Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.
Monterey County, California, Ban on Oil and Gas Drilling, Measure Z (November 2016)
| Measure Z: Monterey County Ban on Oil and Gas Drilling |
|---|
|
| The basics |
| Election date: |
| November 8, 2016 |
| Status: |
 / Approved
|
| Topic: |
| Local fracking |
| Related articles |
| Local fracking on the ballot November 8, 2016 ballot measures in California Monterey County, California ballot measures |
| See also |
| Monterey County, California |
A ban on new oil and gas operations was on the ballot for Monterey County voters in Monterey County, California, on November 8, 2016. It was approved. The measure was overturned by California Supreme Court on August 3, 2023. The court unanimously ruled that state law supersedes and preempts the measure, and that the state reserves the power to regulate oil and gas drilling. The court did not rule on fracking.[1][2]
| A "yes" vote was a vote in favor of, according to the county's general plan, banning the use of hydraulic fracturing, commonly called fracking, and other high-intensity methods of oil and gas extraction, such as acid stimulation, as well as banning new oil and gas operations in the county and phasing out operational oil and gas wells. |
| A "no" vote was a vote against banning the use of fracking or other high-intensity methods of oil and gas extraction. This would leave restrictions on the oil and gas industry largely to the state government. |
This initiative was designed by Protect Monterey County to prohibit the use of hydraulic fracturing, commonly called fracking, as well as other high-intensity methods of oil and gas extraction, such as acid stimulation.[3]
On March 19, 2014, the county board of supervisors voted three against two in opposition to a proposed two-year moratorium on fracking. Afterwards, a group of county residents met to discuss and formulate this citizen initiative.[3]
Aftermath
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether Monterey County has jurisdiction over oil and gas operations | |
| Court: Superior Court of Monterey County, California Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Overturned by California Supreme Court, unanimously ruling that state law reserves the power to regulate fossil fuel extraction | |
| Plaintiff(s): Chevron USA Inc, et al. (Other petitioners include Aera Energy, Key Energy Services, Ensign United States Drilling, San Ardo Union Elementary School District, California Resources Corporation, National Association of Royalty Owners, Trio Petroleum, Bradley Minerals, Monroe Swell Prospect, Sunset Exploration, and Eagle Petroleum.) | Defendant(s): Monterey County |
| Plaintiff argument: Monterey County does not have jurisdiction over drilling operations; there is currently no fracking in the county; and the provisions included in the measure could cause all operations to shut down, which could have a significant economic impact on the area. | Defendant argument: The measure is valid. |
Source: Superior Court of Monterey County, PR Newswire, and Courthouse News
Lawsuits
On December 14, 2016, oil companies Chevron USA and Aera Energy filed separate lawsuits against Measure Z with the Superior Court of Monterey County. Both lawsuits claimed that the county did not have jurisdiction over oil and gas operations and that the measure amounted to an unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation. The San Ardo Union Elementary School District joined Chevron's lawsuit due to its reliance on funding from property taxes, 89 percent of which was from the Chevron oilfield as of 2016, according to Courthouse News.
After the first two lawsuits were filed, the county agreed to halt implementation of Measure Z until a decision could be reached. On March 17, 2017, Monterey County Superior Court Judge Thomas Wills ruled that the group behind the measure, Protect Monterey County, had standing to join the lawsuits as an intervening party. Four additional lawsuits were filed by the following groups: the California Resources Corporation (CRC); the California branch of the National Association of Royalty Owners (NARO) along with 61 individuals and corporations; Trio Petroleum along with Bradley Minerals, Monroe Swell Prospect, and Sunset Exploration; and Eagle Petroleum.[4][5][6][7]
The Monterey County Superior Court ordered that the case be split into phases, the first of which would include a trial to address the validity and interpretation of Measure Z. For the Phase I trial, the six lawsuits were consolidated under the leading case filed by Chevron USA.[7]
Intended decision, Phase I
The Phase I trial took place on November 15, 16, and 17, 2017. Judge Thomas Wills issued an intended decision[8] on December 28, 2017. In the intended decision, Wills overturned the provisions found in Measure Z that would ban new oil and gas wells, phase out operational oil and gas wells, and restrict wastewater injection sites. Wills left the provisions banning hydraulic fracturing intact. He did not rule on the legality of fracking in Monterey County, but he stated that because none of the plaintiffs were operating fracking wells, they did not have standing to challenge the anti-fracking provisions.[7][9] The intended decision was later finalized.[10]
In response, Protect Monterey County stated its intent to appeal the decision. The group posted on its website, "We’re confident that a higher court will uphold Measure Z in full and affirm the right of communities to protect themselves from risky oil operations. California law provides local governments with broad authority to protect our air, water and health."[11]
Appeals
Protect Monterey County called on the county to join the effort to appeal Wills' decision. Representatives of the Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce and the Monterey County Farm Bureau followed this request by asking the county to avoid the appeal and the associated costs.[12]
Protect Monterey County filed a notice of appeal to reverse Judge Wills' decision and to uphold Measure Z on March 26, 2018.[13] Monterey County filed a notice to appeal the same week, according to The Californian.[10] However, the county did not appeal the decision and later decided to settle with the plaintiffs.
Settlement
The Monterey County Board of Supervisors settled with the plaintiffs in the Measure Z lawsuits on May 15, 2018. The settlement upheld the ban on fracking, causing it to take effect immediately in Monterey County with the exception of the Fort Ord area. The county decided not to appeal Judge Thomas Wills' decision, which overturned the provisions found in Measure Z to ban new oil and gas wells, phase out operational oil and gas wells, and restrict wastewater injection sites. The county cited a $36 million deficit as the primary reason for choosing not to appeal Judge Wills' decision.[14]
California Supreme Court ruling, 2023
The measure was overturned by California Supreme Court on August 3, 2023. The court unanimously ruled that state law supersedes and preempts the measure, and that the state reserves the power to regulate oil and gas drilling. The court did not rule on fracking.[15][16]
Election results
| Measure Z | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 73,877 | 56.07% | ||
| No | 57,883 | 43.93% | ||
- Election results from Monterey County Elections Office
Text of measure
Ballot question
The following question appeared on the ballot:[17]
| “ |
Shall an initiative amending the Monterey County General Plan, Local Coastal Program, and Fort Ord Master Plan to: (1) prohibit the use of land within the County’s unincorporated (non-city) areas for hydraulic fracturing treatments (“fracking”), acid well stimulation treatments, and other well stimulation treatments; (2) prohibit new and phase out existing land uses that utilize oil and gas wastewater injection and impoundment; and, (3) prohibit the drilling of new oil and gas wells in the County’s unincorporated areas be adopted?[18] |
” |
Impartial analysis
The following impartial analysis of the measure was prepared by the office of the Monterey County Counsel:
| “ |
This measure would amend Monterey County's land use regulations to limit or eventually prohibit land uses associated with industry practices, such as certain Well Stimulation Treatments, and Wastewater Impoundment and Injection, in oil and gas extraction. The full impact of the measure is uncertain because it is not known to what extent all such practices are either utilized or necessary to the recovery of oil or gas in Monterey County. The measure would eventually prohibit many Well Stimulation Treatments, which include Hydraulic Fracturing and Acid Well Stimulation, which enhance oil and gas extraction. Also, drilling directly produces mostly water (“Produced Water”) but water reinjected as part of a Well Stimulation Treatment also may return to the surface (“Flowback Fluid”); the measure defines both as “Wastewater.” The measure would eventually prohibit using land for impoundment and injection of Wastewater, but it appears the measure allows Wastewater to be treated and then injected or impounded in ponds and allowed to percolate. The measure would prohibit drilling “new” wells; however, because a stated purpose of the initiative is to prevent expansion of oil and gas operations it appears that the prohibition applies only to drilling wells exceeding the number operating at the time the measure becomes effective, and would permit replacement wells. It is uncertain if the measure would be preempted by state law, which exclusively regulates drilling operations underground. Monterey County retains land use regulation on the surface but it is unclear whether local land use regulations impacting how wells are operated below ground are valid. Regulatory restrictions on the use of land without compensation may result in an unconstitutional “taking” of property. It is unclear whether the measure results in a taking; a taking determination is generally fact-specific and specific facts for each property right affected by the measure are currently unknown. The measure contains safeguards potentially allowing Monterey County to avoid liability for a taking. A 5-year amortization period (up to 15 years based on specific findings) is available only for land uses in support of Wastewater Impoundment and Injection but it is uncertain whether such period is sufficient to avoid a taking. The measure allows the Monterey County Board of Supervisors, after a hearing, to determine if a taking has occurred, and if so grant an exemption in order to avoid liability, although such a determination would be subject to a court challenge. The measure appears to allow the Board to grant an exemption after-the-fact if a court finds a taking. Litigation concerning the measure, if approved, is almost certain. Litigation would include claims of preemption and taking. Significant County resources would be necessary to defend against such claims. Significant resources may also be necessary to process the takings exemption before the Board and address claims of Vested Rights. This measure changes existing law and was placed on the ballot by a petition signed by the required number of voters. A “Yes” vote is in favor of the measure; and a “No” vote is in opposition to the measure. The measure requires a simple majority vote for approval.[18] |
” |
| —Monterey County Counsel[19] | ||
Full text
The full text of the measure is available here.
Support
Supporters
The following individuals signed the official argument in favor of the measure:[19]
- Dr. Laura Solorio, M.D., Doctor of Internal Medicine
- Jamie Collins, Owner, Serendipity Farms
- Cindy Walter, Co-Owner, Passionfish Restaurant
- Alan Haffa, Monterey City Councilmember
- Pastor Kenneth Murray, Pastor, Ocean View Baptist Church
The group behind the initiative was Protect Monterey County.[20][21]
Communities for Sustainable Monterey County was another group in support of this initiative.[22]
During his campaign tour through the Central West Coast in late May and early June 2016, Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders praised petitioners for pushing this initiative and urged Monterey County voters to approve it.[23]
Protect Monterey County listed the following endorsements on their website:[24]
|
For a complete list of endorsements, click here.
Arguments in favor
Supporters of the initiative argued that fracking causes a serious threat to the health of citizens, the environment and the success of the agricultural and tourism industries. Those who think fracking should not be allowed argued that fracking poses the threat of waste-water, including harmful chemicals, being released into groundwater through cracked well casings and accidental spills.[25]
Lockwood resident Paula Getzelman, who helped found Protect Monterey County, said, “This was really the only option left. We would like protections for agriculture, tourism, and the health and well-being of our residents. If we weren’t able to get those from state regulatory agencies and our Board of Supervisors, we felt the people deserve to have the opportunity to deal with it at the voter level.”[3]
Getzelman and her husband own a vineyard, and she said she was concerned about the threats fracking posed to the agricultural water supply. Getzelman argued “This county depends on agriculture and tourism; they are the economic drivers. And they depend on a clean supply of water and clean air. The health of our families depend on it.” Responding to those who said state regulations of the oil and gas industry are enough, Getzelman stated, “The more I learned, the more I became concerned. Regulations don’t work."[3][25]
While campaigning in Monterey County, Bernie Sanders stated, "And I hope very much that Monterey County will continue the momentum that makes it clear that fracking is not safe, and is not what we need for our kids."[23]
Official argument
The following official argument was submitted in favor of the measure:[19]
| “ |
Monterey County has a bright future if we protect our water, and our vital agriculture and tourism industries. Fracking, acidizing and wastewater injection put that future at risk. Measure Z allows us to stop the oil companies’ dangerous land use activities:
Measure Z protects our water:
Measure Z protects our health and safety:
Measure Z protects our economy: It safeguards our underground water supply, which is essential for Monterey County’s
Measure Z is fair and balanced:
Vote YES on Measure Z … Protect Our Water, Our Health, and Our Future[18] |
” |
Opposition
Opponents
The following individuals signed the official argument against the measure:[19]
- Catherine Reimer, Superintendent/Principal, San Ardo Union Elementary School District
- Sergio Sanchez, President/CEO, Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Central Coast
- Dan Mitchell, President, Monterey County Deputy Sheriffs’ Association
- Joe Gunter, Mayor, City of Salinas
- Mitch Kastros, Fire Captain, Ret., City of Carmel-By-The-Sea
A group called the Monterey County Citizens for Energy Independence opposed this initiative and helped to launch a No on Measure Z campaign.[25]
The Monterey County Hospitality Association and Chevron also opposed the proposal.[3]
The No on Z campaign listed the following endorsements on their website:[26]
|
Arguments against
| An ad sponsored by No on Measure Z Monterey
|
The Monterey County Hospitality Association is opposed to moratoriums or bans that could harm the oil and gas industry. Sam Teel, who co-chairs the association's governance committee, said, “Hospitality is very dependent on oil. There’s no way around it.”[3]
Robin Fleming, a spokesperson for Chevron, said that the state regulations on fracking established by Senate Bill 4 were enough. Fleming said, “A ballot initiative is a waste of taxpayers’ money for something that is not needed.”[3]
Sabrina Lockhart, a spokesperson for Monterey County Citizens for Energy Independence, said, "Oil production has been a vital part of the Monterey County economy for more than 60 years. California already has the strictest environmental regulations in place."
Karen Hanratty, a representatives of Californians for Energy Independence, said, "It’s [the initiative] about scaring people. The real agenda is just to ban all oil and gas production in California. That’s what these groups are really about."[27]
Official argument
The following official argument was submitted in opposition to the measure:[19]
| “ |
MONTEREY COUNTY CAN’T AFFORD MEASURE Z Measure Z is a deceptive, deeply flawed ballot initiative that will hurt Monterey County families and will have devastating consequences for crucial county programs like education, police, and fire protection. MEASURE Z WILL SHUT DOWN OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION Don’t be misled. Measure Z’s twenty pages of fine print will lead to a shutdown of oil production, which has been done safely in Monterey County for nearly 70 years. MEASURE Z: NEARLY 1,000 WORKERS WOULD LOSE THEIR JOBS “Our economy is still in tough shape, and now is not the time to shut down the local jobs and operations of one of the county’s largest employers and taxpayers.” - Joe Gunter, Mayor, City of Salinas MEASURE Z PUTS MONTEREY COUNTY’S FINANCES AT RISK Measure Z will do far more damage than shutting down oil production and costing jobs. Monterey County’s finances would be devastated by Measure Z:
“Measure Z will dramatically reduce funding for fire and police protection. With increasing crime and the potential for more natural disasters, we can’t afford to lose any more police or firefighters.” - Mitch Kastros, Fire Captain, Ret., City of Carmel-By-The-Sea MEASURE Z INCREASES OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL If we shut down oil and gas production in Monterey County, we will be forced to import even more oil from the Middle East or Russia, exporting our jobs and tax revenue to those countries. We should keep oil production in Monterey County, where it has been done safely and under strict environmental regulations for nearly 70 years. Please join us in voting NO on Measure Z.[18] |
” |
Background
Fracking in California
- See also: Fracking in California
The 2016 California Democratic Party Platform included an immediate moratorium on fracking, a position not supported by California's Democratic Governor Jerry Brown. The California 2016 Republican Party Platform did not mention fracking but advocated limiting domestic reliance on foreign sources of fossil fuels. Advocates of fracking argue that the practice results in more jobs, economic growth, higher state tax revenue, and a lower trade deficit. Opponents of fracking argue that the practice results in air pollution, water impacts, and potential human health risks.[28][29][30][31][32][33]
Production
Crude oil and natural gas extraction in California dates back to records of American Indians who collected oil. Commercial production began in 1856; fracking has occurred in California since the 1980s. In 2014, California ranked third highest nationwide for crude oil production. In 2013, the state ranked 16th in natural gas production. The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimated that California contained 8.62 percent of total U.S. onshore oil reserves and 0.57 percent of total U.S. natural gas reserves in 2013.[34][35][36][37]
Regulation
The Department of Conservation's Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) is responsible for regulating oil and gas development in California, including fracking and other well stimulation techniques. According to the DOGGR in 2016, the majority of the oil and gas production in California used vertical wells that are drilled into traditional oil and natural gas reservoirs. In 2013, the California State Legislature passed Senate Bill 4 to regulate well stimulation. Senate Bill 4 included interim well regulations that went into effect immediately, separate regulations that went into effect in 2015, the adoption of environmental impact reports in 2015, and the use of well stimulation permits. These permits are publicly available on the DOGGR's website.[30][38][39][40][41]
Note: This information was last updated on June 5, 2017.
Media editorials
Support
Monterey County Weekly said the following:[42]
| “ | When opponents of Measure Z say it would do more than ban fracking, they’re right: It would force the industry to adapt within its existing footprint, treating all of its water and finding a new way to dispose of wastewater. We think that’s a good thing.[18] | ” |
Opposition
Monterey Herald said the following:[43]
| “ | Measure Z’s proponents appear to have a goal way beyond banning fracking. The fuzzy language of their initiative should be the real red flag for voters. Voters who do not want to expose the county to job loss, costly legal bills, and loss of public revenue should clearly vote no on Measure Z.[18] | ” |
Path to the ballot
| Voting on Fracking | ||
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Policy | ||
| Fracking policy | ||
| Ballot Measures | ||
| By state | ||
| By year | ||
Not on ballot
|
For this initiative to qualify for the ballot in 2016, petitioners needed to collect valid signatures equal in number to 10 percent of all votes cast for governor in Monterey County during the last gubernatorial election. In 2014, Monterey County voters cast a total of 73,906 votes in the gubernatorial election. Therefore, to qualify this initiative for the November 2016 ballot, proponents needed to collect 7,391 signatures. The signatures needed to be submitted within 180 days of the county elections office providing petitioners with the initiative's official title and summary, which was added to the petition sheets for circulation.[3][44][25]
In August 2015, the group announced that it was working on fundraising and would start gathering signatures soon after January 1, 2016. On May 4, 2016, the group announced that they had collected 16,108 signatures, which were submitted to the county elections office for verification. Enough signatures were verified as valid to qualify the initiative for the November 2016 ballot. Initially, the county board of supervisors proposed impact studies to be conducted on the initiative, which could have postponed their vote to put the measure on the ballot. After leaders of the petition drive for this initiative met with Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders, the board of supervisors cancelled the reports and voted on May 31, 2016, to put the initiative before voters.[44][25][45][46]
Recent news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Monterey County fracking ban Measure Z. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
Related measures
- Butte County, California, Fracking Ban Initiative, Measure E (June 2016)
- City of Hermosa Beach E&B Oil Drilling and Production Project, Measure O (March 2015)
- City of La Habra Heights Ban on New Oil & Gas Wells and Fracking Initiative, Measure A (March 2015)
- Mendocino County Community Bill of Rights Fracking and Water Use Initiative, Measure S (November 2014)
- San Benito County Fracking Ban Initiative, Measure J (November 2014)
- San Luis Obispo County, California, Measure G-18, Petroleum Extraction and Well Stimulation Regulation Initiative (November 2018)
- Santa Barbara County Fracking Ban Initiative, Measure P (November 2014)
See also
External links
Support
- Communities for Sustainable Monterey County website
- Yes on Measure Z: Protect Monterey County website
- Yes on Measure Z: Protect Monterey County Facebook
Opposition
Footnotes
- ↑ Reuters, "California Supreme Court strikes down county's drilling ban," accessed August 9, 2023
- ↑ CBS News, "California high court says Monterey County can't enforce oil well ban as state debates future of fossil fuels," accessed August 9, 2023
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 Monterey County Weekly, "After supes nix a moratorium, local activists prep a 2016 ballot initiative to ban fracking," June 25, 2015
- ↑ Monterey County Weekly, "Oil companies sue Monterey County over Measure Z," December 15, 2016
- ↑ Monterey County Weekly, "The battle over Measure Z has begun in the courtroom," March 23, 2017
- ↑ Courthouse News, "Chevron & Monterey County in Standoff Over Oil," December 16, 2016
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 Superior Court of California County of Monterey, "Intended Decision," filed December 28, 2017
- ↑ The legal document states, "This intended decision resolves factual and legal disputes, and shall suffice as a statement of decision as to all matters contained herein. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1590(c)(1).
- ↑ KSBW 8, "Monterey County judge strikes down parts of Measure Z fracking ban," December 29, 2017
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 The Californian, "Appeals filed in Measure Z court ruling," March 29, 2018
- ↑ Protect Monterey County, "Lawsuits," accessed January 18, 2018
- ↑ Monterey Herald, "Business, ag groups argue against county joining Measure Z appeal," February 7, 2018
- ↑ Courthouse News Service, "Conservation Groups File Appeal in Lifting of Fracking Ban," March 26, 2018
- ↑ KION 546, "Settlement reached in Measure Z lawsuit," May 15, 2018
- ↑ Reuters, "California Supreme Court strikes down county's drilling ban," accessed August 9, 2023
- ↑ CBS News, "California high court says Monterey County can't enforce oil well ban as state debates future of fossil fuels," accessed August 9, 2023
- ↑ Monterey County Elections, "Notice of Local Measures," accessed October 24, 2016
- ↑ 18.0 18.1 18.2 18.3 18.4 18.5 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ 19.0 19.1 19.2 19.3 19.4 Monterey County Elections, "Voter Guide," accessed October 24, 2016
- ↑ Protect Monterey County, "Home," accessed March 1, 2016
- ↑ Facebook, "Monterey County Against Fracking," accessed July 14, 2015
- ↑ Communities for Sustainable Monterey County, "Home," accessed March 1, 2016
- ↑ 23.0 23.1 KION News, "Bernie Sanders vows to ban fracking in Monterey County," June 1, 2016
- ↑ Protect Monterey County, "Endorsements," accessed October 27, 2016
- ↑ 25.0 25.1 25.2 25.3 25.4 The Californian, "Monterey County group launches initiative drive to ban fracking," August 5, 2015
- ↑ No on Measure Z, "Coalition," accessed October 27, 2016
- ↑ KSBW, "Big oil ads hit Monterey County airwaves," February 2, 2016
- ↑ CNN, "Wildlife, pristine beaches focus of 'aggressive' oil spill cleanup," May 20, 2015
- ↑ The New York Times, "‘Fractivists’ Increase Pressure on Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders in New York," April 4, 2016
- ↑ 30.0 30.1 Berkeley Law, "Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing in California: A Wastewater and Water Quality Perspective," April 2013
- ↑ Think Progress, "Fracking is Creating a Rift Between Governor Jerry Brown And Some California Democrats," March 13, 2014
- ↑ California Democratic Party, "2016 Platform: Energy and Environment," accessed April 6, 2016
- ↑ California Republican Party, "California Republican Party Platform," accessed April 6, 2016
- ↑ California Department of Conservation, "California Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources: an Introduction," 1993
- ↑ Environmental Engineering & Contracting, Inc., "A Brief History of Hydraulic Fracturing," accessed May 6, 2014
- ↑ U.S. Energy Information Administration, "U.S. Crude Oil and Natural Gas Proved Reserves," December 19, 2014
- ↑ U.S. Energy Information Administration, "Natural Gas Reserves Summary as of Dec. 31," December 4, 2014
- ↑ Department of Conservation, "Well Stimulation," accessed May 7, 2014
- ↑ Department of Conservation, "Hydraulic Fracturing in California," accessed May 7, 2014
- ↑ Department of Conservation, "Public Information," accessed April 25, 2016
- ↑ Department of Conservation, "Well Stimulation Program Requirements," accessed April 25, 2016
- ↑ Monterey County Weekly, "Weekly endorsements on 21 ballot measures," October 6, 2016
- ↑ Monterey Herald, "Editorial, Oct. 19, 2016: No on Measure Z is the rational choice," October 19, 2016
- ↑ 44.0 44.1 California Secretary of State, "2014 Election Results," accessed July 14, 2015
- ↑ Monterey County Now, "Activists submit over 16,000 signatures to ban local fracking." May 4, 2016
- ↑ Monterey Herald, "Fracking ban makes fall ballot, supervisors bypass impact studies," June 1, 2016
 |
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 |
