California

2010

Signature Deadline in 2010: Late February 2010
Number of Signatures Needed to Qualify: 433,971 (statutory initiative); 694,354 (constitutional amendment)
Gubernatorial Election in 2010: Open
US Senate Election in 2010: Boxer (D)

 

The California legislature has referred three initiatives to the 2010 June primary election ballot. The first of these referenda would create an open primary system similar to Washington state’s system, in which the top two candidates in the primary, regardless of party, would move on to the general election. The legislature will also ask voters to approve the California Fair Elections Act of 2008, which would authorize eligible candidates for Secretary of State to obtain public funds according to specified procedures and requirements, provided that certain thresholds are attained. The third measure on the 2010 primary ballot would create a property tax exemption for building improvements that increase durability and resistance to earthquakes.

Over 100 initiatives have been filed or certified to collect signatures since the close of the 2008 elections. Some of the most notable initiatives being proposed are a repeal of three prominent corporate tax loopholes, health insurance regulation, a constitutional convention, marijuana legalization and taxation, and attempts to repeal or amend last year’s Proposition 8.

Additionally, efforts are under way to collect signature petitions to place a paycheck deception initiative on the 2010 ballot. A similar initiative, which would cripple labor union free speech rights, failed to win voter approval in 2005.

An effort to place caps on public employee retirement benefits has also been filed. The measure would cut police and firefighter pensions by 35%, teachers by 45% and other employees by 50% or more. The next step for the initiative would be to collect signatures to place it on the ballot. Mike Arno is an advisory board member of the group pushing the initiative, and his signature gathering firm Arno Consulting has a history of fraud and deception in California.

• 2006. Elections officials suspected fraudulent signatures in the petitions Arno collected regarding an initiative that would force a June vote among SMUD customers on whether the public-power utility should expand into Yolo County. During a routine signature verification, 32.2 percent out of the 1,600 signatures were found invalid, a percentage which caused election officials to have to examine every signature. ("Petitions spur suspicions" Sacramento Bee. February 17, 2006).
• 2007. A Los Angeles city attorney is hired to investigate a report that Arno, the signature gathering group hired to circulate the Republican backed and funded Electoral College Reform Initiative, had offered food to homeless people in exchange for signing the petitions. As the campaign struggled to get a sufficient number of signatures to qualify, observations were made that signature gatherers were asking homeless people on the city's notorious Skid Row for their signatures to help qualify the electoral vote in exchange for Snickers bars, instant noodles and other snack foods. ("Opponents of California Ballot Initiative Seek Inquiry," New York Times. November 21, 2007.)

Pacific Gas & Electric, a power corporation, has submitted signatures for their ballot initiative to require a 2/3 voter supermajority to fund and implement public power programs, such as community choice aggregation. The petition was circulated by Arno Consulting, a firm that has a history of fraudulent practices and tactics, and their signature gatherers have again been accused of using deception to qualify this initiative.

2009 Special Election

In California, the legislature put forward six budget related ballot initiatives for voter approval in a May 19 special election. The proposed measures were part of a budget deal passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor that sought to deal with a nearly $42-billion projected deficit by making deep spending cuts, raising revenue and increasing borrowing in order to close the budget gap. All but one was defeated at the ballot box.

The most controversial and complicated ballot measure was Proposition 1A. The ballot initiative asked voters to approve both the $16 million in revenue increases that help close the budget gap and agree to permanent revenue and spending caps in future years.

The spending cap would have prevented future legislators from raising state spending when California's treasury is flush and instead deposited that money into a rainy-day fund for unexpected deficits. Only when that reserve exceeded an eighth of the state's revenues could legislators have used the revenue for other purposes.

The new state budget made the largest single budget cut ever made to public education in California- an $11 billion cut to schools and colleges. Proposition 1B would have required the state to make supplemental payments to K-14 education totaling $9.3 billion starting in the fiscal year 2011-12. However the education funding was made contingent on the passage of Prop. 1A. Both 1A and 1B were defeated.

Voters also decided against changing a 1984 voter initiative that created the California Lottery and dedicated lottery revenue to schools. Proposition 1C would have borrowed some $5 billion against future lottery revenues that are currently dedicated to education funding in order to help fill the state's current budget gap.

Proposition 1D, also defeated, would have temporarily allowed the state to divert $608 million from the 1998 voter approved Proposition 10 California Children and Families Act. If approved the proposal would have shifted tobacco tax revenues that are currently funding for children's health care to general-fund costs of children's health care in the fiscal year beginning July 1.

Voters declined to change the 2004 voter approved Proposition 63 (Mental Health Services Act) as well. Proposition 1E would have redirected $230 million of yearly mental health service funding to children's health care programs. 

And finally, Proposition 1F (the only initiative to pass) asked voters to prevent pay increases for Legislators and Statewide officers when the state runs a deficit.

2008

For more 2008 election information, click here.

 

For additional information please check with the California Secretary of State: http://www.sos.ca.gov/