Difference between revisions of "The Tuesday Count: 2013 Pre-election coverage"

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "==='''October 1, 2013'''=== '''Edited by''' ''[mailto:brittany.clingen@ballotpedia.org Brittany Clingen]'' <div style="width:150px; float:right; clear:rig...")
 
m (Text replace - "[[City of Phoenix Pension Reform Initiative (2014)" to "[[City of Phoenix Pension Reform Initiative (November 2014)")
(21 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
==='''[[BC2013#October|October 1, 2013]]'''===
+
==='''[[Ballotpedia:Calendar#October|October 1, 2013]]'''===
 
+
{{TCSignup}}
 
'''Edited by''' ''[mailto:brittany.clingen@ballotpedia.org Brittany Clingen]''
 
'''Edited by''' ''[mailto:brittany.clingen@ballotpedia.org Brittany Clingen]''
  
<div style="width:150px; float:right; clear:right; margin-left:15px; border:6px solid #000000; background-color:#transparent; text-align:center;">
+
The [[2013 ballot measures|statewide ballots]] are officially set in six states - [[Colorado]], [[Maine]], [[New Jersey]], [[New York]], [[Texas]] and [[Washington]] - for the general election on November 5, 2013. Going forward throughout the weeks preceding the election, [[The Tuesday Count|Ballotpedia's Tuesday Count]] will be providing various reports and analyses of the measures that will appear on the ballot. For ongoing pre-election coverage, please see [[Ballotpedia:Analysis of the 2013 ballot measures|here]].  
<div style="padding:0.3em; background-color:#transparent; font-size:150%;">'''[[Ballotpedia's Tuesday Count for 2013|Tuesday Count Lineup:]]'''</div>
+
<div style="padding:0.3em; line-height:1.5em;">
+
  
'''0 certifications'''<br>
+
===Measures throughout the years===
'''26 measures for 2013'''
+
<hr>
+
</div>
+
<div style="padding:0.3em; background-color:#transparent; font-size:0.9em; font-family:sans-serif;">'''[[2013 ballot measures|Topics featured in this report]]:'''</div>
+
<hr>
+
<div style="padding:0.3em; line-height:1.5em;">
+
'''[[#Tuesday Count weekly news...|2013 ballots ]]<small>(''News'')</small>'''<br>
+
'''[[#Spotlight|Pensions ]]<small>(''Spotlight'')</small>'''<br>
+
</div>
+
</div>
+
 
+
[[File:!!USA_ballot_box_transparent.png|left|130px|2013 ballot measures]] The [[2013 ballot measures|statewide ballots]] are officially set in five states - [[Colorado]], [[New Jersey]], [[New York]], [[Texas]] and [[Washington]] - for the general election on November 5, 2013. Going forward throughout the weeks preceding the election, [[The Tuesday Count|Ballotpedia's Tuesday Count]] will be providing various reports and analyses of the measures that will appear on the ballot. For ongoing pre-election coverage, please see [[Ballotpedia:Analysis of the 2013 ballot measures|here]].
+
 
+
==Measures throughout the years==
+
 
::''See also: [[2013 ballot measures]]''
 
::''See also: [[2013 ballot measures]]''
The chart below highlights the numbers of measures that appeared on the ballot from 2000 through 2013. This includes all citizen initiatives ({{issfull}}s, {{icafull}}s and [[veto referendum]]s) , legislative referrals ({{lrcafull}}s and {{lrssfull}}s), and [[Advisory Question|advisory measures]].
+
The chart below on the left highlights the number of measures that appeared on the ballot from 2000 through 2013. This includes all citizen initiatives ({{issfull}}s, {{icafull}}s and [[veto referendum]]s), legislative referrals ({{lrcafull}}s and {{lrssfull}}s), and [[Advisory Question|advisory measures]].
  
2013 turned out to be a year with an unusually low number of measures on the ballot. Historically, elections on odd-numbered years see approximately 45 measures on average; there were [[2011 ballot measures|34 in 2011]]. Going back to 1989, the average number of measures on the ballot in an odd-numbered year is slightly over 43, with about 9 states featuring ballot measures. With only 26 statewide measures on the ballot in 5 states, 2013 will have less than half the average number of measures on the ballot.
+
2013 turned out to be a year with an unusually low number of measures on the ballot. Historically, elections in odd-numbered years see approximately 45 measures on average, as evidenced by the chart below on the right; there were [[2011 ballot measures|34 in 2011]]. Going back to 1989, the average number of measures on the ballot in an odd-numbered year is slightly over 43, with about 9 states featuring ballot measures. With only 31 statewide measures on the ballot in 6 states, 2013 will have 28 percent fewer measures than the average number.
 
+
2013 is also a historically low year for the number of measures that were petitioned onto the ballot. In 2013, there are only three such measures on statewide ballots: [[Colorado Tax Increase for Education, Amendment 66 (2013)|Colorado Amendment 66]]. [[Washington "Protect the Initiative Act", Initiative 517 (2013)|Washington I-517]] and [[Washington Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food Measure, Initiative 522 (2013)|Washington I-522]]. This compares to an average of 7.1 such measures from 1993 through 2011.<ref>Ballotpedia counts initiated state statutes, initiated constitutional amendments and [[veto referendum]]s as measures that are petitioned onto ballots.</ref>
+
 
+
{{TCSignupLeft}}
+
{|class="infobox" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" border="1"  style="background-color:#FBEC5D; color:black;" style="width:20%;"
+
 
+
|-
+
| colspan="2" style="background-color:#FBEC5D; color:black;" align="center" | '''2014 Count'''
+
 
+
|-
+
| style="background-color:white; color:black;" | '''Number:'''
+
| align="center" | '''[[2014 ballot measures|38 measures]]'''
+
 
+
|-
+
| style="background-color:white; color: black;" | '''States:'''
+
| align="center" | '''[[Alabama 2014 ballot measures|Alabama]], [[Alaska 2014 ballot measures|Alaska]], [[Arkansas 2014 ballot measures|Arkansas]], [[California 2014 ballot propositions|California]], [[Connecticut 2014 ballot measures|Connecticut]], [[Louisiana 2014 ballot measures|Louisiana]], [[Michigan 2014 ballot measures|Michigan]], [[Montana 2014 ballot measures|Montana]] [[Nevada 2014 ballot measures|Nevada]], [[New York 2014 ballot measures|New York]], [[Tennessee 2014 ballot measures|Tennessee]], [[Texas 2014 ballot measures|Texas]] and [[Wyoming 2014 ballot measures|Wyoming]]'''
+
  
|}
+
2013 is also a historically low year for the number of measures that were petitioned onto the ballot. In 2013, there were only three such measures on statewide ballots: [[Colorado Tax Increase for Education, Amendment 66 (2013)|Colorado Amendment 66]], [[Washington "Protect the Initiative Act," Initiative 517 (2013)|Washington I-517]] and [[Washington Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food Measure, Initiative 522 (2013)|Washington I-522]]. This compares to an average of 7.1 such measures from 1993 through 2011.<ref>Ballotpedia counts initiated state statutes, initiated constitutional amendments and [[veto referendum]]s as measures that are petitioned onto ballots.</ref>
  
 
{{colbegin|2}}
 
{{colbegin|2}}
Line 55: Line 23:
 
! style="background-color:#00008B; color: white;" | TOTAL
 
! style="background-color:#00008B; color: white;" | TOTAL
 
|-
 
|-
|style="background-color:#00008B; color: white;" |2013 || align="center"  |3 || align="center" |18 || align="center" |5 || align="center" |'''26'''
+
|style="background-color:#00008B; color: white;" |2013 || align="center"  |3 || align="center" |24 || align="center" |5 || align="center" |'''31'''
  
 
|-
 
|-
Line 96: Line 64:
 
|-
 
|-
 
|}   
 
|}   
 
+
<BR><br>
 
{{OddYearBallotMeasures2}}
 
{{OddYearBallotMeasures2}}
 +
  
 
{{colend}}
 
{{colend}}
<div style="float:{{{float|right}}}; border:{{{border-width|{{{border-s|2}}}}}}px solid {{{border-color|{{{1|#FFB81F}}}}}}; margin:1px;">
 
{| cellspacing="0" style="width:238px; background:{{{info-background|{{{2|#fff}}}}}};"
 
| style="font-size:{{{info-size|{{{info-s|8}}}}}}pt; padding:4pt; line-height:1.25em; color:{{{info-color|{{{info-fc|black}}}}}};" |
 
<font face="verdana" size=3>'''Legend'''</font>
 
<hr />
 
{{legend|#FAAC58|Highest in the category'''}}
 
|}</div>
 
  
==Signature collection costs==
+
===Signature collection costs===
 
:: ''See also: [[2012 ballot measure petition signature costs]]''
 
:: ''See also: [[2012 ballot measure petition signature costs]]''
  
 
Signatures had to be collected to qualify each of the three initiatives on the 2013 ballot. Below is a summary of the Cost per Required Signature (CPRS), which is based on how much money was spent by the support campaigns to gather enough signatures to land each measure on the ballot. The [[2012 ballot measure petition signature costs|"Cost Per Required Signature" metric]] was used to determine the ultimate costs.
 
Signatures had to be collected to qualify each of the three initiatives on the 2013 ballot. Below is a summary of the Cost per Required Signature (CPRS), which is based on how much money was spent by the support campaigns to gather enough signatures to land each measure on the ballot. The [[2012 ballot measure petition signature costs|"Cost Per Required Signature" metric]] was used to determine the ultimate costs.
  
According to Ballotpedia's [[2012 ballot measure petition signature costs|2012 CPRS Report]], nationally, the most expensive signature collection effort in 2012 was in California, where $10.86 was spent to qualify [[California Proposition 30, Sales and Income Tax Increase (2012)#Path to the ballot|California Proposition 30]] for the ballot. California's Proposition 30 was also a tax increase to boost educational funding. The average CPRS in 2012, nationally, was $4.06.
+
According to Ballotpedia's [[2012 ballot measure petition signature costs|2012 CPRS Report]], nationally, the most expensive signature collection effort in 2012 was in California, where $10.86 was spent to qualify [[California Proposition 30, Sales and Income Tax Increase (2012)#Path to the ballot|California Proposition 30]] for the ballot. Like Colorado's Amendment 66, California's Proposition 30 was also a tax increase to boost educational funding. The average CPRS in 2012, nationally, was $4.06.
  
===Colorado Amendment 66===
+
====Colorado Amendment 66====
  
 
* Signatures to qualify [[Colorado Tax Increase for Education, Amendment 66 (2013)|Amendment 66]] for the ballot were collected by [[Fieldworks]], a paid petition drive management company. [[Fieldworks]] received $779,046 for its work collecting signatures.<ref>[https://tracer.sos.colorado.gov/CampaignFinance/Filings/Schedules/ViewExpenditureSchedule.aspx?FilingID=156956 Expenditure detail, Colorado Commits to Kids, July 1, 2013 report]</ref><ref>[https://tracer.sos.colorado.gov/CampaignFinance/Filings/Schedules/ViewExpenditureSchedule.aspx?FilingID=156954 Expenditure detail, Colorado Commits to Kids, August 1, 2013 report]</ref><ref>[https://tracer.sos.colorado.gov/CampaignFinance/Filings/Schedules/ViewExpenditureSchedule.aspx?FilingID=156960 Expenditure detail, Colorado Commits to Kids, September 3, 2013 report]</ref><ref>[https://tracer.sos.colorado.gov/CampaignFinance/Filings/Schedules/ViewExpenditureSchedule.aspx?FilingID=156959 Expenditure detail, Colorado Commits to Kids, September 16, 2013 report]</ref>
 
* Signatures to qualify [[Colorado Tax Increase for Education, Amendment 66 (2013)|Amendment 66]] for the ballot were collected by [[Fieldworks]], a paid petition drive management company. [[Fieldworks]] received $779,046 for its work collecting signatures.<ref>[https://tracer.sos.colorado.gov/CampaignFinance/Filings/Schedules/ViewExpenditureSchedule.aspx?FilingID=156956 Expenditure detail, Colorado Commits to Kids, July 1, 2013 report]</ref><ref>[https://tracer.sos.colorado.gov/CampaignFinance/Filings/Schedules/ViewExpenditureSchedule.aspx?FilingID=156954 Expenditure detail, Colorado Commits to Kids, August 1, 2013 report]</ref><ref>[https://tracer.sos.colorado.gov/CampaignFinance/Filings/Schedules/ViewExpenditureSchedule.aspx?FilingID=156960 Expenditure detail, Colorado Commits to Kids, September 3, 2013 report]</ref><ref>[https://tracer.sos.colorado.gov/CampaignFinance/Filings/Schedules/ViewExpenditureSchedule.aspx?FilingID=156959 Expenditure detail, Colorado Commits to Kids, September 16, 2013 report]</ref>
Line 123: Line 85:
 
* In 2012, the average [[2012_ballot_measure_petition_signature_costs#Colorado|CPRS in Colorado]] was $1.83.
 
* In 2012, the average [[2012_ballot_measure_petition_signature_costs#Colorado|CPRS in Colorado]] was $1.83.
  
===Washington I-517===
+
====Washington I-517====
  
* Signatures to qualify [[Washington "Protect the Initiative Act", Initiative 517 (2013)|Initiative 517]] for the ballot were collected by various groups, including Peoples Petitioning LLC, Citizens in Charge and American Voter Drives.<ref name=pdc>[http://www.pdc.wa.gov/MvcQuerySystem/CommitteeData/inkind?param=UFJPVElBIDIwOA%3D%3D%3D%3D&year=2013&type=initiative ''Public Disclosure Commission'', "Inkind Contributions for: PROTECT YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE ON INITIATIVES," accessed October 1, 2013]</ref>
+
* Signatures to qualify [[Washington "Protect the Initiative Act," Initiative 517 (2013)|Initiative 517]] for the ballot were collected by various groups, including Peoples Petitioning LLC, [[Citizens in Charge]] and American Voter Drives.<ref name=pdc>[http://www.pdc.wa.gov/MvcQuerySystem/CommitteeData/inkind?param=UFJPVElBIDIwOA%3D%3D%3D%3D&year=2013&type=initiative ''Public Disclosure Commission'', "Inkind Contributions for: PROTECT YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE ON INITIATIVES," accessed October 1, 2013]</ref>
  
 
* The CPRS for I-517 - given that $305,454 was spent on signatures versus a minimum requirement of [[Laws_governing_the_initiative_process_in_Washington#Number_required|246,372 signatures]] - comes to '''$1.24''' per required signature.
 
* The CPRS for I-517 - given that $305,454 was spent on signatures versus a minimum requirement of [[Laws_governing_the_initiative_process_in_Washington#Number_required|246,372 signatures]] - comes to '''$1.24''' per required signature.
Line 131: Line 93:
 
* In 2012, the average [[2012_ballot_measure_petition_signature_costs#Washington|CPRS in Washington]] was $4.80.
 
* In 2012, the average [[2012_ballot_measure_petition_signature_costs#Washington|CPRS in Washington]] was $4.80.
  
===Washington I-522===
+
====Washington I-522====
  
 
* Signatures to qualify [[Washington Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food Measure, Initiative 522 (2013)|Initiative 522]] for the ballot were collected by Peoples Petitions LLC, among other groups.<ref>[http://www.pdc.wa.gov/MvcQuerySystem/CommitteeData/expenditures?param=TEFCRUlXIDQ2NA%3D%3D%3D%3D&year=2013&type=initiative ''Public Disclosure Commission'', "Expenditures for Label it WA," accessed October 1, 2013]</ref>
 
* Signatures to qualify [[Washington Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food Measure, Initiative 522 (2013)|Initiative 522]] for the ballot were collected by Peoples Petitions LLC, among other groups.<ref>[http://www.pdc.wa.gov/MvcQuerySystem/CommitteeData/expenditures?param=TEFCRUlXIDQ2NA%3D%3D%3D%3D&year=2013&type=initiative ''Public Disclosure Commission'', "Expenditures for Label it WA," accessed October 1, 2013]</ref>
Line 139: Line 101:
 
* In 2012, the average [[2012_ballot_measure_petition_signature_costs#Washington|CPRS in Washington]] was $4.80.
 
* In 2012, the average [[2012_ballot_measure_petition_signature_costs#Washington|CPRS in Washington]] was $4.80.
  
[[File:TCSpotlight.png|50px|left|link=Portal:Local ballot measures]]
+
 
 +
 
 +
[[File:TCSpotlight.png|50px|left|link=Portal:Local Ballot Measures]]
  
 
===Spotlight===
 
===Spotlight===
'''Phoenix activists announce the launch of [[City of Phoenix Pension Reform Initiative (2014)|a new initiative to overhaul the city pension system again]]:'''
+
'''Phoenix activists announce the launch of [[City of Phoenix Pension Reform Initiative (November 2014)|a new initiative to overhaul the city pension system again]]:'''
  
As the city of Phoenix sees its unfunded pension liabilities grow to $2.4 billion and its annual payments into the public pension system balloon from $28 million in 2000 to $110 million in fiscal year 2012, followed by $283 million a year later, some citizens are worried that the pension reform that was approved in 2012 will not be enough to get a handle on the city's retirement fund debt. [[City of Phoenix Pension Reform, Propositions 201 and 202 (March 2013)|Propositions 201 and 202]], which established higher employee contributions and a higher age of retirement, were referred to the [[March 12, 2013 ballot measures in Arizona|March 2013, ballot]] by the city council and overwhelmingly approved by voters. But recently a group called ''Citizens for Pension Reform'' announced that they are beginning circulation of signature petitions to put an [[City of Phoenix Pension Reform Initiative (2014)|initiative]] before voters that would entirely change the pension system for public employees going forward. The initiative would focus on two things:<ref name=Article>[http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/20130916phoenix-ballot-initiative-would-overhaul-pension-system.html ''Azcentral.com'', "Phoenix ballot initiative would overhaul pension system," September 16, 2013]</ref><ref name=TFDOC>[http://phoenix.gov/webcms/groups/internet/@inter/@citygov/@boards/@pension/documents/web_content/087591.pdf Pension Reform Task Force Presentation Document]</ref><ref name=DiCiccio1>[http://www.ahwatukee.com/opinion/article_2cf455bc-1c80-11e3-9d08-0019bb2963f4.html ''Ahuwatukee Foothill News'', "DiCiccio: Why we need real pension reform — you decide," September 17, 2013]</ref>   
+
[[File:Phoenix skyline Arizona USA.jpg|thumb|right|130px|Phoenix, AZ]]As the city of Phoenix sees its unfunded pension liabilities grow to $2.4 billion and its annual payments into the public pension system balloon from $28 million in 2000 to $110 million in fiscal year 2012, followed by $283 million a year later, some citizens are worried that the pension reform that was approved in 2012 will not be enough to get a handle on the city's retirement fund debt. [[City of Phoenix Pension Reform, Propositions 201 and 202 (March 2013)|Propositions 201 and 202]], which established higher employee contributions and a higher age of retirement, were referred to the [[March 12, 2013 ballot measures in Arizona|March 2013 ballot]] by the city council and overwhelmingly approved by voters. However, a group called ''Citizens for Pension Reform'' recently announced that they are beginning circulation of signature petitions to put an [[City of Phoenix Pension Reform Initiative (November 2014)|initiative]] before voters that would entirely change the pension system for public employees going forward. The initiative would focus on two things:<ref name=Article>[http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/20130916phoenix-ballot-initiative-would-overhaul-pension-system.html ''Azcentral.com'', "Phoenix ballot initiative would overhaul pension system," September 16, 2013]</ref><ref name=TFDOC>[http://phoenix.gov/webcms/groups/internet/@inter/@citygov/@boards/@pension/documents/web_content/087591.pdf Pension Reform Task Force Presentation Document]</ref><ref name=DiCiccio1>[http://www.ahwatukee.com/opinion/article_2cf455bc-1c80-11e3-9d08-0019bb2963f4.html ''Ahuwatukee Foothill News'', "DiCiccio: Why we need real pension reform — you decide," September 17, 2013]</ref>   
  
* first, it would change the city's retirement system from a [[Defined Benefit Plan|defined benefit system]], in which retirees are guaranteed payments despite investment performance, to a 401(k) style [[Defined Contribution Plan|defined contribution plan]], in which the city contributes a set amount and the retiree's benefits depend on his or her own contributions and investment performance.
+
* First, it would change the city's retirement system from a [[Defined Benefit Plan|defined benefit system]], in which retirees are guaranteed payments despite investment performance, to a 401(k) style [[Defined Contribution Plan|defined contribution plan]], in which the city contributes a set amount and the retiree's benefits depend on his or her own contributions and investment performance.
  
* second, it would take steps to put a stop to [[pension spiking]] by implementing limits on the pension benefits available to current employees.
+
* Second, it would take steps to put a stop to [[pension spiking]] by implementing limits on the pension benefits available to current employees.
  
 
''Citizens for Pension Reform'' must collect 25,480 valid, voter signatures to get their initiative on the 2014 ballot, and any one signature cannot be over 6 months old when the petitions are turned in.<ref>[[Laws governing local ballot measures in Arizona]]</ref>
 
''Citizens for Pension Reform'' must collect 25,480 valid, voter signatures to get their initiative on the 2014 ballot, and any one signature cannot be over 6 months old when the petitions are turned in.<ref>[[Laws governing local ballot measures in Arizona]]</ref>
Line 168: Line 132:
 
[[Category:2013 local ballot news]]
 
[[Category:2013 local ballot news]]
 
[[Category:Ballot measure legislation news]]
 
[[Category:Ballot measure legislation news]]
[[Category:September 2013]]
+
[[Category:October 2013]]
 
[[Category:Tuesday Count]]
 
[[Category:Tuesday Count]]
 
[[Category:Colorado 2013 news]]
 
[[Category:Colorado 2013 news]]
Line 176: Line 140:
 
[[Category:Washington 2013 news]]
 
[[Category:Washington 2013 news]]
 
[[Category:Petition drive articles, 2013]]
 
[[Category:Petition drive articles, 2013]]
 +
[[Category:2013 election preview articles]]
 
__NOTOC__
 
__NOTOC__
 
__NOEDITSECTION___
 
__NOEDITSECTION___

Revision as of 10:53, 2 May 2014

October 1, 2013

Tuesday Count-Checkmark.png

Donate.png

Edited by Brittany Clingen

The statewide ballots are officially set in six states - Colorado, Maine, New Jersey, New York, Texas and Washington - for the general election on November 5, 2013. Going forward throughout the weeks preceding the election, Ballotpedia's Tuesday Count will be providing various reports and analyses of the measures that will appear on the ballot. For ongoing pre-election coverage, please see here.

Measures throughout the years

See also: 2013 ballot measures

The chart below on the left highlights the number of measures that appeared on the ballot from 2000 through 2013. This includes all citizen initiatives (initiated state statutes, initiated constitutional amendments and veto referendums), legislative referrals (legislatively-referred constitutional amendments and legislatively-referred state statutes), and advisory measures.

2013 turned out to be a year with an unusually low number of measures on the ballot. Historically, elections in odd-numbered years see approximately 45 measures on average, as evidenced by the chart below on the right; there were 34 in 2011. Going back to 1989, the average number of measures on the ballot in an odd-numbered year is slightly over 43, with about 9 states featuring ballot measures. With only 31 statewide measures on the ballot in 6 states, 2013 will have 28 percent fewer measures than the average number.

2013 is also a historically low year for the number of measures that were petitioned onto the ballot. In 2013, there were only three such measures on statewide ballots: Colorado Amendment 66, Washington I-517 and Washington I-522. This compares to an average of 7.1 such measures from 1993 through 2011.[1]

Year Initiatives Legislative referrals Other measures TOTAL
2013 3 24 5 31
2012 63 122 3 188
2011 12 22 0 34
2010 50 130 4 184
2009 8 24 0 32
2008 74 92 8 174
2007 4 39 1 44
2006 83 140 3 226
2005 19 26 0 45
2004 65 107 1 173
2003 7 60 1 68
2002 55 162 6 223
2001 4 35 0 39
2000 82 151 2 235



Year Number of states with measures Number of measures on ballot
2013 6 31
2011 9 34
2009 7 32
2007 9 43
2005 12 45
2003 14 67
2001 9 39
1999 16 71
1997 7 41
1995 7 33
1993 10 44
1991 5 34
1989 8 36



Signature collection costs

See also: 2012 ballot measure petition signature costs

Signatures had to be collected to qualify each of the three initiatives on the 2013 ballot. Below is a summary of the Cost per Required Signature (CPRS), which is based on how much money was spent by the support campaigns to gather enough signatures to land each measure on the ballot. The "Cost Per Required Signature" metric was used to determine the ultimate costs.

According to Ballotpedia's 2012 CPRS Report, nationally, the most expensive signature collection effort in 2012 was in California, where $10.86 was spent to qualify California Proposition 30 for the ballot. Like Colorado's Amendment 66, California's Proposition 30 was also a tax increase to boost educational funding. The average CPRS in 2012, nationally, was $4.06.

Colorado Amendment 66

  • The CPRS for Amendment 66 - given that $779,046 was spent on signatures versus a minimum requirement of 86,105 signatures - comes to an astounding $11.05 per required signature.

Washington I-517

  • The CPRS for I-517 - given that $305,454 was spent on signatures versus a minimum requirement of 246,372 signatures - comes to $1.24 per required signature.

Washington I-522

  • Signatures to qualify Initiative 522 for the ballot were collected by Peoples Petitions LLC, among other groups.[7]
  • The CPRS for I-522 - given that $407,747 was spent on signatures versus a minimum requirement of 246,372 signatures - comes to $1.66 per required signature.


TCSpotlight.png

Spotlight

Phoenix activists announce the launch of a new initiative to overhaul the city pension system again:

Phoenix, AZ
As the city of Phoenix sees its unfunded pension liabilities grow to $2.4 billion and its annual payments into the public pension system balloon from $28 million in 2000 to $110 million in fiscal year 2012, followed by $283 million a year later, some citizens are worried that the pension reform that was approved in 2012 will not be enough to get a handle on the city's retirement fund debt. Propositions 201 and 202, which established higher employee contributions and a higher age of retirement, were referred to the March 2013 ballot by the city council and overwhelmingly approved by voters. However, a group called Citizens for Pension Reform recently announced that they are beginning circulation of signature petitions to put an initiative before voters that would entirely change the pension system for public employees going forward. The initiative would focus on two things:[8][9][10]
  • First, it would change the city's retirement system from a defined benefit system, in which retirees are guaranteed payments despite investment performance, to a 401(k) style defined contribution plan, in which the city contributes a set amount and the retiree's benefits depend on his or her own contributions and investment performance.
  • Second, it would take steps to put a stop to pension spiking by implementing limits on the pension benefits available to current employees.

Citizens for Pension Reform must collect 25,480 valid, voter signatures to get their initiative on the 2014 ballot, and any one signature cannot be over 6 months old when the petitions are turned in.[11]

See also

2013 ballot measures
Tuesday Count2013 Scorecard

References


_