California Proposition 77, Changes to Legislative and Congressional Redistricting Initiative (2005)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
California Proposition 77
Flag of California.png
Election date
November 8, 2005
Topic
Redistricting measures
Status
Defeatedd Defeated
Type
Constitutional amendment		Origin
Citizens

California Proposition 77, the Changes to Legislative and Congressional Redistricting Initiative, was on the ballot as an initiated constitutional amendment in California on November 8, 2005. It was defeated.

A "yes" vote supported changing the redistricting process for legislative and congressional districts from the state legislature to a panel of three retired justices.

A "no" vote opposed changing the redistricting process for legislative and congressional districts from the state legislature to a panel of three retired justices.


Election results

California Proposition 77

Result Votes Percentage
Yes 3,130,541 40.28%

Defeated No

4,641,633 59.72%
Results are officially certified.
Source


Measure design

The purpose of Proposition 77 was to change the way that legislative redistricting is done after every decennial census. Instead of the legislature redistricting legislative and congressional districts, Proposition 77 proposed that the boundaries be redrawn every ten years by a panel of three retired judges.

California voters had considered and rejected other redistricting ballot propositions in the past, including Proposition 118 in 1990.

Proposition 77 was one of four ballot measures on the 2005 ballot that Arnold Schwarzenegger included in his plan for the state. The other three were Proposition 74, Proposition 75 and Proposition 76. All four were defeated.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Proposition 77 was as follows:

“
Redistricting. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.


”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary for this measure was:

“

• Amends process for redistricting California’s Senate, Assembly, Congressional and Board of Equalization districts.

• Requires panel of three retired judges, selected by legislative leaders, to adopt new redistricting plan if measure passes and after each national census.

• Panel must consider legislative, public comments/hold public hearings.

• Redistricting plan effective when adopted by panel and filed with Secretary of State; governs next statewide primary/general elections even if voters reject plan.

• If voters reject redistricting plan, process repeats, but officials elected under rejected plan serve full terms.

• Allows 45 days to seek judicial review of adopted redistricting plan.		”

Full Text

The full text of this measure is available here.

Constitutional changes

California Constitution
Articles
I • II • III • IV • V • VI • VII • VIII • IX • X • XA • XB • XI • XII • XIII • XIII A • XIII B • XIII C • XIII D • XIV • XV • XVI • XVIII • XIX • XIX A • XIX B • XIX C • XX • XXI • XXII • XXXIV • XXXV

If Proposition 77 had been approved, it would have amended Section 1 of Article XXI.

Fiscal impact

See also: Fiscal impact statement

The fiscal estimate provided by the California Legislative Analyst's Office said:[1]

“
  • One-time costs for a redistricting plan. State costs totaling no more than $1.5 million and county costs in the range of $1 million.
  • Potential reduction in costs for each redistricting effort after 2010, but net impact would depend on decisions by voters.[2]
 ”

Support

Website art from the "Yes on 77" website

Yes on 77 led the campaign in support of Proposition 77.

Supporters

Official arguments

The official voter guide arguments in favor of Proposition 77 were signed by Ted Costa, president of People's Advocate; Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R); and John A. Arguelles, a former justice of the California Supreme Court:[1]

“

THE TIME FOR ACCOUNTABILITY IS NOW! PROPOSITION 77: 'THE VOTER EMPOWERMENT ACT' WILL FINALLY MAKE POLITICIANS ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PEOPLE.

  • Guarantee fair election districts for Californians.
  • Give voters the final say in the process.
  • Reduce special interest influence and money in politics.

YES on Prop. 77: Let the Voters Decide. The Problem: California’s flawed election system allows partisan politicians to draw the boundary lines of their own districts—splitting up towns and even neighborhoods for personal gain. The result: there is no accountability because the incumbents rig the districts to ensure they have NO serious competition, guaranteed re-election, and are NOT accountable to voters. It used to be that voters picked their politicians—now politicians pick their voters. And that’s NOT FAIR.

'California lawmakers are so adept at designing their own districts that of the 153 seats—80 Assembly, 20 state Senate, 53 Congressional—theoretically up for grabs last November (2004), not a single one switched parties.' Wall Street Journal, March 11, 2005

When politicians are not accountable to voters, they become accountable only to their special interest campaign contributors. That’s why we still have record deficits, unbalanced budgets, out-of-control spending, and calls for higher taxes, year after year. Wouldn’t it be better if legislators would work to improve education, cut wasteful government spending, eliminate bureaucracy, and balance the budget once and for all? But that won’t happen until our elected officials start paying attention to us. Under the current system, they only pay attention to their campaign contributors. It’s time for a change.

Prop. 77—The Bipartisan Voter Empowerment Solution

1. Voters will be able to vote on the new redistricting plan. That gives the people of California more power and the special interests less.

2. To ensure district lines that are competitive and fair, a panel of retired judges—selected through a bipartisan process with no political agenda—will draw new district lines according to strict guidelines.

3. Voters then may approve or reject the lines. That puts us, Californians, in charge of our elections.

4. Neighborhoods and communities will matter again. Incumbents will no longer be able to draw their own districts, splitting up towns and neighborhoods in an effort to guarantee their own re-election.

Prop. 77 IS A COMMON SENSE, BIPARTISAN SOLUTION THAT WILL:

  • Guarantee fair, competitive elections for California voters.
  • Give voters the final say in the process.
  • Hold the politicians accountable.
  • Reduce the influence of political money.

Now is the time. After many years of opposing reform, overspending, and gridlock, legislative leaders of both parties finally admitted, this year, that redistricting reform is necessary—that allowing politicians to draw their own districts is a conflict of interest that must be changed.

The opportunity is now. PLEASE JOIN US IN VOTING YES ON PROP. 77 TO:

  • HOLD THE POLITICIANS ACCOUNTABLE!
  • CLEAN UP SACRAMENTO.
  • REDUCE PARTISAN POLITICS.
  • RETURN ELECTORAL CONTROL TO THE PEOPLE.[2]
 ”

Opposition

Website art of the "No on 77" campaign

No on 77 led the campaign in opposition to Proposition 77.

Opponents

Official arguments

The official voter guide arguments opposing Proposition 77 were signed by Daniel H. Lowenstein, a former chair of the California Fair Political Practices Commission; George H. Zenovich, a retired judge; and Henry "Hank" Lacayo, state president of the Congress of California Seniors:[1]

“

Proposition 77 Makes Things Worse

Every time they don’t get their way, politicians cook up new schemes to change the rules. They’ve tried sneaking redistricting schemes past voters four times over the last 25 years, and each time, VOTERS SAID NO! This time, their plan will cost taxpayers millions, and three judges and two courts have ruled it was illegally qualified for the ballot.

Don’t be fooled! Read the fine print. This undemocratic and unfair redistricting scheme has huge loopholes. BIG FLAWS:

1) VOTERS LOSE THEIR RIGHT to reject redistricting plans before they go into effect.

2) POLITICIANS SELECT THE JUDGES to draw their districts for them.

3) Prop. 77 COSTS TAXPAYERS MILLIONS each time they reject redistricting plans.

4) Only 3 UNELECTED JUDGES WILL DECIDE EVERYTHING. That’s not fair or balanced.

5) This unworkable scheme will be CEMENTED INTO OUR CONSTITUTION!

PLANS TAKE EFFECT WITHOUT VOTER APPROVAL Redistricting plans made from Prop. 77 automatically go into effect WITH NO APPROVAL FROM VOTERS. That’s backwards. Voters should approve plans BEFORE they take effect, not afterward. By the time voters have a say, the damage is done. Why won’t they let voters approve the plans first?

POLITICIANS STILL IN CONTROL Under Prop. 77, politicians in the Legislature choose the judges to draw their political districts. Politicians get the best of both worlds—they still pick their voters and now they can hide behind judges. There’s no accountability!

REQUIRES MULTIPLE COSTLY ELECTIONS If voters reject redistricting plans, the entire process starts over—new judges, new plans, more elections, and more political bickering—wasting millions of tax dollars. This could go on indefinitely . . . with election after election . . . until voters finally approve . . . all at TAXPAYER EXPENSE!

GIVES TOO MUCH POWER TO JUST 3 UNACCOUNTABLE JUDGES This redistricting scheme gives too much power to three retired judges to decide the future of 35 million Californians. These unelected judges have nothing to fear by upsetting the will of the voters.

NOT THE WAY TO CHANGE OUR CONSTITUTION Prop. 77 changes our Constitution. But the Constitution is not a place to experiment with California’s future. They’re playing political games with a sacred document.

MOST AREAS OF THE STATE UNREPRESENTED Under Prop. 77, all three judges could be from the same area. That’s not fair. For example, three Northern California judges could break up Southern California communities, or vice versa. Central Valley voters could have no redistricting panel representation at all! What effect would this have on regional issues like WATER RIGHTS and TRANSPORTATION FUNDING? WHY NOW? WHAT’S THEIR MOTIVE?

Redistricting isn’t scheduled to occur until 2011, after the Census gives an update on California’s population. Instead, special interests spent millions of dollars to rush this strange plan onto the special election ballot. What’s their motive?

We do need to reform our government, but Prop. 77 isn’t the answer. VOTE NO ON PROP. 77. IT WON’T MAKE ANYTHING BETTER. www.NoOnProposition77.com[2]

”


Path to the ballot

Signature collection

Clipboard48.png
See also: California signature requirements

In California, the number of signatures required for an initiated constitutional amendment is equal to 8 percent of the votes cast at the preceding gubernatorial election. For initiated amendments filed in 2005, at least 598,105 valid signatures were required.

See also: California ballot initiative petition signature costs

Lawsuit about signatures

  • On July 21, 2005, Superior Court Judge Gail Ohanesian ruled that the qualifying signatures for Proposition 77 were gathered illegally and ordered it removed from the ballot. The basis for her decision was that Proposition 77 supporters had submitted one version of the measure to the California Attorney General to use as the basis for preparation of the official ballot title but used a different version on the petition forms that were circulated for signatures.
  • On August 9, the Court of Appeal ruled that the discrepancies between the two versions of the initiative constituted "a clear violation of the constitutional and statutory procedure for the circulating of an initiative petition."
  • On August 12, the California Supreme Court ruled that "it would not be appropriate to deny the electorate the opportunity to vote" on the measure, thereby placing Proposition 77 back on the ballot.[3]

See also

2005 Measures

California

News and analysis

External links

Supporters:

Opponents:

Footnotes

  1. ↑ 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 1.11 1.12 University of California Hastings, "Voter Guide," accessed April 1, 2021
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
  3. ↑ Institute of Governmental Studies, "Proposition 77," accessed April 1, 2021
Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=California_Proposition_77,_Changes_to_Legislative_and_Congressional_Redistricting_Initiative_(2005)&oldid=8419473"