California Proposition 53, Voter Approval Requirement for Revenue Bonds above $2 Billion (2016)
| California Proposition 53 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 8, 2016 | |
| Topic State and local government budgets, spending and finance | |
Status Defeated | |
| Type Constitutional amendment | Origin Citizens |
The California Voter Approval Requirement for Revenue Bonds above $2 Billion Initiative, also known as Proposition 53, was on the November 8, 2016, ballot in California as an initiated constitutional amendment.[1][2] The measure was defeated.
| A "yes" vote supported requiring voter approval before the state could issue more than $2 billion in public infrastructure bonds that would require an increase in taxes or fees for repayment. |
| A "no" vote opposed this measure requiring voter approval before the state could issue more than $2 billion in public infrastructure bonds that would require an increase in taxes or fees for repayment. |
Supporters of Proposition 53 referred to it as the "No Blank Checks Initiative."
Contents
- 1 Election results
- 2 Overview
- 3 Text of measure
- 4 Support
- 5 Opposition
- 5.1 Opponents
- 5.1.1 Officials
- 5.1.2 Parties
- 5.1.3 Organizations
- 5.1.3.1 Civic organizations
- 5.1.3.2 Environment and agriculture organizations
- 5.1.3.3 Education organizations
- 5.1.3.4 Government organizations
- 5.1.3.5 Public saftey organizations
- 5.1.3.6 Healthcare organizations
- 5.1.3.7 Infrastructure organizations
- 5.1.3.8 Taxpayer associations
- 5.1.3.9 Water districts
- 5.1.3.10 Business associations
- 5.1.3.11 Unions
- 5.1.4 Individuals
- 5.2 Arguments
- 5.3 Tactics and strategies
- 5.1 Opponents
- 6 Campaign finance
- 7 Media editorials
- 8 Polls
- 9 Path to the ballot
- 10 State profile
- 11 Related measures
- 12 Recent news
- 13 See also
- 14 External links
- 15 Footnotes
Election results
| Proposition 53 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| No | 6,660,555 | 50.58% | ||
| Yes | 6,508,909 | 49.42% | ||
- Election results from California Secretary of State
Overview
Voting on bonds in California
California sells two types of bonds. The first are general obligation bonds, which are repaid for using revenue in the General Fund. Revenue in the fund comes mostly from state taxes. The California Constitution requires voter approval before the state can issue general obligation bonds.[3]
The second type of bonds are revenue bonds, which are repaid using revenue from fees or other charges paid by the users of the project. For example, a revenue bond issued to build a highway could be repaid by mandating a toll for users of the highway. Under existing state law, revenue bonds do not require voter approval.
Initiative design
Proposition 53 would have required voter approval for infrastructure-related revenue bonds totaling $2 billion, adjusted for inflation, or more.
The state's legislative analyst noted, "It is unlikely there would be very many projects large enough to be affected by the measure’s requirement for voter approval.” The proposed tunnels to move water through the Sacramento to San Joaquin River Delta and California High-Speed Rail were two projects that would have required voter approval if Proposition 53 was approved.
State of the ballot measure campaigns
- See also: Campaign finance for Proposition 53
No on Proposition 53 outraised supporters four-to-one. Yes on Proposition 53 raised $6.03 million, while opponents received $21.99 million. Proposition 53 was designed by Dean and Joan Cortopassi, who were also the initiative’s sole contributors. The top two donors against Proposition 53 were Gov. Brown's 2014 gubernatorial campaign committee and the California Democratic Party. The California Republican Party supported Proposition 53.
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title was as follows:[4]
| “ |
Revenue Bonds. Infrastructure Projects. State Legislature and Voter Approval. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.[5] |
” |
Ballot summary
The long-form ballot summary was as follows:[3]
| “ |
|
” |
The shorter ballot label summary was as follows:[3]
| “ |
Requires statewide voter approval before any revenue bonds can be issued or sold by the state for certain projects if the bond amount exceeds $2 billion. Fiscal Impact: State and local fiscal effects are unknown and would depend on which projects are affected by the measure and what actions government agencies and voters take in response to the measure’s voting requirement. [5] |
” |
Petition summary
The long-form, official ballot summary for Proposition 53 was changed from the initial summary provided to initiative proponents for the purpose of circulating the initiative for signature collection. The original summary provided for inclusion on signature petition sheets was:
| “ |
Requires State Legislature approve use of revenue bonds for public infrastructure projects funded, owned, or operated by the state or any joint agency that includes the state, if the bond amount exceeds $2 billion and repayment requires new, increased, or extended taxes, fees, or other charges. Requires that legislatively approved projects be presented on statewide ballot for voter approval. Applies to previously approved projects if remaining bond amount exceeds $2 billion. Requires that specified project information for all state bonds be included in voter ballot pamphlet.[5] |
” |
Fiscal impact statement
Note: The fiscal impact statement for a California ballot initiative authorized for circulation is jointly prepared by the state's legislative analyst and its director of finance.
The fiscal impact statement was as follows:[4]
| “ |
Fiscal impact on state and local governments is unknown and would depend on which projects are affected by the measure, whether they are approved by voters, and whether any alternative projects or activities implemented by government agencies have higher or lower costs than the original project proposal. [5] |
” |
Constitutional changes
The proposed amendment was designed to add the following section to Article XVI of the California Constitution:
|
Full text
The full text of the initiative measure is available here.
Support
Yes on Proposition 53 led the campaign in support of Proposition 53.[6] The initiative was developed by Dean and Joan Cortopassi.
Supporters
Officials
- U.S. Rep. Tom McClintock (R-4)[7]
- Former U.S. Rep. Andrea Seastrand (R-22)[8]
Parties
Organizations
- Alliance of Contra Costa Taxpayers[11]
- Calaveras County Taxpayers Association
- California Taxpayer Protection Committee
- California Taxpayers Coalition
- Central Coast Taxpayers Association
- Contra Costa Taxpayers Association
- Fullerton Association of Concerned Taxpayers
- Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
- Humboldt County Taxpayers League
- Inland Empire Taxpayers Association
- Monterey Peninsula Taxpayers Association
- Napa County Taxpayers Association
- Placer County Taxpayers Association
- Sacramento Taxpayers Association
- Salinas Taxpayers Association
- San Diego Tax Fighters
- San Joaquin County Taxpayers Association
- Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association
- Solano County Taxpayers Association
- Sutter County Taxpayers Association
- Tulare County Taxpayers Association
- Yolo County Taxpayers Association
Arguments
Supporters made the following arguments in support of Proposition 53:[3]
- Politicians and state agencies are allowed to borrow billions of dollars in state revenue bond debt without getting voters' approval.
- Proposition 53 would hold politicians accountable and would induce them to provide accurate estimates of how much a project would cost.
- Proposition 53 does not impact local projects, the University of California, freeway construction, or natural disaster response.
Yes on Proposition 53 claimed the measure would do five things:[12]
| “ | 1. Close the loophole that allows politicians to issue massive new debt to pay for multi-billion dollar projects — without giving Californians the right to vote.
2. Require statewide voter approval for state revenue bond projects costing more than $2 billion. 3. Hold Sacramento politicians accountable by requiring all multi-billion dollar state bonds go to a vote of the people. 4. Give voters a say when state government wants to incur enormous new debt that the public will have to repay. 5. Ensure voters understand the full cost of future projects, including interest payments, that they are expected to pay.[5] |
” |
Official arguments
Dean "Dino" Cortopassi, a retired farmer and former CEO of Stanislaus Food Products Company, Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, and John McGinness, a retired Sacramento County sheriff, wrote the official argument in support of Proposition 53 found in the state voters guide. Their argument was as follows:[3]
Proposition 53, the Stop Blank Checks initiative, is simple. It only does two things: 1) It requires California voter approval for STATE projects that would use over $2 billion in state revenue bonds. Currently, other state bonds for water, school and transportation projects require voter approval. But a loophole in state law allows politicians and unaccountable state agencies to circumvent a public vote and borrow BILLIONS in state revenue bond debt for massive state projects WITHOUT VOTER APPROVAL, Proposition 53 will STOP POLITICIANS FROM ISSUING BLANK CHECK DEBT to complete billion dollar state boondoggles. Take California's bullet train, They told us it would cost California taxpayers $10 billion. Now we know its going to cost more than $60 billion! Yet, you don't have a right to vote on that huge increase! Right now, there is NO VOTE BY THE LEGISLATURE OR THE PEOPLE required to issue these massive state mega-bonds. Unelected and unaccountable state bureaucrats have all the power and you have to pay through higher water rates or increased fees! Proposition 53 says IF YOU HAVE TO PAY, YOU SHOULD HAVE A SAY. Proposition 53 just GIVES YOU A VOICE, A VOTE, added TRANSPARENCY, and it HOLDS POLITICIANS ACCOUNTABLE. That's it! Read the initiative for yourself. Proposition 53 STOPS POLITICIANS FROM LYING about the real cost of state mega-projects. Willie Brown, once the state's most powerful politician, wrote that lowballing initial budgets is commonplace with public projects. He said, "The idea is to get going. Start digging a hole and make it so big, there's no alternative to coming up with the money to fill it in." Despite the scare tactics of the politicians, bureaucrats and corporations that feed off of the state's public debt, Proposition 53 DOES NOT IMPACT LOCAL PROJECTS, the University of California, freeway construction or needed response after a natural disaster. Proposition 53 SIMPLY APPLIES THE LONG-STANDING CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION against politicians imposing higher debt without voter approval to MASSIVE STATE REVENUE BONDS. Proposition 53 just ENSURES FULL BUDGET DISCLOSURE AND VOTER APPROVAL of state revenue bonds for California's mega-bucks projects that will affect future generations. Join California's leading state and local taxpayer organizations, small businesses, working families and nearly one million Californians who put Proposition 53 on the ballot. Vote YES on 53! |
Opposition
The campaign in opposition to Proposition 53 was led by No on Proposition 53.[13]
Opponents
Officials
- Gov. Jerry Brown (D)
Parties
- California Democratic Party
- Green Party of California[14]
- California Peace and Freedom Party[15]
- Los Angeles County Democratic Party
- Santa Monica Democratic Club[16]
- Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club[17]
Organizations
Civic organizations
Environment and agriculture organizations
Education organizations
Government organizations
Public saftey organizations
Healthcare organizations
Infrastructure organizations
Taxpayer associations
Water districts
Business associations
Unions
|
Individuals
- Kevin Drum, political blogger for Mother Jones[22]
Arguments
Opponents made the following arguments in opposition to Proposition 53:[3]
- The proposition would impact local control and community infrastructure improvements negatively.
- The proposition would require a statewide vote for certain local projects.
- The proposition does not contain an exemption for emergencies/natural disasters.
- The proposition would negatively impact water supply and drought preparedness.
- The proposition would inhibit California's ability to repair outdated infrastructure.
- The proposition would serve the interests of the multi-millionaire funding the initiative.
Gary Toebben, president and CEO of the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, argued that Proposition 53 would give taxpayers less control over infrastructure decisions, rather than more, as proponents claimed. Toebben wrote:[23]
| “ | One of the little-known details of Proposition 53 is that it will force statewide votes on some local projects. It specifically requires cities and towns that want to come together with the state and form Joint Power Authorities to issue revenue bonds to put their measure on a statewide ballot.
That means that if residents in Los Angeles decide they want to make bridge safety repairs, then voters from Redding to Bakersfield would have the right to veto that decision. Crazy? You bet.[5] |
” |
Official arguments
Lou Paulson, president of the California Professional Firefighters, Tim Quinn, executive director of the Association of California Water Agencies, and Mark Ghilarducci, director of the California Office of Emergency Services, wrote the official argument against Proposition 53 found in the state voters guide. Their argument was as follows:[3]
PROP 53 ERODES LOCAL CONTROL AND CONTAINS NO EXEMPTION FOR EMERGENCIES / NATURAL DISASTERS ERODES LOCAL CONTROL BY REQUIRING STATEWIDE VOTE FOR SOME LOCAL PROJECTS NO EXEMPTION FOR EMERGENCIES OR NATURAL DISASTERS THREATENS WATER SUPPLY AND DROUGHT PREPAREDNESS JEOPARDIZES ABILITY TO REPAIR OUTDATED INFASTRUCTURE FINANCED AND PROMOTED BY MULTI-MILLIONAIRE WITH A PERSONAL AGENDA OPPOSED BY A BROAD BI-PARTISAN COALITION:
|
Tactics and strategies
The California Democratic Party sent a fundraising letter to potential donors promising a dinner with Gov. Brown for those willing to contribute against the measure. Angie Tate, the party's financial chief, wrote in the letter, "The Governor will be hosting a series of small dinners in August and September to thank those that are able to help on his priorities." Dan Newman, a spokesperson for Brown, said no dinners were scheduled, however.[24]
Campaign finance
| Total campaign contributions: | |
| Support: | $6,034,360.62 |
| Opposition: | $21,992,198.67 |
As of February 1, 2017, the support campaign for Proposition 53 raised over $6 million, and the opposition campaign raised over $21.9 million. The support campaign was bankrolled by Stockton business executive Dean Cortopassi and his wife Joan Cortopassi.[25][26] The majority of campaign funds for the opposition came from the California Democratic Party and Gov. Brown's 2014 gubernatorial committee.[27]
Support
One hundred percent of the total contributions for this campaign were in-state donations made by Dean and Joan Cortopassi.
As of February 1, 2017, the following PACs were registered to support Proposition 53 and the total amount raised below was current as of the same date. The amount spent listed below was current as of February 1, 2017.[25][27]
| Committee | Amount raised | Amount spent |
|---|---|---|
| Yes on 53 - Stop Blank Checks | $6,034,360.62 | $5,068,166.32 |
| Total | $6,034,360.62 | $5,068,166.32 |
As of February 1, 2017, the largest and only donors in support of Proposition 53 were:[25]
| Donor | Amount |
|---|---|
| Dean Cortopassi | $4,534,360.62 |
| Joan Cortopassi | $1,500,000.00 |
Opposition
Three ballot measure campaign committees were registered in opposition to Proposition 53 as of February 1, 2017. The committee received the following total contributions and expenditures as of February 1, 2017.[27]
| Committee | Amount raised | Amount spent |
|---|---|---|
| No On Prop 53 - Californians To Protect Local Control, A Coalition Of Public Safety, Local Government, Business And Labor Organizations, And Taxpayers Click here for details | $21,972,198.67 | $21,898,253.39 |
| No on 53, Neighbors Defending Local Control | $10,000.00 | $9,761.26 |
| California Business PAC, Sponsored by California Chamber of Commerce (AKA CALBUSPAC) - No on Proposition 53 | $230,000.00 | $235,374.32 |
| Total | $21,992,198.67 | $21,923,388.97 |
The following are the top five donors who contributed to the No on Prop 53 committee as of February 1, 2017:[28]
| Donor | Amount
|
|---|---|
| Brown for Governor 2014 | $4,107,500.00 |
| California Democratic Party | $1,884,211.00 |
| Members' Voice of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California | $1,346,814.00 |
| L. John Doerr III | $1,000,000.00 |
| Laborers Pacific Southwest Regional Organizing Coalition - Issues PAC | $800,000.00 |
Methodology
Ballotpedia calculates campaign finance based on the political committees registered to support or oppose a measure and independent expenditures, when relevant and available. When a committee is registered to support or oppose multiple measures it is impossible to distinguish between funds used for one measure and funds used for the other.
In calculating campaign finance for supporting and opposing committees, Ballotpedia does not count donations or expenditures from one ballot measure committee to another since that would amount to counting the same money twice. This method is used to give the most accurate information concerning how much funding was actually provided to and spent by the opposing and supporting campaigns.
Ballotpedia subtracts out committee-to-committee contributions—both cash donations and in-kind contributions. Because of this, it is possible for certain committees to have negative contributions. Negative contributions mean that a committee has provided more contributions to other committees than it has received. If expenditures exceed contributions, it means the committee has accrued unpaid bills, has unpaid or unforgiven loans, or has contributed a certain amount of in-kind services to another committee.
Ballotpedia provides information about all reported in-kind donations. In-kind contributions are also counted toward total expenditures since, with in-kind gifts, the contribution and services or goods are provided simultaneously. Ballotpedia does this to provide the most accurate information about the cash-on-hand of supporting and opposing campaigns.Media editorials
Support
- The Orange County Register: "That doesn’t mean that no project could get built with revenue bonds. It simply means the case made for the project’s importance would have to be good enough that more people would vote for it than against it. The Editorial Board recommends a yes vote on Proposition 53."[29]
- Victorville Daily Press: "Voting yes on Prop 53 will close that loophole and give Californians a say in how their taxpayer dollars are spent by requiring voter approval of state projects of $2 billion or more that use revenue bonds. ... We urge a yes vote on Prop 53 on Nov. 8."[30]
Opposition
- The Bakersfield Californian: "California taxpayers should be concerned about an increasing state debt. But Prop. 53 is clearly not about controlling debt. It is about stopping California’s progress."[31]
- Contra Costa Times, which was consolidated with The Oakland Tribune to form East Bay Times in March 2016: "Voters shouldn't lock into law any proposition leaving this much uncertainty, especially since it would require two-thirds approval to change or overturn it, even though it can pass initially with a simple majority. The governor is dead wrong about his $15 billion-and-counting Delta plan. But when he calls Cortopassi's ballot measure 'a really bad idea' -- that's an understatement."[32]
- East Bay Express: "We elect lawmakers to execute smart decisions, which includes determining whether to initiate revenue bonds to pay for things such as roads or bridges. We don’t always need voters to weigh in on these decisions — and this sloppy initiative could even impact the formation of joint-power authorities, and their ability to improve transit or other programs. This is a dangerous one."[33]
- East Bay Times: "But Cortopassi’s poorly constructed measure lacks clarity, making it impossible to determine which projects would need voter approval and which would not. That will be up to the courts, not voters."[34]
- Los Angeles Times: "The problem that Proposition 53 aims to solve is speculative, but the potential damage to local control is real. Requiring state voters to approve large revenue bond issues would make it more difficult to make badly needed infrastructure improvements in this state, and could even discourage the public-private partnerships that could help fill the gap between what the state needs to build and what it can afford."[35]
- The Mercury News: "Once ballot measures become law, they’re nearly impossible to fix. And this one’s likely to be a doozie. Vote no on Proposition 53."[36]
- Monterey Herald: "California taxpayers should be concerned about increasing state debt. But Prop. 53 is clearly not about controlling debt. It’s about stopping California’s progress and would bring with it a host of unintended consequences. Vote 'no' on Prop. 53."[37]
- The Record: “Vote no. While Cortopassi has some good intentions with this proposition and spending must be controlled, the $2 billion threshold for a public vote is restrictive.”[38]
- The Sacramento Bee: "But in the guise of combating government debt, Proposition 53 could increase construction costs and add unnecessary layers of complexity and uncertainty to an already unwieldy state government. And voters have a solution if they conclude that legislators abuse revenue bonds: They can vote them out of office."[39]
- San Diego City Beat: “ Although it sounds like a legitimate way to slow state spending, this prop is a no-go because all Californians would vote on local projects (like new toll roads or bridges) they probably know next to nothing about.”[40]
- San Diego Free Press and OB Rag called for a "No" vote on Proposition 53.[41]
- San Diego Union-Tribune: "But whatever his motive, his ballot measure is a mess. It is so poorly written that it doesn’t even define 'project,' according to a Legislative Analyst’s Office’s analysis. A local government that wanted to build a major infrastructure project might have to put its plan before all state voters if it got even limited state assistance. And Proposition 53 doesn’t exempt emergency repairs following earthquakes or disasters. We urge a no vote on Proposition 53. It must not become the latest flawed ballot initiative that makes the state more difficult to govern."[42]
- San Francisco Chronicle: "It could get even more twisted. To avoid the need for a state vote, a public agency might seek private financing, which costs more than public borrowing. There’s also the fear factor. Instead of taking on a project to improve a port, widen a bridge or build a medical center, public agencies might do nothing to avoid the uncertainty of a statewide vote that might be two years away. The problems with initiatives like this one are almost too many to list."[43]
- San Francisco Examiner: "This measure would require state votes to approve local projects — a bad idea."[44]
- San Mateo Daily Journal recommended a "No" vote on Proposition 53.[45]
- Santa Cruz Sentinel: "But practically every major player and organization in state politics is also opposed, including the California Chamber of Commerce and state labor leaders, who aren’t often in agreement."[46]
- Ventura County Star: "One of the proposition's many problems is that once it is part of the constitution, it also could stop future worthwhile projects. It would require statewide votes on revenue bond projects that might benefit only a small area of the state and are supported by those residents. Why should someone in Ventura be voting on a revenue bond project for a big ticket item in Shasta County?"[47]
Other opinions
The Modesto Bee editorial board did not take a position on Proposition 53, but did say the following regarding its potential impact on Gov. Jerry Brown's plans:
| “ |
Having been rebuked by the voters 33 years ago, the governor has been trying to remove the public from any decision regarding the Delta – leaving it up big water users instead. Cortopassi’s initiative has the potential to block this sneak attack on Northern California’s water. We’ll need to learn more about the No Blank Checks initiative before we take a position on whether it’s good for California’s future. Opponents include labor unions and others, and some of their arguments appear valid, while others are perhaps overstated; reading the Legislative Analyst’s review left it unclear. But we will say this much now: Brown deserves what he got.[5] |
” |
Polls
- See also: Polls, 2016 ballot measures
- The Public Policy Institute of California asked residents about their support for "requiring statewide voter approval for revenue bonds" in mid January 2016. Approximately 70 percent of respondents said they supported a voter-approval requirement. The issue was supported most strongly by Republicans in comparison to independents and Democrats.[48]
| California Proposition 53 (2016) | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poll | Support | Oppose | Undecided | Margin of error | Sample size | ||||||||||||||
| The Public Policy Institute of California 1/10/2016 - 1/19/2016 | 70.0% | 22.0% | 8.0% | +/-3.5 | 1,704 | ||||||||||||||
| Note: A "0%" finding means the candidate was not a part of the poll. The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org. | |||||||||||||||||||
Path to the ballot
- See also: California signature requirements
15-0003 petition
- Dean Cortopassi submitted a letter requesting a title and summary for Initiative #15-0003 on January 7, 2015.
- A title and summary were issued for Initiative #15-0003 by the Attorney General of California's office on March 13, 2015.
- 585,407 valid signatures were required for qualification purposes.
- Supporters had until September 10, 2015, to collect the required signatures.
- Proposition 53 became eligible for the November 2016 ballot, per the Secretary of State's office, on November 2, 2015.[49]
Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired National Petition Management, Inc. to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $2,669,093.95 was spent to collect the 585,407 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $4.56.
Failed 14-0009 version
There was a previous version of the Public Vote on Bonds initiative (#15-0003), Initiative #14-0009, submitted for the ballot in 2014, but it failed to qualify.[50] Business executive Dean Cortopassi backed both Initiative #14-0009 and Initiative #15-0003.[51][52][53]
- Dean Cortopassi submitted a letter requesting a title and summary for Initiative #14-0009 on June 27, 2014.
- A title and summary were issued for Initiative #14-0009 by the Attorney General of California's office on August 21, 2014.
- Supporters had until January 20, 2015, to collect the required 807,615 valid signatures for Initiative #14-0009.
- The initiative failed to qualify for the ballot on February 2, 2015.
| Fact check/Does an increase in the number of propositions on the ballot in California lead to more of those propositions being rejected by voters? | |
| We examined the election results for statewide propositions on the ballot between 1912 and 2014 to determine if there is a simple correlation between the number of propositions on the ballot and the proportion of propositions that are rejected by voters. In elections with more than 13 propositions, the average number of propositions on the ballot per election during the period, voters rejected 44 percent of propositions. In elections with 13 or fewer statewide propositions on the ballot, 42 percent were rejected. Read Ballotpedia's fact check » | |
State profile
This excerpt is reprinted here with the permission of the 2016 edition of the Almanac of American Politics and is up to date as of the publication date of that edition. All text is reproduced verbatim, though links have been added by Ballotpedia staff. To read the full chapter on California, click here.
Both sides of America's political divide have taken the opportunity to emphasize how different California is from the rest of the country. After the 2016 presidential election, supporters of Donald Trump complained that were it not for Hillary Clinton's margin of victory in California, Trump would have won the popular vote. For their part, California's Democratic politicians have taken a leading role in opposing Trump's vision for America; some Californians are even flirting with seceding from the union, though "Calexit" faces constitutional obstacles that make it highly improbable. Despite such antagonism, California and the United States need each other, even if it no longer seems like it.
Americans have long thought of California as the Golden State -- a distant and dreamy land initially, then as a shaper of culture and as a promised land for millions of Americans and immigrants for many decades. America's most populous state remains in many ways a great success story. But in ...(read more)
| Demographic data for California | ||
|---|---|---|
| California | U.S. | |
| Total population: | 38,993,940 | 316,515,021 |
| Land area (sq mi): | 155,779 | 3,531,905 |
| Gender | ||
| Female: | 50.3% | 50.8% |
| Race and ethnicity** | ||
| White: | 61.8% | 73.6% |
| Black/African American: | 5.9% | 12.6% |
| Asian: | 13.7% | 5.1% |
| Native American: | 0.7% | 0.8% |
| Pacific Islander: | 0.4% | 0.2% |
| Two or more: | 4.5% | 3% |
| Hispanic/Latino: | 38.4% | 17.1% |
| Education | ||
| High school graduation rate: | 81.8% | 86.7% |
| College graduation rate: | 31.4% | 29.8% |
| Income | ||
| Median household income: | $61,818 | $53,889 |
| Persons below poverty level: | 18.2% | 11.3% |
| Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015)
**Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here. | ||
Presidential voting pattern
- See also: Presidential voting trends in California
California voted for the Democratic candidate in all five presidential elections between 2000 and 2016.
More California coverage on Ballotpedia
- Elections in California
- United States congressional delegations from California
- Public policy in California
- Influencers in California
- California fact checks
- More...
Related measures
2016
Recent news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms California Proposition 53 Bonds. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
See also
External links
Basic information
- Letter requesting a ballot title for Initiative 14-0009
- Letter requesting a ballot title for Initiative 15-0003
- California 2016 Voter Guide
Support
Opposition
Other resources
Footnotes
- ↑ California Attorney General, "Letter requesting a ballot title for Initiative 15-0003," January 7, 2015
- ↑ California Attorney General, "Letter requesting a ballot title for Initiative 14-0009," accessed November 17, 2014
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 California Secretary of State, "California General Election November 8, 2016, Official Voter Information Guide," accessed August 18, 2016
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 California Secretary of State, "Eligible Statewide Initiative Measures," accessed May 13, 2016
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributed to the original source.
- ↑ Yes on Proposition 53, "Homepage," accessed September 15, 2016
- ↑ Sierra Sun Times, “Congressman Tom McClintock Comments on California Ballot Propositions,” October 14, 2016
- ↑ The San Luis Obispo Tribune, "Vote yes on Proposition 53," August 31, 2016
- ↑ California Republican Party, "Ballot Measure Endorsements," accessed September 14, 2016
- ↑ Libertarian Party of California, "Measures," August 21, 2016
- ↑ Yes on Proposition 53, "About Us," accessed September 15, 2016
- ↑ Yes on Proposition 53, "Fact Sheet," accessed September 15, 2016
- ↑ No on Proposition 53, "Homepage," accessed September 15, 2016
- ↑ Green Party of California, “Green Party positions on Statewide Propositions - November 2016 General Election,” October 3, 2016
- ↑ Peace and Freedom Party, "Peace and Freedom Party recommends," accessed September 17, 2016
- ↑ Santa Monica Daily Press, “Endorsements surge as campaigns heat up,” September 17, 2016
- ↑ Harvey Milk Democratic Club, “Official Endorsements for the November 8, 2016 Election,” August 17, 2016
- ↑ 18.00 18.01 18.02 18.03 18.04 18.05 18.06 18.07 18.08 18.09 18.10 No on Proposition 53, "Who We Are," accessed September 15, 2016
- ↑ California Environmental Justice Alliance Action, “2016 Environmental Justice Voter Guide,” accessed October 5, 2016
- ↑ California Federation of Teachers, “Endorsements,” accessed October 3, 2016
- ↑ National Nurses United, “California Endorsements,” accessed October 3, 2016
- ↑ Mother Jones, “California Voters Were Hit With a Blizzard of Ballot Propositions. Here’s Your Cheat Sheet,” October 18, 2016
- ↑ Fox & Hounds, "Prop 53 Gives Taxpayers Less Say, Not More," July 26, 2016
- ↑ CBS Sacramento, "Democrats Promise Dinner With Governor For Donors Who Fight Proposition 53," September 1, 2016
- ↑ 25.0 25.1 25.2 Fair Political Practices Commission, "November 2016 General Election," accessed February 1, 2017
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Campaign Finance: REVENUE BONDS. STATEWIDE VOTER APPROVAL. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.," accessed February 1, 2017
- ↑ 27.0 27.1 27.2 California Secretary of State, "Campaign Finance: CITIZENS TO PROTECT CALIFORNIA INFRASTRUCTURE SPONSORED BY BUSINESS AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES ORGANIZATIONS," accessed February 1, 2017
- ↑ California Fair Political Practices Commission, "November 2016 Election," accessed February 1, 2017
- ↑ The Orange County Register, "Yes on Proposition 53," October 14, 2016
- ↑ Victorville Daily Press, "Our view: Prop 53 deserves yes vote in November," August 27, 2016
- ↑ The Bakersfield Californian, "Our View: Vote NO: Prop. 53 is not taxpayer ‘protection,’" August 25, 2016
- ↑ Contra Costa Times, "Contra Costa Times editorial: Cortopassi measure to scuttle Delta tunnels is a disaster," November 7, 2015
- ↑ East Bay Express, "Vote With Us! The East Bay Express' Endorsements for Election Day 2016," October 11, 2016
- ↑ East Bay Times, "East Bay Times editorial: Reject Prop 53, requiring statewide revenue bond approval," July 21, 2016
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, "The problem Proposition 53 aims to solve is speculative, but the damage it could inflict is very real," September 15, 2016
- ↑ The Mercury News, "Mercury News editorial: Reject Prop 53, requiring statewide revenue bond approval," August 11, 2016
- ↑ Monterey Herald, "Editorial, Sept. 4, 2016: Vote no on Proposition 53, which would just add new problems," September 4, 2016
- ↑ The Record, “Record endorsements: Voters faced with 17 state ballot measures,” October 15, 2016
- ↑ The Sacramento Bee, "Beware of quick fix offered by wealthy farmer’s initiative," September 6, 2016
- ↑ San Diego City Beat, “2016 Voter Guide: State measures,” October 12, 2016
- ↑ San Diego Free Press, "San Diego 2016 Progressive Voter Guide," October 13, 2016
- ↑ San Diego Union-Tribune, "No on Prop. 53: It’s a cumbersome mess," September 13, 2016
- ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "A one-man crusade isn’t the way to run California’s finances," August 31, 2016
- ↑ San Francisco Examiner, "Examiner Endorsements: Statewide ballot measures," October 23, 2016
- ↑ San Mateo Daily Journal, "Editorial: Daily Journal proposition endorsements," October 28, 2016
- ↑ Santa Cruz Sentinel, "Editorial, Sept. 4, 2016: Vote no on Proposition 53, which would just add new problems," September 4, 2016
- ↑ Ventura County Star, "Editorial: Prop. 53 is bad idea that should be rejected," September 26, 2016
- ↑ The Public Policy Institute of California, "Californians & Their Government," January 2016
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Eligible Statewide Initiative Measures," accessed November 18, 2015
- ↑ The Stockton Record, "Ad response gives Cortopassi hope for ballot measure," November 17, 2014
- ↑ California Office of the Attorney General, "14-0009 Re: Request for Title and Summary for Proposed Initiative Constitutional Amendment," June 27, 2014
- ↑ California Office of the Attorney General, "15-0003 Re: Request for Title and Summary for Proposed Initiative Constitutional Amendment," January 7, 2015
- ↑ Bloomberg Business, "Dean A. Cortopassi," accessed May 13, 2016
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
State of California Sacramento (capital) |
|---|---|
| Ballot Measures |
List of California ballot propositions | Local measures | School bond issues | Ballot measure laws | Initiative laws | History of I&R | Campaign Finance Requirements | Recall process | |
| Ballot measures by year |
1910 | 1911 | 1912 | 1914 | 1915 | 1916 | 1919 | 1920 | 1922 | 1924 | 1926 | 1928 | 1930 | 1932 | 1933 | 1934 | 1935 | 1936 | 1938 | 1939 | 1940 | 1942 | 1944 | 1946 | 1948 | 1949 | 1950 | 1952 | 1954 | 1956 | 1958 | 1960 | 1962 | 1964 | 1966 | 1968 | 1970 | 1972 | 1973 | 1974 | 1976 | 1978 | 1980 | 1982 | 1984 | 1986 | 1988 | 1990 | 1992 | 1993 | 1994 | 1996 | 1998 | 2000 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2006 (local) | 2008 | 2008 (local) | 2009 | 2009 (local) | 2010 | 2010 (local) | 2011 (local) | 2012 | 2012 (local) | 2014 | 2016 | |
| Government |
California State Constitution | State Assembly | State Senate | State legislative districts | Legislative Analyst's Office| |
| State executive offices |
Governor | Attorney General | Secretary of State | Controller | Treasurer | State Auditor | Superintendent of Public Instruction | Commissioner of Insurance | Secretary of Agriculture | Secretary for Natural Resources | Director of Industrial Relations | President of Public Utilities | |
| School boards |
California Department of Education | California school districts | |
| Judiciary |
California Supreme Court | Courts of Appeal | Superior Courts | Judicial selection in California | |
| Elections |
Recalls | Vote fraud | 2010 elections | 2012 elections | 2014 elections | Fair Political Practices Commission | |
| Divisions |
List of Counties | List of Cities | List of School Districts | Evaluation of county websites | Evaluation of city websites | Evaluation of school district websites | |
