California Proposition 77, Transfer Legislative and Congressional Redistricting to Panel of Retired Judges Initiative (2005)

California Proposition 77
Election date November 8, 2005
Topic Redistricting policy
Status Defeated
Type Initiated constitutional amendment	Origin Citizens

California Proposition 77 was on the ballot as an initiated constitutional amendment in California on November 8, 2005. It was defeated.

A "yes" vote supported amending the California Constitution to transfer legislative and congressional redistricting from the state legislature to a panel of three retired judges.

A "no" vote opposed amending the California Constitution, thereby leaving the redistricting authority with the state legislature.

Election results

California Proposition 77
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		3,130,541	40.28%
No		4,641,633	59.72%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

How would Proposition 77 have changed redistricting in California?

see also: Text of measure

Proposition 77 would have changed the process for redistricting boundaries for the California State Legislature, Board of Equalization (BOE), and U.S. House of Representatives. At the time of the election, the California State Legislature was responsible for redistricting. Proposition 77 would have transferred that power to a three-member panel of retired state or federal judges, called special masters. The proposed plan would have required unanimous approval by the panel and approval by voters at the next general election.

The Judicial Council would have compiled a list of retired judges who have never held partisan political office, changed their party affiliation since judicial appointment, or received income from specific political sources. The council would have randomly selected a pool of 24 judges, and then the four legislative leaders from the majority and minority parties would select the final panel of judges.

What would Proposition 77 have required for drawing districts?

Proposition 77 would have required the legislative and BOE districts to have nearly equal population with the difference prohibited from exceeding 1% of the population. Senate districts would have had to be comprised of two adjacent Assembly districts, and BOE districts would have had to be comprised of 10 adjacent Senate districts.

Who supported and opposed Proposition 77?

Yes on 77 led the campaign in support of Proposition 77. The measure was endorsed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), California Chamber of Commerce, California Senior Advocates League, California Women's Leadership Association, Mexican-American Political Association, and Charles Munger, Jr. The six committees registered to support the measure received over $17 million in contributions. The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board argued for a "yes" vote saying, "Under Proposition 77, the State Judicial Council would pick, by lot, a pool of 24 retired judges. Lawmakers from both parties would narrow this pool to 16 finalists, from which three judges would be chosen by lot to make up the redistricting panel. All by itself, this measure would not bring in a fresh set of politicians, but it could lead to more contested seats and more responsive incumbents. It’s small step forward, but one that lawmakers will never do themselves. Voters should approve it on Nov. 8."

No on 77 led the campaign in opposition to Proposition 77. California Democratic Party, AFSCME California, and California Teachers Association opposed the measure. The six committees registered to oppose the measure received over $23 million in contributions. State Sen. Gloria Romero (D) said, "[Proposition 77] is simply about a political power grab. One party is trying to get more control, and another party is trying to defend against it."

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Proposition 77 was as follows:

“

Redistricting. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary for this measure was:

“

• Amends process for redistricting California’s Senate, Assembly, Congressional and Board of Equalization districts. • Requires panel of three retired judges, selected by legislative leaders, to adopt new redistricting plan if measure passes and after each national census. • Panel must consider legislative, public comments/hold public hearings. • Redistricting plan effective when adopted by panel and filed with Secretary of State; governs next statewide primary/general elections even if voters reject plan. • If voters reject redistricting plan, process repeats, but officials elected under rejected plan serve full terms. • Allows 45 days to seek judicial review of adopted redistricting plan.

”

Full Text

The full text of this measure is available here.

Support

Website art from the "Yes on 77" website

Yes on 77 led the campaign in support of Proposition 77.

Supporters

Officials

• Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R)

Organizations

• California Chamber of Commerce
• California Senior Advocates League
• California Women's Leadership Association
• Mexican-American Political Association

Individuals

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

Official arguments

The official voter guide arguments in favor of Proposition 77 were signed by Ted Costa, president of People's Advocate; Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R); and John A. Arguelles, a former justice of the California Supreme Court:

“

THE TIME FOR ACCOUNTABILITY IS NOW! PROPOSITION 77: 'THE VOTER EMPOWERMENT ACT' WILL FINALLY MAKE POLITICIANS ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PEOPLE. Guarantee fair election districts for Californians. Give voters the final say in the process. Reduce special interest influence and money in politics. YES on Prop. 77: Let the Voters Decide. The Problem: California’s flawed election system allows partisan politicians to draw the boundary lines of their own districts—splitting up towns and even neighborhoods for personal gain. The result: there is no accountability because the incumbents rig the districts to ensure they have NO serious competition, guaranteed re-election, and are NOT accountable to voters. It used to be that voters picked their politicians—now politicians pick their voters. And that’s NOT FAIR. 'California lawmakers are so adept at designing their own districts that of the 153 seats—80 Assembly, 20 state Senate, 53 Congressional—theoretically up for grabs last November (2004), not a single one switched parties.' Wall Street Journal, March 11, 2005 When politicians are not accountable to voters, they become accountable only to their special interest campaign contributors. That’s why we still have record deficits, unbalanced budgets, out-of-control spending, and calls for higher taxes, year after year. Wouldn’t it be better if legislators would work to improve education, cut wasteful government spending, eliminate bureaucracy, and balance the budget once and for all? But that won’t happen until our elected officials start paying attention to us. Under the current system, they only pay attention to their campaign contributors. It’s time for a change. Prop. 77—The Bipartisan Voter Empowerment Solution 1. Voters will be able to vote on the new redistricting plan. That gives the people of California more power and the special interests less. 2. To ensure district lines that are competitive and fair, a panel of retired judges—selected through a bipartisan process with no political agenda—will draw new district lines according to strict guidelines. 3. Voters then may approve or reject the lines. That puts us, Californians, in charge of our elections. 4. Neighborhoods and communities will matter again. Incumbents will no longer be able to draw their own districts, splitting up towns and neighborhoods in an effort to guarantee their own re-election. Prop. 77 IS A COMMON SENSE, BIPARTISAN SOLUTION THAT WILL: Guarantee fair, competitive elections for California voters. Give voters the final say in the process. Hold the politicians accountable. Reduce the influence of political money. Now is the time. After many years of opposing reform, overspending, and gridlock, legislative leaders of both parties finally admitted, this year, that redistricting reform is necessary—that allowing politicians to draw their own districts is a conflict of interest that must be changed. The opportunity is now. PLEASE JOIN US IN VOTING YES ON PROP. 77 TO: HOLD THE POLITICIANS ACCOUNTABLE! CLEAN UP SACRAMENTO. REDUCE PARTISAN POLITICS. RETURN ELECTORAL CONTROL TO THE PEOPLE.

”

Opposition

Website art of the "No on 77" campaign

No on 77 led the campaign in opposition to Proposition 77.

Opponents

Political Parties

• California Democratic Party

Unions

• AFSCME California
• California Teachers Association

Official arguments

The official voter guide arguments opposing Proposition 77 were signed by Daniel H. Lowenstein, a former chair of the California Fair Political Practices Commission; George H. Zenovich, a retired judge; and Henry "Hank" Lacayo, state president of the Congress of California Seniors:

“

Proposition 77 Makes Things Worse Every time they don’t get their way, politicians cook up new schemes to change the rules. They’ve tried sneaking redistricting schemes past voters four times over the last 25 years, and each time, VOTERS SAID NO! This time, their plan will cost taxpayers millions, and three judges and two courts have ruled it was illegally qualified for the ballot. Don’t be fooled! Read the fine print. This undemocratic and unfair redistricting scheme has huge loopholes. BIG FLAWS: 1) VOTERS LOSE THEIR RIGHT to reject redistricting plans before they go into effect. 2) POLITICIANS SELECT THE JUDGES to draw their districts for them. 3) Prop. 77 COSTS TAXPAYERS MILLIONS each time they reject redistricting plans. 4) Only 3 UNELECTED JUDGES WILL DECIDE EVERYTHING. That’s not fair or balanced. 5) This unworkable scheme will be CEMENTED INTO OUR CONSTITUTION! PLANS TAKE EFFECT WITHOUT VOTER APPROVAL Redistricting plans made from Prop. 77 automatically go into effect WITH NO APPROVAL FROM VOTERS. That’s backwards. Voters should approve plans BEFORE they take effect, not afterward. By the time voters have a say, the damage is done. Why won’t they let voters approve the plans first? POLITICIANS STILL IN CONTROL Under Prop. 77, politicians in the Legislature choose the judges to draw their political districts. Politicians get the best of both worlds—they still pick their voters and now they can hide behind judges. There’s no accountability! REQUIRES MULTIPLE COSTLY ELECTIONS If voters reject redistricting plans, the entire process starts over—new judges, new plans, more elections, and more political bickering—wasting millions of tax dollars. This could go on indefinitely . . . with election after election . . . until voters finally approve . . . all at TAXPAYER EXPENSE! GIVES TOO MUCH POWER TO JUST 3 UNACCOUNTABLE JUDGES This redistricting scheme gives too much power to three retired judges to decide the future of 35 million Californians. These unelected judges have nothing to fear by upsetting the will of the voters. NOT THE WAY TO CHANGE OUR CONSTITUTION Prop. 77 changes our Constitution. But the Constitution is not a place to experiment with California’s future. They’re playing political games with a sacred document. MOST AREAS OF THE STATE UNREPRESENTED Under Prop. 77, all three judges could be from the same area. That’s not fair. For example, three Northern California judges could break up Southern California communities, or vice versa. Central Valley voters could have no redistricting panel representation at all! What effect would this have on regional issues like WATER RIGHTS and TRANSPORTATION FUNDING? WHY NOW? WHAT’S THEIR MOTIVE? Redistricting isn’t scheduled to occur until 2011, after the Census gives an update on California’s population. Instead, special interests spent millions of dollars to rush this strange plan onto the special election ballot. What’s their motive? We do need to reform our government, but Prop. 77 isn’t the answer. VOTE NO ON PROP. 77. IT WON’T MAKE ANYTHING BETTER. www.NoOnProposition77.com

”

Campaign finance

Ballotpedia identified the following committees registered to support or oppose Proposition 77.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$16,693,158.77	$1,122,700.29	$17,815,859.06	$11,089,593.21	$12,212,293.50
Oppose	$22,803,415.40	$852,366.49	$23,480,881.89	$17,665,651.40	$18,518,017.89
Total	$39,496,574.17	$1,975,066.78	$41,296,740.95	$28,755,244.61	$30,730,311.39

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in support of the measure.

Committees in support of Proposition 77
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Redistrict California - Yes on 77	$8,687,720.00	$743,756.05	$9,431,476.05	$8,501,100.87	$9,244,856.92
Governor Schwarzenegger's California Recovery Team	$4,913,723.61	$0.00	$4,913,723.61	$0.00	$0.00
Californians for Fair Redistricting, Yes on Proposition 77	$1,934,702.00	$80,695.24	$2,015,397.24	$1,152,013.16	$1,232,708.40
Californians for Fair Elections, Yes on Proposition 77	$1,143,049.00	$293,249.00	$1,436,298.00	$1,422,515.02	$1,715,764.02
Common Cause for Proposition 77	$13,964.16	$5,000.00	$18,964.16	$13,964.16	$18,964.16
Committee for an Independent Voice - Yes on 77!	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00
Total	$16,693,158.77	$1,122,700.29	$17,815,859.06	$11,089,593.21	$12,212,293.50

Donors

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

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Steve Poizner	$1,487,000.00	$0.00	$1,487,000.00
L. John Doerr, III	$850,000.00	$0.00	$850,000.00
California Chamber of Commerce	$802,000.00	$0.00	$802,000.00
California Business PAC	$540,000.00	$0.00	$540,000.00
Alex G. Spanos	$500,000.00	$0.00	$500,000.00

Opposition

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in opposition to the measure.

Committees in opposition to Proposition 77
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
A Coalition of Legal Experts, Filmmakers, Businessmen, and Working People	$11,392,060.18	$8,730.26	$11,400,790.44	$8,471,398.46	$8,480,128.72
No on 77 - Californians for Fair Representation	$6,476,055.22	$743,636.23	$7,219,691.45	$5,876,056.77	$6,619,693.00
Committee to Protect California's Future - No on 77	$4,760,400.00	$100,000.00	$4,860,400.00	$3,122,491.94	$3,222,491.94
For Judicial Restraint - No on 77	$174,900.00	$0.00	$174,900.00	$195,704.23	$195,704.23
Asian Pacific Americans for an Informed California, A Committee Against Propositions 73, 74,75, 76, and 77	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00
Californians Against Arnold's Special Interest Election - No on 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, and 78 and Yes on 79 and 80	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00
Total	$22,803,415.40	$852,366.49	$23,655,781.89	$17,665,651.40	$18,518,017.89

Donors

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

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Committee to Protect California's Future No on 77	$2,031,000.00	$0.00	$2,031,000.00
Voter Education and Registration Fund	$1,786,365.22	$79,686.69	$1,866,051.91
Democratic State Central Committee of California	$500,000.00	$599,506.28	$1,099,506.28
CA Teachers Association Issues PAC	$700,000.00	$0.00	$700,000.00
AFSCME	$500,000.00	$0.00	$500,000.00

Methodology

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

Media editorials

Support

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

• The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board: "Under Proposition 77, the State Judicial Council would pick, by lot, a pool of 24 retired judges. Lawmakers from both parties would narrow this pool to 16 finalists, from which three judges would be chosen by lot to make up the redistricting panel. All by itself, this measure would not bring in a fresh set of politicians, but it could lead to more contested seats and more responsive incumbents. It’s small step forward, but one that lawmakers will never do themselves. Voters should approve it on Nov. 8."
• The Fresno Bee Editorial Board: "Proposition 77 is a chance for voters to reclaim power from the politicians and special interests who control them. Now that’s a power grab that makes sense. Vote 'yes' on Proposition 77."
• Merced Sun-Star Editorial Board: "Prop. 77 is the state's best chance to reform the flawed redistricting process - and, in turn, reform our flawed government. The Sun-Star urges a 'yes' vote on Prop. 77 on Nov. 8"

Opposition

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

Polls

See also: Ballotpedia's approach to covering polls and 2005 ballot measure polls

Are you aware of a poll on this ballot measure that should be included below? You can share ballot measure polls, along with source links, with us at editor@ballotpedia.org.

California Proposition 77, Transfer Legislative and Congressional Redistricting to Panel of Retired Judges Initiative (2005)
Poll	Dates	Sample size	Margin of error	Support	Oppose	Undecided

Public Policy Institute of California	10/16/2005 - 10/23/2005	1,079 LV	± 3.0%	36%	50%	14%
	Question: "Proposition 77 is called the “Redistricting Initiative Constitutional Amendment.” It amends the state Constitution’s process for redistricting California’s senate, assembly, congressional, and Board of Equalization districts. It requires a three-member panel of retired judges selected by legislative leaders. The one-time state redistricting costs total no more than 1.5 million dollars and county costs are in the range of 1 million dollars. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on Proposition 77?"

SurveyUSA	10/29/2005 - 10/31/2005	1,948 LV	± 2.3%	44%	53%	3%
	Question: "Finally, Proposition 77. Proposition 77 changes the way California draws boundaries for Congressional and legislative districts. District boundaries would be drawn by a panel of retired judges and approved by voters in a statewide election. If the special election were today, would you vote Yes on 77? Or would you vote no?"

Note: LV is likely voters, RV is registered voters, and EV is eligible voters.

Path to the ballot

Process in California

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in California

A combined initiated constitutional amendment and state statute is a citizen-initiated ballot measure that amends both a state's constitution and state statute. There are at least two (2) states that allow citizens to initiate combined amendments and statutes.

In California, the number of signatures required for a combined initiated constitutional amendment and state statute is equal to 8% of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election. A simple majority vote is required for voter approval.

The requirements to get combined initiated constitutional amendment and state statutes certified for the 2005 ballot:

• Signatures: 598,105 valid signatures were required.
• Deadline: The deadline for signature verification was July 3, 2005.

Lawsuit

• July 21, 2005: Superior Court Judge Gail Ohanesian ruled that the qualifying signatures for Proposition 77 were gathered illegally and ordered it removed from the ballot. The basis for her decision was that Proposition 77 supporters had submitted one version of the measure to the California Attorney General to use as the basis for preparation of the official ballot title, but used a different version on the petition forms that were circulated for signatures.
• July 25, 2005: The California Third District Court of Appeal temporarily suspended the measure's removal from the ballot, allowing it to be included in the public review period for initiatives.
• August 9, 2005: The Court of Appeal ruled that the discrepancies between the two versions of the initiative constituted "a clear violation of the constitutional and statutory procedure for the circulating of an initiative petition."
• August 10, 2005: Supporters of Proposition 77 appealed the August 9 decision to the California Supreme Court.
• August 12, 2005: The California Supreme Court ruled that "it would not be appropriate to deny the electorate the opportunity to vote" on the measure, thereby placing Proposition 77 back on the ballot.

See also

2005 Measures

• 2005 Measures
• Redistricting policy on the ballot
• 2005 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

• Official California Voter Guide
• Full text of Proposition 77
• Proposition 77 on the Smart Voter Guide
• Guide to Proposition 77 from the California Voter Foundation
• Summary of donors to and against 77 from Cal-Access
• Donors for and against Proposition 77 from Follow The Money
• Official election results

Supporters:

• Yes on Proposition 77 (archived website)
• Yes on Proposition 77 from Ted Costa (archived website)

Opponents:

• No on Proposition 77 (archived website)