California Proposition 10, Voting Rights Restoration Amendment (1974)

California Proposition 10
Election date November 5, 1974
Topic Suffrage
Status a Approved
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin Citizens

California Proposition 10 was on the ballot as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment in California on November 5, 1974. It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported this constitutional amendment to (a) remove language that prohibited persons who were convicted of infamous crimes or high crimes from voting and (b), instead, restore the right to vote after the completion of imprisonment and parole.

A "no" vote opposed this constitutional amendment, thus continuing to prohibit persons who were convicted of infamous crimes or high crimes from voting.

Overview

Proposition 10 amended the California Constitution, removing language that prohibited persons who were convicted of infamous crimes or high crimes from voting. Instead, Proposition 10 restored the right to vote after the completion of imprisonment and parole.

Election results

California Proposition 10
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		3,004,695	56.31%
No		2,330,880	43.69%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Proposition 10 was as follows:

“

Right to Vote. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary for this measure was:

“

Amends Article II, section 3, and Article XX, section 11, of the State Constitution to eliminate provisions disqualifying electors convicted of an infamous crime, embezzlement, or misappropriation of public money and to now provide for the disqualification of an elector while mentally incompetent, or imprisoned or on parole for the conviction of a felony.

”

Full Text

The full text of this measure is available here.

Fiscal impact statement

The fiscal impact statement was as follows:

“

Minor increases in county government costs.

”

Constitutional changes

See also: Article II, California Constitution and Article XX, California Constitution

The ballot measure amended Section 3 of Article II and Section 11 of Article XX of the California Constitution. The following underlined text was added and struck-through text was deleted:

Article II, Section 3

The Legislature shall prohibit improper practices that affect elections and shall provide that no severely mentally deficient person, insane person, person convicted of an infamous crime, nor person convicted of embezzlement or misappropriation of public money, shall exercise the privileges of an elector in this state for the disqualification of electors while mentally incompetent or imprisoned or on parole for the conviction of a felony.

Article XX, Section 11

Laws shall be made to exclude from office, serving on juries, and from the right of suffrage, persons convicted of bribery, perjury, forgery, malfeasance in office, or other high crimes from office or serving on juries. The privilege of free suffrage shall be supported by laws regulating elections and prohibiting, under adequate penalties, all undue influence thereon from power, bribery, tumult, or other improper practice.

Support

Supporters

• Asm. Julian C. Dixon (D)
• Asm. George R. Moscone (D)
• League of Women Voters of California

Arguments

The following is the official argument in support of Proposition 10 that appeared in the state's voter guide. Asm. Julian C. Dixon (D), Asm. George R. Moscone (D), and League of Women Voters of California President Evelyn P. Kaplan signed the argument.

Note: Use your mouse to scroll over the below text to see the full text.

“ VOTING—“A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT” The right to vote is the essence of a democratic society and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative government. Historically, voting has long been considered "a fundamental right" diligently sought by those excluded from its exercise. Indeed, our Declaration of Independence repeatedly condemns oppression of the right to vote. Restricted exercise of "a fundamental right," when the need for restriction no longer exists, is unfair and abusive. NUMEROUS COUNTIES HAVE RESTORED RIGHT Many California counties have restored the right to vote to ex-felons. Others have not. Even among counties restoring the right, there is wide variation in the offenses which allow restoration. Thus, an offense which bars voting in one county is no bar in another. To base the exercise of so fundamental a right on the good fortune to reside in one county as opposed to another is blatantly arbitrary and does violence to the most basic concept of fairness and equal protection of the law. Uniform application of law, to insure equal treatment, demands restoration of this "fundamental right" throughout the State. HISTORICAL NEED TO RESTRICT RIGHT TO VOTE IS GONE Historically, exclusion of ex-felons from voting was based on a need to prevent election fraud and protect the integrity of the elective process. The need to use this voter exclusion no longer exists. As a unanimous California Supreme Court recently pointed out, in the Ramirez case, modern statutes regulate the voting process in detail. Voting machines and other safeguards, combined with a variety of criminal penalties, effectively prevent election fraud. Permanent loss of the right to vote is not necessary to achieve this goal! DEBT TO SOCIETY FULLY PAID—CONTINUED PUNISHMENT UNFAIR An ex-felon returned to society and released from parole has fully paid the price society has demanded. A basic sense of justice demands that a person not be punished repeatedly, for a lifetime, by denying the right to vote. DETERS REINTEGRATION INTO SOCIETY The objective of reintegrating ex-felons into society is dramatically impeded by continued restriction of the right to vote. This restriction is a lifelong reminder of second class citizenship—inferiority—often because of one mistake committed years earlier. The daily lives of all citizens are deeply affected and changed by the decisions of government. Full citizen participation in these decisions should be encouraged, not prevented. This participation—electing responsive officials, voting in local school board elections on issues directly affecting the education of our children, expressing views on statewide issues of major significance—all this is precluded by this unnecessary restriction. The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice and the President's Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, have strongly endorsed full voting rights for ex-felons. A majority of states, including four that have restored the right since 1972, allow ex-felons to vote. So should we. Let us eliminate this needless restriction. VOTE "YES" ON PROPOSITION 10! ”

Opposition

Opponents

• Asm. John V. Briggs (R)

Arguments

The following is the official argument against Proposition 10 that appeared in the state's voter guide. Asm. John V. Briggs (R) signed the argument. Note: Use your mouse to scroll over the below text to see the full text.

“ The critical question raised by this proposition is whether or not a person who has been convicted of a serious crime should be allowed to vote once that person has served time and has completed parole. Denial of the vote to convicted felons is a deep-rooted tradition in this country and is as much a part of discipline as is imprisonment. A "no" vote will strengthen respect for the law and provide society with one more weapon with which to discourage potential offenders. Proponents of this measure argue that to deny the vote to convicted felons is a violation of the "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment of the U. S. Constitution. Their case is heavily dependent upon a California State Supreme Court case which agreed that it was unconstitutional for states to enact laws denying the vote to criminals. However, the United States Supreme Court reversed the California decision and stated that it was perfectly proper for a state to take the vote away from those citizens who had committed serious crimes and who are likely to ruin the integrity of the electoral process. I, therefore, strongly urge a "no" vote on this proposition. ”

Path to the ballot

Amending the California Constitution

Proposition 10 was introduced into the California State Legislature as Assembly Constitutional Amendment 38 (ACA 38). The California State Assembly voted 46 to 12 to approve ACA 38. The California State Senate voted 27 to 8 to approve ACA 38.

See also

1974 Measures

• 1974 Measures
• Voting rights for persons with criminal convictions on the ballot
• 1974 legislative sessions

California

• California ballot measures
• California ballot measure laws

News and analysis

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

External links

• Text of Proposition 10 (1974)
• California Voter Guide (November 1974)