Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.
November 3 Election Review: Local ballot measures, the basics of direct democracy
November 6, 2015
By Josh Altic
On November 3, 2015, voters all over the country decided key issues that directly affected their lives through casting ballots on local ballot measures. It was through a local measure that 16 out of 18 voters in a small school district in California approved a $171 bond issue, amounting to $9.5 million per vote. It was through local measures that key housing questions were answered in San Francisco, the city with the second most expensive housing costs in the country. It was through local measures that community members throughout the country decided questions about everything from fracking, LGBT issues and marijuana to taxes, bond issues and 2nd Amendment rights. Local ballot measures form the basics of direct democracy and, this year, Ballotpedia tracked measures about notable topics, measures on the ballot in the largest cities in the country and all local measures in California.
San Franciscans saw a housing-focused ballot and defeated Proposition F, the hotly contended "Airbnb Initiative." Both sides of the LGBT anti-discrimination debate reacted to the defeat of the Houston HERO ordinance. Voters in Portland, Maine, decided against increasing the local minimum wage. Only one out of seven proposed anti-fracking initiatives appeared on local ballots in Ohio. The lone measure was a "community bill of rights" initiative that appeared on the ballot in Youngstown, Ohio, for the fifth time. Election night vote tallies ended with "no" votes just a nose ahead of "yes" votes once again. Voters in Portage, Michigan, were equally divided over the issue of marijuana decriminalization. In California alone, over $1.7 billion in new debt was proposed through local measures. These were just a few among the many ballot questions that measured the political climate of cities, counties and districts across the country, and had real impacts on the communities in which they were decided.
Below is a breakdown of the most interesting questions on local ballots this year, as well as a summary of local measures throughout California.
HERO ordinance in Houston
In Houston, Texas, voters rejected the city council's "HERO" anti-discrimination ordinance, with 60.97 percent voting against Proposition 1. The proposal, which was designed to make discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity illegal, was sponsored by term-limited Mayor Annise Parker, who had to watch the ordinance fail after a two-year battle as she leaves office. The ordinance was approved by the Houston City Council in May 2014. It was then put on the ballot through a veto referendum petition drive, which was the object of a lawsuit that received national attention after the city issued subpoenas for the sermons of five pastors.
Opponents of the ordinance celebrated the results at an election night party in a Houston hotel. Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick addressed the crowd:
| “ |
It was about protecting our grandmoms, and our mothers and our wives and our sisters and our daughters and our granddaughters. I’m glad Houston led tonight to end this constant political-correctness attack on what we know in our heart and our gut as Americans is not right.[1] |
” |
| —Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick[2] | ||
Pro-HERO group Houston Unites released their own statement in response to the election results:
| “ |
We are disappointed with today's outcome, but our work to secure nondiscrimination protections for all hard-working Houstonians will continue. No one should have to live with the specter of discrimination hanging over them. Everyone should have the freedom to work hard, earn a decent living and provide for themselves and their families. Although Houston won't yet join the 200 other cities that have similar nondiscrimination measures, the fight continues. We will continue telling the stories of Houstonians whose lives would be better off because of HERO – including people of color, people of faith, veterans who have served our country, women, and gay and transgender people. We've learned some important lessons, as well. We have to continue sharing our stories so that more Houstonians know what HERO is really about and aren't susceptible to the ugliest of smear campaigns run by the opposition. And we must remember that all of us are stronger when we stand together, speaking up with one voice for protections like those in HERO, rather than allowing those who oppose fairness and equality to divide us.[1] |
” |
| —Houston Unites[3] | ||
Fracking
| Voting on Fracking | ||
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Policy | ||
| Fracking policy | ||
| Ballot Measures | ||
| By state | ||
| By year | ||
Not on ballot
|
Although signatures were collected for seven anti-fracking "community bills of rights" in Ohio, only one made it to the ballot in Youngstown, where voters decided the issue for the fifth time. According to unofficial election night results, the proposed charter amendment was failing with 6,028 "no" votes and 5,683 "yes" votes—51.47 percent to 48.53 percent. Five of the other six measures were proposed county charters that were invalidated by Secretary of State Jon Husted (R) and the Ohio Supreme Court. Ultimately, they were rejected because they did not provide an alternative form of government, as the Ohio Constitution requires for proposed alternative charters. The supreme court did not rule on the constitutionality of the restrictions on the oil and gas industry found in the proposed initiatives. Proponents of the initiative charter amendment proposed in Columbus did not collect enough valid signatures to put the measure on the ballot. They said they might try again in the future.
Marijuana
- See also: Local marijuana on the ballot
Voters in Portage, Michigan, were roughly evenly split on a proposal to decriminalize marijuana locally. Unofficial election night results showed the measure ahead by a margin of 139 votes, just 1.3 percent of the 10,861 votes counted. The race is too close to call with certainty until the release of certified election results.
Minimum wage
- See also: Local wages and pay on the ballot
Ballotpedia covered two cities with minimum wage measures on their ballots. Voters in Portland, Maine, rejected an initiative designed to raise the city's minimum wage to $15 per hour by 2017 for large businesses and 2019 for small businesses.
In Tacoma, Washington, voters decided to give low-wage workers a raise, with 58.68 percent voting in favor of enacting one of two proposed minimum wage increases. But they rejected the $15-per-hour minimum wage initiative sponsored by 15 Now, opting instead for the phased-in, $12-per-hour alternative proposed by the city council.
| Tacoma, Initiative No. 1 and 1B Question 2 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tacoma Minimum Wage Measure |  Initiative No. 1
|
 Initiative No. 1B
| ||
| 6,275 | 28.60% | 15,662 | 71.40% | |
- Election results from Pierce County Elections Office
2nd Amendment rights
In Coos County, Oregon, voters approved an initiative designed to declare invalid and void any law that violates provisions guaranteeing the right to bear arms in the U.S. Constitution and the Oregon Constitution. Moreover, the measure, called, Measure 6-151 prohibited the use of county funds or resources to enforce any law that, according to the county sheriff, impedes the right to bear arms. The legality of enforcing this initiative could be decided in court at a later date, since it seems to claim county authority to invalidate a state law.[4]
This law was specifically crafted to prevent the enforcement of Oregon Senate Bill 941, signed into law on May 11, 2015. Measure 6-151 was part of a larger set of political responses to the gun control bill SB 941, including recall attempts against Coos County Commissioner John Sweet, who voted against a county resolution opposing SB 941, and Sen. Floyd Prozanski (D), who supported SB 941.
California
San Francisco
| Voting on Housing | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| |||
| Ballot Measures | |||
| By state | |||
| By year | |||
| Not on ballot | |||
|
San Francisco voters decided eleven local measures on November 3, 2015. They defeated the "Airbnb Initiative," Proposition F, which proved to be the most hotly contended local measure in 2015. Proposition F was designed to establish a long list of restrictions and regulations on short-term rentals and impose penalties on hosting platforms such as Airbnb. Airbnb spent over $8 million to defeat the measure and—despite an unpopular misstep with some of its campaign ads—was victorious over the support campaign, which raised $778,488 and was financially backed largely by the hotel industry.
Overall, city voters approved seven measures and rejected four. There were five measures concerning housing and development on San Francisco's housing-centric ballot. The other six measures concerned a range of issues, from city employee benefits and public meeting requirements to clean energy and historic business preservation. Overall, San Franciscans approved seven measures and defeated four. They approved three housing-related measures and defeated two. Besides the "Airbnb Initiative," city voters rejected a proposed moratorium on market-rate housing construction and zoning changes in one of the city's growing Mission District. Voters approved:
- Proposition A: A $310 million affordable housing bond issue;
- Proposition D: The proposed Mission Rock mixed-use development project backed by the San Francisco Giants; and
- Proposition K: A measure changing the city's policy regarding the construction of housing on surplus city property.
Regarding non-housing-related measures, San Francisco voters approved expanded parental leave benefits for city employees, rejected an initiative to require electronic attendance and testimony at public city meetings, approved a measure to require registration fees and reports from indirect lobbyists, and chose Proposition H—a measure defining clean energy and urging certain disclosures according to a compromise between the city and PG&E—over Proposition G—PG&E's abandoned initiative designed to prevent the use of renewable-energy certificates (RECs) to qualify energy as green and impede the city's Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) called CleanPowerSF.
Local measure breakdown
Local voters in California voted on 61 measures on November 3, 2015. As of November 6, 2015, the outcomes of the measures were:
- Approved: 36
- Defeated: 14
- Unresolved: 10
- Withdrawn: 1
Over $1.6 billion in new local debt was proposed through bond measures—$1.180 billion in local school bonds and $420 million in proposed city bond issues. According to unofficial election night results, voters approved $470.825 million in new school debt and $310 million in new debt in San Francisco. Measures representing $709.2 million in proposed school debt were too close to call until the release of certified election results. Voters rejected $110 million in new city debt. In Compton Unified School District, the 51st-largest school district by enrollment in California, election night results showed Measure S, the district's proposed $350 million bond issue, ahead by just 32 votes, amounting to 0.83 percent of votes counted. Ballotpedia is waiting until the official results tally to call this race.
Compton Unified School District served 24,710 students in 2015, but only 3,875 residents cast a vote on Measure S, according to election night reports. This resulted in each vote representing about $90,322 in new debt.
The stats below drill down into the more common ballot measure topics:
|
Nine measures concerned zoning and development
Eight sales tax measures
Eleven parcel tax measures
|
Three hotel tax measures
Twelve bond issue measures
|
To see what other issues were addressed through local measures in California on November 3, 2015, see this page.
Tucson, Arizona
Tucson voters, besides re-electing Mayor Jonathan Rothschild and three incumbent council members, decided four ballot propositions; they approved three and rejected one. City voters approved an initiative designed to outlaw the use of cameras to enforce red light and speeding traffic violations, gave the mayor the voting powers of the other city council members through Proposition 403, and made the hiring and firing process for city department heads uniform through Proposition 404. Tucson electors rejected Proposition 405, which would have given the mayor and city council members a raise.
Denver, Colorado
Denver voters decided four ballot measures as well, approving three and defeating one. All but one of the measures concerning city finances. Voters approved a measure to allow the continuation of a marijuana sales tax, a $778 million bond issue and the continuation of a 1.75 percent tourism tax. These revenue sources were designed to finance tourism-related projects, specifically focused on the National Western Center and the Colorado Convention Center. City voters also approved [[Denver Intergovernmental Agreements and Revenue Sharing with Adams County, Measure 1A (November 2015)|Measure 1A], opening up 1,500 acres of land around Denver International Airport (DIA) for development and revising Denver's intergovernmental and revenue sharing agreement with Adams County. Voters rejected a 0.08 percent sales tax dubbed the "College Affordability" tax, which was designed to reimburse nonprofit colleges and universities that provide financial assistance.
Seattle, Washington
Besides selecting a new mayor and electing their first district city council representatives since a 2013 Amendment 19 changed the form of the city's government, Seattle voters approved two ballot measures:
- Proposition No. 1: A transportation property tax levy dubbed "Move Seattle" by supporters. The tax was designed to raise $930 million over 9 years, with an estimated tax rate of $62 per $100,000 of assessed property value.
- Initiative Measure No. 122: A proposition designed to establish a voucher system to provide campaign finance assistance for qualifying candidates and establish other campaign finance restrictions and transparency provisions.
See also
| |||||
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ New York Times, "Houston Voters Reject Broad Anti-Discrimination Ordinance," November 3, 2015
- ↑ Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedclick2houston - ↑ Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedQuestion
