Local ballot measure elections in 2015

2016 → ← 2014
2015 Local Ballot Measures
By election date
By state
By topic
	Election stats • Measures • TopicsLocal election costs Local pension measures Pension Hotspots Reports Notable measures Fracking • GMOs • Marijuana • Minimum wage • Sports arenas • Other School bonds & taxes; Approval rates of School bonds and taxes 2015 statewide ballot measures
All about Local Measures; Calendar • Local news

This page is a summary of all the local 2015 ballot measure elections covered by Ballotpedia. Staff writers covered all local ballot measure elections in California and a selection of local ballot measures based on widespread interest in the issue at stake and the size of the population affected by the measure. Local ballot measure elections occur in all 50 states. See 2015 ballot measures for a review of all statewide ballot measures in the country in 2015.

Notable topics

Ballotpedia covered the following notable local topics in detail in 2015:

Fracking

See also: Local fracking on the ballot

On March 3, 2015, voters in La Habra Heights, California, rejected an initiative designed to ban all new oil and gas wells, all fracking and the reactivation of old, unused wells.

The city council of Hermosa Beach, California, put a measure before voters on March 3, 2015, that would have provided an exemption to the city's ban on oil and gas drilling as well as fracking to allow a company called E&B Natural Resources Management Corporation to operate 30 production wells and four injection wells within the city. It was also defeated.

Backed by the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, many local groups in Ohio pushed for initiatives to either establish or amend local county and city charters to include a "community bill of rights." According to the loose template being followed, the bill of rights measures included the rights of the people to a clean, clear and unpolluted natural environment and to local control over issues such as fracking. Moreover, the bill of rights measures generally included a provision granting natural ecosystems the rights to exist and thrive and giving community residents legal standing to defend these rights in court. Proponents of the initiatives, who targeted the election on November 3, 2015, also proposed prohibitions against fracking and other oil and gas extraction methods as a means to protecting these rights. Bill of rights initiatives were proposed in the following locations:
d The city of Youngstown - This initiative was rejected by the Mahoning County Board of Elections, but then put back on the ballot by the Ohio Supreme Court. This initiative was the fifth time voters decided the issue in three years.
Meigs County - An appeals court decision rejected this initiative.
Portage County - The initiative was not put on the ballot.
Athens County - This initiative was rejected by Ohio secretary of state.
The city of Columbus - Proponents failed to turn in enough valid signatures and said they would try again in 2016.
Fulton County - This initiative was rejected by Ohio secretary of state.
Medina County - This initiative was rejected by Ohio secretary of state.

Petitioners in Athens, Fulton and Medina counties filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted's (R) rejection of the proposed county charters. The Ohio Supreme Court ruled against the petitioners and agreed that the charters, as written, were invalid because they did not propose an alternative form of government. The court did not rule on whether or not state law preempted the oil and gas-related provisions in the proposals.^[1]

Activists in Monterey County, California, set their sights on the election in November 2016 for an initiative to ban fracking and other extreme oil extraction methods. Proponents began discussing and formulating a possible initiative after the board of supervisors voted against enacting a two-year moratorium on fracking on March 19, 2014. In August 2015, the group announced that it was working on fundraising and would start gathering the 7,391 valid signatures required soon after January 1, 2016.^[2]

Housing

San Francisco featured some of the most notable local measures in California in 2015. Housing was one of the most important issues in the city's 2015 election. Gabriel Metcalf, president and CEO of public policy research company SPUR, said, “It’s the No. 1 issue in every poll.” Five propositions on the ballot dealt with housing and development, either directly or indirectly, and proposed solutions for the housing availability issues facing the city were essential to candidate platforms. Voters decided housing-related propositions that addressed affordable housing bonds, restrictions on short-term rentals, a moratorium on market-rate construction in the city's Mission District, housing developments on surplus public lands and a specific development proposal on the waterfront.^[3]

The most notable housing-related measure on the ballot in San Francisco was Proposition F, which was designed to restrict short-term rentals. Proposition F was sometimes called the "Airbnb Initiative," since it would have allowed the city to impose penalties on the short-term rental platform Airbnb for allowing posts that violated Proposition F. Airbnb contributed over $8 million to the opposition campaign against Proposition F, which was defeated.^[4]

GMOs

See also: Local GMO on the ballot

On December 16, 2014, petitioners backing an initiative seeking to ban genetically modified organisms in Benton County, Oregon, turned in enough signatures to put Measure 2-89 before voters on May 19, 2015. It was defeated, with more than 70 percent of voters rejecting it.^[5]

Meanwhile, an initiative designed to prohibit GMOs in Jackson County, Oregon, became effective on June 5, 2015, after an initial court decision ruled the initiative did not violate state law. The measure was approved by voters on May 20, 2014. The delayed enforcement of the initiative was caused by a lawsuit brought against the measure by two alfalfa farmers in the county. After plaintiffs failed to invalidate the law in court, they sought damages in the amount of over $4 million. The county proposed a settlement that would allow any farmers that signed on to keep certain GMO crops for up to eight years.^[6]

Minimum wage

See also: Local wages and pay on the ballot

The Los Angeles Workers Assembly was cleared to begin circulating an initiative seeking a $15 per hour minimum wage in the city of Los Angeles on September 9, 2014. On May 19, 2015, the Los Angeles City Council voted 14-1 in favor of an ordinance to increase the city's minimum wage from $9 per hour to $15 per hour by 2020.^[7]

Activists also qualified an initiative for the ballot in Tacoma, Washington, seeking a $15 per hour minimum wage. Tacoma voters saw the measure on their November ballot. When the initiative was certified for the ballot, the city council voted to put an alternative minimum wage measure, Initiative No. 1B, on the ballot as well. Initiative 1B was designed to increase the city's minimum wage to $12 per hour by 2018. Voters chose the city council's alternative, Initiative No. 1B, over the $15 per hour minimum wage initiative sponsored by 15 Now Tacoma.

On November 3, 2015, voters in Portland, Maine, also rejected an initiative seeking a $15 per hour city minimum wage. The proposal, Question 1, was rejected by about 58 percent of city voters.

In Kansas City, Missouri, voters were scheduled to see two ballot measures concerning the city's minimum wage on November 3, 2015. Advocates of the possible measures lined up on opposite sides of the ordinance approved by the city council on July 16, 2015, to raise the city's lowest legal wage to $13 per hour by 2020. On one side, a coalition called Missourians for Fair Wages had until August 24, 2015, to turn in signatures for a veto referendum targeting the city's ordinance. They were successful and a referendum was triggered. On the other side, a coalition of activists collected enough signatures to qualify an initiative for the ballot that was designed to increase the city's minimum wage in phases to $15 per hour by 2020. Missouri legislators, however, passed a bill that forbade cities and counties from enacting local minimum wages. Following the approval of this bill, Kansas City Attorney Bill Geary took steps to remove both measures from the ballot.

Marijuana

See also: Local marijuana on the ballot & Local marijuana tax on the ballot

In Brownsville, Oregon, where both medical and recreational marijuana facilities were outlawed by the city council, voters saw an advisory question concerning whether the city should lift the prohibition on May 19, 2015. They rejected the measure, with about 65 percent of voters saying they were against the operation of recreational or medical marijuana facilities within the city.

Voters in the Nashville-Davidson County Metro in Tennessee had the chance to see marijuana on their local ballots for the first time. The Tennessee branch of NORML tried to qualify an initiative for the election ballot on August 6, 2015, that would have prohibited the use of any metro tax dollars to criminally prosecute any adult for possession of less than two ounces of marijuana. Ultimately, however, the group failed to meet the signature deadline on May 18, 2015, collecting only 4,000 signatures out of the more than 6,800 required for a successful initiative petition.

On the path to this decriminalization initiative, the group filed a lawsuit seeking an important ballot law change as well. NORML teamed up with a group called Democracy Nashville to sue the Davidson County election commission in an effort to allow the use of electronic signatures to qualify initiative measures for the ballot.

An organization called Kansas For Change was behind an initiative in Wichita seeking to decriminalize marijuana in the largest city in the state of Kansas. The measure was approved.

This year, local activists also worked to put measures concerning medical marijuana dispensaries before voters in the town of Yucca Valley and the cities of Riverside, Upland and Costa Mesa in California. Voters rejected both Measure A in Riverside and Measure X in Yucca Valley on June 2, 2015. The initiative in Upland and the two measures in Costa Mesa were pushed back by the city councils to November 2016 because the cities argued that the measures were designed to impose fees or taxes, requiring them to go on a general election ballot. Proponents of the measures in Costa Mesa filed a lawsuit over the postponed election date. In Upland, where a lawsuit was also filed over the election date, proponents of the initiative filed paperwork for another initiative they hope to force onto a special election ballot in 2015.

In Ohio, where activists are also working toward legalization statewide, voters in Toledo approved a marijuana decriminalization initiative, Issue 1, on September 15, 2015, making their city the first in the state to enact a local marijuana decriminalization or legalization law.

Two decriminalization questions in Montrose and East Lansing, Michigan, were also postponed from the election on November 4, 2014, to 2015 elections. East Lansing voters approved decriminalization on May 5, 2015. On February 24, 2015, voters in Montrose, Michigan, defeated the initiative that would have decriminalized small amounts of marijuana according to local law.

Following the approval of Alaska's marijuana legalization initiative in 2014, opponents of legal recreational marijuana filed initiatives designed to ban commercial marijuana in Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Houston and the borough's seat, Palmer. Sponsors of all three initiatives targeted October 6, 2015, as the election date for their initiatives. The borough-wide measure failed to qualify for that election. The initiatives were put before voters in Palmer and Houston. Palmer voters approved their measure, but Houston voters rejected the proposed marijuana ban.

Voters in Portage, Michigan, decided a marijuana decriminalization measure on November 3, 2015. According to unofficial election results, the measure was ahead by a small margin.

In Colorado, one of the first states to legalize marijuana, Denver voters had a chance to vote on a measure called the "Limited Social Marijuana Consumption" initiative in November 2015. If enacted, this measure would have replaced the city's ban on public consumption with rules for recreational pot use for adults at privately owned clubs, restaurants, bars and other licensed locations. The initiative failed to qualify for an election ballot in 2015. Voters approved a measure that let the city continue a locally imposed sales tax on marijuana and authorized the city to keep extra revenue it collected from the sales tax in 2014.

Pensions

See also: Local pensions on the ballot

The Phoenix City Council referred a charter amendment, Proposition 103, to the election ballot scheduled for August 25, 2015, offering voters the fourth pension reform measure in three years. Opponents called the proposal a mere patch where a complete overhaul was required. Supporters said the measure would save taxpayers money by helping to stop pension spiking and offering reforms that everyone supported. The council's 6-3 vote to put the measure on the ballot came several months after voters rejected Proposition 487, a more ambitions citizen-initiated pension reform proposal, on November 4, 2014. Proposition 103 was approved.

Development

See also: Local zoning, land use and development on the ballot

By a margin of just 5 percent, voters in Redondo Beach, California, narrowly defeated a measure concerning the removal of an electricity plant and the approval of zoning for a waterfront development.

On May 9, 2015, voters in San Antonio, Texas, decided the fate of an initiative designed to require voter approval of any light rail or streetcar projects in or through the city. The initiative was approved.

On May 19, 2015, voters in the city of Buena Park, California, decided Measure A, an initiative that was designed to prohibit any new development, whether residential, commercial or industrial, without an affirmative vote of the people. The far-reaching initiative was drafted to prevent both private and public construction regardless of the location within city limits. It was defeated.

In San Diego, California, the "One Paseo" project was designed to build nearly 1.5 million square feet of housing, retail and offices on 23.6 acres of undeveloped land at the corner of Del Mar Heights Road and El Camino Real. The project was targeted by a successful veto referendum petition. This proposed change to the Carmel Valley community could have been the next big development decision presented to city voters. An agreement reached by the developers and opponents of the project, however, resulted in the city council voting to directly rescind the One Paseo ordinance. Representatives, advocates and activists on both sides of the issue agreed to abandon the One Paseo proposal for a different, scaled-back development project.^[8]

Sports stadiums

Las Vegas

Activists in the city of Las Vegas, Nevada, led by Council Member Bob Beers, collected enough signatures to qualify an initiative for the city election on June 2, 2015, that would prevent the city from following through with a deal to subsidize the construction of a $200 million downtown soccer stadium at Symphony Park. The stadium deal with D.C. United, which was narrowly approved by the city council in a 4-3 vote, dictated that the city provide the 13-acre construction site free of charge, contribute $56.5 million for construction and infrastructure and finance a $50 million bond issue requiring future interest payments. A heated debate and lawsuit over the number of signatures required to qualify the initiative for the ballot, as well as mayoral candidates lining up on opposite sides of the issue, made this potential ballot measure an important issue for Las Vegas in 2015. Ultimately, the city council directly approved nearly identical legislation, precluding an election on the issue.

Artist's rendition of proposed Los Angeles Rams stadium development

Los Angeles

Meanwhile, Stan Kroenke, owner of the St. Louis Rams professional football team, helped to fund an initiative seeking to rezone Hollywood Park in Inglewood, California, to allow for the construction of a football stadium. Kroenke hoped to convince the NFL to allow the Rams to transfer to Los Angeles, giving the city its first NFL team in two decades. The group Citizens for Revitalizing the City of Champions collected about 20,000 signatures—more than twice the required threshold—to qualify the initiative for the ballot. The proposed development would include an 80,000-seat pro football stadium, a performing arts center and additional office and retail space. The city council directly approved the initiative. Voters had another chance to decide the issue as one of the city's largest labor

Artist's rendering of proposed Los Angeles area Raiders/Chargers stadium

unions immediately began a veto referendum petition against the proposal. Ultimately, the union used its petition signatures as bargaining chips and struck a deal with the developer, ceasing the petition drive after an agreement was made.

Artist's rendering of proposed San Diego Chargers stadium development

Another initiative in the city of Carson, approved directly by the city council on April 21, 2015, made way for a football stadium development for the San Diego Chargers and the Oakland Raiders to share. All told, three football teams proposed transferring to the Los Angeles area in 2015. The next opportunity, according to NFL rules, to officially file for a team transfer was in January 2016.

San Diego

As the Chargers make plans to potentially move to Los Angeles, San Diego city officials tried to strike an agreement with the team's management over plans to build a new stadium in the city in order to motivate the Chargers to stay in San Diego. If an agreement had been struck before September 24, 2015, voters could have seen a measure on the ballot on December 15, 2015, asking them to authorize city funds for subsidizing the construction of the proposed, $1.1 billion to $1.5 billion Chargers stadium. Chargers management, however, abandoned negotiations with the city on June 16, 2015, saying the team could see no legally sound method of putting a measure on the December 2015 ballot while also complying with the "state's election law and the California Environmental Quality Act." Although the team did not announce concrete plans to leave the city of San Diego, it ceased its work toward a new stadium in San Diego at least until 2015 meetings between National Football League owners took place. Information regarding which of the three teams trying to move to Los Angeles, if any, would get approval was expected to come out of the meetings. The issue was discussed at the August 2015 meeting, but a final decision was postponed until early 2016.

The possibility of a ballot measure for San Diego voters on January 12, 2015, was discussed as the soonest alternative date that would allow a full environmental impact review of the stadium proposal. The city council voted to approve $2.1 million in spending to pay for the environmental impact report (EIR) on the stadium project. On September 11, 2015, a soft deadline for an agreement for a ballot measure on January 12, 2016, was missed. Mayor Kevin Faulconer said that a stadium measure could still go before voters in June or November 2016 if the Chargers don't move to the Los Angeles area. Faulconer said, "While it's no surprise that the Chargers have allowed today's deadline to pass for a January 12 special election, San Diego can still hold a public vote on a new stadium during the normal election cycle in June or November -- if Chargers ownership is willing to work in good faith with their hometown."^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12]

For details, see this page.

LGBT issues

See also: Local LGBT issues on the ballot

On April 7, 2015, voters in Springfield, Missouri, approved an ordinance prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identification by a margin of 2.86 percent. The measure reached voters through a veto referendum petition launched against a city council ordinance, Ordinance No. 6141. Enough signatures were collected to suspend the anti-discrimination ordinance until a vote of the people.

On September 8, 2015, 52.77 percent of voters in Fayetteville, Arkansas, approved Ordinance 5781, which provided protections against discrimination to members of the LGBT community. The city council approved this ordinance earlier in 2015, but included a provision that required voter approval for the ordinance to go into effect. The city council passed an anti-discrimination ordinance in 2014, but it was repealed by the voters after a veto referendum petition landed the

Campaign for Houston graphic

ordinance on the ballot. Compared to the rejected 2014 ordinance, the 2015 ordinance included exemptions for religious institutions and lessened penalties for violations of the law.

Houston Unites campaign logo

On November 3, 2015, Houston voters decided the ending of a nearly two-year-long battle over the "Houston Equal Rights Ordinance" (HERO). Afer the city council approved the ordinance in May 2014, opponents circulated a veto referendum petition, collecting enough signatures to put the ordinance before voters. On the advice of the Houston city attorney, the city secretary rejected the petition based on certain problems with how the petition sheets were filled out. Petitioners sued the city and the ensuing court case attracted national attention when subpoenas for the sermons of five local pastors were issued by the city. The case went to the Texas Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of petitioners and declared that voters should get a chance to decide the issue on November 3, 2015. It was put on the ballot as Proposition 1, and ultimately the ordinance was rejected by Houston voters.