2]

Villaraigosa is currently serving in his second four-year term as the city's mayor, having been elected most recently in March 2009 in an election in which only 9.6% of eligible voters cast a vote.^[79]

If Villaraigosa is not recalled, his current term will end in 2013.

Walter Moore, Phil Jennerjahn, David Hernandez and Augusto Bisani are leaders in the recall effort.^[2]

Hernandez says that Villaraigosa should be removed from office because he failed to heed warnings that the recession would come to Los Angeles, and therefore failed to plan for it. Hernandez believes that the amount of services being cut, the layoffs taking place and the city's spending are a "total abuse of the position" of mayor and are a natural result of Villaraigosa failing to understand fiscal prudent management.^[80]

Other reasons given by supporters of the recall focus on problems with the Los Angeles city budget.

• The city's spending has increased 32% during Villaraigosa's first 5 years in office from $5.3 billion to $7 billion.
• 10% of the city's budget is spent through the Community Redevelopment Agency which, according to recall supporters, gives money to private corporations and individuals who are politically connected.^[79]
• Los Angeles has a 13.6% unemployment rate, with 259,250 people out of work.

In Villaraigosa's 2009 election, he received 55.65% of the vote, despite spending 15 times as much money as his most prominent challenger. One columnist summarized Villaraigosa's poor showing as follows: "Villaraigosa stepped into the batter's box on Tuesday, swung and missed twice, and legged out a weak infield hit.".^[81]

Recall organizers must collect a minimum of 240,732 signatures in the 120 day period between April 20 and August 18 to force a recall vote.

Initiative to change California's term limits likely for November ballot

SACRAMENTO, California: On April 22, supporters of an initiative to alter California's term limits submitted more than 1 million signatures to county election officials, making it very likely that the initiative will qualify for the November 2010 ballot.^[82]

If this measure succeeds, it will amend Section 2 of Article IV of the California Constitution to replace the separate 8 and 6-year term limits on future State Senators and Assemblymembers, respectively, with a 12-year limit on combined service. Current and former members of the California State Legislature would not be affected.

Two other propositions have already been certified for the November ballot, one that would legalize marijuana, and another that would authorize the state to borrow $11 billion for water projects. Supporters of a congressional redistricting initiative have submitted their signatures and are waiting to hear from election authorities about whether their measure qualifies for the ballot.

Repeal of California's Prop 8 will not be on 2010 ballot

SACRAMENTO, California: Backers of an effort to qualify an initiative for the November 2, 2010 ballot that would repeal California's Proposition 8 announced on April 12 that they had not been able to collect enough signatures to qualify for the 2010 ballot.^[83]

Supporters of same-sex marriage were at loggerheads throughout 2009 about whether to attempt to repeal Prop 8 in 2010 or wait until 2012. Several groups that would have been able to swing enough money to guarantee qualification for the 2010 ballot concluded that it was best to wait until 2012.

California Democrats want to raise cost of filing initiatives

SACRAMENTO, California: Lori Saldana is sponsoring a bill, AB 1832, that would raise the fee assessed for filing initiative language with California election officials over a six-year period from $200 to $2,000.^[84] Saldana, a Democratic member of the California State Assembly, represents the 76th Assembly District.

AB 1832 passed through the California State Assembly with a 43-22 vote. No Republicans voted for it.^[85]

Since 1911, more than 1,600 initiatives have been filed and approved for circulation in California. 338, or about 21%, have qualified for the statewide ballot, and about a third of those were approved by voters.

Saldana has proposed other measures to restrict initiatives in the state. In 2009, she sponsored:

• Assembly Bill 6, which would require petition drive management companies to pay an annual fee and register with the California Secretary of State.
• Assembly Bill 1068, which would forbid contracts with signature gatherers premised upon whether or not the measure qualifies for the ballot.^[86]

Christmas songs, divorce ban and part-time leg kaput in California

Three potential statewide ballot propositions missed petition drive deadlines in the last week of March, and therefore failed to qualify for the 2010 ballot.

Two of the unsuccessful propositions -- an initiative to ban divorces in California and an initiative to require that California schools allow the singing of traditional Christmas songs -- achieved a certain degree of notoriety before they were ushered off the stage.

The third now-departed measure was a government reform measure to transform the California State Legislature from a full-time enterprise to a part-time enterprise. In a state where the favorability rating of the state legislature is now in the single digits, the part-time legislature initiative is one of a handful of government-reform measures that have now failed to mount a serious petition drive effort for qualification purposes.^[87]

Type	Title	Subject	Description
CICA	No Divorces Amendment	Marriage	No divorces
CICA	Citizen Legislature	Legislature	State legislature to be part-time rather than full-time
CISS	Christmas Songs Sung in Schools	Education	Public schools can allow students to sing Christmas songs

Marijuana legalization act certified for California's November ballot

SACRAMENTO, California: A ballot initiative to legalize and tax marijuana has qualified for the November 2, 2010 ballot in California.^[88]

Gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown took the opportunity of the initiative's qualifying for the ballot to say he opposes it. Meg Whitman also opposes it.

Much of the money to qualify the initiative for the ballot was donated by Richard Lee, a marijuana entrepreneur from Oakland.

The pot legalization initiative is the second ballot proposition to qualify for California's November ballot.

Deadline for California's June 8 ballot is March 12

For cities, counties and school districts, Friday, March 12 is the final day to make a decision about whether to place local ballot measures on the June 8, 2010 ballot. A number of municipalities are waiting until the very last moment to make their decisions, including Sonoma County, where the decision about whether to put a $10 vehicle registration fee surcharge on the June ballot is coming down to today's 5:00 p.m. wire.^[89]

March 12 is also the deadline for settling legal wrangles over ballot language issues related to June 8 ballot propositions. This affects Proposition 14 and Proposition 17, since both propositions are in the midst of ballot title lawsuits.

Official ballot labels for June 8 propositions released

CALIFORNIA: On February 23, the California Secretary of State's office released the official ballot labels for the five ballot propositions on the June 8, 2010 ballot.^[90]

Ballot labels include a ballot title, ballot summary and a fiscal estimate provided by the California Legislative Analyst's Office.

All the information released on February 23 is subject to court-ordered changes through March 15.

California voters are often accused of over-indulgence in ballot-box budgeting, but the fiscal impact estimates for the five June measures taken together apparently give fiscal hawks little to fear:

• Proposition 13: "Minor reduction in local property tax revenues related to the assessment of earthquake upgrades."
• Proposition 14: "No significant net change in state and local government costs to administer elections."
• Proposition 15: "Increased revenues (mostly from charges related to lobbyists) totaling over $6 million every four years. These funds would be spent on public financing for campaigns of Secretary of State candidates for the 2014 and 2018 elections."
• Proposition 16: "Unknown net impact on state and local government costs and revenues—unlikely to be significant in the short run—due to the measure’s uncertain effects on public electricity providers and on electricity rates."
• Proposition 17: "This measure would probably have no significant fiscal effect on state and local governments."

Type	Title	Subject	Description	Result
LRCA	Proposition 13	Taxes	Seismic retrofitting should not add to property's tax assessed value
LRCA	Proposition 14	Elections	Top two primary vote getters move to general regardless of party affiliation
LRSS	Proposition 15	Elections	Public funding of politician's campaigns
CICA	Proposition 16	Elections	New two-thirds vote requirement for local public electricity providers
CISS	Proposition 17	Regulation	Discount for those who have had continuous auto insurance coverage

February 23 saw three significant recall elections in California (updated)

CALIFORNIA: On February 23, voters determined the fate of three city council members and four school board members.

Voters in Montebello, a suburb of Los Angeles, removed Kathy Salazar and Robert Urteaga from office. Voters in Lake Elsinore decided to keep Thomas Buckley.

Four school board members of the St. Helena Unified School District, in an affluent area of Napa County, were removed from office by voters on February 23, in a closely-watched election that attracted national attention, including a feature article in the New York Times.

Although all politics is local, what voters decided could be regarded as a bellwether for a glimpse into just how angry and disappointed voters are with politicians in 2010.

Another election on the February 23 ballot was in San Mateo County, where voters in the San Mateo-Foster City Elementary School District chose to approve a parcel tax hike of $96/year by the narrowest of margins. As parcel tax measures crowd onto ballots in May and June, school administrators throughout the state watched the results in San Mateo with bated breath.

California Constitution reform group pulls the plug

Not on Ballot
This measure did not or will not appear on a ballot

SACRAMENTO, California: Repair California announced on Friday, February 12 that it is abandoning its efforts to qualify a pair of ballot initiatives for the November 2, 2010 statewide ballot in California. One initiative they backed would have given California voters the constitutional authority to call a convention via petition. The other initiative would have called a convention.^[91]

Jim Wunderman, chief executive of the Bay Area Council, said "I'm very sorry we had to call it quits." The group had raised about $352,000 for its ballot qualification efforts. Compared to the $2.2 million average cost of qualifying measures for the June 2010 ballot, and a lack of commitment of sufficent funds to get the job done, the group decided to end their 2010 efforts to bring about a California constitutional convention.

Tony Quinn, co-editor of the California Target Book, said, "There appears to be no excitement out there for these rather complicated reforms. It is hard to go to the public with these ethereal ideas and have them understand what you are talking about. This may be a lesson that reformers need to go with smaller, bite-sized chunks."^[91]

Will Michael Ni's John Hancock be the signature heard 'round the world?

SAN MATEO, California: California voter Michael Ni delivered a signature to San Mateo County election officials in January 2010 that may become "the signature heard 'round the world". His signature was to help the Marijuana Legalization Initiative qualify for the ballot, but instead of being affixed with ink to a paper petition, Ni's signature was delivered to San Mateo's county clerk on a flash drive after Ni signed the petition using the touch screen of his iPhone.^[92]

Ni is the co-founder of Verafirma, a Silicon Valley start-up that has developed a technology for electronic signature-gathering. Verafirma's technology has the potential to revolutionize the signature-gathering business, making it less expensive to qualify measures for the ballot and therefore allowing non-monied political activists to participate in direct democracy.

Ni expects that his signature will be legally challenged, and that the outcome of that legal challenge will provide his company with a roadmap for what the courts will and will not allow as legal signatures.^[92]

San Mateo County clerk Warren Slocum is likely to reject the signature, saying "It's questionable whether it meets the requirements of the law. A court is probably the place where the question can be decided."^[92]

Debate about online petition signatures hits three states

California, Nebraska, Utah: At least three states are facing questions about the legality of online petition circulation. Currently no state allows electronic signatures to be submitted for initiatives. However, in January 2010, supporters of the California No Political Deductions from Public Employee Paychecks (2010) announced that they were using a new online method for signature collection - an iPhone application created by Verafirma.^[93] In Nebraska Sen. Bill Avery introduced a bill - LB 1059 - to allow initiative and referendum petitions to be signed electronically.^[94] In Utah, supporters of two ballot measures began soliciting signatures on a website called www.i-sign.us. However, this week both the attorney general and lieutenant governor announced that electronic petition signatures are not valid. "My review and analysis of the statutory provisions indicates that the laws governing initiatives do not contemplate or allow for the use of electronic signatures," said Attorney General Mark Shurtleff in a five-page analysis of the proposed online process.^[95] According to reports the issue is likely to head to court.^[96] Decisions on the online solicitation practice in both Nebraska and California remain pending.

Signatures for California's 2 June initiatives cost $4.4 million

Petition Companies

SACRAMENTO, California: Supporters of the two ballot initiatives on the June 8, 2010 statewide ballot in California cumulatively paid $4,473,539 to earn the two measures a spot on the ballot.

Pacific Gas & Electric is the sole donor to Proposition 16, and has kicked in $6.5 million to date. Through February 9, this campaign has paid Direct Voices, a subsidiary of Arno Political Consultants, $2,199,794 for signature-gathering on the proposed initiated constitutional amendment.^[97]

Mercury Insurance is the sole donor to Proposition 17, providing $3.5 million to get the campaign started. They've paid $2,273,745 through February 9 to National Petition Management for signature-gathering, or about $3.15 per signature based on news reports that indicate that 720,000 signatures were collected on the proposed initiated state statute.^[98]

The other 3 measures on California's June 8 ballot are legislative referrals, which required no signature-gathering to qualify for the ballot.

Type	Title	Subject	Description	Result
LRCA	Proposition 13	Taxes	Seismic retrofitting should not add to property's tax assessed value
LRCA	Proposition 14	Elections	Top two primary vote getters move to general regardless of party affiliation
LRSS	Proposition 15	Elections	Public funding of politician's campaigns
CICA	Proposition 16	Elections	New two-thirds vote requirement for local public electricity providers
CISS	Proposition 17	Regulation	Discount for those who have had continuous auto insurance coverage

California's five June propositions are assigned official numbers

SACRAMENTO, California: On Friday, January 29, Debra Bowen, California's Secretary of State, announced that her office has assigned official ballot proposition numbers to the five propositions qualified for the June 8, 2010 ballot.^[99] The five numbers on the ballot go from Proposition 13-Proposition 17, and include three proposed constitutional amendments and two proposed state statutes.

Type	Title	Subject	Description
LRCA	Prop 13, Seismic Retrofitting	Taxes	Seismic retrofitting should not add to property's tax assessed value
LRCA	Prop 14, Top Two Primaries	Elections	Top two primary vote getters move to general regardless of party affiliation
LRSS	Prop 15, Public Funding of Elections	Elections	Public funding of politician's campaigns
CICA	Proposition 16	Elections	New two-thirds vote requirement for local public electricity providers
CISS	Proposition 17	Regulation	Discount for those who have had continuous auto insurance coverage

The next step in the process of preparing the propositions for the June election is for supporters and opponents to craft and submit ballot arguments by February 9 for what will become the state's official June 8 voter guide.

Some details on the ballot argument process:

• Ballot arguments cannot exceed 500 words
• Rebuttals to ballot arguments cannot exceed 250 words.
• Submissions of ballot arguments are to be typed and double-spaced.
• The deadline to submit ballot arguments is February 9 by 5:00 p.m.
• The deadline to submit rebuttals to the ballot arguments is February 18 by 5:00 p.m.
• Arguments that are selected for the Official Voter Information Guide will be on public display between February 23 and March 15
• If multiple arguments are submitted for one proposition:

• State law gives first priority to arguments written by legislators in the case of a legislative measure.
• State law gives first priority to arguments written by the proponents of an initiative in the case of an initiative measure.
• Subsequent priority is given by law to "bona fide citizen associations" and then to individuals.
• No more than three signers are allowed to appear with an argument or rebuttal to an argument.

Marijuana legalization signatures submitted in California

SACRAMENTO, California: Richard Lee of Tax Cannabis 2010 announced on January 28 that his group has filed over 700,000 signatures to qualify their Legalize and Tax Marijuana Initiative for California's November 2, 2010 ballot.^[100]

Lee said his group had collected the signatures in "only 40% of the time allowed by law" and that this signature-gathering speed "shows the popular demand for this." Lee also said that signature-gatherers collected some signatures from each of California's 58 counties.

433,971 of the 700,000 signatures must be valid for the measure to qualify.

The signature-filing announcement coincided with the opening of what some are calling a "Walmart for Weed" in Oakland. The store, called IGrow, is a 15,000 square-foot warehouse that is said by its owner to meet every conceivable need of the marijuana horticulturist and medical marijuana consumer.^[101],^[102]

California's Supreme Court strikes down legislative limits on medical marijuana

SACRAMENTO, California: On January 21, the California Supreme Court unanimously ruled in the case of People v. Kelly that a 2003 law passed by the California State Legislature that set some limits on how much medical marijuana patients could grow or possess is invalid because it amounted to illicit legislative tampering with Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.

Under the ruling, the state government is no longer allowed to impose any legal limits on the amount of marijuana that medical marijuana users can grow or possess.^[103]

The 2003 law limited medical marijuana users to 8 ounces of dried marijuana and six mature or 12 immature marijuana plants.^[104]

Chief Justice Ronald George, who wrote the unanimous opinion, is known to be an opponent of California's initiative laws, which he says have "rendered our state government dysfunctional.'^[105]

California activist wants better ballot titles, online information

SACRAMENTO, California: California activist David Spady has filed two proposed 2010 ballot initiatives. His goal with both of the initiatives is to reform the process of providing information to voters about statewide ballot propositions.^[106]

His Ballot Title Reform Act would take the authority to write ballot titles away from the Office of the Attorney General of California and give it to the California Legislative Analyst's Office.

In recent years, several ballot titles written by the Attorney General's office have come under fire, including the title for the Continuous Coverage Auto Insurance Discount Act and Proposition 8.

Spady's Voter Information Guide Reform Act would require the California Secretary of State to provide more information online about the state's propositions, specifically by providing an online resource with:

• A link to the most recent campaign finance report for any committee primarily formed to support or oppose the state measure.
• A link to a campaign website at the request of the authors of the ballot arguments for or against the state measure.
• A link to video or audio content at the request of the authors of the ballot arguments for or against the state measure.
• A link to video or audio of the joint public hearing held to illuminate the measure.

Insurance measure qualifies for June ballot in California

SACRAMENTO, California: A fifth ballot measure has qualified for the June 8, 2010 ballot in California. The measure that made the cut on January 20 is the Continuous Coverage Auto Insurance Discount Act, an initiated state statute sponsored by Mercury Insurance. The ballot proposition would allow insurance companies in the state to give what are known as "persistency discounts", or discounts for those who have had continuous auto insurance coverage.

Persistency discounts are currently prohibited in California under the terms of Proposition 103 from 1988. Several of the leading forces behind Proposition 103 are already gearing up to fight the 2010 effort to allow persistency discounts, including Harvey Rosenfield who wrote Proposition 103.

Marijuana buds on 2010 ballots

Pushes in half-a-dozen states to legalize marijuana kicked into high gear in January 2010, as a a State of Washington Legalization measure was filed, 60,000 signatures were turned-in on an Oregon Medical Marijuana Supply Act, and advocates of legalizing cannabis in California announced that they have their signatures in hand for the November ballot.^[107]

Meanwhile, state legislators in California, Washington and Oregon have introduced legislation to loosen restrictions on pot, and activists in Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Minnesota, Nevada and South Dakota pursue various different ways to make access to cannabis easier.

Signatures submitted as 49ers stadium measure inches closer to fruition

SANTA CLARA, California:Organizers of a petition to place a stadium proposal on the June 8, 2010 ballot in Santa Clara submitted 8,000 signatures to the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters’ office. The office now has 30 days to verify the signatures and approve, or reject, the measure that would ask voters whether to build a $937 million stadium for the National Football League’s San Francisco 49ers, and possibly to house the Oakland Raiders.^[108][109]

According to reports, if 4,640 signatures are deemed valid, which is 10 percent of the city’s registered voters, then the city council must decide whether to place their own referred measure on the June ballot, or if they should place the initiative on the ballot. The deadline for the city council to place their own measure on the ballot is March 9, 2010. However, if there are 6,970 valid signatures, the measure will automatically be placed up for a public vote.

First initiative qualifies for the 2010 ballot in California

SACRAMENTO, California: On Wednesday, January 12, The Office of the California Secretary of State announced that the New Two-Thirds Requirement for Local Public Electricity Providers Act has qualified for the June 8, 2010 ballot in California, bringing the 2010 total in California to 5 so far.

Although 3 other measures are already qualified for the June ballot, and one for the November ballot, those four propositions were placed on the ballot by the California State Legislature.

The New Two-Thirds Requirement for Local Public Electricity Providers Act is primarily supported by Pacific Gas & Electric, which has given at least $3.5 million to the campaign to qualify the measure for the ballot and get it enacted.

U.S. Supreme Court blocks TV cameras in Prop 8 courtroom

On Monday, January 11, the U.S. Supreme Court entered an interim order barring Judge Vaughn Walker from allowing real-time streaming in his courtroom of the federal trail on the constitutionality of California Proposition 8 (2008).

The high court's order remains in effect until the afternoon of Wednesday, January 13, while the court considers whether to make the order permanent.

The full text of the court's stay is:

"Upon consideration of the application for stay presented to Justice Kennedy and by him referred to the Court, it is ordered that the order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, case No. 3:09-cv-02292, permitting real-time streaming is stayed except as it permits streaming to other rooms within the confines of the courthouse in which the trial is to be held. Any additional order permitting broadcast of the proceedings is also stayed pending further order of this Court. To permit further consideration in this Court, this order will remain in effect until Wednesday, January 13, 2010, at 4 p.m. eastern time."^[110]

Prop 8 supporters ask U.S. Supremes for stay of YouTube order

On Saturday, January 9, attorneys for supporters of Proposition 8 filed a request with the Supreme Court of the United States for a stay of Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling that cameras will be allowed in his courtroom when he begins hearings on Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the federal lawsuit against California's Proposition 8 on January 11.^[111]

Judge Anthony Kennedy will initially review the request. He may decide on it himself or refer the matter to the full court.^[112]

Prop 8 federal trial will be televised, available on YouTube

On Wednesday, January 6, federal judge Vaughn Walker ruled that cameras will be allowed in his courtroom when he begins hearings on a federal lawsuit against California's Proposition 8 on January 11.

Video footage from the trial will be uploaded to YouTube daily.^[113]

Verafirma uses iPhone to sign California petitions

SACRAMENTO, California: Supporters of the Citizen Power Initiative, officially known as the California No Political Deductions from Public Employee Paychecks (2010), are using a new method to collect a minimum of approximately 694,354 valid signatures for the November 2, 2010 statewide ballot - the iPhone, an internet and multimedia enabled smartphone. Using the technology developed by a California based company, Verafirma, they are encouraging supporters to sign in support of the measure by downloading and using an iPhone application. This method of signature collection marks a first in not only the state of California but also the entire United States. The validity of the signatures collected via the iPhone application will be determined after they are reviewed by the California Secretary of State's office. The signature collection deadline is May 3, 2010.^[114]

• Alameda Measure H lawsuit nears settlement
• California Chief Justice Ronald George condemns ballot initiatives
• California Secretary of State approves Schwarzenegger recall petition
• California Supreme Court decision on Prop 8 will be released Tuesday, May 26
• California Supreme Court upholds Proposition 8
• California activists gear up for marijuana initiative
• California court upholds Prop 63 tax on wealthy
• California fireworks initiative to be on ballot
• California gaming tribes rank near top of nation's political givers
• California initiative to test law-makers for drugs may be on ballot
• California judges uphold Measure B
• California oil-drilling initiative to move to ballot this year
• California parties expected to wage war on "Top Two" proposition
• California petition beginning that would reform initiative process
• California town development initiative re-approved by court
• California utility PG&E appears to have signatures for "right to vote" measure
• California voters in a "no" mood
• California voters reject tax, fund shift propositions
• California voters to decide on tax increase in November
• California voters will decide on taxes, land use and fireworks
• California water bond measure may re-ignite the north/south war of 1982
• Carpinteria ballot title hearing set for July 28
• Decline of California property values leads to first-ever downward tick due to Prop 13
• Expensive ballot propositions? Blame the legislature, says reform group
• Federal judge orders Prop 8 supporters to disclose internal campaign strategies
• Gay marriage supporters in California file Prop 8 repeal measure by deadline
• George Barich recall succeeds
• Joe Mathews wants four changes to California's initiative system
• Judge rebukes Walnut Creek city council
• League of California Cities files "lockbox" initiative
• Measure H parcel tax lawsuit in settlement talks
• More groups come out against 2010 effort to repeal Prop 8
• New details emerge on 49ers stadium in Santa Clara
• Ninth Circuit suspends disclosure order on Prop 8 backers
• Oakland voters raise taxes, divert spending
• Palo Alto approves tax ballot measure
• Politicians blame budget woes on ballot measures
• Prop 98 means $1 billion more for education in time of general decline, says LAO
• Proposition 8 federal court case begins on January 11
• Runner files lawsuit against Jerry Brown's office over ballot title
• Same-sex marriage measures raised over $100 million in 2008
• Schwarzenegger supports federal review of Proposition 8
• Schwarzenegger vetoes bill to ban pay-per-signature
• Six of nine parcel tax measures are victorious
• Six states propose marijuana measures amid a rise in support
• Split decision for California school parcel taxes
• Taxing district in California assesses tax even though ballot measure lost
• Taxpayers Right to Vote Act filed in California
• Two groups have submitted signatures for California's 2010 ballot
• Vehicle tax for state parks may be on 2010 ballot in California
• Will Bisphenol A go on the Prop 65 list?

• California ballot initiative news archives, 2009
• California ballot initiative news archives, 2008
• List of California ballot measures