California Proposition 27, Elimination of Citizens Redistricting Commission Initiative (2010)

California Proposition 27
Election date November 2, 2010
Topic Redistricting measures
Status d Defeated
Type Amendment & Statute	Origin Citizens

California Proposition 27 was on the ballot as a combined initiated constitutional amendment and state statute in California on November 2, 2010. It was defeated.

A "yes" vote supported repealing a 2008 ballot measure that established a citizens commission for legislative redistricting and returning the power of redistricting to the state legislature.

A "no" vote opposed repealing a 2008 ballot measure that established a citizens commission for legislative redistricting and returning the power of redistricting to the state legislature.

Election results

See also: 2010 ballot measure election results

California Proposition 27
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		3,736,443	40.59%
No		5,468,703	59.41%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

What was Proposition 27 designed to do?

See also: Text of measure

If Proposition 27 had been approved, it would have repealed California Proposition 11 (2008), which authorized the creation of the California Citizens Redistricting Commission. It would have authorized the state legislature to draw the district boundaries for the state legislature and the Board of Equalization, and maintained that congressional districts were also drawn by the state legislature. Proposition 27 would also have modified the provision in California law that says that proposed congressional districts cannot be subjected to a veto referendum.

Proposition 27 would have also required district boundaries to have equal populations and repealed the requirements that districts not favor or discriminate against political parties, incumbents, or political candidates; must be geographically compact; and must contain two state Assembly districts within one Senate district.

Who supported and opposed Proposition 27?

See also: Support and Opposition

Yes on Fair, Yes on 27, No on 20 led the campaign in support of Proposition 27 and in opposition to Proposition 20. Ballotpedia identified three committees in support of Proposition 27 and opposed to Proposition 20. Together, they reported over $5.5 million in contributions. The initiative was endorsed by U.S. Rep. Judy Chu (D), U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D), State Sen. Alex Padilla (D), State Rep. Karen Bass (D), American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, American Federation of Teachers, and SEIU California State Council. Daniel Lowenstein, the official proponent of the measure, a professor at UCLA, and a former chairman of the California Fair Political Practices Commission, said, "Under current law, three randomly selected accountants decide who can be one of the fourteen unelected commissioners who head a bureaucracy that wields the power to decide who represents us. This reform will ensure that those who make the decisions are accountable to the voters and that all their decisions are subject to approval by the voters."

Yes on 20, No on 27 led the campaign in opposition to Proposition 27 and in support of Proposition 20. Three committees registered in opposition to Proposition 27. Together, they reported over $15.3 million in contributions. It was opposed by AARP California, California Common Cause, Latin Business Association, and League of Women Voters of California. The Long Beach Press-Telegram Editorial Board was among at least 17 editorial boards to endorse a "no" vote against Proposition 27. The Board said, "Politicians despise the independent commission because they no longer get to choose their own voters and keep seats safe for their parties. This is particularly true of Democrats because they currently hold more of those seats than Republicans. They fought the redistricting proposal in 2008, and now they're bankrolling Proposition 27 on the November ballot to kill the commission before it has even begun its work. Californians must reject this unconscionable power grab by voting yes on Proposition 20 and no on Proposition 27."

What was Proposition 20?

See also: California Proposition 20, Transfer Congressional Redistricting to Commission Initiative (2010)

Proposition 20 was a competing initiative on the November 2 ballot. Proposition 20 and Proposition 27 each included a provision stating that if they both received a majority vote, the proposition that received the highest majority vote would be the law that took effect. Proposition 20 passed by a vote of 61% in favor to 39% opposed. Proposition 27 failed by a vote of 41% in favor to 59% opposed.

Proposition 20 transferred the task of congressional redistricting from the California State Legislature and the governor to the California Citizens Redistricting Commission.

Were other redistricting measures on the ballot in other states in 2010?

Legislative and congressional redistricting takes place in every state after the decennial federal census. Ballot questions about redistricting were on the ballot in Florida (Amendment 5 and Amendment 6) and in Oklahoma (State Question 748).

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Proposition 27 was as follows:

“

Eliminates state commission on redistricting. Consolidates authority for redistricting with elected representatives. Initiative constitutional amendment and statute.

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary for this measure was:

“

• Eliminates 14-member redistricting commission selected from applicant pool picked by government auditors. • Consolidates authority for establishing state Assembly, Senate, and Board of Equalization district boundaries with elected state representatives responsible for drawing congressional districts. • Reduces budget, and imposes limit on amount Legislature may spend, for redistricting. • Provides that voters will have the authority to reject district boundary maps approved by the Legislature. • Requires populations of all districts for the same office to be exactly the same.

”

Full Text

The full text of this measure is available here.

Estimated fiscal impact

This is a summary of the initiative's estimated fiscal impact prepared by the California Legislative Analyst's Office:

“

Possible reduction of state redistricting costs of around $1 million over the next year. Likely reduction of state redistricting costs of a few million dollars once every ten years beginning in 2020.

”

Support

Yes on Fair, Yes on 27, No on 20 led the campaign in support of Proposition 27.

Supporters

Officials

• U.S. Rep. Judy Chu (D)
• U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D)
• State Sen. Alex Padilla (D)
• State Rep. Karen Bass (Nonpartisan)
• State Rep. Bob Blumenfield (Nonpartisan)
• State Rep. Charles Calderon (D)
• State Rep. Mike Eng (D)
• State Rep. Felipe Fuentes (Nonpartisan)
• State Rep. Bill Monning (D)
• State Rep. John Perez (D)
• State Rep. Nancy Skinner (D)

Unions

• American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
• American Federation of Teachers
• California State Association of Electrical Workers
• California State Pipe Trades Council
• IAFF International Association of Fire Fighters
• SEIU California State Council

Organizations

• Working for Working Americans

Arguments

• Daniel Lowenstein, the official proponent of the measure, a professor at UCLA, and a former chairman of the California Fair Political Practices Commission: "Under current law, three randomly selected accountants decide who can be one of the fourteen unelected commissioners who head a bureaucracy that wields the power to decide who represents us. This reform will ensure that those who make the decisions are accountable to the voters and that all their decisions are subject to approval by the voters."

Official arguments

The following is the argument in support of Proposition 27 found in the Official Voter Information Guide:

Official Voter Information Guide: Non-partisan experts have concluded that YES ON PROP. 27 saves taxpayer dollars: “Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Likely DECREASE IN STATE REDISTRICTING COSTS TOTALING SEVERAL MILLION DOLLARS EVERY TEN YEARS.” YES ON 27, the Fiscal Accountability in Redistricting Act (FAIR). 27 will save taxpayers millions of dollars and put an end to Arnold Schwarzenegger’s political reapportionment games. In 2005, Arnold Schwarzenegger wasted nearly 39 million taxpayer dollars to call a Special Election primarily to pass his so-called redistricting reform, Proposition 77, which the voters rejected by a 60 to 40 percent margin. In 2008, Schwarzenegger raised and spent 16 million special- interest dollars to barely pass an obtuse bureaucratic Commission to take the power of redistricting from those who are accountable to the people and give it to a faceless group of amateurs WHO CAN MAKE UP TO $1 MILLION DOLLARS FROM CALIFORNIA TAXPAYERS IN CUMULATIVE SALARY. YES ON 27 is a chance for the voters of California to say “enough is enough.” GOVERNOR, YOU MAY MEAN WELL, but no more money should be wasted on your nonsense games of reapportionment. Governor, OUR STATE IS BANKRUPT, UNEMPLOYMENT IS OVER 12%, OUR LUSH BREADBASKET OF THE CENTRAL VALLEY IS WITHOUT WATER, EVERYTHING IS MESSED UP. Yet you still obsess on the political game of reapportionment? Look at the mess we have with Schwarzenegger’s plan, the law following his 2008 proposition: – Under Schwarzenegger’s plan, three randomly selected accountants choose the fourteen un-elected commissioners to head a bureaucracy with the power to decide who is to represent us. Unlike the Schwarzenegger plan, YES ON 27 WILL ENSURE THAT THOSE WHO MAKE THE DECISIONS ARE ACCOUNTABLE TO THE VOTERS. 27 IS THE ONLY REFORM PROPOSAL WITH ACCOUNTABILITY. – Under Schwarzenegger’s plan, voters can be denied the right to pass a referendum against unfair Congressional district gerrymanders. A referendum means that we, the voters, have a right to say “no’’ to the Legislature and “no” to a statute with which we disagree. Unlike the Schwarzenegger plan, YES ON 27 ENSURES THAT VOTERS WILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHALLENGE ANY REDISTRICTING PLAN (INCLUDING THE CONGRESSIONAL PLAN). VOTERS SHOULD ALWAYS HAVE THE FINAL VOICE. – Under Schwarzenegger’s plan, some people can count more than others—one district could have almost a million more people than another. There is a reason why, for centuries, districts like that have been called ROTTEN BOROUGHS. This practice must be stopped. Unlike the Schwarzenegger plan, YES ON 27 will ensure that all districts are precisely the same size and that every person counts equally. Governor Schwarzenegger, what are you thinking? Non-partisan experts have concluded that YES ON PROP. 27 saves taxpayer dollars: “Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Likely DECREASE IN STATE REDISTRICTING COSTS TOTALING SEVERAL MILLION DOLLARS EVERY TEN YEARS.” Let’s stop wasting taxpayer dollars. Let’s end the political reapportionment games. YES ON PROPOSITION 27! DANIEL H. LOWENSTEIN, Founding Chairman, California Fair Political Practices Commission HANK LACAYO, President, Congress of California Seniors

Opposition

Yes on 20, No on 27 led the campaign in opposition to Proposition 27 and in support of Proposition 20.

Opponents

Organizations

• AARP California
• California Common Cause
• Latin Business Association
• League of Women Voters of California

Individuals

• Charles Munger, Jr. - Chairman of Spirit of Democracy

Arguments

• Ian Johnson of The Rose Institute of State and Local Government at Claremont McKenna College: "The California Democratic redistricting machine is worried. Led by Congressman Howard Berman and his consultant brother Michael, they controlled the state’s bipartisan incumbent-protection gerrymander in 2001. Now their control is threatened by an initiative that would place Congressional redistricting within the mandate of the Citizens Redistricting Commission. Congressman Berman and his allies are responding with a misleading measure aimed at confusing voters, apparently conceding that they cannot win the debate on the merits of their views...In one respect, FAIR is a positive sign: when the beneficiaries of the status quo are forced to resort to deception to preserve their positions, it is a sign they are desperate. Clearly, even they can see which way the winds of change are blowing."
• John Kabateck, executive director of the California branch of the National Federation of Independent Business: "Enough is enough. Decades of cynical, self-serving behavior from politicians has helped plummet this state into a fiscal and economic abyss. We need to be able to hold our elected officials accountable when they don’t do the job we elected them to do. One way to ensure that politicians remain accountable to voters is by taking the power to draw political district lines from the very politicians who stand to personally benefit from the outcome."

Official arguments

The following is the argument in opposition to Proposition 27 found in the Official Voter Information Guide:

Official Voter Information Guide: We have a clear choice to make with Proposition 27. Next year, new election districts will be drawn. If we vote “NO” on Proposition 27, legislative districts are drawn by the independent Citizens Redistricting Commission voters approved in 2008. If we vote “yes” on Proposition 27, the independent Citizens Redistricting Commission will be eliminated and Sacramento politicians will draw their own districts to protect their jobs, just like they’ve done in the past. NO ON 27—STOP POLITICIANS FROM GUTTING VOTER-APPROVED REFORMS In 2008, voters passed Proposition 11—ending the practice of legislators drawing their own election districts so they’d be elected year after year, having little incentive to solve problems, and remaining unaccountable to voters. Under Proposition 11, voters created the independent Citizens Redistricting Commission to draw fair districts so legislators would be accountable to voters. The commission is completely transparent and includes Democrats, Republicans and independents and must be representative of all Californians. Learn more: www.wedrawthelines.ca.gov Now a who’s who list of incumbent politicians has used millions of special interest dollars to bankroll Proposition 27 so they can kill voter approved redistricting reforms and return the drawing of districts to politicians. They’ll spend and say whatever it takes to pass Proposition 27 so they can remain unaccountable to voters. NO ON 27—STOP BACKROOM DEALS THAT PROTECT POLITICIANS, HURT VOTERS The Los Angeles Times and Orange County Register revealed that in the last redistricting, politicians paid one political consultant over ONE MILLION dollars to draw districts to protect their seats. With Prop. 27, politicians want to return us to the days when legislators hired consultants to draw bizarrely-shaped districts behind closed doors, dividing up cities and communities just to guarantee their reelection. “By pushing Proposition 27, politicians want to silence voters so they don‘t have to address the tough problems our state faces.”—Maria Luisa Vela, Los Angeles Hispanic Chamber of Commerce THE POLITICIANS’ CLAIMS DON’T STAND UP Proposition 27 is not about saving money. Politicians want safe districts and will spend every taxpayer and special interest dollar they can to bankroll consultants and draw district lines to protect themselves. And Proposition 27 is not about empowering voters. Voters can ALREADY reject legislative redistricting plans through the referendum process, regardless of Prop. 27. Proposition 27 is really about the politicians wanting to keep power! “Voters approved redistricting reforms to make the system fair—we need to stop politicians from passing Proposition 27 and taking us back to the days when politicians drew districts to protect themselves.”—Kathay Feng, California Common Cause Redistricting WILL happen in 2011. The question is whether it will be done by an INDEPENDENT CITIZENS REDISTRICTING COMMISSION or by POLITICIANS seeking to keep themselves in office. • NO on Proposition 27 keeps the power with voters and the voter-approved independent Citizens Redistricting Commission. • Yes on Proposition 27 gives power back to Sacramento politicians to draw districts so they’re virtually guaranteed reelection. Vote “NO” on Proposition 27. JANIS R. HIROHAMA, President, League of Women Voters of California DAVID PACHECO, California President, AARP GARY TOEBBEN, President, Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce

Media editorials

See also: Endorsements of California ballot measures, 2010

Redistricting on the ballot in 2010

Support

The following media editorial boards published an editorial supporting the ballot measure:

• San Francisco Bay Guardian Editorial Board: "This measure abolishes that panel and would allow the Legislature to draw new lines for both state and federal offices after the 2010 census. We don't love having the Legislature handle that task — but we like the existing, unaccountable, unrepresentative agency even less."

Opposition

The following media editorial boards published an editorial opposing the ballot measure:

• San Bernardino Sun Editorial Board: "Proposition 27 is not drawing as much attention as some of the other statewide measures on the Nov. 2 ballot. That's too bad, because marking No on Proposition 27 might be the most important thing voters can do for California's future."
• Contra Costa Times Editorial Board: "It is telling that there is no coherent argument in the voter's guide in support of Proposition 27; that's because there is none to be made."
• Lompoc Record Editorial Board: "Proposition 27 would abolish the state’s redistricting commission — before it has even had a chance to act — turning the authority for drawing boundaries for state offices back over to politicians. We really shouldn’t have to make an argument for why politicians have no business feathering their own nests, but we will."
• Los Angeles Daily News Editorial Board: "Independent redistricting is one of the last best hopes for the fixing the state's broken political process."
• Los Angeles Times Editorial Board: "Proponents of the proposition smugly titled it the Financial Accountability in Redistricting Act, and they argue that it will save money that California cannot, in this hour of fiscal crisis, afford the 14-member commission and the staff required to carry out its duties. That's fraudulent, and they know it. California's crisis is real, but the citizens commission is an antidote, not a contributor."
• The Long Beach Press-Telegram Editorial Board: "Politicians despise the independent commission because they no longer get to choose their own voters and keep seats safe for their parties. This is particularly true of Democrats because they currently hold more of those seats than Republicans. They fought the redistricting proposal in 2008, and now they're bankrolling Proposition 27 on the November ballot to kill the commission before it has even begun its work. Californians must reject this unconscionable power grab by voting yes on Proposition 20 and no on Proposition 27."
• Orange County Register Editorial Board: "Voters should be careful not to confuse Proposition 20, which we view as the 'good' redistricting proposition, with Proposition 27, the 'bad' redistricting proposition. Proposition 27 would essentially undo the good work of 2008's Proposition 11 for state offices, hamstring Proposition 20 for congressional offices and further entrench the power of politicians to pick their own districts. Proposition 27 would end the establishment of more balanced voting districts before they even are created."
• Riverside Press Enterprise Editorial Board: "California has no reason to backtrack on governmental reforms. The dismal records of state and federal legislators should spur voters to expand changes that can improve government, not toss the whole effort out. Thus in November voters should pass Proposition 20, and reject Proposition 27."
• San Bernardino Sun Editorial Board: "The campaign finance reports for Proposition 27 tell the story. The vast majority of the $1 million-plus in donations come from current or aspiring Democratic members of Congress and their supporters, who fear losing power."
• Sacramento Bee Editorial Board: "Supporters of Proposition 27 make the same arguments they did against Proposition 11, with the added criticism that the panel selection process is over budget. Their case is just as unconvincing this time. The citizen commission holds the promise of creating legislative districts that are more competitive and that will give more California voters a real choice. It should be given the chance to succeed."
• North County Times Editorial Board: "Proposition 27 would abolish the Citizens Redistricting Commission and restore redistricting to the Legislature. Well, the Legislature had that power for decades, and used it to draw districts designed to protect incumbents. Boundaries were crafted not to create balanced districts, but rather districts that tilt heavily toward one party or the other."
• Santa Rosa Press Democrat Editorial Board: "The backers of Proposition 27, primarily the state's congressional delegation, included an artificial spending cap so they could claim this is a cost-cutting measure. Don't be fooled. In addition to losing an independent process, there will be a ample special interest money, from groups that benefit from the status quo, to more than make up for a tiny cut in public spending on the once-a-decade redistricting process."
• Santa Cruz Sentinel Editorial Board: "Politicians naturally have been unhappy about losing this power. The Democratic Party, the majority party in our state, is mainly bankrolling Proposition 27, which would end the commission before it has even started. Why? Because some politicians could lose their seats. Others might be forced to run against credible opposition candidates, which could mean they would have to move more toward positions benefiting all Californians, rather than narrow party or special interests."
• San Gabriel Valley Tribune Editorial Board: "But Proposition 27, which citizens will cast their votes on Nov. 2, would be an easy one to paint as the most scurrilous proposition this time around. It would take the excellent redistricting reforms Californians approved as Proposition11 two years ago and trash them, going back to the perfectly awful status quo."
• Ventura County Star Editorial Board: "Proposition 27 would eliminate the citizens’ commission altogether and return all — all — redistricting duties back to the politicians’ cronies in the state Legislature Supporters of Proposition 27 claim it would save money, but we seriously doubt that any meaningful savings would ever materialize if voters let politicians have their way. That’s how California got to where we are today."
• Washington Post Editorial Board: "... Proposition 27, would be an unfortunate step in the opposite direction, abolishing the commission altogether, on the dubious claim that the state can't afford the commission because of its fiscal crisis. Shamefully, the state's leading Democrats are behind the push for Proposition 27; House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and 17 other Democratic members of the state's congressional delegation each contributed at least $10,000 to the cause."
• San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board: "Proposition 27 is about blocking change and protecting the status quo. We urge a no vote."

Campaign finance

See also: Ballot measure campaign finance, 2010

The campaign finance information on this page reflects the most recent scheduled reports that Ballotpedia has processed, which covered through December 31, 2010.

Ballotpedia identified three committees in support of Proposition 27 and opposed to Proposition 20. Together they reported over $5.5 million in contributions. Three committees registered in opposition to Proposition 27. Together they reported over $15.3 million in contributions.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$5,469,550.00	$7,387.47	$5,476,937.47	$5,262,660.38	$5,270,047.85
Oppose	$2,386,086.50	$12,936,134.50	$15,322,221.00	$15,278,201.42	$28,214,335.92
Total	$7,855,636.50	$12,943,521.97	$20,299,108.47	$20,540,861.80	$33,484,383.77

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in support of the measure.

Committees in support of Proposition 27
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Yes on Fair, Yes on 27, No on 20	$4,969,500.00	$7,387.47	$4,976,887.47	$4,992,088.32	$4,999,475.79
TRUEPAC - Concerned Citizens including Judy Chu to support Proposition 27	$500,050.00	$0.00	$500,050.00	$270,572.06	$270,572.06
California Coalition for Leadership and Accountability in Budget and Redistricting, Yes on 25 & 27, No on 20	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00
Total	$5,469,550.00	$7,387.47	$5,476,937.47	$5,262,660.38	$5,270,047.85

Donors

The following were the top donors who contributed to the support committees.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Haim Saban	$2,000,000.00	$0.00	$2,000,000.00
AFSCME	$1,250,000.00	$0.00	$1,250,000.00
American Federation of Teachers	$1,000,000.00	$0.00	$1,000,000.00
Judy Chu Campaign Committee 2010	$500,000.00	$0.00	$500,000.00
Working for Working Americans	$500,000.00	$0.00	$500,000.00
Democratic State Central Committee of California	$375,000.00	$0.00	$375,000.00

Opposition

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in opposition to the measure.

Committees in opposition to Proposition 27
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Yes on 20, No on 27 - Hold Politicians Accountable	$899,086.50	$12,919,563.82	$13,818,650.32	$13,802,895.63	$26,722,459.45
Small Business Action Committee PAC, Yes on 20 & 26, No on 25 & 27	$1,388,000.00	$15,679.68	$1,403,679.68	$1,385,010.05	$1,400,689.73
No on 27 - Keep Voters First	$99,000.00	$891.00	$99,891.00	$90,295.74	$91,186.74
Total	$2,386,086.50	$12,936,134.50	$15,322,221.00	$15,278,201.42	$28,214,335.92

Donors

The following were the top donors who contributed to the opposition committees.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Charles T. Munger, Jr.	$0.00	$12,157,442.83	$12,157,442.83
Charlotte A. Lowell	$200,000.00	$756,000.64	$956,000.64
Altria Client Services Inc.	$500,000.00	$0.00	$500,000.00
Cypress Management Company, Inc.	$500,000.00	$0.00	$500,000.00
Anheuser-Busch, Inc.	$300,000.00	$0.00	$300,000.00
Diane B. Wilsey	$100,000.00	$0.00	$100,000.00
Eli Broad	$100,000.00	$0.00	$100,000.00

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Path to the ballot

Process in California

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in California

A combined initiated constitutional amendment and state statute is a citizen-initiated ballot measure that amends both a state's constitution and state statute. There are at least two (2) states that allow citizens to initiate combined amendments and statutes.

In California, the number of signatures required for a combined initiated constitutional amendment and state statute is equal to 8% of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election. A simple majority vote is required for voter approval.

The requirements to get combined initiated constitutional amendment and state statutes certified for the 2010 ballot:

• Signatures: 694,354 valid signatures were required.
• Deadline: The deadline for signature verification was June 24, 2010.

Stages of this ballot initiative

• December 28, 2009: Daniel Lowenstein filed a request with the Office of the California Attorney General for an official ballot title.
• February 5, 2010: The official ballot title was provided.

Sponsors of the measure hired Kimball Petition Management to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $2,719,749.45 was spent to collect the 694,354 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $3.92.

See also

2010 Measures

• 2010 Measures
• Redistricting policy on the ballot
• 2010 legislative sessions

California

• California ballot measures
• California ballot measure laws

News and analysis

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

External links

Suggest a link

Basic information

• Text of Proposition 27
• 2010 General Election Voter Guide

Support

See also: 2010 ballot measure campaign websites

• Yes on Proposition 27

Opposition

See also: 2010 ballot measure campaign websites

• Yes on 20, No on 27 website
• "Yes on 20/No on 27" on Facebook
• "Yes on 20, No on 27" on Twitter
• "Yes on 20/No on 27" channel on YouTube

Additional reading

• Funding the Yes on 27 Campaign. Or is that the Intention?
• Proposition 27 Revealed!
• Props. 20, 27 pit politicians against voters
• Voters face 2 state redistricting propositions
• Voters beware: Prop 27 has big teeth
• Prop 27: Confuse and conquer
• Proposition 27, budget mess again show pols' selfishness
• On Redistricting Reform: The Status Quo Strikes Back
• Conflicting redistricting measures
• Berkshire Billionaire's Son Battles Soros on California Ballot