Your monthly support provides voters the knowledge they need to make confident decisions at the polls. Donate today.
California Public Vote on Pensions Initiative (2016)
| California Public Vote on Pensions Initiative | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 8, 2016 | |
| Topic Pension | |
| Status Not on the ballot | |
| Type Constitutional amendment | Origin Citizens |
A California Public Vote on Pensions Initiative (#15-0033) did not make the November 8, 2016, ballot in California as an initiated constitutional amendment.[1]
The measure would have required a public vote on "the amount of and manner in which compensation and retirement benefits are provided to employees of a government employer."
In early October 2015, backers decided to drop the measure after the California Attorney General determined the measure would take pension benefits away from current employees. The campaign would have been led by a collection of politicians, businesspersons, former San Diego City Councilman Carl DeMaio (R) and former San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed (D).[2][3]
Text of measure
Ballot title:
Official summary:
- "Eliminates constitutional protections for vested pension and retiree healthcare benefits for current public employees, including those working in K-12 schools, higher education, hospitals, and police protection, for future work performed. Adds initiative/referendum powers to Constitution, for determining public employee compensation and retirement benefits. Bars government employers from enrolling new employees in defined benefit plans, paying more than one-half cost of new employees’ retirement benefits, or enhancing retirement benefits, unless first approved by voters. Limits placement of financial conditions upon government employers closing defined benefit plans to new employees."
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.
- "Significant effects—savings and costs—on state and local governments relating to compensation for governmental employees. The magnitude and timing of these effects would depend heavily on future decisions made by voters, governmental employers, and the courts."
Noteworthy events
The campaign supporting the initiative said that the text of the measure was attempting "to mislead the public." Attorney General Harris (D) faced similar accusations over the text she wrote for a pension reform initiative in 2014. In a joint statement, Chuck Reed and Carl DeMaio stated, "This simple initiative gives voters the ability to stop sweetheart and unsustainable pension deals that politicians concoct behind closed doors with government union bosses. That’s why the politicians and union bosses oppose this initiative – and why they continue to try to mislead the public on what the initiative does."[4]
Harris' office responded, saying, "We issued a title and summary that is based on independent analyses and gives voters a clear and accurate description of the proposed initiative."
Support
Arguments
In the "Statements of Finding and Purpose" of the letter to the California Attorney General requesting a ballot title and summary, sponsors of the initiative wrote:
| “ | (A) Government has an obligation to provide essential services that protect the safety, health, welfare, and quality of life enjoyed by all Californians. Unfortunately, state and local governments face a severe financial crisis due to unsustainable compensation and retirement benefits granted to government employees by state and local politicians. Without reform, California taxpayers face a future of a massive public debt requiring the elimination or reduction of even basic essential services.
(B) Almost all of these disastrous financial decisions were made without the approval or consent of the voters. (C) State and local politicians, government agencies, and courts have blocked common-sense efforts to address this financial crisis. Consequently, the need to empower voters and clarify their rights with respect to compensation and retirement benefits for government employees is a matter of statewide concern. (D) Therefore, the people hereby amend the Constitution to reserve to themselves the power to approve or reject compensation and retirement benefits of government employees.[5] |
” |
| —Chuck Reed, Stephanie Gomes, Carl DeMaio, Pat Morris, Bill Kampe and Tom Tait[1] | ||
Opposition
The Californians for Retirement Security website said:
| “ | Contrary to its misleading name, this ballot measure is a sweeping attack on the retirement security of teachers, nurses, firefighters, peace officers and other public servants.[5] | ” |
| —Californians for Retirement Security[6] | ||
Polls
While some commentators speculated that a pension reform initiative would encourage high turnout amongst opponents, a poll commissioned by reform supporters found that a "solid majority of voters," except those in the San Francisco area, "agree that pension reform should come before the consideration of any tax increases." The poll found bipartisanship on the issue, with about 50 percent of interviewees, including 46 percent of Democrats, saying they would vote for a politician from a party different from their own if that politician supported pension reform. The poll question asked:
| “ | Would you vote yes – in favor of – or no against – a ballot measure that would give voters the right to reform pension benefits for state and local government workers, would require voter approval before obligating taxpayers to guarantee lifetime pension benefits for new state and local government employees, and would require new government employees to contribute at least half the cost of their retirement benefits?[5] | ” |
| —cited in The San Diego Union-Tribune[7] | ||
Path to the ballot
- See also: California signature requirements
- Carl DeMaio, Stephanie Gomes, Bill Kampe, Pat Morris, Chuck Reed and Tom Tait submitted a letter requesting a title and summary on June 5, 2015.
- A title and summary were issued by California's attorney general on August 11, 2015.
- 585,407 valid signatures will be required for qualification purposes.
- Supporters had until February 8, 2016, to collect the required signatures.
- Backers behind the initiative decided to drop the measure in early October 2015 because Attorney General Kamala Harris found that if passed, the measure would take vested pension benefits away from current employees. Supporters said they would try again with a similar initiative.[3]
See also
Additional reading
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 California Attorney General, "Letter requesting a ballot title for Initiative 15-0033," June 5, 2015
- ↑ Sacramento Bee, "California pension reformers rev up for 2016 ballot," March 12, 2015
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 The Washington Times, "Backers of California pension overhaul alter ballot language," October 5, 2015
- ↑ Sacramento Bee, "California pension reform backers slam Kamala Harris’ summary," August 11, 2015
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Californians for Retirement Security, "Q&A about the DeMaio/Reed pension ballot measure," accessed December 28, 2015
- ↑ The San Diego Union-Tribune, "Poll: Pension reform energizes voters," May 6, 2015
 |
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 |
