California Proposition 40, State Senate Redistricting Plan Referendum (2012)

California Proposition 40
Election date November 6, 2012
Topic Redistricting measures
Status a Approved
Type Referendum	Origin Citizens

2012 propositions
June 5
Proposition 28
Proposition 29
November 6
Proposition 30
Proposition 31
Proposition 32
Proposition 33
Proposition 34
Proposition 35
Proposition 36
Proposition 37
Proposition 38
Proposition 39
Proposition 40
Donations • Vendors
Endorsements • Full text
Ballot titles • Fiscal impact
Local measures

California Proposition 40 was on the ballot as a veto referendum in California on November 6, 2012. It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported upholding the state Senate districts drawn by the Citizens Redistricting Commission, which were certified by the commission on August 15, 2011, and that took effect on June 5, 2012.

A "no" vote supported repealing the state Senate districts drawn by the Citizens Redistricting Commission, which were certified by the commission on August 15, 2011, and that took effect on June 5, 2012.

Election results

California Proposition 40
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		8,354,158	71.94%
No		3,258,740	28.06%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

What did Proposition 40 do?

See also: Text of measure

Proposition 40 was a veto referendum asking voters to uphold or reject the California State Senate redistricting plan approved by the California Citizens Redistricting Commission. The redistricting maps were certified by the commission on August 15, 2011, and took effect on June 5, 2012. A yes vote was a vote to uphold the maps, and a no vote was a vote to reject the maps.

What is the California Citizens Redistricting Commission?

See also: California Citizens Redistricting Commission

The California Citizens Redistricting Commission was created by the passage of California Proposition 11 in 2008. At the time of the 2012 election, the commission consisted of 14 members—five Republicans, five Democrats, and four unaffiliated with either party. At the time of the election, the commission was tasked with drawing new Congressional, state legislative, and state board of equalization boundaries after every census.

Who supports upholding and repealing Proposition 40?

See also: Support to uphold and Support to repeal

Yes on 40 led the campaign in support of upholding the lines drawn by the commission. The campaign was endorsed by AARP California, California Chamber of Commerce, League of Women Voters of California, and National Federation of Independent Business - California.

The sponsors of the veto referendum decided not to campaign for a "no" vote after the California Supreme Court intervened and maintained existing district lines through the 2012 election. Referendum sponsor Julie Vandermost, said, "As the Official Sponsor of Proposition 40, our intention was to make sure its qualification for the ballot would stop the current Senate District lines from being implemented in 2012. The Supreme Court reviewed the process and intervened to keep district lines in place. With the court’s action, this measure is not needed and we are no longer asking for a NO vote."

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Proposition 40 was as follows:

“

Redistricting. State Senate Districts. Referendum.

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary for this measure was:

“

-A 'Yes' vote approves, and a 'No' vote rejects, new State Senate districts drawn by the Citizens Redistricting Commission. -If the new districts are rejected, the State Senate district boundary lines will be adjusted by officials supervised by the California Supreme Court. -State Senate districts are revised every 10 years following the federal census.

”

Full Text

The full text of this measure is available here.

Fiscal impact statement

See also: Fiscal impact statements for California's 2012 ballot propositions

The following is a summary of the initiative's estimated fiscal impact on state and local government that was prepared by the California Legislative Analyst's Office and the Director of Finance.

“

If the voters vote “yes” and approve the Senate district maps certified by the commission, there would be no effect on state or local governments. If the voters vote “no” and reject the Senate district maps certified by the commission, the California Supreme Court would appoint special masters to establish new Senate district boundaries. This would result in a one-time cost to the state of about $500,000. In addition, counties would incur one-time costs of about $500,000 statewide to develop new precinct maps and related election materials for the districts.

”

Support to uphold

"Yes on Prop 40" website logo

Yes on 40 led the campaign in support of Proposition 40, thereby upholding the Redistricting Commission lines.

Supporters of a "yes" vote

Organizations

• AARP California
• California Chamber of Commerce
• League of Women Voters of California
• National Federation of Independent Business - California

Individuals

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

Official arguments

The following is the argument in support of upholding Proposition 40 found in the Official Voter Information Guide:

Official Voter Information Guide: YES ON 40 PROTECTS THE VOTER-APPROVED INDEPENDENT CITIZENS REDISTRICTING COMMISSION A YES vote on Prop. 40 means that the State Senate maps drawn by the voter-approved independent Citizens Redistricting Commission will remain in place. A NO vote on Prop. 40 gives the politicians an opportunity to overturn the fair districts drawn by the independent Commission—costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars in the process. PROP. 40 IS A SIMPLE CHOICE BETWEEN THE VOTER-APPROVED CITIZENS COMMISSION AND SELF-INTERESTED POLITICIANS In 2008, California voters approved Proposition 11, which created the independent Citizens Redistricting Commission to draw the district maps for the State Senate and State Assembly. Before Prop. 11, the politicians in the state Legislature drew their own uncompetitive districts, virtually guaranteeing themselves re-election. Now, a small group of Sacramento politicians is unhappy with the results of the State Senate maps drawn by the independent Commission. These politicians are using this referendum to try to get their uncompetitive districts back. THE POLITICIANS HAVE ALREADY FAILED IN COURT When the same politicians tried a lawsuit against the State Senate maps, the California Supreme Court ruled unanimously against them: “. . . not only do the Commission-certified Senate districts appear to comply with all of the constitutionally mandated criteria set forth in the California Constitution, article XXI, theCommission-certified Senate districts also are a product of what generally appears to have been an open, transparent and nonpartisan redistricting process as called for by the current provisions of article XXI.” Vandermost v. Bowen (2012) We welcome you to read the whole ruling: www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S198387.PDF YES ON PROPOSITION 40 UPHOLDS THE WILL OF CALIFORNIA VOTERS California voters have voted three times in the last four years to have district maps drawn by an independent Commission, not the politicians: • Yes on Proposition 11 (2008): created the independent Citizens Redistricting Commission to draw the maps for the State Assembly and State Senate • Yes on Proposition 20 (2010): extended Prop. 11’s reforms to California’s Congressional districts • No on Proposition 27 (2010): rejected politicians’ attempt to eliminate the independent Commission and give the power to draw their own legislative districts back to the politicians YES ON PROPOSITION 40—HOLDS POLITICIANS ACCOUNTABLE The passage of Proposition 11 and Proposition 20 and the defeat of Proposition 27 created a fair redistricting process that doesn’t involve Sacramento politicians! Because of these voter-approved reforms, for the first time in decades, the independent Commission drew fair districts for state legislators and Congress, starting with the 2012 elections. These redistricting reforms have put an end to political backroom deals by ensuring the process is transparent and open to the public. And, politicians are no longer guaranteed re-election, but are held accountable to voters and have to respond to constituent needs. “The Commission took politicians out of the process and returned power to the voters.”—John Kabateck, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Business/California VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 40—STOP POLITICIANS FROM OVERTURNING VOTER-APPROVED ELECTION REFORM www.HoldPoliticiansAccountable.org Jennifer A. Waggoner, president of the League of Women Voters of California; David Pacheco, president of AARP California; and Allan Zaremberg, president of the California Chamber of Commerce

Support to repeal

No on 40 campaign, also called Fair Districts 2012, sponsored the referendum to repeal the senate district lines adopted by the Citizens Redistricting Commission. In July 2012, the campaign withdrew efforts to obtain a "no" vote on Proposition 40 after the California Supreme Court intervened.

Official arguments

The following is the argument in support of a repeal of Proposition 40 found in the Official Voter Information Guide:

Official Voter Information Guide: "As sponsors of Proposition 40, our intention was to overturn the commission’s State Senate districts for 2012. However, due to the State Supreme Court’s ruling that kept these districts in place for 2012, we have suspended our campaign and no longer seek a NO vote." Julie Vandermost, sponsor of Proposition 40

Media editorials

Support

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

• The Orange County Register Editorial Board: "There is no doubt that there were some valid concerns about the new citizens redistricting panel, including that some interests succeeded in packing the panel with their supporters. Still, the citizens panel is preferable to again having lawmakers draw their own districts, in essence, picking their own voters. The new process focused a brighter spotlight than usual on redistricting and brought it out from behind closed-door meetings."
• The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board: "A 'yes' vote would save state and local governments $1 million. A 'no' vote would waste $1 million."
• The San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Board: "California voters have twice expressed their determination to put the job of drawing legislative districts in the hands of an independent commission instead of self-interested politicians. It was the right thing to do when some Democrats feared that a fair process might cost them seats - since they control the Legislature - and it remains the right thing to do now that it's the Republicans who are alarmed at losing ground under partisan-blind criteria."
• The Santa Cruz Sentinel Editorial Board: "If you have questions about why California voters are bombarded every election with a lengthy list of ballot measures, Proposition 40 on the Nov. 6 ballot is a poster child for all that is confusing, unnecessary and misleading about this process."
• The Ventura County Star Editorial Board: "By voting yes on Proposition 40, Californians will affirm the new Senate districts and send a message to the commission: Nice job."
• The Bakersfield Californian Editorial Board: "Proposition 40 hasn't generated as much smoke as other initiatives on the Nov. 6 ballot, and with good reason: Its original backers have thrown in the towel. They're no longer campaigning. So why are we bothering to endorse it? Two reasons: Prop. 40 remains on the ballot nonetheless, and, because it's classified as a veto referendum, voters' choices may seem counterintuitive. Yes essentially means no and no means yes. Here's all you need to know: Vote yes."
• The Contra Costa Times Editorial Board: "A yes vote upholds the redistricting of the state's legislative and congressional districts drawn up by a citizens' committee, created by a vote of the people in the first place."
• The Fresno Bee Editorial Board: "The citizens commission's work was not perfect, but commissioners followed their voter-approved mandate by holding public hearings and by drawing districts that didn't favor incumbents. But Republicans, who supported creating the independent commission, didn't like how the Senate maps turned out. Disagreements will occur in such a process, but the system needs time to work before its work is challenged."
• The Lompoc Record Editorial Board: "If Prop. 40 is voted down, the state Supreme Court will be required to name a special master, whose task will be to redraw state Senate district lines — which have already been redrawn and approved. If Prop. 40 goes down, taxpayers will be on the hook for at least a half-million bucks to pay for the process of completing a job that’s already been completed."
• The Los Angeles Daily News Editorial Board: "Voting yes will safeguard a key element of California's latest round of political reforms, a change that the public demanded -- and then expanded and reaffirmed in recent years."
• The Los Angeles Times Editorial Board: "Voting for Proposition 40 upholds the work of the redistricting commission. That work was done fairly and in nonpartisan fashion, and even those who once questioned it have come around."
• The Marin Independent Journal Editorial Board: "Voting for Proposition 40 is another statement by voters that they support the citizens commission. While the new lines aren't perfect, they make a lot more sense than those drawn by ambition- and power-driven politicians."
• The Merced Sun-Star Editorial Board: "After the state Supreme Court upheld the maps, Republicans abandoned their effort, but did so too late. So this confusing measure remains on the Nov. 6 ballot."

Opposition

You can share campaign information or arguments, along with source links for this information, at editor@ballotpedia.org.

Campaign finance

See also: Ballot measure campaign finance, 2012

Ballotpedia identified two committees registered in support of a "yes" vote.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$1,019,475.00	$2,139,954.81	$3,159,429.81	$1,209,050.05	$3,349,004.86
Oppose	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00
Total	$1,019,475.00	$2,139,954.81	$3,159,429.81	$1,209,050.05	$3,349,004.86

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in support of a "yes" vote.

Committees in support of Proposition 40
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
F.A.I.R. - Fairness and Accountability in Redistricting Ballot Measure Committee	$839,375.00	$1,546,437.20	$2,385,812.20	$625,844.69	$2,172,281.89
Yes on 40 - Hold Politicians Accountable	$180,100.00	$593,517.61	$773,617.61	$583,205.36	$1,176,722.97
Total	$1,019,475.00	$2,139,954.81	$3,159,429.81	$1,209,050.05	$3,349,004.86

Donors

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

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
California Republican Party	$193,000.00	$1,546,437.20	$1,739,437.20
Charles T. Munger	$90,000.00	$509,102.00	$599,102.00
Senator Bob Dutton for Supervisor 2014	$125,000.00	$0.00	$125,000.00
Small Business Action Committee PAC, No on 30, Yes on 32	$0.00	$83,664.80	$83,664.80
Friends of Mimi Walters for Senate 2012	$75,500.00	$0.00	$75,500.00

Methodology

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

Path to the ballot

See also: California signature requirements and California ballot initiative petition signature costs

Process in California

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in California

A veto referendum is a citizen-initiated ballot measure that asks voters whether to uphold or repeal an enacted law. This type of ballot measure is also called statute referendum, popular referendum, people's veto, or citizen's veto. There are 23 states that allow citizens to initiate veto referendums.

In California, the number of signatures required for a veto referendum is equal to 5% of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election. Signatures for veto referendums are due 90 days following the final adjournment of the legislative session at which the targeted bill was passed. A simple majority vote is required for voter approval.

The requirements to get veto referendums certified for the 2012 ballot:

• Signatures: 504,760 valid signatures were required.
• Deadline: The deadline for signature verification was November 13, 2011.

Stages of this ballot initiative

The following is the timeline of the initiative:

• August 16, 2011: The letter requesting a title and summary for the proposed referendum was signed by Charles H. Bell, Jr. and was received by the Attorney General of California's office.
• August 26, 2011: The summary was provided by the attorney general and a circulation deadline of November 13, 2011, was given to the referendum.
• November 13, 2011: Sponsors of the referendum turned in 710,924 signatures in 57 of California's 58 counties by the deadline.
• February 24, 2012: The California Secretary of State's office announced that the measure had qualified for the ballot.

See also

2012 Measures

• 2012 Measures
• Redistricting policy on the ballot
• 2012 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

• November 2012 official voter guide
• Ballot title, summary and LAO analysis of Proposition 40
• Arguments for and against Proposition 40 in the official state voter guide