Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.
California Proposition 30, Third-Party Unfair Claim Lawsuits Referendum (March 2000)
| California Proposition 30 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date March 7, 2000 | |
| Topic Civil and criminal trials | |
Status Defeated | |
| Type Referendum | Origin Citizens |
California Proposition 30 was on the ballot as a veto referendum in California on March 7, 2000. It was defeated.
A "yes" vote was to uphold legislation that allows third-party lawsuits against insurance companies for unfair claims practices in handling liability claims. |
A "no" vote was to repeal legislation that allows third-party lawsuits against insurance companies for unfair claims practices in handling liability claims. |
Overview
In 1999, the California State Legislature passed two laws (SB 1237 and AB 1309) to allow third-party claimants to sue insurance companies. SB 1237 and AB 1309 were set to go into effect on January 1, 2000. However, opponents of the laws circulated petitions to collect signatures to place the measures on the statewide ballot as veto referendums. Since these measures qualified for the ballot as Proposition 30 and Proposition 31, the laws were put on hold until the March 7, 2000 election. In that election, both measures were defeated.
Proposition 30 was about SB 1237. SB 1237 gave third-party claimants the ability to sue an insurance company for unfair claim practices in certain liability cases and created a binding arbitration system for settling these liability cases.[1]
Election results
|
California Proposition 30 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 2,232,420 | 31.51% | ||
|
|
4,852,228 | 68.49% | ||
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title for Proposition 30 was as follows:
| “ | Insurance Claims Practices. Civil Remedies. Referendum. | ” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary for this measure was:
| “ |
A "Yes" vote approves, a "No" vote rejects legislation that:
| ” |
Full Text
The full text of this measure is available here.
Fiscal impact statement
- See also: Fiscal impact statement
The fiscal impact statement was as follows:
| “ |
|
” |
Path to the ballot
In California, the number of signatures required for a veto referendum is equal to 5 percent of the votes cast at the preceding gubernatorial election. For veto referendums filed in 2000, at least 419,260 valid signatures were required.Proponents of the veto referendum had 90 days from the date that the bill was signed to collect signatures.
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ LAO's analysis of Proposition 30
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
 |
State of California Sacramento (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
