California Proposition 28, Change in Term Limits (June 2012)

From Ballotpedia
Revision as of 12:50, 18 January 2014 by Geoff Pallay (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search
Proposition 28
Flag of California.png
Click here for the latest news on U.S. ballot measures
Quick stats
Type:Constitutional amendment
Constitution:Section 2 of Article IV
Referred by:"Californians for a Fresh Start" group
Topic:Term limits
Status:Approved Approveda
California Proposition 28, the California Change in Term Limits Initiative, was on the June 5, 2012 ballot in California as an initiated constitutional amendment, where it was approved.

Proposition 28's provisions are as follows:

The changes do not apply to any legislator who was already in office at the time that the initiative was approved; the rules governing the terms of those who are in the California State Legislature as of June 5, 2012 will be calculated under the previous rules.

California voters first imposed term limits on the California Legislature in 1990, when they voted in favor of Proposition 140.

Election results

Below are unofficial election results:

Proposition 28
Approveda Yes 3,031,554 61.0%
These results are current as of Friday, June 29 at 5:00 a.m. PST. Although absentee and provisional ballots are still being counted in some counties, it is mathematically impossible for the remaining uncounted ballots to change the outcome of this election.

Results via the California Secretary of State's website.

Election date

The initiative originally qualified for the February 5, 2012 ballot. In early 2011, there was a widespread belief that Jerry Brown would qualify a Tax Increase Proposition for the June or November 2011 ballot. If that had happened, the "Change in Term Limits" measure would have been moved onto that 2011 ballot.[1][2]

Around the time it became clear that there would be no 2011 ballot proposition election, the California State Legislature also voted to nix the February 5, 2012 election date. This moved Proposition 28 to the June 5, 2012 ballot.

On October 7, 2011, Gov. Brown signed Senate Bill 202. SB 202 prohibits holding ballot proposition elections during June primaries. However, it applies only to ballot propositions that qualify on or after the date SB202 was signed.[3]

Ballot title and summary

See also: Ballot titles, summaries and fiscal statements for California's 2012 ballot propositions

Ballot title:

Limits on Legislators' Terms in Office. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

Official summary:

Reduces the total amount of time a person may serve in the state legislature from 14 years to 12 years. Allows a person to serve a total of 12 years either in the Assembly, the Senate, or a combination of both. Applies only to legislators first elected after the measure is passed. Provides that legislators elected before the measure is passed continue to be subject to existing term limits.

Summary of estimated fiscal impact:

No direct fiscal effect on state or local governments.

Criticisms of

Opponents of Proposition 28 said that the ballot title given to Proposition 28 was misleading:

  • According to Jon Fleischman, the title given to Proposition 28 by the Attorney General of California " a sham. This has been written to fool the voters into thinking this will reduce the amount of time legislators spend in Sacramento."[4]
  • Michael Foudy, chairman of the Citizens in Charge Foundation, said that a poll taken by his organization indicated that when voters were given a description of Proposition 28 that clarified that state legislators would for the most part be able to stay in office longer under Proposition 28, they no longer supported it: "The polling shows clearly that giving voters more precise information in the ballot title dramatically changes their view on Prop 28. A recent poll using the official ballot title showed better than two-to-one support for the measure, while our poll with a more accurate title showed voters opposing Prop 28 by a nearly two-to-one margin." Foudy went on to call for a change in the way ballot titles are written in California: "Voters may receive lots of conflicting messages on any ballot measure from supporters and opponents, but the information they receive from their government should be fair and unbiased...there is something screwy with the official ballot title, which misleads voters. As an organization, we take no position on Prop 28, and we think the official ballot title should not take a position, either."[5]

Constitutional changes

California Constitution
See also: Text of California Proposition 28

The measure changed the California Constitution by:



Website banner of the "Yes on 28" campaign


The Los Angeles County Federation of Labor and the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce were the original sponsors of the measure and named their group "Californians for a Fresh Start."[6]

Maria Elena Durazo, the executive secretary-treasurer of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor AFL-CIO, led the ballot proposition effort. She also led a lobbying campaign to exempt Majestic Realty, a donor to the term limits campaign, from environmental regulations that would otherwise have applied to its proposed stadium in the City of Industry.[7]

The official Voter Guide arguments in favor of Proposition 28 were signed by:

Arguments in favor

Arguments made by the "Yes on 28" campaign for the state's official Voter Guide included:

  • "Our current term limits law needs fixing. It's two decades old, but our Legislature is still filled with career politicians more focused on campaigning for their next office than doing their job. Proposition 28 is a simple reform that will help make our Legislature more accountable."
  • "The current term limits law is based on the number of terms served. It says legislators can only complete their 14-year lifetime limit by serving three two-year terms in the Assembly and two four-year terms in the Senate. But the courts have opened up a loophole allowing politicians to serve up to nearly 17 years by filling partial term vacancies that don't get counted as part of their limit. Prop. 28 reduces the lifetime limit to 12 years and closes that '17-year loophole' by imposing a strict limit based on the number of years served in the Legislature, not on the number of terms."
  • "After 12 years in the Legislature – whether in the Assembly, Senate, or a combination of the two – a politician is prohibited from running for the Legislature. Every year counts. To make sure there are no more loopholes, current and former legislators are prohibited from using Proposition 28 to extend their lifetime limits."
  • "The current term limits law inadvertently encourages the wrong behaviors. The only way legislators can complete their lifetime limit is to move from office to office. Once elected, they start holding fundraisers and looking for their next office. Many Assembly members fail to reach the six-year maximum before they leave to seek their next office. Politicians looking ahead for their next office are not concentrating on representing concerns of their current district. Proposition 28 gives legislators the choice of running for re-election in the same district instead of flipping offices to complete their lifetime limits. This will focus legislators on serving their districts to get re-elected instead of on lining up support in Sacramento to run elsewhere."
  • "Legislators who are jumping from office to office aren't focused on learning their job. This leaves legislators ill-prepared to stand up to more experienced special interest lobbyists and take on the big issues and challenges facing our state. Almost 40% of Assembly members are new to their jobs after each election. By removing the incentive to change office just to complete their lifetime limits, Proposition 28 means legislators will be more likely to learn their job and develop the expertise to get things done."
  • "Proposition 28 won't solve all the problems in Sacramento. But it is a step forward that brings positive change that helps make the Legislature more effective and accountable."


Total campaign cash Campaign Finance Ballotpedia.png
Category:Ballot measure endorsements Support: $2,300,000
Circle thumbs down.png Opposition: $834,900

About $2.3 million was contributed to the campaign for a "yes" vote on Proposition 28.

These are the main donors to the Proposition 28 campaign as of June 5, 2012:

Donor Amount
Los Angeles County Federation of Labor[8] $612,500
Majestic Realty $400,000
Alliance for a Stronger Community $149,500
Pacific Gas & Electric $100,000
Jerrold Perenchio $100,000
LA Jobs PAC (Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce) $100,000
LA Live Properties, LLC $100,000
California Teachers Association $75,000
Thomas Investment Partners $50,000
United Nurses Associations of California $50,000
Eli Broad $50,000
Meuchadim of California, LP $50,000
Rick Caruso $25,000
California Federation of Teachers $15,000
Teamsters Union $10,000

Notes on donors:

  • LA Live Properties was a corporation controlled by Philip Anschutz, a billionaire who lives in Colorado. Anschutz and Ed Roski of Majestic Realty sought, separately, to build a new NFL stadium for the San Diego Chargers. According to the San Diego Reader, "Their contributions are seen by political insiders as a way to curry favor and support by Democrats and big labor in the battle over who will build L.A.'s giant new sports venue and move in a team to occupy it."[9]
  • According to the Sacramento Bee on May 1, "Labor unions and key developers have helped bankroll Proposition 28, including groups owned by Philip Anschutz and Ed Roski that are pushing rival plans to construct a National Football League stadium in Southern California."[10]
  • According to Jon Fleischman, "If you look at the people that are funding the effort to pass Proposition 28, it's all the special interests who want to curry favor with the political class."[10]


"No on 28" website banner


The official Voter Guide arguments against Proposition 28 were signed by:

Arguments against

Jon Fleischman said that Proposition 28 would lead to a situation where most California state legislators would serve more years in office. He also argued that the official ballot language was written so as to be deliberately misleading:

"Then-Attorney General Jerry Brown used his position to again compromise the integrity of California’s elections process. He wrote a description of Proposition 28 that intentionally tries to trick the voters of California into casting a ballot to do the exact opposite of what they intend and think they will be voting for. Voters will understandably believe they are voting to strengthen and toughen term limits for legislators when in fact they will be greatly increasing terms for politicians."[12]

Paul Jacob said, "This is a very serious scam being played on the people of California, and we want to do everything we can to alert folks. If the word gets out, the people will overwhelmingly defeat Prop 28."[13]

The "No on 28" campaign is sending "Mr. Ed" around the state in its campaign against Proposition 28

Arguments made against Proposition 28 in the official Voter Guide included:

  • "It is one of the most dishonest and deceitful ballot measures in the history of California – and that's saying a lot! This is just the latest slimy effort by politicians and their special interest supporters to try and FOOL VOTERS into gutting California's voter-approved term limits law."
  • "Proposition 28 is designed to trick voters into thinking it strengthens term limits when it does the exact opposite. Prop. 28 actually weakens term limits for state legislators and dramatically lengthens the amount of time politicians can stay in office!"
  • "That is why Prop. 28 is written and funded with millions of dollars by the most powerful special interests in California including unions opposed to pension reforms that could save taxpayers billions of dollars."
  • "Proposition 28's top backer is a wealthy developer who sought a special exemption from environmental regulations by the Legislature – at the exact same time he was paying to qualify this initiative – so that he could make millions by building a sports stadium. The Legislature gladly gave the developer the sweetheart deal he wanted – and he rewarded the politicians by making sure that those who were elected to the state Legislature would be able to stay in office for many more years than the current term limits law allows."
  • "Proposition 28 allows politicians to be in the California State Assembly for 12 years — not the 6 year maximum permitted under current law. That means members of the State Assembly will actually have THEIR TIME IN OFFICE DOUBLED – NOT REDUCED!"
  • "The politicians and special interests spent millions to try and stop term limits when it first passed. Since then, they have tried twice to trick voters into letting the politicians stay in power for many more years. Proposition 28 is just their latest slimy trick to fool voters."


Total campaign cash Campaign Finance Ballotpedia.png
Category:Ballot measure endorsements Support: $2,300,000
Circle thumbs down.png Opposition: $834,900

$834,900 was contributed to the campaign for a "no" vote on Proposition 28. Donors to the "no" campaign, and the amount they donated, were:

Donor Amount
Howard Rich $654,880
Liberty Initiative Fund $100,000
National Taxpayers Union $75,000
Small Business Action Committee $5,000

Editorial opinion

2012 propositions
Flag of California.png
June 5
Proposition 28
Proposition 29
November 6
Proposition 30
Proposition 31
Proposition 32
Proposition 33
Proposition 34
Proposition 35
Proposition 36
Proposition 37
Proposition 38
Proposition 39
Proposition 40
EndorsementsFull text
Ballot titlesFiscal impact
Local measures
See also: Endorsements of California ballot measures, 2012

"Yes on 28"

  • Chico News & Review: "We’ve never supported term limits. They’re an emotional reaction to dissatisfaction with the legislative process and have had more negative than positive consequences. After all, voters already had the ability to limit lawmakers’ terms simply by voting them out of office. That said, Proposition 28 will be an improvement, especially in the Assembly, and should be passed."[14]
  • Daily Democrat: (Woodland, California): "Term limits have been a disaster for California. When they were approved in 1990, voters were promised they would reduce the influence of special interests and lobbyists, but the opposite has happened. With little expertise and lots of pressure to raise money and find their next office, lawmakers now rely more heavily than ever on lobbyists, who write many of the laws that representatives put their names on. Term limits should be repealed. They have not improved the caliber of representation. Voters ought to be able to choose the best candidate, regardless of time served. But repeal is unrealistic, so reform is the next best thing. Californians should vote yes on Proposition 28 in the June 5 election."[15]
  • Eastern Group Publications (including the Eastside Sun, Northeast Sun, Mexican American Sun, Bell Gardens Sun, City Terrace Comet, Commerce Comet, Montebello Comet, Monterey Park Comet, ELA Brookyln Belvedere Comet, Wyvernwood Chronicle and the Vernon Sun): "There is no guarantee that Prop 28 will turn our legislators into thoughtful law makers, but its worth a try."[16]
  • Fresno Bee: "California's version of legislative term limits has proven to be a quick fix that made matters worse, especially in the dysfunctional Assembly. Voters will have a chance to repair the system, albeit slightly, by approving Proposition 28 on the June 5 ballot, but not for the reasons cynically cited by its promoters...Term limits should be repealed for a basic reason -- they haven't worked. But voters love them, and that support is unlikely to change any time soon. Given that political reality, the electorate could improve the system with the incremental change in term limits contained in Proposition 28."[17]
  • Long Beach Press-Telegram: "Proposition 28 would let constituents keep popular representatives in Sacramento a little longer, without diluting the basic term-limits message that political office is not a lifetime appointment."[18]
  • Los Angeles Times: "Legislative term limits are a bad idea, and The Times opposes them. But to get rid of term limits altogether, Sacramento politicians would first have to earn the trust of voters, and we don't see that happening any time in the next millennium. So reformers have offered a half-measure: Reduce the maximum possible time any single politician can serve in the Legislature from the current 14 years — a full six in the Assembly followed by a full eight in the Senate — to 12 years, but allow all 12 to be served in one house, or any combination of 12 in the two houses."[19]
  • Marin Independent Journal: "California is a complex state, ill-served by constant legislative turnover. Proposition 28 is more of a tweak than a reform. A case could be made that longer terms would be more helpful."[20]
  • Merced Sun-Star: "Term limits haven't helped the Legislature become more effective; we would like to see them eliminated but we don't think that will happen anytime soon. Until then, the electorate could help the situation by approving an incremental change contained in Proposition 28."[21]
  • Mercury News: "California is too big and complex to be governed by amateur legislators. Writing effective laws and seeing through shams requires deep understanding of the state's problems and time to build trust in partners who share policy goals. New Assembly members have neither, so most often they rely on lobbyists to tell them what to care about. Then they sit back as those lobbyists direct campaign donations their way -- all without having done a thing to improve California's future."[22]
  • The North County Times: "We believe the lack of institutional knowledge and memory imposed by too-strict term limits has contributed at least partly to the dysfunction in Sacramento."[23]
  • Sacramento Bee: "Term limits should be repealed. They haven't worked. But until voter attitudes change – and that won't happen any time soon – the electorate could help the situation by approving an incremental change contained in Proposition 28."[24]
  • San Diego Union-Tribune: "It’s time to make small but important revisions to the giant mistake that California voters made 22 years ago, when they chose to limit state lawmakers to a maximum of three terms in the Assembly and two terms in the Senate."[25]
  • Santa Barbara Independent: "Term limits should be abolished outright, not reformed. But since cookies aren’t on the menu, we’ll take the crumbs."[26]
  • Santa Clarita Valley Signal: "Proposition 28 is on the June 5 ballot to alter Proposition 140 and give voters a chance at keeping quality representatives for longer."[27]
  • Santa Cruz Sentinel: "Experience counts. California faces substantial financial and policy challenges, not to mention a fractured political process that seems to render legislators unable or unprepared to take up these problems. Proposition 28 would at least restore common sense to term limits."[28]
  • Santa Maria Times: "Our position over the years is that California’s version of term limits is a disaster, but Prop. 28’s tweaking takes a step in the right direction."[29]
  • Santa Rosa Press Democrat: "If we had our way, Proposition 28 would go much further. Overall, we believe these limits are far too restrictive and do a disservice to the state as a whole by hobbling effective lawmakers and limiting the choices of voters. At the same time voters shouldn’t pass on an opportunity to reform this broken system, no matter how modest the change."[30]
  • Vallejo Times-Herald: "We won't beat a dead horse and argue once again that voters should have the right at election time to re-elect good lawmakers or throw out the bad ones. Proposition 28 is before us, and given that term limits is with us to stay, we feel that something must be done to reform this so-called reform."[31]
  • Ventura County Star: "Some relative newbies even have been thrust into major leadership positions due to turnover since California voters approved term limits in 1990. Time and again, the Legislature failed to measure up to historic fiscal and policy challenges; The Star believes the outcome might have been different with more seasoned legislators."[32]

"No on 28"

  • The Appeal-Democrat: "The only solution to legislators who have been in office too long is the old-fashioned approach: vote them out. The best solution to unaccountable, runaway government, whether politicians or nonpoliticians are running the show, is to reduce its size and scope to the point that the damage done is minimal. Prop. 28 incorporates neither of these common-sense solutions."[33]
  • The Chico Enterprise Record: "Proposition 28 is just the latest attempt to alter voter-approved term limits. Some say that longer terms help lawmakers develop a deeper understanding of their office, the issues and their constituents. But longer limits don't seem to accomplish that. Instead, it seems politicians drift away from their constituents, and head down a path of their own making."[34]
  • Orange County Register: "Most legislators serve their time in Sacramento in one house or the other. The proposition would extend those tenures considerably. If voters want to reduce the time politicians hang around in Sacramento, Prop. 28 isn't the solution."[35]
  • The Riverside Press-Enterprise: "California does not need to tinker with legislative term limits right now. The state should see how well impartial redistricting and nonpartisan primaries work before considering lesser changes. Voters should reject Prop. 28 on the June 5 ballot until there is evidence of pressing need for this change."[36]

Polling information

See also: Polls, 2012 ballot measures

A poll taken in late February 2012 by Public Policy Institute of California showed that a majority of likely voters support Proposition 28.[37][38] The same group measured sentiment on the measure from May 14-20.[39]

Greenberg Quinlan Rosner and American Viewpoint jointly conducted a poll for USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll from March 14-19, 2012.[40] They also conducted a poll of 1,002 voters from May 17-21, which showed 49% of voters in favor of Proposition 28.[41]

Heading into the election, Field Poll surveyed 608 likely voters.[42]

Date of Poll Pollster In favor Opposed Undecided Number polled
February 21-28, 2012 PPIC 68% 24% 8% 2,001
March 14-19, 2012 By GQR & AV for USC Dornsife/LAT 51% 32% 17% 1,500
May 14-20, 2012 PPIC 62% 29% 9% 2,002
May 17-21, 2012 By GQR & AV for USC Dornsife/LAT 49% 33% 12% 1,002
May 21-29, 2012 Field 50% 28% 22% 608

Path to the ballot

See also: California signature requirements

The campaign to qualify the term limits measure for the ballot hired Kimball Petition Management to collect signatures. KPM received $1,424,087 for its work.[43]

Supporters of the initiative originally hoped that their measure would qualify for the November 2, 2010 ballot. However, after signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot were submitted, it was determined by election officials that a random sampling technique would not be sufficient to determine whether enough signatures had been filed.

After California's Secretary of State announced in June that a full check of all signatures submitted to qualify the measure would be required, supporters acknowledged that this would push the measure's validation date past the June 24 deadline for certifying measures for the November 2 ballot.[44]

On October 8, 2009, Lance H. Olson of Olson, Hagel & Fishburn filed a request with the Office of the California Attorney General for an official ballot title on the measure.

The Attorney General's office provided that title, and the measure was cleared for circulation with a circulation deadline of April 22, 2010. On April 22, supporters of the initiative submitted more than 1 million signatures to county election officials.[45]

See also: California ballot initiative petition signature costs

Term limits in California

Voting on
Term Limits
Term limits.jpg
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot

State legislative
term limits

term limits
Lieutenant Governors
term limits
Secretaries of State
term limits
Attorneys General
term limits
State executive
term limits

California voters imposed term limits on the California Legislature in 1990, when they voted in favor of Proposition 140 by a margin of 52-48%. Proposition 140 limited state Assembly members to three two-year terms and state senators to two four-year terms, and it imposed a lifelong ban against seeking the same office once the limits had been reached.

Bates v. Jones

In the case of Bates v. Jones, Bates--a termed-out Assemblyman--sued in federal court to have the provisions of Proposition 140 declared unconstitutional. A federal court agreed with his claim, before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled against him, keeping the limits in place.

Prop 45 in 2002

Main article: California Proposition 45 (2002)

California State Senate president pro tem John Burton (D-San Francisco) vigorously sponsored an effort in 2002 to rollback the provisions of 1990's Proposition 140 by putting Proposition 45 on the March 2002 ballot. Voters rejected Proposition 45 by a margin of 42-58%. Had Proposition 45 passed, it would have allowed state legislators to serve four years beyond the limits allowed by Proposition 140.

Prop 93 in 2008

Main article: California Proposition 93 (2008)

Proposition 93, an initiated constitutional amendment supported by Don Perata was defeated 53.6% to 46.4% during the February 5, 2008 statewide primary election. Had it passed, members of the California State Legislature would have been allowed to remain in their current office up to 12 years.

See also

External links

Suggest a link



  • "No on 28" campaign website (Taken down following election)
  • "No on 28" on Twitter
  • "No on 28" on Facebook (Taken down following election)

Additional reading:


  1. Fresno Bee, "Term limits, tobacco tax could move to June special election", January 12, 2011
  2. Fox and Hounds Daily, "Cigarette Tax Initiative: More Ballot Box Budgeting", March 1, 2011
  3. "California Secretary of State", "Qualified Ballot Measures"
  4. Los Angeles Times, "California activists clash over term limits measure on June ballot", March 20, 2012
  5. Highland News Net, "Citizens In Charge Foundation Poll Shows Voters Fooled on Prop 28", April 11, 2012
  6. Capitol Weekly, "Initiative backers submit paperwork promising a busy 2010 cycle", October 22, 2009
  7. 7.0 7.1 Los Angeles Times, "After win in Sacramento, L.A. football stadium developer backs easing of term limits", December 30, 2009
  8. Sacramento Bee, "LA labor federation digging deep to alter term limits", February 5, 2010
  9. San Diego Reader, "L.A. Stadium Rivals Give Big to Labor-Backed Term Limits Changes", March 9, 2012
  10. 10.0 10.1 Sacramento Bee, "The Buzz: Fundraising totals favor backers of California's term-limits ballot measure", May 1, 2012
  11. Sacramento Bee, "California Republican Party endorses auto rate initiative", February 26, 2012
  12. Fox and Hounds Daily, "No On 28: The Term Limits Scam Is Back!", February 28, 2012
  13. North County Times, "Libertarians fight business-labor coalition on term limits measure", May 24, 2012
  14. Chico News & Review, "Prop. 28 will fix term limits", May 3, 2012
  15. Daily Democrat, "In June 5 election vote for Prop. 28", April 11, 2012
  16. EGP News, "EGP Ballot Recommendations – Tuesday, June 5 2012 Election", May 17, 2012
  17. Fresno Bee, "Vote 'yes' on Proposition 28, measure to adjust term limits", April 22, 2012
  18. Long Beach Press-Telegram, "Editorial: Proposition 28 is fix for term limits -- Legislators would quit looking for their next job", May 10, 2012
  19. Los Angeles Times, "Yes on Prop. 28", April 26, 2012
  20. Marin Independent Journal, "Editorial: IJ backs Props. 28 and 29 on June 5 ballot", May 3, 2012
  21. Merced Sun-Star, "Our View: Prop. 28 will help repair term limits", May 1, 2012
  22. Mercury News, "Mercury News editorial: In June 5 election, vote yes on Prop. 28", April 6, 2012
  23. North County Times, "Yes on 28", May 20, 2012
  24. Sacramento Bee, "Endorsements: Yes on Prop. 28, term limits reform", April 22, 2012
  25. San Diego Union-Tribune, "A WELCOME IMPROVEMENT ON TERM LIMITS", May 8, 2012
  26. Santa Barbara Independent, "Yes on Prop. 29: Increase Cigarette Tax by $1 a Pack", May 10, 2012
  27. Santa Clarita Valley Signal, "Prop. 28 lets voters keep consistency in capitol", May 6, 2012
  28. Santa Cruz Sentinel, "As We See It: Common sense on term limits: Sentinel recommends "yes" vote on Proposition 28", May 25, 2012
  29. Santa Maria Times, "Preparing for the June primary", April 29, 2012
  30. Santa Rosa Press Democrat, "Yes on 28: Term limits need adjusting", April 17, 2012
  31. Vallejo Times-Herald, "Proposition 28: Have a sip, and vote 'yes'", May 26, 2012
  32. Ventura County Star, "Editorial: Yes on Prop. 28 to improve state term-limits law", May 4, 2012
  33. Appeal-Democrat, "Our View: Prop. 28 no fix for what ails Legislature", April 30, 2012
  34. Chico Enterprise Record, "Both propositions should be rejected", May 17, 2012
  35. Orange County Register, "Editorial: Prop. 28 no fix for what ails Legislature", April 27, 2012
  36. Riverside Press-Enterprise, "No on Prop. 28", April 30, 2012
  37. Central Valley Business Times, "Proposed change to state lawmaker term limits sees support", March 7, 2012
  38. Public Policy Institute of California, "Californians And Their Government", March 2012
  39. Public Policy Institute of California, "Drop in Support for Cigarette Tax, Most Back Term Limits Change", May 23, 2012
  40. Fox 40, "Strong majority backs Jerry Brown's tax-hike initiative", March 25, 2012
  41. Los Angeles Times, "Voters back tobacco tax but split on term-limits change", May 30, 2012
  43. Details of expenditures
  44. Sacramento Bee, "Term limits measure unlikely to make November ballot deadline", June 16, 2010
  45. Sacramento Bee, "Ballot measure to alter terms limits turns in 1 million signatures", April 22, 2010