VOTER TURNOUT AND IDEOLOGICAL BALLOT MEASURE SUCCESS IN
CALIFORNIA, 1912-2009
Kurt Ryan Oneto
B.A., University of California, Berkeley, 2002
J.D., University of California, Los Angeles, 2006
THESIS
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
GOVERNMENT
at
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
FALL
2009
© 2009
Kurt Ryan Oneto
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ii
VOTER TURNOUT AND IDEOLOGICAL BALLOT MEASURE SUCCESS IN
CALIFORNIA, 1912-2009
A Thesis
by
Kurt Ryan Oneto
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Dr. Wesley Hussey
__________________________________, Second Reader
Dr. Brian DiSarro
____________________________
Date
iii
Student: Kurt Ryan Oneto
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University
format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to
be awarded for the thesis.
__________________________, Graduate Coordinator
Dr. James Cox
Department of Government
iv
___________________
Date
Abstract
of
VOTER TURNOUT AND IDEOLOGICAL BALLOT MEASURE SUCCESS IN
CALIFORNIA, 1912-2009
by
Kurt Ryan Oneto
Statement of Problem
Many campaign professionals in California rely on the assumption that “liberal”
ballot measures enjoy a higher likelihood of success in high turnout elections, and that
“conservative” ballot measures enjoy a higher likelihood of success in low turnout
elections. Significant sums of campaign money and manpower are often allocated on the
basis of this assumption. However, academic research has largely, if not wholly, ignored
the relationship between voter turnout levels and ideological ballot measure outcomes.
Sources of Data
All California statewide ballot propositions that appeared on the ballot between
1912 and 2009 were reviewed. A total of 237 “liberal” ballot measures and 173
“conservative” ballot measures were identified. Each of these broader categories were
broken down into two sub-categories: economic/governmental and moral/social.
The percentage of the votes cast in favor of each of these measures and the
California Secretary of State’s historical voter turnout statistics were analyzed to
determine if a relationship exists between voter turnout levels and the percentage of votes
cast for, or against, ideological ballot measures in California.
Conclusions Reached
No statistically significant positive correlation was observed between the level of
voter turnout and the “yes” vote share for liberal ballot measures in California. A
statistically significant negative correlation was observed between the level of voter
turnout and the “yes” vote share for conservative ballot measures in California. The
v
relationship was significant for both economic/governmental conservative measures and
moral/social conservative measures.
_______________________, Committee Chair
Dr. Wesley Hussey
_______________________
Date
vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First and foremost, I must thank Sacramento State University professors James
Cox, Wesley Hussey, and Brian DiSarro for encouraging me to undertake this project.
Similar thanks is owed to the rest of the Government Department faculty at Sacramento
State for making the pursuit of a master’s degree such a wonderful experience. I also
owe a debt of gratitude to all of my past professors at the University of California,
Berkeley and the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law who helped me
along in my educational journey up to this point. I owe particular thanks to UC-Berkeley
professors Raymond Wolfinger, Terri Bimes, and Anthony Adamthwaite; to UCLA Law
professors Daniel Lowenstein, Eugene Volokh, Kirk Stark, and Kristen Holmquist; and to
UCLA Law visiting professor Rick Hasen. Each had a significant impact on my
development as a student and as a person.
I would also like to thank my supervisors at Nielsen, Merksamer, Parrinello,
Mueller & Naylor LLP, Steve Merksamer and Richard Martland, for the wisdom,
opportunities, and advice they have shared with me; and for giving me a front-row seat in
the fascinating world of direct democracy in California.
Last but not least, I would like to thank my wife Lauren and my brother Evan for
all of their comments, input, and proofreading—without which this endeavor and many
others would not have been possible.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables .............................................................................................................. ix
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTON .................................................................................................... 1
2. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................... 7
3. LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................................... 19
4. THEORY .............................................................................................................. 33
5. HYPOTHESES ..................................................................................................... 36
6. DEFINITIONS ...................................................................................................... 37
7. DATA ................................................................................................................... 49
8. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA ................................................................................ 53
9. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................... 65
Appendix A. Liberal Ballot Measures ...................................................................... 70
Appendix B. Conservative Ballot Measures ............................................................. 93
Appendix C. Liberal Economic/Governmental Ballot Measures ........................... 112
Appendix D. Liberal Moral/Social Ballot Measures .............................................. 113
Appendix E. Conservative Economic/Governmental Ballot Measures .................. 114
Appendix F. Conservative Moral/Social Ballot Measures ..................................... 115
Appendix G. Secretary of State Voter Turnout Statistics ....................................... 116
Bibliography ............................................................................................................. 119
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1. Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Level of Voter Turnout and “Yes” Vote
Percentage on Liberal Ballot Measures…...……………………………………..55
2. Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for Level of Voter Turnout and “Yes” Vote
Percentage on Conservative Ballot Measures…………………………………..55
3. Table 3. Correlation Matrix for Voter Turnout Levels and “Yes” Vote Shares on
Liberal Ballot Measures..…...………………………………………..…………. 56
4. Table 4. Correlation Matrix for Voter Turnout Levels and “Yes” Vote Shares on
Conservative Ballot Measures..…...………………..………………..…………..57
5. Table 5. Correlation Matrix for Voter Turnout Levels and “Yes” Vote Shares on
Liberal Ballot Measures, 1912-1944, 1946-1978, 1979-2009..…...……………..58
6. Table 6. Correlation Matrix for Voter Turnout Levels and “Yes” Vote Shares on
Conservative Ballot Measures, 1912-1944, 1946-1978, and 1979-2009..…….…60
7. Table 7. Correlation Matrix for Voter Turnout Levels and “Yes” Vote Shares on
Liberal Moral/Social and Economic/Governmental Ballot Measures..…….........62
8. Table 8. Correlation Matrix for Voter Turnout Levels and “Yes” Vote Shares on
Conservative Moral/Social and Economic/Governmental Ballot Measures…….64
ix
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Do variations in voter turnout affect the chances of success of ideologicallyoriented ballot measures in California? Whether they do or not, a growing body of
evidence indicates that the conventional wisdom in the Golden State among political
professionals, campaign consultants, pollsters, journalists, pundits, and even some
academics is that voter turnout levels can and do impact the chances of success of
ideological ballot measures, with the theory positing that liberal ballot measures fare
better in high turnout elections and conservative ballot measures fare better in low
turnout elections. The assumptions behind this emerging conventional wisdom are quite
simple: the thinking is that higher propensity conservative voters are overrepresented in
low turnout elections, while high turnout elections are more representative of California’s
liberal-leaning electorate. Therefore, conservative ballot initiatives benefit from low
turnout and liberal measures benefit from high turnout.
A prime example of the existence of this conventional wisdom is the hotlycontested debate that is currently underway within the gay rights community regarding
the best time to seek a reversal of Proposition 8, a measure on California’s 2008 General
Election ballot that successfully outlawed same-sex marriage in the state. The primary
point of contention over whether gay marriage advocates should run a measure proposing
to legalize same-sex marriage in the 2010 gubernatorial election—or wait until the next
presidential election in 2012—has focused on the anticipated differences in voter turnout
for those two elections.
2
After extensive analysis, Equality California, which calls itself the largest gay
rights advocacy group in California, decided that it will not try to qualify a measure for
the 2010 ballot. Rather, Equality California has declared it will set its sights on a 2012
campaign.1 In Equality California’s comprehensive campaign plan titled “Winning Back
Marriage Equality in California,” an entire section is devoted to the topic of “Turnout—
Presidential Ballot Versus Gubernatorial Ballot.”2 In that section, the plan states that
“[p]residential elections draw a greater turnout than any other type of election, including
gubernatorial elections.”3 In addition, relying on polling conducted by David Binder
Research, the campaign plan asserts that, based on turnout projections, public support for
a same-sex marriage proposition would start out at 46 percent “yes”/49 percent “no” in
2010, but would start out at 48 percent “yes”/46 percent “no” in a 2012 election.4 The
Equality California report goes so far in breaking down voter turnout scenarios as to
calculate that by 2012, 776,000 new voters under the age of 21 (who are typically more
supportive of gay marriage) will join the voter rolls while 122,000 older voters (who are
typically less supportive of gay marriage) will have died. The campaign plan asserts that
this factor nets another two percentage points for the same-sex marriage camp, thereby
bringing the advantage of a 2012 election over a 2010 election to four percentage points.5
Jack Chang, “Gay Rights Group Will Wait Until 2012 to Challenge Prop. 8,” Sacramento Bee,
August 12, 2009.
2
Equality California, “Winning Back Marriage Equality in California: Analysis and Plan,”
http://www.eqca.org/atf/cf/%7B34f258b3-8482-4943-91cb-08c4b0246a88%7D/EQCAWINNING_BACK_MARRIAGE_EQUALITY.PDF (accessed November 3, 2009).
3
Ibid., 7.
4
Ibid., 8.
5
Ibid., 9-10.
1
3
Equality California was not alone in its view that a presidential election, with its
attendant higher turnout, would be a friendlier ballot for a liberal measure seeking to
legalize gay marriage. Professional political consultants were strongly of the same view.
The “Winning Back Marriage Equality in California” report explained that Equality
California shared its polling data with “some of the most successful political consultants
in California,” and “those who took a position were nearly unanimous in their perspective
that neither the data nor their intuition” supported a 2010 campaign.6 Field Poll director
Mark DiCamillo echoed this position, stating that the pro-gay marriage side “would have
a significant challenge” in 2010, but would face “less of a challenge in 2012.”7 Mark
Baldassare, director of research at the Public Policy Institute of California, agreed: “It
would seem that waiting two years would give them (supporters of same-sex marriage) a
better potential electorate.”8 Veteran Democratic consultant Sue Burnside was more
direct, stating “If you lose in the best year you could possibly have in terms of turnout
(2008), if you get a year that’s closer to that turnout and run a better campaign, you’ll
probably win.”9 Overall, the recommendation from sympathetic campaign consultants to
wait until 2012 has been described as “near unanimous.”10
The question whether variation in voter turnout influences the chances of success
of ideologically-oriented ballot measures is important, yet largely overlooked. It is
6
Ibid., 14.
Steve Wiegand, “Anti-Prop. 8 Forces Should Wait for 2012 Ballot, Pollsters Say,” Sacramento
Bee, May 28, 2009.
8
Ibid.
9
John Marelius, “Advisers Urge Foes of Prop. 8 Not to Rush,” San Diego Union-Tribune, August
3, 2009.
10
Ibid.
7
4
important because, as highlighted in the battle over same-sex marriage, many campaign
consultants, strategists, and pollsters often rely on the assumption that turnout does
actually impact the chances of success for ideological ballot measures. It is overlooked
because it has been largely, if not wholly, ignored by academic research. However, the
question whether voter turnout rates do actually affect the chances for success of
ideologically-oriented ballot measures does have real world consequences.
First, campaign resources for ballot measures are often allocated on the
assumption that variations in turnout do influence electoral outcomes. For example,
many, if not most, initiative campaigns use professional signature gatherers to qualify
their measures for the ballot. Additionally, signature collection firms base their fees at
least in part, and sometimes in large part, on the amount of time available to qualify a
measure for a particular election. Therefore, if a ballot proposition campaign believes its
measure will have a better chance of winning at a closer election (with less time to collect
signatures) than at a more distant election (with more time to collect signatures), the
campaign may have to spend more money on signature gathering in order to get the
measure on the ballot at the preferred election.11
Second, the amount of money an initiative campaign believes it needs to raise is
often based at least in part on whether or not the ballot upon which the measure will
11
Subdivision (c) of Section 8 of Article II of the California Constitution and Section 9013 of the
California Elections Code state that no measure shall be placed on an election ballot that qualifies less than
131 days before the date of the election. Section 336 of the California Elections Code sets the maximum
timeframe to collect signatures to qualify any ballot initiative at 150 days. These time periods can overlap,
thereby cutting down the number of days available to circulate a ballot initiative for signatures and still
qualify it for a preferred election.
5
appear is considered to be a “friendly” election for that particular initiative—based on the
theory that the friendlier the election is, the less money it will take to pass the measure.
Furthermore, the “friendliness” of an election is usually based upon a prediction about the
types of voters that are most likely to participate.
Additionally, as also seen in the battle over same-sex marriage, strategic reliance
on the conventional wisdom that voter turnout influences the fortunes of ideologicallyoriented ballot measures can impact Californians on a personal level. For instance, while
their cause may ultimately benefit, homosexuals in California might have to wait an
additional two years—or perhaps longer—before they get their next opportunity to have a
public discussion on the merits of gay marriage.
Overall, if voter turnout levels do in fact affect the chances of success of
ideologically-oriented initiatives, then initiative campaigns would be justified in their
reliance on the conventional wisdom.12 On the other hand, if the effect of voter turnout
on direct legislation outcomes has been overstated, initiative campaigns could allocate
their resources in a more efficient manner. This study will attempt to clarify the strength
of the relationship between voter turnout and ideological ballot measure outcomes. In
particular, an attempt will be made to determine not simply whether voter turnout can
affect a narrow subset of conservative or liberal measures, but instead to further ascertain
whether a broader rule of thumb can be identified that would apply to a wider range of
I use the terms “ballot measure,” “measure,” “initiative,” “ballot proposition,” and “proposition”
interchangeably, even though some consider “initiative” as only applying to measures put on the ballot
directly by the voters. Furthermore, for the purposes of this study, no distinction is made between citizen
and legislative measures, or between statutory and constitutional measures.
12
6
ideologically-oriented measures. Identification of a broader relationship that could guide
initiative campaigns in a larger set of circumstances would have a bigger impact on
initiative campaign practice and would be more useful to campaign strategists.
7
Chapter 2
BACKGROUND
The conventional wisdom that voter turnout influences direct legislation outcomes
is not confined to a single instance. It has become an ever-present component of just
about every pre-election prediction on, and post-election explanation of, ballot measure
outcomes in California. Furthermore, the view is shared across the political spectrum.
Liberals and conservatives have expressed faith in it. Campaign observers and campaign
operatives have demonstrated their reliance on it. Pollsters, pundits, and professors have
all referred to it. Democrats and Republicans alike have been accused of trying to exploit
it.
Campaign consultants have demonstrated a strong belief in this conventional
wisdom regarding the relationship between voter turnout and ideological ballot measure
outcomes. For example, prominent Democratic consultants Garry South, Gale Kaufman,
and Frank Russo have all stated publicly at one time or another that conservative
measures depend on low turnout for success, liberal measures depend on high turnout for
success, or that both liberal and conservative measures depend on particular types of
turnout for success.13 Russo has gone so far as to publicly implore liberal voters turn out
Pamela J. Podger, “One Million Back School Bonds Initiative; Measure Would put Passage at
55 Percent Instead of Two-Thirds,” San Francisco Chronicle, May 23, 2000; Letter from Gale Kaufman to
Marc Solomon, September 17, 2009, http://www.preparetoprevail.com/pdfs/KAUFMANMEMO.PDF
(accessed December 9, 2009); Frank Russo, “Anti-Choice Voters Will Flock to Polls on Prop 85 and Pass
Measure Defeated in Special Election if We don’t Get Our Vote Out,” California Progress Report Blog,
entry posted October 19, 2006, http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/?q=print/5335 (accessed
December 9, 2009); Frank Russo, “Field Poll Shows California Prop 4—Parential Notification and Waiting
Period for Abortion by Minors—is Leading and That Turnout May Decide its Fate,” California Progress
13
8
and vote against two measures requiring parental notification for minors seeking
abortions so that conservatives would not be allowed to dominate the polls and get the
measures enacted.
Republican consultants are similarly cognizant of the apparent link between
turnout and the results on ideologically-oriented initiatives. Marko Mlikotin, a wellknown Republican strategist, noted during a 2008 ballot initiative campaign that low
turnout “historically favors conservative…causes.”14 Republican heavyweight Ed
Rollins has also acknowledged the advantages that variations in turnout can provide to
ideologically-oriented ballot initiatives.15 In 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger’s
campaign team was thought to have made a conscious decision to call a special election
for the Governor’s reform measures instead of waiting for a regularly scheduled ballot in
order to get the benefit, if any, resulting from a low turnout.16
Pollsters have also bought into the concept. Even outside of the gay
marriage/Proposition 8 context, Field Poll’s DiCamillo has said that, traditionally, heavy
turnout favors liberal causes because there are more Californians registered Democrat
that Republican, and high turnout brings out younger voters and Latinos to
Report Blog, entry posted September 26, 2008,
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/?q=print/1648.
14
Michael Gardner, “Prop. 98 Opposed; Prop. 99 Favored; Government Seizure of Property is
Key to Both,” San Diego Union-Tribune, May 29, 2008.
15
Bill Cavala, “The Republican California Electoral Vote Scam – Method in Their Madness,”
California Progress Report Blog, entry posted October 29, 2007,
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/?q=print/6891 (accessed December 11, 2009).
16
Harold Meyerson, “Arnold Terminates Himself,” The Washington Post, November 10, 2005.
9
counterbalance the older, whiter segment of the electorate that consistently votes.17 Other
pollsters have been more direct in their views on the importance of turnout in ballot
measure elections. In their report, “Top 5 Reasons for Using Research in Ballot Measure
Campaigns,” nationally-renowned pollsters Bob Meadow and Heidi von Szeliski18 make
the pitch to potential clients that “As anyone involved in politics is keenly aware, not all
voters are alike. Determining the timing for when to go on the ballot is an important
element of your campaign planning…[w]ill turnout affect the voters who are more
supportive of our issue?” (Underscoring in original.) Meadow and von Szeliski go on to
proclaim:
Pollsters examine the types of voters very closely, and can make
determinations about when the best time to go on the ballot might be.
When we have looked at likely levels of support for projected turnouts for
special, off-year, or regular elections, our polling has shown that those
who are most supportive of…[tax and school bond measures]…are the
least likely to turnout to vote in low turnout elections. As a result, we
have made the appropriate recommendations for ballot timing to enhance
our prospects.19 (Underscoring in original.)
Other political professionals are similarly committed to the view that turnout
affects the likelihood of success of ideologically-oriented ballot measures. Anthony
William Booth and Rene Sanchez, “Schwarzenegger Wins; Davis is Ousted as California
Governor in Recall Election,” Washington Post, October 8, 2003.
18
Bob Meadow is a partner at the firm Lake Research Partners (LRP). Prior to joining LRP, he
was a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, UC-San Diego, and the University of Southern
California. (Lake Research Partners, http://www.lakeresearch.com/people/robert_meadow.asp.) Heidi von
Szeliski is the founder of Heidi von Szeliski & Associates, a national public opinion research firm in San
Diego, CA. (Heidi von Szeliski & Associates, http://hvsassociates.com.)
19
Bob Meadow and Heidi von Szeliski, “Top 5 Reasons for Using Research in Ballot Measure
Campaigns,” Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, http://www.ballot.org/page//ballot.org/Resources/Why_Do_Opinion_Research%20-%20Bob%20Meadow.pdf (accessed December 9,
2009).
17
10
Wright, the executive director of Health Access California,20 blamed the defeat of
Proposition 56 (2004 Primary)—which would have lowered the threshold to enact a state
budget from two-thirds to fifty-five percent—on “remarkably low turnout.”21 Jamie
Court, president of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, offered the same
explanation of the 2006 General Election. Court argued that an unusually low turnout
was responsible for the defeat of progressive measures seeking to enact campaign finance
reforms, create an alternative energy research fund, and to increase healthcare funding. 22
A post-election analysis commissioned by the California HealthCare Foundation after the
2006 General Election likewise found that lower-than-expected turnout was to blame for
the defeat of Proposition 86, a measure that would have increased California’s cigarette
tax. The analysis lamented the fact that Proposition 86 was decided in a low turnout
election, which “hurt its chances of passage.” The analysis explained that the November
2006 election had the second lowest general election turnout in California history, and
that many supporters of tobacco taxes (such as young voters and ethnic voters) are less
likely participate in low turnout elections.23
20
Health Access California is a statewide health care consumer advocacy coalition, advocating for
the goal of quality, affordable health care for all Californians.
21
Anthony Wright, “Past Reflections on Prop 56: Why the Past is Not Predictive on Reforming
the Two-Thirds Vote Requirement to Pass a California Budget,” Health Access Blog, entry posted
September 22, 2008, http://blog.health-access.org/2008_09_01_Sac_archives.htm (accessed December 12,
2009).
22
Jamie Court, “Reflections of a Consumer Advocate on the California Election,” California
Progress Report Blog, entry posted November 10, 2006,
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/?q=node/5232 (accessed December 10, 2009).
23
Mark DiCamillo, “An Analysis of Pre-Election Field Polls Regarding Proposition 86, the Tax
on Cigarettes Initiative,” California HealthCare Foundation,
http://www.healthvote.org/uploads/pdf/field_nov06.pdf (accessed December 10, 2009).
11
On a current topic, Consumer Watchdog executive director Dean Heller has
accused Mercury Insurance of spending heavily on its effort to qualify for the June 2010
primary election an insurance reform measure that would expand discounts for drivers
who maintain auto insurance coverage. In Heller’s view, Mercury is speeding up
signature collection because a primary turnout may be more favorable for the reform
measure than a general election turnout. Heller’s recent statements demonstrate his faith
in the conventional wisdom that voter turnout can influence direct legislation outcomes:
Not surprisingly, Mercury is spending millions on its paid signature
gatherers to rush the measure onto the June 2010 ballot. They’re
expecting a low turnout, especially if Attorney General Jerry Brown runs
unopposed in the Democratic primary for governor, and Mercury and its
team of consulting firms would prefer not to face a more representative
electorate in November.24
In other instances, journalists have evinced their belief in the conventional
wisdom that conservative measures benefit from low turnout and liberal measures benefit
from high turnout. Prominent California political columnist Dan Walters has called for
barring initiatives in primary elections because, in his opinion, conservative economic
interests can dominate low turnout primaries and distort the outcomes of statewide ballot
measures. Walters believes that ballot initiatives should be confined to general elections
because they better represent California’s electorate.25 Wall Street Journal reporters Jim
Carlton and Stu Woo have also declared that low turnout elections in California unduly
24
Doug Heller, “When an Insurance Giant Funds a Ballot Measure, Watch Out for Your Wallet,”
California Progress Report Blog, entry posted December 4, 2009,
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/?q=print/7201 (accessed December 10, 2009).
25
Dan Walters, “California’s Primary Shows Need for Reform,” San Gabriel Valley Tribune, June
12, 2006.
12
advantage conservative voters and the causes they support.26 Tim Rutten, who has been
writing for the Los Angeles Times for more than thirty years, similarly asserts that
movements in voter turnout can determine the fortunes of ballot measure campaigns.27
The New America Foundation’s Mark Paul weighed in on the issue by claiming that it is
“generally assumed” that low turnout elections are unrepresentative of California’s
electorate, which in turn benefits conservative measures and disadvantages liberal ones.28
The conventional wisdom on voter turnout and ideological ballot measure outcomes is
even recognized by smaller newspapers like the Santa Barbara Independent, which has
referenced the notion that low turnout elections tend to favor conservatives and high
turnout elections favor liberals.29
Academic commentators have also opined on the conventional wisdom that
liberal measures perform better in high turnout elections and conservative propositions
perform better in low turnout elections. Discussing the potential outcomes on the ballot
initiatives appearing in California’s 2005 Special Election, Sacramento State University
communications professor Barbara O’Connor indicated that the opponents of the special
election measures had to be careful not to discourage turnout “because historically in low
Jim Carlton and Stu Woo, “California Voters Reject Budget Measures,” Wall Street Journal,
May 20, 2009.
27
Tim Rutten, “California’s Democratic Dilemma,” Los Angeles Times, October 14, 2009.
28
Mark Paul, “California Voters Supported Tax Increases at Local Ballots,” The Blockbuster
Democracy Blog, entry posted June 4, 2008, http://www.newamerica.net/blog/blockbusterdemocracy/2008/guest-post-california-voters-approved-tax-increases-4385 (accessed December 9, 2009).
29
Nick Welsh, “Low Voter Turnout Cause for Concern,” Santa Barbara Independent, October 25,
2009.
26
13
voter years, if favors Republicans.”30 Loyola Marymount University political science
professor Fernando Guerra has also expressed the view that turnout impacts initiative
outcomes. Recapping the results on a 2008 measure31 that would have required parental
notification before a minor could receive an abortion in California, Guerra stated: “The
high turnout, which brought out more Democrats in proportion to Republicans,
contributed to the failure of Prop. 4.”32 UCLA School of Law’s Daniel Lowenstein has
likewise speculated that conservative ballot measures would fare better than liberal issues
in primary and special elections based on the differences between general and nongeneral election voters.33 Additionally, Loyola Law School election law expert Dr. Rick
Hasen has editorialized that conservative measures are more likely to pass in low turnout
elections.34
Furthermore, liberal and conservative groups have both been accused of
attempting to work voter turnout in their favor. In 2007, a group of Republican Party
backers filed an initiative to convert California’s winner-take-all method of awarding
electoral votes to a system where electoral votes would be awarded on a district-bydistrict basis among California’s 53 U.S. House seats.35 Democrats immediately cried
Barbara O’Connor, interview by Jenny O’Mara, All Things Considered, Capital Public Radio,
October 12, 2005.
31
Proposition 4 (2008 General Election).
32
Paula Doyle, “Election’s High Turnout Swayed Outcome of Props. 4, 6, and 8,” The Tidings,
November 14, 2008.
33
Interview with Professor Daniel Lowenstein, UCLA School of Law, Los Angeles, CA, July 16,
1990, cited in Center for Governmental Studies, Democracy by Initiative: Shaping California’s Fourth
Branch of Government, 2nd ed. (Los Angeles: Center for Governmental Studies, 2008), 221.
34
Rick Hasen, “Will California Put GOP Over the Top?,” San Diego Tribune, September 25,
2007.
35
California initiative #07-0032. Initiative #07-0032 ultimately failed to qualify for the ballot.
30
14
foul, with most of their attacks focused on the fact that the proponents were desperately
trying to ensure that the measure appeared on the June 2008 primary ballot—not on the
February 2008 presidential primary ballot or the November 2008 general election ballot.
As if it were criminal to target an election with favorable turnout, Democratic
Assemblyman (now state Senator) Mark Leno wrote that the “apparent strategy of the
GOP operatives who are advancing this initiative further reveals their sinister and cynical
intent. They are looking to place it on the June 2008 ballot and exploit low voter turnout
and sneak it through.”36 Other Democratic operatives echoed Leno’s view, alleging that
“[t]he timing is awfully suspicious…[t]o get this stealth initiative on the June primary
ballot where turnout will be light…”37 Rick Jacobs, chairman of the Courage Campaign,
warned that if the measure qualified for the June 2008 election it would pass because,
with three elections in 2008 the June ballot would generate the lowest turnout, so
Republicans could use “obfuscation tactics” to drive their own base to vote yes while
confusing others with their “lies.”38
Republican supporters of the Electoral College measure did little to dispel
Democratic suspicions. Recognizing the importance of a low turnout election to their
chances, Dave Gilliard, the chief strategist of the campaign pushing the initiative, stated
Mark Leno, “California GOP’s Election “Reform” Measure Reeks of Rove,” California
Progress Report Blog, entry posted September 17, 2007,
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/?q=print/3820 (accessed December 11, 2009).
37
Frank Russo, “Shadowy Figures and Deception Surround Republican Attempt to Change How
Californians Award Electoral College Votes in Presidential Elections,” California Progress Report Blog,
entry posted August 6, 2007, http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/?q=print/6498 (accessed
December 11, 2009).
38
Rick Jacobs, “California Republican Party: Dirty Tricks and “Four More Years”—In Iraq,”
California Progress Report Blog, entry posted September 9, 2007,
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/?q=print/3870 (accessed December 11, 2009).
36
15
flatly “[o]ur budget is going to be whatever it takes to make the June ballot.”39 The New
York Times reported that supporters were “frantically raising money and gathering
signatures in order to get it on the June ballot.”40
Shortly thereafter, liberals were up in arms again, this time accusing the sponsors
of Proposition 98—a measure that would have restricted the use of eminent domain and
invalidated rent control laws—of putting the measure on the June 2008 primary ballot
because that election would include a disproportionate number of conservative voters.
Liberal pundits claimed that Proposition 98’s proponents were “counting on a low turnout
without a presidential race on the ballot to draw attention,”41 and that with the June ballot
garnering such low attention “there’s a significant chance that we [liberals] could lose.”42
Marty Omoto, the director of the California Disability Community Action Network,
echoed these sentiments to his members, stating that “extremely low voter turnout could
favor passage of Proposition 98.”43
39
Dan Morain and Joe Mathews, “GOP Revives Electoral Initiative,” Los Angeles Times, October
23, 2007.
40
Jennifer Steinhauer, “Opponents of California Ballot Initiative Seek Inquiry,” The New York
Times, November 21, 2007.
41
Frank Russo, “Deceptive Campaign Ad Funded by Landlords in Favor of June Ballot Prop 98
Blasted by League of Voters and AARP,” California Progress Report Blog, entry posted April 23, 2008,
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/?q=print/2683 (accessed December 11, 2009).
42
Paul Hogarth, “Prop 98 Hidden Agenda for California June Primary is Not So Far Beneath the
Surface,” California Progress Report Blog, entry posted March 18, 2008,
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/?q=print/2896 (accessed December 11, 2009).
43
Marty D. Omoto, “California Proposition 98 Will Abolish Rent Control and Have Major Impact
on Accessible and Affordable Housing for People with Disabilities, Seniors, and Low Income Workers,”
California Progress Report Blog, entry posted May 12, 2008,
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/?q=print/2569 (accessed December 11, 2009).
16
Controversy over the impact of having a second primary in presidential election
years is nothing new. For years, former Assembly Speaker Willie Brown killed attempts
by members of his own caucus to split California’s presidential and statewide primaries
so that California would have more influence in the presidential nominating process.44
Brown was concerned that a second primary in June that only had legislative candidates
on the ballot would provide the opportunity for mischief on the part of initiative
proponents looking for a low turnout election.45 When California finally did split its
presidential and statewide primaries in 2008,46 the actual reason for doing so by that time
was to attempt to loosen the state’s strict term limits law.47 Although term limits reform
had long been a goal of California Democrats, some liberal pundits, reflecting Speaker
Brown’s position, feared that it was not worth the risk of having two primaries because
doing so would “help right-wing propositions sail through in a low turnout election,” and
the June primary in particular would give the “right-wing an opening to pass dangerous
Bill Cavala, “The Republican California Electoral Vote Scam—Method in Their Madness,”
California Progress Report Blog, entry posted October 29, 2007,
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/?q=print/6891 (accessed December 11, 2009).
45
There is evidence that the Legislature is also conscious of the potential impacts that variations in
voter turnout can have on the measures it places on the ballot. For example, the Legislature originally
scheduled a $10 billion high-speed rail bond measure for the ballot in 2004, but ended up postponing the
vote twice, first to 2006 and then to 2008. (Rich Saskal, “Calif. High-Speed Rail Seeks a P3,” The Bond
Buyer, March 14, 2008.) Supporters noted that the move looked “very good for the high speed rail plan”
because “November 2008 will see an enormous turnout of voters likely to support something like high
speed rail, overwhelming the anti-government spending, anti-transit voters that tend to dominate low
turnout elections.” (Robert Cruickshank, “High Speed Rail Polling Details,” California High Speed Rail
Blog, entry posted April 3, 2008, http://www.cahsr.blogspot.com/2008/04/high-speed-rail-pollingdetails.html (accessed December 10, 2009).)
46
Senate Bill 113 (2008, Calderon) moved up California’s presidential primary to February but
left the primary for all other offices in June.
47
Valerie Richardson, “With Term Limits Bill, Less is More; Initiative on California Ballot,” The
Washington Times, February 3, 2008.
44
17
propositions.”48 Other prominent Democratic consultants warned that a June primary
could be disastrous because it might actually have more Republicans voting in it than
Democrats, and that “normally low turnouts help the...conservative side in an election.”49
Despite their protestations to the contrary, Democrats and their liberal allies have
also shown a willingness to exploit variations in voter turnout as a way of gaining the
upper hand in ballot initiative elections. In addition to the well-documented effort to
overturn Proposition 8 (2008) by gauging voter turnout, and notwithstanding the fact that
the June 2008 primary did not produce any conservative initiative victories, the
Democratic Party has still sought to turn the tables permanently in its favor. The
Democratic Party’s Initiative Reform Task Force has recommended that all initiatives be
voted on only in general elections and “not in low turnout primaries.”50 The Democratic
Task Force went so far as to suggest that, even in general elections, a minimum
percentage of participating voters should be required before any ballot initiative, even if
approved the voters, could take effect.51
48
Paul Hogarth, “A February California Presidential Primary: Groundhog Day All Over Again,”
California Progress Report Blog, entry posted January 1, 2007,
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/?q=print/4970 (accessed December 9, 2009).
49
Bill Cavala, “The Republican California Electoral Vote Scam—Method in Their Madness,”
California Progress Report Blog, entry posted October 29, 2007,
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/?q=print/6891 (accessed December 11, 2009); Frank Russo,
“Republican Move to Change California’s Electoral College Votes for President Has “Early Support”—But
Less than 50%--According to Field Poll,” California Progress Report Blog, entry posted August 21, 2007,
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/?q=print/6421 (accessed December 11, 2009).
50
Linda Sutton, “It’s About Time to Change California’s Initiative Process,” California Progress
Report Blog, entry posted December 1, 2008, http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/?q=print/1158
(accessed December 9, 2009).
51
Id.
18
Notwithstanding this heavy reliance on the conventional wisdom and the fact that
considerable time and effort is often spent attempting to strategically qualify a particular
ballot proposition for a specific election on its basis, virtually no scholarly research has
been undertaken to determine whether a link between voter turnout levels and the
chances of success of ballot propositions, ideologically-oriented or otherwise, actually
exists. As one scholar noted, “The relationship between voter participation and ballot
measure outcome has generally been ignored in academic research. There has been no
research on state-level elections.”52 The purpose of this study is to attempt to fill that
void and determine whether the conventional wisdom that voter turnout levels affect the
success, or lack thereof, of ideologically-oriented ballot measures in California is
supported by historical data.
David Hadwiger, “Money, Turnout, and Ballot Measure Success in California Cities,” Western
Political Quarterly 45, no. 2 (1992): 539-547; emphasis added.
52
19
Chapter 3
LITERATURE REVIEW
As articulated above, many campaign consultants, political professionals, pundits,
professors, pundits, and the like believe that liberal ballot measures have a better chance
of success in high turnout elections while conservative ballot measures are more likely to
succeed in low turnout elections—although the relationship has never by the subject of
academic inquiry. The basis for this belief is that conservative voters are higher
propensity voters, and therefore more likely to vote in low turnout elections than their
liberal counterparts—but that the conservative advantage evaporates in high turnout
elections. Generally speaking, this is consistent with the research of Verba and Nie,
Campbell et al., and Wolfinger and Rosenstone. Verba and Nie found that
Republicans—who are normally presumed to be more conservative than Democrats—
tend to have greater socioeconomic status.53 In turn, Campbell et al. and Wolfinger and
Rosenstone each found that individuals with higher income, education, and occupational
status are considerably more likely to vote.54
Of course, it is unlikely that voter turnout levels are the sole determinant of
outcomes for ideologically-oriented ballot measures, and it would be unfair to claim that
any pollster, journalist, or professional campaign consultant believes as much. Prior
research has demonstrated that other factors can also influence electoral outcomes. In the
53
S. Verba and N.H. Nie, Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social Equality
(New York: Harper & Row, 2001).
54
A. Campbell et al., The American Voter (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960); R.
Wolfinger and S. Rosenstone, Who Votes? (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1980).
20
absence of prior research directly on point, a discussion of some of these other factors
will set the stage for an analysis of the relationship between voter turnout and
ideologically-oriented ballot measure outcomes.
a. Partisanship’s impact on voter turnout and electoral outcomes.
A significant amount of prior research has concluded that partisanship is a strong
indicator of voting decisions on initiatives.55 In terms of presidential elections, Radcliff’s
work supports the typical notion that increased levels of voter participation tend to
benefit Democrats.56 Using both aggregate and survey data and looking at 13 initiatives
that appeared on California’s ballot in 1998, Smith and Tolbert found a positive and
statistically significant relationship between political party affiliation and the vote on 10
of the 13 measures.57 Smith and Tolbert’s research also found a strong relationship
between party affiliation and vote patterns on several ideologically-oriented initiatives.
For example, Republican Party affiliation at the county level was positively related to the
vote total on measures seeking to limit school district funding, proposing federal term
limits, and ending bilingual education. Alternatively, county level data also evidenced
that Republican registration was negatively related to initiatives seeking to ban the use of
R. Branton, “Examining Individual-Level Voting Behavior on State Ballot Propositions,”
Political Research Quarterly 56, no. 3 (2003): 367-77; R.E. Hero and C.J. Tolbert, “A Racial/Ethnic
Diversity Interpretation of Politics and Policy in the States of the U.S.,” American Journal of Political
Science 40, no.3 (1996): 851-71; D.A. Smith and C.J. Tolbert, “The Initiative to Party,” Party Politics 7,
no. 6 (2001): 739-57.
56
B. Radcliff, “Turnout and the Democratic Vote,” American Politics Quarterly 22 (1994): 25976.
57
D.A. Smith and C.J. Tolbert, “The Initiative to Party,” Party Politics 7, no. 6 (2001): 739-57.
55
21
animal traps and poisons, permitting Indian gaming, tax credits for greenhouse gas
emission reductions, and an additional tobacco tax.
Martinez and Gill examined five presidential elections between 1960 and 2000 in
an attempt to determine whether Republicans benefited from low turnout and Democrats
benefited from high turnout.58 They found that, as a rule, Democrats do benefit from
higher turnout and Republicans benefit from lower turnout. However, they also found
that these relationships have weakened significantly over time. Similarly, looking at
senatorial and gubernatorial races, Nagel and McNulty speculate that the diminishing
amounts of hardcore partisan voters may have had the effect of weakening the
relationship between turnout and partisan election outcomes: “[W]ith the shrinking of
partisan cores and the dealignment of peripheral voters, the effect (of turnout on partisan
success) has become generally small and unreliable—insignificant statistically and
politically.”59
There is not universal support for the position that high turnout benefits
Democrats and low turnout benefits Republicans. Research conducted by Wuffle and
Collet points to a negative relationship between higher turnout and Democratic vote
shares in Bill Clinton’s percentage of the vote in 1992, California Assembly districts, and
58
M.D. Martinez and J. Gill, “The Effects of Turnout on Partisan Outcomes in U.S. Presidential
Elections 1960-2000,” Journal of Politics 67, no. 4 (2005): 1248-74.
J. H. Nagel and J.E. McNulty, “Partisan Effects of Voter Turnout in Senatorial and
Gubernatorial Elections,” American Political Science Review 90 (1996): 780-93.
59
22
Democratic advances in U.S. House elections.60 Another study based on presidential
elections by Erickson suggests either nonexistent or quite small advantages for either
party from typical variations in turnout.61
b. The impact of money on ballot measure outcomes.
While the role that voter turnout levels play in ballot proposition outcomes has
been given little attention, the influence of campaign spending in direct democracy
electoral outcomes has been thoroughly examined. The broadest consensus exists around
the notion that spending against ballot measures is effective while spending in support of
them is not, although several studies question the strength of the relationship.
Analyzing corporate spending on mandatory bottle deposit propositions and
nuclear energy initiatives that appeared on the ballots in eleven states in 1976, Shockley
surmised that lopsided opposition spending (with advantages ranging from 3:1 to 200:1
on the twelve ballot measures in the study) “clearly seems to have a powerful impact on
public opinion.”62 Lowenstein reviewed 25 California ballot measures where spending
was “one-sided”—which he defined as spending on either the “yes” or “no” side in
excess of $250,000 and which was at least twice as high as spending on the opposite
A. Wuffle and C. Collet, “Why Democrats Shouldn’t Vote,” Journal of Theoretical Politics 9
(1997): 137-40.
61
R.S. Erickson, “State Turnout and Presidential Voting—a Closer Look,” American Politics
Quarterly 23 (1995): 387-96.
60
John S. Shockley, “Statement of John S. Shockley,” IRS Administration of Tax Laws Relating to
Lobbying (Part I): Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the House Committee on Government Operations,
95th Cong., 1st Sess., 1978, 256-74.
62
23
side.63 Lowenstein found that one-sided negative spending was far more effective than
one-sided affirmative spending, as one-sided negative spending campaigns prevailed 9
out of 10 times (meaning the measure was defeated) while one-sided affirmative
spending prevailed only 7 out of 15 times (46 percent). Magleby analyzed spending on
51 California initiatives between 1951 and 1982 and reached the following results: 77
percent of the measures failed when “yes-no” spending was about the same, 52 percent of
the measures failed where proponents outspent opponents by more than two-thirds, and
87 percent of the measure failed where opponents outspent proponents by more than twothirds.64 Based on these findings, Magleby concluded that “…groups…opposed to an
initiative can virtually guarantee the defeat of an initiative if they significantly outspend
the proponents.” Magleby’s conclusion matches those reached by Zisk, Lee, Shockley,
and Cronin.65
Another body of research found that neither spending for or against a ballot
proposition had much impact on direct legislation outcomes. Owens and Wade took
Lowenstein’s definition of one-sided spending and applied it to a wider period, using
various California initiatives from 1924 to 1984.66 Their results largely confirmed
Daniel Lowenstein, “Campaign Spending and Ballot Propositions: Recent Experience, Public
Choice and the First Amendment,” UCLA Law Review 29 (1982): 505-541.
64
David Magleby, Direct Legislation (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1984).
65
B.H. Zisk, Money, Media, and the Grass Roots: State Ballot Issues and the Electoral Process
(Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1987); E. Lee, “The American Experience,” in The Referendum Device, ed.
Austin Ranney (Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1981); John
S. Shockley, The Initiative Process in Colorado Politics: An Assessment (Boulder, CO: University of
Colorado, Boulder Bureau of Governmental Research and Service, 1980); T.E. Cronin, Direct Democracy:
The Politics of Initiative, Referendum and Recall (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989).
66
J.R. Owens and L.L. Wade, “Campaign Spending on California Ballot Propositions, 1924-1984:
Trends and Voting Effects,” The Western Political Quarterly 39, no. 4 (1986): 675-689.
63
24
Lowenstein’s conclusion. Owens and Wade found that when negative spending enjoyed
any spending advantage, but under a 2:1 advantage, the negative side was successful 89
percent of the time (17 out of 19 instances). As such, Owens and Wade’s research
determined that when negative spending is in excess of affirmative spending by any (but
not necessarily a 2:1 ratio) amount, it is very strongly associated with the defeat of a
measure. However, when more sophisticated regression analysis was applied, Owens and
Wade failed to find any statistically significant relationship between the winner’s and
loser’s spending and the vote outcome. Even the one-sided negative spending hypothesis
was not confirmed by a regression analysis of the data. The authors concluded that
money had been overemphasized as a determinant of voting on direct legislation; i.e.,
money does not have as large of an influence on ballot measure electoral outcomes as
conventional wisdom holds.
Gerber analyzed the effects of contributions from “economic groups” (groups
with high amounts of wealth but small memberships) and “citizen groups” (groups with
low amounts of wealth but large memberships).67 In her regression analysis, she found
that campaigning in favor of passage had no effect on initiative election outcomes, and
sometimes even led to a reduction in the likelihood of passage. Gerber concluded that
“the empirical evidence provides further basis for rejecting the allegation that economic
interest groups buy policy outcomes through the direct legislation process.”
67
E.R. Gerber, The Populist Paradox: Interest Group Influence and the Promise of Direct
Legislation (Princeton: Princeton University, 1999).
25
Bowler and Donovan used a cigarette tax initiative and several insurance reform
measures that appeared on California’s ballot in 1988 to determine whether media
expenditures for (against) a given proposition actually increased (decreased) support for
the proposition.68 Looking at the amount of campaign money spent in particular media
markets, Bowler and Donovan found that variation in media expenditures across markets
had little impact on voters’ awareness of, or opinions on, the relevant ballot measures.
They found that education levels and ideology had a larger impact on awareness of, and
opinions on, ballot measures.
A minority of academics have concluded that spending both for and against ballot
propositions influences outcomes. Surveying local ballot measures in California between
1983 and 1988, Hadwiger found that, at least at the local level, greater campaign
spending appeared to be strongly related to the likelihood of electoral success regardless
of whether the spending was in favor of, or opposed to, the measure.69 On the “yes” side
in particular, Hadwiger applied a regression analysis and found that for every one percent
increase in the proportion of pro-ballot measure spending, there was a 0.15 percent
increase in the proportion of pro-ballot measure votes. Broder also asserts that money is
an important factor in the passage or defeat of ballot propositions.70 Stratmann measured
the effects of money by examining campaign television advertisements instead of just
68
S. Bowler and T. Donovan, “Information and Opinion Change on Ballot Propositions,” Political
Behavior 16, no. 4 (1994): 411-435.
69
David Hadwiger, “Money, Turnout, and Ballot Measure Success in California Cities,” Western
Political Quarterly 45, no. 2 (1992): 539-547.
70
D.S. Broder, Democracy Derailed: Initiative Campaigns and the Power of Money (New York:
Harcourt, 2000).
26
campaign spending generally.71 Stratmann produced results demonstrating that both
supporting and opposing campaigning has a statistically significant impact on voting
outcomes, and that negative spending was no more potent than affirmative spending.
Stratmann actually found a slightly greater impact for affirmative spending.
c. Impact of political elite/interest group endorsements on electoral
outcomes.
The impact of positions taken by political elites and interest groups on electoral
outcomes has also been the subject of prior research. As stated by Sniderman and Hagen,
“The average citizen, though he (or she) may know little about politics, knows who he
likes, and still more important perhaps, who he dislikes. This can be a sufficient basis for
figuring out a consistent policy stance.”72 Looking specifically at the impact of
endorsements in ballot measure campaigns, Bowler and Donovan’s research suggests that
elite endorsements can influence the voting decisions of more educated voters. However,
Bowler and Donovan found that elite endorsements held less sway among independents
and those with less education.73 Gregg, Magleby, and Lupia each demonstrated that
voters often use endorsements as a source of information.74 However, similar to the
T. Stratmann, “Is Spending More Potent for or Against a Proposition? Evidence from Ballot
Measures,” American Journal of Political Science 50, no. 3 (2006): 788-801.
72
P.M. Sniderman and M.G. Hagen, Race and Inequality: A Study in American Values (Chatham,
NJ: Chatham House, 1984).
73
Shaun Bowler and Todd Donovan, “Information and Opinion Change on Ballot Propositions,”
Political Behavior 16, no. 4 (Dec. 1994): 411-435.
74
James E. Gregg, California Newspaper Editorial Endorsements: Influence on Ballot Measures
(Davis, CA: University of California Institute of Governmental Affairs, 1970); David Magleby, Direct
Legislation (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1984); Arthur Lupia, “Voter Information,
Endorsements and Electoral Outcomes: Insurance Reform in California,” Unpublished manuscript,
University of California, San Diego, 1991.
71
27
findings of Bowler and Donovan, Snyder found that using endorsements as a source of
information requires a greater degree of political sophistication.75 In the context of local
land use and development initiative campaigns, Gerber and Phillips demonstrated that
interest group endorsements were highly explanative of voter choice.76
d. The impact of ballot measures on voter turnout.
Other scholarship has reversed the chain of events and looked at whether the
presence or absence of ballot measures can affect voter turnout. Hamilton found that
elections in which only initiatives were on the ballot tended to have lower turnout than
elections where candidate races were also in play (which suggests candidates, and not
propositions, drive voter turnout).77 Similarly, Everson found that any marginal
advantage in voter turnout in initiative states versus non-initiative states evaporates when
one controls for the South—which historically has had lower turnout levels and contains
few states that employ direct democracy.78 Building on Everson’s research, Magleby
suggests that, on average, northern states with the initiative process had no greater
turnout than northern states that lack the initiative between 1960 and 1980.79 Magleby
also suggested that having too many initiatives on the ballot can depress voter turnout by
leading to “ballot fatigue.” Abramowitz and Burden’s analyses of the anti-gay marriage
James M. Snyder, “Constituency Preferences: California Ballot Propositions, 1974-90,”
Legislative Studies Quarterly 21, no. 2 (November 1996): 463-488.
76
Elizabeth R. Gerber and Justin H. Phillips, “Development Ballot Measures, Interest Group
Endorsements, and the Political Geography of Growth Preferences,” American Journal of Political Science
47, no. 4 (October 2003): 625-639.
77
H.D. Hamilton, “Direct Legislation: Some Implications of Open Housing Referenda,” American
Political Science Review 64 (1970): 126-27.
78
D.H. Everson, “The Effects of Initiatives on Voter Turnout: A Comparative State Analysis,”
The Western Political Quarterly 34, no. 3 (1981): 415-425.
79
David Magleby, Direct Legislation (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1984).
75
28
initiatives which appeared on the ballot in eleven states in 2004 suggest that those
measures had no impact on turnout.80 Jackman also failed to find a relationship between
the 2004 anti-gay marriage initiatives and voter turnout.81 On a related point, Matsusaka
failed to find any connection between the closeness of initiative campaigns and voter
turnout, and concluded that the two were unrelated.82
Smith took an intermediate view that certain types of initiatives can increase
turnout in certain types of elections.83 Looking at all statewide ballot propositions
between 1972 and 1996 that reached the ballot via citizen petition, Smith created a
formula for measuring the “salience” of an initiative.84 Smith found that “salient”
initiatives did in fact have a statistically significant impact on turnout in midterm
elections, but not during presidential elections. This conforms to earlier research
conducted by Matsusaka, which found that voter participation in direct legislation varies
systematically with the issue involved.85 Matsusaka claimed that turnout was high when
A. Abramowitz, “Terrorism, Gay Marriage, and Incumbency: Explaining the Republican
Victory in the 2004 Presidential Election,” The Forum 2, no. 4 (2004): 1-11,
http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol2/iss4/art3/ (accessed April 1, 2009); B. Burden, “An Alternative
Account of the 2004 Presidential Election,” The Forum 2, no. 4 (2004):1-12,
http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol2/iss4/art2 (accessed April 1, 2009).
81
S. Jackman, “Same-Sex Marriage Ballot Initiatives and Conservative Mobilization in the 2004
Election” (paper presented at the Institute for Research in the Social Sciences, Palo Alto, CA. 2004).
82
J.G. Matsusaka, “Election Closeness and Voter Turnout: Evidence from California Ballot
Propositions,” Public Choice 76 (1993): 313-334.
83
M.A. Smith, “The Contingent Effect of Ballot Initiatives and Candidate Races on Turnout,”
American Journal of Political Science 45, no. 3 (2001): 700-706.
84
Smith measured “salience” by quantifying the amount of front page coverage each initiative
received in its state’s largest newspapers.
85
J.G. Matsusaka, “Economics of Direct Legislation,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 107,
no. 2 (1992): 541-571.
80
29
a ballot proposition involved a wealth transfer or a matter of opinion, but low when the
measure had few distributional consequences.
Looking at voter turnout in all 50 states between 1970 and 1996, Tolbert et al.
found that states which frequently use the initiative process have higher turnout in both
presidential and midterm elections, with some variation.86 Instead of just distinguishing
between initiative and non-initiative states, Tolbert et al. further distinguished between
states that have the initiative process and rarely use it and states that have the initiative
process and use it frequently, and found that frequent usage of the initiative process
increased turnout during both midterm and presidential elections, with midterm elections
being more sensitive to the effect. Additionally, Tolbert et al. found no evidence to
support Magleby’s assertion that an abundance of ballot measures can lead to “ballot
fatigue” in presidential years; but did find evidence that an extremely high number of
ballot propositions in midterm elections could depress turnout. In the generic analysis of
states that have direct democracy versus those that do not, the authors found higher
turnout levels in initiative states as opposed to non-initiative states.
Tolbert and Smith analyzed whether states that use the initiative process have
higher levels of turnout in both midterm and presidential elections as compared to states
that do not utilize direct legislation.87 Tolbert and Smith found that each initiative
86
C.J. Tolbert, J.A. Grummel, and D.A. Smith, “The Effects of Ballot Initiatives on Voter Turnout
in the American States,” American Politics Research 29, no. 6 (2001): 625-648.
C.J. Tolbert and D.A. Smith, “The Educative Effects of Ballot Initiatives on Voter Turnout,”
American Politics Research 33, no. 2 (2005): 283-309.
87
30
appearing on a state’s ballot increases turnout by 0.70 percent in presidential elections.
In midterm elections, they found that each additional initiative on a state’s ballot raises
turnout by 1.7 percent. Tolbert and Smith’s methodology differed somewhat from earlier
studies in that they used a multivariate regression to control for other factors, focused on
the number of initiatives present rather than on presence of the initiative process in
general, and measured voter turnout among the voter eligible population (VEP) instead of
voter age population (VAP) because VEP has the ability to render more refined results
since it excludes noncitizens and felons.
The results of studies regarding whether the presence or absence of ballot
measures influences voter turnout are decidedly mixed. However, notwithstanding the
research implying that ballot measures can influence voter turnout instead of turnout
influencing ballot measure outcomes, certain patterns in voter turnout in California have
been remarkably stable for decades irrespective of the number or type of initiatives on the
ballot. First, California has never had an election cycle where turnout was higher in the
primary election than in the general election. Stated another way, voter turnout in general
elections has always been higher than in primary elections in California.88 Second, voter
turnout in California is almost always higher in presidential, as opposed to gubernatorial,
elections. Since Woodrow Wilson was first elected president, California has only had
88
California Secretary of State, “Historical Voter Registration and Voter Participation in
Statewide Primary Elections—1910-2008,”
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ror/hist_stats_gen_prim/historical-voter-reg-primary-jun08.pdf (accessed
October 7, 2009); California Secretary of State, “Historical Voter Registration and Participation in
Statewide General Elections 1910-2009,” http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/historical-voter-reg/histvoter-reg-and-part-general-elections-1910-2009.pdf (accessed October 7, 2009).
31
one presidential election (1996) where voter turnout was under 70 percent. Alternatively,
California has had 15 gubernatorial elections within the same timeframe where turnout
was under 70 percent—and seven where turnout was under 60 percent.89 In the 2002
gubernatorial election, barely half of registered voters bothered to go to the polls.90
Third, special elections in California typically have very low voter turnout. Since 1912,
California has held 13 special elections. Of the 12 for which data is available, half had
voter turnout levels under 50 percent.91 Fourth, voter turnout levels have been declining
for several years. The lowest level of turnout for a presidential election (1996, 65.5
percent), a gubernatorial election (2002, 50.6 percent), a presidential primary (1996, 41.8
percent), and a gubernatorial primary (2002, 34.6 percent) all occurred in the past 13
years.92
These patterns have held true regardless of the number or type of ballot
propositions on the California ballot, if any. As such, it is likely that these broad voter
turnout patterns are not dependent upon, or influenced by, ballot propositions or the
initiative process. Therefore, it can be stated with a substantial degree of confidence that,
at least for these four voter turnout patterns (which cover most situations), ballot
California Secretary of State, “Historical Voter Registration and Participation in Statewide
General Elections 1910-2009,” http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/historical-voter-reg/hist-voter-reg-andpart-general-elections-1910-2009.pdf (accessed October 7, 2009).
90
Ibid.
91
Ibid.
92
California Secretary of State, “Historical Voter Registration and Voter Participation in
Statewide Primary Elections—1910-2008,”
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ror/hist_stats_gen_prim/historical-voter-reg-primary-jun08.pdf (accessed
October 7, 2009); California Secretary of State, “Historical Voter Registration and Participation in
Statewide General Elections 1910-2009,” http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/historical-voter-reg/histvoter-reg-and-part-general-elections-1910-2009.pdf (accessed October 7, 2009).
89
32
propositions do not influence voter turnout in California. The same likely holds true in
many other states as well.
33
Chapter 4
THEORY
The theory behind the notion that voter turnout levels impact the chances of
success of ideologically-oriented ballot propositions is based on three widely-held
assumptions about the differing voting patterns of conservative and liberal voters. The
first assumption is that voters will make their decisions on ballot propositions in large
part based on their ideological predispositions. (See Smith and Tolbert, supra, who found
a positive relationship between party affiliation [which is often associated with
ideology93] and voting decisions on initiatives.) For example, conservative voters are
assumed to be more likely to favor conservative measures and oppose liberal ones.
Oppositely, liberal voters are assumed to be more likely to favor liberal propositions and
oppose conservative ones.
The second assumption is that there are more liberal voters than conservative
voters in California, so that liberal voters would have greater influence if both groups
turned out and voted at the same rate.94 However, the third assumption is that liberal and
conservative voters do not always turn out at the polls and vote in equal percentages.
(See Campbell et al. and Wolfinger and Rosenstone, supra, finding that individuals with
Elizabeth C. Corey and James C. Garand, “Are Government Employees More Likely to Vote?:
An Analysis of Turnout in the 1996 U.S. National Election,” Public Choice 111, no. 3/4 (June 2002): 259283. Corey and Garand note that partisanship is closely linked with ideological identification, since strong
Democrats or Republicans are often strong liberals or conservatives.
94
California Secretary of State, “May 4, 2009 Report of Registration,”
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ror/ror-pages/15day-stwdsp-09/ror-050409.htm (accessed October 31,
2009). According to the California Secretary of State’s office, there are more registered Democrats than
registered Republicans in California. As of May 4, 2009, the Secretary of State reported that 44.6 percent
of California voters were registered Democrats, while 31.1 percent were registered Republicans.
93
34
higher income, education, and occupational status are more likely to vote.) Rather,
conservative voters—who have historically been more affluent and better educated—are
thought to be higher propensity voters who are therefore more likely to turn out and vote
in low turnout/low information elections. (See Verba and Nie, supra, concluding that
Republicans tend to have higher socioeconomic status.) As such, the conservative vote is
more likely to be magnified in low turnout elections because conservative voters will be
overrepresented in those types of elections, based on their greater willingness to go to the
polls.
On the other hand, liberal voters are assumed to be lower propensity voters who
consequently are less likely to vote in low turnout/low information elections, but turn out
and vote in high turnout/high information elections with greater frequency. (See Radcliff
and Martinez and Gill, supra, noting that higher turnout in presidential elections tends to
benefit Democrats.) Therefore, by voting more often in high turnout/high information
elections, liberal voters—who make up a larger proportion of the overall California
electorate—will be more accurately represented in those types of elections. Closing the
loop, since voters are assumed to vote based on their ideological predispositions—and
since conservative voters are thought to be overrepresented in low turnout/low
information elections (but not in high turnout/high information ones)—conservative
ballot measures are believed to have a better chance of success in low turnout elections
and liberal initiatives are believed to have a better chance of success in high turnout
elections.
35
Stated shortly, the theory underpinning the notion that voter turnout levels impact
the chances of success of ideologically-oriented ballot propositions is that voters vote
based on their ideological predispositions; liberal voters outnumber conservative voters in
California; conservative voters are overrepresented in low turnout, but not in high
turnout, elections; so conservative measures will enjoy greater success in low turnout
elections while liberal initiatives will enjoy greater success in high turnout elections.
36
Chapter 5
HYPOTHESES
Two hypotheses are necessary in order to test the theory that conservative ballot
measures will enjoy greater success in low turnout elections and liberal ballot measures
will enjoy greater success in high turnout elections. Logically, they are opposite sides of
the same coin, but both must be evaluated because they could produce different results:95
a. Hypothesis #1 – As voter turnout increases, the “yes” vote percentage for liberal
ballot propositions will increase.
b. Hypothesis #2 – As voter turnout increases, the “yes” vote percentage for
conservative ballot propositions will decrease.
These hypotheses anticipate that increases in voter turnout are positively
correlated to the vote share for liberal ballot measures and negatively correlated to the
vote share for conservative ballot measures. The basis for this position is that higher
propensity conservative voters, while making up a smaller portion of registered voters,
will be overrepresented in low turnout elections. Oppositely, lower propensity liberal
voters, who make up a larger portion of registered voters, will be more accurately
represented in high turnout elections.
95
Just because liberal measures benefit from high turnout does not necessarily imply that
conservative measures will benefit from low turnout, and vice versa. For example, the fact that a measure
expanding the use of capital punishment benefitted from low turnout does not guarantee that a measure
restricting the use of capital punishment would benefit from high turnout.
37
Chapter 6
DEFINITIONS
Before any link between voter turnout and ideologically-oriented ballot measure
outcomes can be evaluated, precisely what constitutes a “liberal” or “conservative” ballot
measures must be clarified. Many, if not most, propositions that have appeared on
California’s ballot have dealt with mundane matters that are unlikely to be viewed as
pushing an ideological agenda. For example, propositions dealing with governmental
structures (i.e., authorizing cities and counties to consolidate into a combined city and
county government96 or treating irrigation district bonds the same as other municipal
bonds97) are more often than not non-ideological. Similarly, propositions covering other
run-of-the-mill issues (i.e., providing for daylight savings time98 or authorizing the
Legislature to indemnify ranchers whose livestock must be destroyed in order to prevent
the spread of infectious diseases99) are unlikely to strike an ideological chord. Only
ballot propositions with a distinct liberal or conservative ideological orientation are
relevant to the purpose at hand.
a. Defining “liberal” and “conservative.”
To some degree, creating workable definitions for terms as controversial as
“liberal” and “conservative” is inherently arbitrary and subjective given that they can
mean very different things to different people, their meanings are constantly evolving in
96
Proposition 6 (1912).
Proposition 1 (1912).
98
Proposition 7 (1930).
99
Proposition 13 (1930).
97
38
the public consciousness, and an extensive search failed to identify any universally
accepted definition for either term. In constructing the definitions used in this study,
three principles were relied upon as a way of ensuring as much objectivity as possible
without resulting in overly technical definitions. The first was to avoid using the
Democratic and Republican Party platforms as proxies for liberalism and conservatism.
The second was to cite one objective third-party source. The third was to look at the
agendas and principles of prominent conservative and liberal organizations that broadly
represent their respective sides of the ideological divide.
Reliance on political parties as proxies was rejected because, although the
Democrats are currently viewed as the liberal party and the Republicans are associated
with conservatism, neither party has a purely liberal or conservative platform.
Furthermore, the parties’ positions on the ideological spectrum have changed over
time.100 The dictionary definitions of “liberal,” “liberalism,” “conservative,” and
“conservatism” were used as objective third-party sources. Finally, the platforms of the
American Civil Liberties Union and the American Conservative Union were analyzed for
insight into the specific issues championed by liberals and conservatives.
The Random House Dictionary defines “liberal” and “liberalism” as follows:
liberal. 1. favorable to progress or reform, and in political or religious
affairs. 2. (often cap.) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating
measures of progressive political reform. 3. of, pertaining to, based on, or
100
Bruce Frohnen, Jeremy Beer, and Jeffrey Nelson, eds., American Conservatism: An
Encyclopedia (Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, 2006), 731, 732. Frohnen et al. note that, although today the
Republican Party is the conservative party, it was founded as a progressive alternative to the more
conservative Democratic Party, and that the Republican Party did not become the dominant conservative
party under after World War I with the election of Warren G. Harding.
39
advocating liberalism. 4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of
maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and
secured by governmental protection of civil liberties. 5. favoring or
permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal
belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than
aristocracies or monarchies. 7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a
liberal attitude toward foreigners. 8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of
or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc. 9.
characterized by generosity and willingness to give large amounts: a
liberal donor. 10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal
donation. 11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal
interpretation of a rule. 12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman. 14. a person of liberal
principles or views, esp. in politics or religion. 15. a member of a liberal
party in politics, esp. the Liberal Party in Great Britain.101 (Underscoring
added.)
liberalism. 1. the quality or state of being liberal, as in behavior or
attitude. 2. a political or social philosophy advocating freedom of the
individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification
of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted
development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental
guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties. 3. (sometimes cap.) the
principles and practices of a liberal party in politics. 4. a movement in
modern Protestantism that emphasizes freedom from tradition and
authority, the adjustment of religious beliefs to scientific conceptions, and
the development of spiritual capacities.102 (Underscoring added.)
The definitions of “liberal” and “liberalism” in Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary state:
liberal. 1 a: of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts <liberal education>
b archaic: of or befitting a man of free birth. 2 a: marked by generosity:
openhanded <a liberal giver> b: given or provided in a generous and
openhanded way <a liberal meal> c: ample, full. 3 obsolete: lacking
moral restraint: licentious. 4: not literal or strict: loose <a liberal
translation>. 5: broad-minded; especially: not bound by authoritarianism,
orthodoxy, or traditional forms. 6 a: of, favoring, or based upon the
101
102
The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, 2nd ed. unabridged, s.v. “Liberal.”
The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, 2nd ed. unabridged, s.v. “Liberalism.”
40
principles of liberalism b capitalized: of or constituting a political party
advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism;
especially: of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom
associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater
individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and
administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives.103
(Underscoring added.)
liberalism. 1: the quality or state of being liberal. 2 a often capitalized: a
movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and
the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b: a theory in economics
emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free
competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c: a political
philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the
human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the
protection of political and civil liberties; specifically: such a philosophy
that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of
social inequities (as those involving race, gender, or class) d capitalized:
the principles and policies of a Liberal party.104 (Underscoring added.)
On the other hand, the Random House Dictionary defines “conservative” and
“conservatism” as:
conservative. 1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions,
etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change. 2. cautiously
moderate or purposely low: a conservative estimate. 3. traditional in style
or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: a conservative suit. 4. (often
cap.) of or pertaining to the Conservative party. 5. (cap.) of, or pertaining
to, or characteristic of Conservative Jews or Conservative Judaism. 6.
having the power or tendency to conserve; preservative. 7. Math. (of a
vector or vector function) having curl equal to zero; irrotational; lamellar.
8. a person who is conservative in principles, actions, and habits, etc. 9. a
supporter of conservative political policies. 10. (cap.) a member of a
Meriam-Webster Online Dictionary, s.v. “Liberal,” http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/liberal (accessed July 29, 2009).
104
Meriam-Webster Online Dictionary, s.v. “Liberalism,” http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/liberalism (accessed July 29, 2009).
103
41
conservative political party, esp. the Conservative party in Great Britain.
11. a preservative.105 (Underscoring added.)
conservatism. 1. The disposition to preserve or restore what is
established and traditional and to limit change. 2. The principles and
practices of political conservatives.106 (Underscoring added.)
Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary defines “conservative” and “conservatism” in the
following manner:
conservative. 1: preservative. 2 a: of or relating to a philosophy of
conservatism b: capitalized: of or constituting a political party professing
the principles of conservatism: as (1): of or constituting a party of the
United Kingdom advocating support of established institutions (2):
progressive conservative. 3 a: tending or disposed to maintain existing
views, conditions, or institutions: traditional b: marked by moderation or
caution <a conservative estimate> c: marked by or relating to traditional
norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners. 4: of, relating to, or practicing
Conservative Judaism.107 (Underscoring added.)
conservatism. 1 capitalized a: the principles and policies of a
Conservative party b: the Conservative party. 2 a: disposition in politics
to preserve what is established b: a political philosophy based on tradition
and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring
gradual development to abrupt change; specifically: such a philosophy
calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and
investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility
for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage). 3: the
tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change.108
(Underscoring added.)
105
The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, 2nd ed. unabridged, s.v.
“Conservative.”
106
The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, 2nd ed. unabridged, s.v.
“Conservatism.”
107
Meriam-Webster Online Dictionary, s.v. “Conservative,” http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/conservative (accessed July 29, 2009).
108
Meriam-Webster Online Dictionary, s.v. “Conservatism,” http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/conservatism (accessed July 29, 2009).
42
The dictionary definitions indicate that “liberal” embodies promoting individual
freedom from restraint, protecting civil liberties, tolerance, challenging traditional or
conventional ideas, not rigorous or strict, flexible moral norms, nonviolent political
change, governmental protections of rights, freedom from tradition and authority,
prioritization of science over religious beliefs, a belief in progress and the inherent
goodness of humanity, and the use of government as a central instrument in social change
or improvement. Alternatively, the dictionary definitions indicate that “conservative” is
predisposed to preserve or restore traditional institutions and norms, limit change,
advocate for existing views and conditions, prefer stability and gradual development over
abrupt change, act with moderation or caution, and to support lower taxes, limited
government regulation, and individual responsibility.
Founded in 1920, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) brands itself as
“our nation's guardian of liberty” whose mission is to “preserve…individual rights and
liberties.”109 The Washington Post has characterized the ACLU as one of “the nation's
best-known liberal nonprofit groups.”110 Given the ACLU’s position as a leading liberal
activist group, the causes it champions should be influential in conveying the essence of
“liberal.”
109
American Civil Liberties Union, “About the ACLU,” http://www.aclu.org/about-aclu-0
(accessed August 4, 2009).
110
Garance Franke-Ruta, “Layoffs Hit NARAL, ACLU,” 44 The Obama Presidency Blog,
Washington Post, entry posted January 28, 2009,
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/01/28/layoffs_hit_naral_aclu.html (accessed November 6,
2009).
43
Among the issues and positions advocated by the ACLU are: opposition to capital
punishment, prisoner’s rights, union rights, immigrant rights, drug law reform, opposition
to HIV/AIDS discrimination, LGBT rights, religious tolerance, pro-evolution/anticreationism, opposition to loyalty oaths and persecution of communists, racial justice,
pro-choice, disability rights, pro-welfare, and pro-affirmative action.111
The American Conservative Union (ACU) resides at the opposite end of the
ideological spectrum. Founded in 1964, the ACU touts itself as “the nation's oldest and
largest grassroots conservative lobbying organization” whose purpose is to
“communicate and advance the goals and principles of conservatism.”112 The
Washington Post has called the ACU’s annual Conservative Political Action Conference
the “preeminent yearly gathering of conservative activists.”113 Given ACU’s status in the
conservative political movement, the policies and positions it advances should similarly
play a large role in articulating the meaning of “conservative.” The ACU’s Statement of
Principles indicates that its core issues are centered on, but not necessarily limited to, the
following beliefs and goals: limiting the power of government, liberties remain secure
only if government is so limited that it cannot infringe upon them, capitalism is the only
economic system compatible with political liberty, government competition with
capitalism jeopardizes freedom and liberty, preservation of liberty, administration of
111
American Civil Liberties Union, “Guardians of Freedom,”
http://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/guardiansoffreedom.pdf (accessed August 6, 2009); American Civil
Liberties Union, “Key Issues,” http://www.aclu.org/key-issues (accessed August 6, 2009).
112
American Conservative Union, “About ACU,” http://www.conservative.org/about/default.asp
(accessed August 6, 2009).
113
Kevin Merida, “Empty, Open Arms,” Washington Post, Febuary 28, 2008.
44
justice, accumulation of government power tends to diminish order and liberty, the
market economy is the single economic system compatible with personal freedom,
government interference in the market economy reduces the nation’s moral and physical
strength, government diminishes individual integrity and moral authority when it takes
from one man to bestow on another, international communism threatens liberty.114
Based on these sources, “liberal” ballot measures were defined as measures that
increase taxes; increase economic, environmental, or business regulation; increase
government participation in the economy; expand individual or corporate liability;
increase ongoing government spending levels; increase social welfare protections;
increase the number of public employees or public employee benefits; increase the terms,
benefits, and/or powers of politicians; reduce criminal penalties; or decriminalize or
legalize additional behavior. Moreover, measures that attempt to advance “progressive
values” were also tallied in the liberal column. For example, propositions that are prosame-sex marriage, pro-immigration, pro-animal rights, anti-private property rights, antiSecond Amendment, or pro-choice were counted as liberal measures.
Conversely, “conservative” ballot measures were defined as measures that lower
taxes; reduce economic, environmental, or business regulation; reduce government
participation in the economy; limit individual or corporate liability; decrease ongoing
government spending levels; decrease the number or benefits of public employees; limit
the terms, benefits, and/or powers of politicians; reduce or eliminate government
American Conservative Union, “Statement of Principles,”
http://www.conservative.org/about/principles.html (accessed August 6, 2009).
114
45
programs, bureaucracies, or agencies; increase criminal penalties; or criminalize
additional behavior for the sake of punishment (as opposed to regulation). Additionally,
measures that seek to maintain the status quo or preserve “traditional values” were also
included under the conservative umbrella. As such, propositions that are pro-Second
Amendment, pro-life, anti-gay marriage, pro-religion, anti-illegal immigration, anti-vice,
or pro-private property rights were classified as conservative.
Certain caveats to these definitions require further explanation. First, each and
every bond measure was not put in the liberal camp just because such measures increase
government spending obligations. This was necessary because many types of bonds are
supported by conservatives (i.e., infrastructure and water resource development bonds).
Bond measures were only included in the matrix if they supported an ideological
cause.115 Second, each and every tax exemption ballot measure was not included in the
conservative camp simply because they reduced someone’s tax burden. This was
necessary because while some tax exemptions support more conservative causes (i.e.,
exemptions for churches), others support more liberal ones (i.e., colleges and nonprofit
charities). Furthermore, many, if not most, tax exemptions were dedicated to charitable
purposes. Again, only tax exemption measures that advanced an ideological cause were
included.116 Third, ballot measures that sought to regulate vice or morality were
classified as conservative despite the fact that they could also arguably be classified as
115
Proposition 71 (2004), which included a $3 billon bond to fund stem cell research, is an
example of an ideologically-oriented (liberal) bond measure.
116
Proposition 9 (1980), which attempted to exempt business inventory from taxation, is an
example of an ideologically-oriented (conservative) tax exemption measure.
46
liberal since they regulate certain economic activities. When the initiative’s primary
purpose appears to be protection of moral values or the control of vice, it seeks to
advance a conservative agenda notwithstanding incidental economic regulation. Fourth,
when a proposition seeks to criminalize certain behavior for the sake of punishment (i.e.,
increasing penalties for murdering a peace officer117), it was classified as conservative.
Oppositely, when a measure uses criminal sanctions to impose an economic regulation
(i.e., making it a misdemeanor to require any employee to work more than 8 hours in one
day or 48 hours in one week118), it was classified as a liberal measure. Fifth, all
propositions that regulate professions (i.e., chiropractors, doctors, lawyers) were not
invariably included in the liberal category simply because they regulate certain types of
business activities. This was necessary because many of these types of regulations are
sought by the professions themselves in order to limit competition or to ensure public
confidence by creating state-enforced standards. Last, measures pertaining to Indian
gaming were excluded because they cannot be cleanly placed on either side of the
ideological divide. On the one hand, they promote vice by expanding gambling. On the
other, they are one of the biggest business interests in the state. However, it is an
ethnicity-based monopolistic business that is not in compliance with the conservative
view of the free market.
117
118
Proposition 67 (1988).
Proposition 3 (1914).
47
b. “Liberal” and “conservative” sub-categories.
In addition to analyzing the effect of voter turnout on liberal and conservative
ballot measure outcomes in general, an additional objective of the study was to query
whether certain types of ideological ballot measures are more sensitive than others to
variations in voter turnout. To do so, two sub-categories of liberal and conservative
propositions were created: economic/governmental and moral/social. As the name
implies, economic/governmental issues are ones that relate to economic activities or the
size, role, and power of government or government officials, but do not have an overtly
moral or social connotation. In contrast, moral/social issues are ones that prioritize moral
values or social norms (i.e., “it’s the right thing to do”) over purely economic or
governmental considerations.
For instance, economic/governmental liberal ballot measures include measures
that regulate workplace conditions or the free market; increase taxes or fees; provide
perks to politicians, public employees, or union members; expand government programs,
spending, or bureaucracies; and the like. Moral/social liberal ballot measures include
measures that limit or roll back punitive criminal sanctions; protect the environment;
expand access to, or the availability of, vice activities; restrict Second Amendment or
individual property rights; advance the rights of animals, homosexuals, immigrants,
minorities; or otherwise promote “progressive values.”119
119
Two points of clarification are needed for the distinction between economic/governmental and
moral/social liberal propositions. First, measures that regulate economic activity as a way of protecting the
environment were classified as moral/social if the primary purpose appeared to be an environmental and
not an economic benefit. A good example is Proposition 11 (1982 general election), which sought to
48
Examples of economic/governmental conservative ballot measures include
measures that promote laissez-faire capitalism; reduce taxes, fees, or other regulations
that impede economic development; limit perks provided to politicians, public
employees, or union members; restrict government programs and spending; shrink
bureaucracies; and so on. Moral/social conservative ballot measures cover topics such as
protecting individual property rights, opposing same-sex marriage and abortion,
increasing criminal penalties (and in particular increasing penalties for violent crimes),
expanding Second Amendment rights, restricting the availability of vice, promoting
religion, and similar measures that advance “traditional values.”
impose a five cent redemption value on certain types of beverage containers. Proposition 11 did impose a
new fee on beverage containers, but the purpose behind the fee was to reduce littering and increase
recycling so as to better protect the environment. Second, measures seeking to provide benefits to the
unemployed or the elderly were classified as economic/governmental while measures seeking to provide
benefits to children or the disabled were classified as moral/social. Providing money to the unemployed or
the elderly can be seen as an attempt to stimulate economic activity. However, providing benefits to
children or the disabled can more easily be justified as being an ethical or moral imperative to take care of
those who are unable to take care of themselves.
49
Chapter 7
DATA
In order to comprehensively analyze the relationship between voter turnout and
the level of support for both conservative and liberal ballot measures, every statewide
proposition that appeared on the ballot in California between 1912 and 2009 was
evaluated.120 California adopted the direct initiative in 1911, with it first being available
for use in 1912.121 Prior to that, only the Legislature could place a measure on the ballot
for consideration. Today, propositions can be placed on the ballot by both the people and
the Legislature.122 The University of California, Hastings School of Law’s California
Ballot Measures Database contains a complete electronic record of every California
ballot measure between 1911 and 2009, including the votes cast for and against each
measure up through 2004.123 The UC-Hastings California Ballot Measures Database was
used as the data source to analyze every California ballot measure between 1912 and
120
Ballot measures from the 1915 Special Election had to be excluded. The California Secretary
of State’s Office has no record of the voter turnout statistics from that election. Therefore, the independent
variable (voter turnout) is not available for the 1915 propositions. If voter turnout data for 1915 had been
available, three 1915 ballot measures would have been included in the study: #3 (liberal) would have
increased the terms of office for superior court judges to 12 years; #7 (conservative) provided that citizen
initiatives seeking to increase bond debt had to be passed by a two-thirds, instead of majority, vote of the
electorate; and #8 (liberal) would have authorized the state and local governments to condemn property
beyond that which was actually needed for a proposed public improvement. All three measures failed.
121
California Secretary of State, “A History of California Initiatives,”
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/init_history.pdf (accessed September 1, 2009).
122
The people can place statutes, constitutional amendments (but not revisions), bond measures,
and referenda on the ballot. (California Constitution, Article II §§ 8 and 9.) The Legislature cannot place
statutes or referenda on the ballot. The Legislature can place constitutional revisions and amendments,
bond measures, and proposed amendments to direct initiatives on the ballot. (California Constitution,
Article XVIII § 1; Article XVI §1; and Article II § 10.)
123
University of California, Hastings College of Law, “California Ballot Measures Database,” UC
Hastings School of Law Library, http://library.uchastings.edu/library/california-research/ca-ballotmeasures.html#ballotinits (accessed December 2008 - April 2009).
50
2009. Recent vote totals on ballot measures occurring after 2004 were obtained from the
California Secretary of State’s website.124
Instead of analyzing each measure in its entirety, ballot measures were classified
as “liberal” or “conservative” based on the main points in the Attorney General’s title and
summary for each ballot proposition. Since this study is only concerned with a ballot
measure’s ideological orientation, a full understanding of its policy implications is
unnecessary and potentially counterproductive, as the ideological thrust could get lost in
the policy minutiae. Additionally, Bowler and Donovan found that voters rely on the
ballot pamphlet (in which the title and summary is the first piece of information provided
for each measure) more than any other source, including newspapers, television, and
friends and neighbors, when making decisions.125 Since voters use the ballot pamphlet
more than any other piece of information when making voting decisions, ideological cues
in the title and summary should be influential in shaping public perceptions of a given
ballot measure. The title and summary is also a reasonably reliable description of a ballot
measure since the Attorney General is required by law to include the “chief purpose and
points” of the measure and give a “true and impartial statement” of its purpose in the title
and summary.126 Therefore, the main aspects of each measure should be discernible from
124
California Secretary of State, “Statewide Election Results,”
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_elections.htm (accessed December 2008 - June 2009).
125
Shaun Bowler and Todd Donovan, “Information and Opinion Change on Ballot Propositions,”
Political Behavior 16, no. 4 (Dec. 1994): 411-435.
126
California Elections Code, sections 9003 and 9051.
51
the title and summary.127 Moreover, all three types of ballot propositions—direct citizen
initiatives, measures submitted by the Legislature, and referenda—were included in the
study. How the measure got on the ballot, and whether it is a statutory or constitutional
measure, is not particularly meaningful for this type of study. Rather, the ideological
orientation of the proposition, if any, is the primary focus. This is consistent with the
theory supporting the notion that turnout impacts ballot measure success, which makes no
distinction between the methods of getting the measure on the ballot.128
After reviewing the title and summary for each and every California ballot
proposition since 1912 using the definitions constructed in Chapter 6, a total of 237
liberal ballot measures and 173 conservative ballot measures were identified, for a
combined result of 410 entries. The 237 liberal ballot measures, along with the votes cast
for and against each measure and other pertinent information acquired from the UCHastings Database and the California Secretary of State’s website, are listed in Appendix
A. The 173 conservative measures, along with the votes cast for and against each
127
California Elections Code, section 9051. The Legislature cannot write the titles and summaries
for direct citizen initiatives or referenda. The titles and summaries for those types of measures must be
written by the Attorney General. In a minority of circumstances, the Legislature has written its own titles
and summaries for measures that it places on the ballot instead of letting the Attorney General write them,
as is the norm. While the Legislature is not required to be as impartial as the Attorney General in writing
titles and summaries, legislative titles and summaries are still held to a ‘false and misleading’ standard by
the courts. (California Elections Code, section 9092.) Second, legislative measures require a two-thirds
vote to be placed on the ballot. As such, it is somewhat less likely that a measure with a severely biased
legislatively drafted title and summary would be able to actually make it on to the ballot. Third, normal
practice has been for the Legislature to let the Attorney General write the titles and summaries for the
measures it places on the ballot.
128
Procedural differences between various types of ballot initiatives are fairly insignificant when
objective content-based definitions are applied, as was done in this study. Procedural traits (i.e., “how you
got on the ballot”) is largely irrelevant when analyzing objective content traits (i.e., “what you are on the
ballot”). Studies that prioritize procedural characteristics over content characteristics would likely reach a
different conclusion.
52
measure and other pertinent information acquired from the UC-Hastings Database and
the California Secretary of State’s website, are listed in Appendix B. Broken down by
sub-category, the results totaled: 145 liberal economic/governmental measures; 92 liberal
moral/social measures; 104 conservative economic/governmental measures; and 69
conservative moral/social measures. The economic/governmental and moral/social
breakdowns for both liberal measures and conservative measures can each be found in
Appendix C through Appendix F. These liberal and conservative ballot measures served
as the dependent variable(s) in the study.
The independent variable(s) in the study were the voter turnout levels for each
election in which one or more of the 410 ideologically-oriented ballot measures appeared.
The California Secretary of State maintains historical statewide voter participation
statistics for nearly all California elections dating back to 1910.129 These voter
participation statistics can be found in Appendix G.
129
California Secretary of State, “Historical Voter Registration and Voter Participation in
Statewide Primary Elections—1910-2008,”
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ror/hist_stats_gen_prim/historical-voter-reg-primary-jun08.pdf (accessed
October 7, 2009); California Secretary of State, “Historical Voter Registration and Participation in
Statewide General Elections 1910-2009,” http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/historical-voter-reg/histvoter-reg-and-part-general-elections-1910-2009.pdf (accessed October 7, 2009).
53
Chapter 8
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA
Overall, the purpose of this analysis is to determine whether there is a statistically
significant relationship between voter turnout levels and ideological ballot measure
outcomes in California between 1912 and 2009. More specifically, the purpose is to test
the hypotheses that there is (1) a positive correlation between the level of voter and the
“yes” vote share on liberal ballot measures; and (2) a negative correlation between the
level of voter turnout and the “yes” vote share on conservative ballot measures.
Additionally, in order to search for more subtle relationships, the data was further broken
down over time and by subject. Correlation analysis was conducted to determine if
statistically significant associations exist between the independent (voter turnout) and
dependent (“yes” vote percentage) variables.
The first step was to look for correlations across the entire data set from 19122009 for both liberal and conservative measures. However, in recognition of the fact that
California has gone through extensive demographic, economic, political, and cultural
transformations over the past century, the data was further broken down and analyzed in
roughly thirty year increments in order to identify changes over time in the relationship
between the variables, if any. The periods chosen were 1912-1944, 1946-1978, and
1979-2009. These time periods were selected because they are roughly equal in length
and each approximates an era between certain watershed moments in California history.
The 1912-1944 period covers California history from the birth of direct democracy in the
state through the Second World War. The 1946-1978 timeframe covers the postwar
54
period through the passage of Proposition 13 (1978), which ushered in the modern era of
initiative politics in California.130 The 1979-2009 period represents California’s modern,
post-Proposition 13 (1978) political environment. Third, as explained in Chapter 7, the
liberal and conservative categories were each split into two sub-categories
(economic/governmental and moral/social) in order to scrutinize the relationship between
voter turnout levels and specific types of liberal and conservative ballot measures.
a. Descriptive statistics of samples.
The first hypothesis in this study is that there is a positive correlation between the
level of voter turnout (independent variable) and the “yes” vote percentage on liberal
ballot measures (dependent variable). Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics for these
variables for the 1912-2009 period. With a total of 237 samples, the range for the level
of voter turnout was from 17.5 percent to 88.4 percent, with a mean of 68.41 percent.
The range for the liberal measure “yes” vote percentage was from 15.0 percent to 82.5
percent, with a mean of 46.32 percent.
John Fund, “Proposition 13: A Watershed Moment Bridging FDR and Reagan,” The California
Journal of Politics and Policy 1, no. 1 (2009): 1-5, http://www.bepress.com/cjpp/vol1/iss1/15/ (accessed
November 27, 2009). Fund notes that Proposition 13 “had a profound impact nationally” and “set off a
nationwide tax revolt.”
130
55
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for Level of Voter Turnout and “Yes” Vote Percentage on Liberal Ballot Measures
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
237
17.50
88.40
68.4097
13.50701
"Yes" Vote % on Liberal 237
15.00
82.50
46.3160
14.28935
Voter Turnout %
Measures
Valid N (listwise)
237
On the other hand, the second hypothesis predicted a negative correlation between
the level of voter turnout (independent variable) and the “yes” vote percentage on
conservative ballot measures (dependent variable) across the same 1912-2009 timeframe.
Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics of the variables used in the analysis of
conservative ballot measures. With a total of 173 samples, the level of voter turnout had a
range of 28.2 percent to 88.4 percent, with a mean of 65.87 percent. The range for the
conservative measure “yes” vote percentage was from 15.1 percent to 87.7 percent, with
a mean of 53.16 percent.
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics for Level of Voter Turnout and “Yes” Vote Percentage on Conservative Ballot Measures
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
Voter Turnout %
173
28.20
88.40
65.8723
14.55856
"Yes" Vote % on
173
15.10
87.70
53.1555
16.45558
Conservative Measures
Valid N (listwise)
173
b. Liberal ballot measures, 1912-2009.
On the liberal side, Table 3 presents the correlation matrix for the entire data set
of voter turnout levels and “yes” vote percentages in favor of the liberal propositions. It
56
could be observed that the Pearson Correlation is positive (0.025), which means that
increases in turnout and liberal “yes” vote shares have a positive relationship. However,
the relationship is not statistically significant, as evidenced in the two-tailed significance
level of 0.705.
Table 3
Correlation Matrix for Voter Turnout Levels and “Yes” Vote Shares on Liberal Ballot Measures
"Yes" Vote % on
Voter Turnout %
Pearson Correlation
Voter Turnout %
Liberal Measures
1
.025
Sig. (2-tailed)
.705
N
237
237
"Yes" Vote % on Liberal
Pearson Correlation
.025
1
Measures
Sig. (2-tailed)
.705
N
237
237
** Correlation is significant at 0.01 level (2-tailed).
c. Conservative ballot measures, 1912-2009.
On the conservative side, Table 4 presents the correlation matrix for the entire
data set of voter turnout levels and “yes” vote percentages in favor of the conservative
propositions. It could be observed that the Pearson Correlation is -0.236, which has a
significance value of 0.002. This implies a statistically significant negative correlation
between the independent and dependent variables. Stated plainly, this means that as the
observed level of voter turnout increases, the percentage of “yes” votes cast in favor of
conservative ballot measures decreases.
57
Table 4
Correlation Matrix for Voter Turnout Levels and “Yes” Vote Shares on Conservative Ballot Measures
"Yes" Vote % on
Voter Turnout %
Pearson Correlation
Voter Turnout %
Conservative Measures
1
-.236**
Sig. (2-tailed)
.002
N
173
173
"Yes" Vote % on Conservative
Pearson Correlation
-.236**
1
Measures
Sig. (2-tailed)
.002
N
173
173
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
d.
Liberal ballot measures, 1912-1944, 1946-1978, and 1979-2009.
In order to determine whether there are changes in the relationship between the
independent and dependent variables over time, Table 5 presents the correlation matrix
for voter turnout levels and the “yes” vote percentages in favor of liberal propositions
over the three thirty year periods described above. As seen in Table 5, none of the
correlations were found to be statistically significant. This signifies that there are no
statistically significant relationships between the independent and dependent variables in
any of the three eras. Of particular interest is the negative Pearson Correlation for the
1946-1978 period. Although this negative Pearson Correlation was not found to be
statistically significant, it implies the opposite of what was expected, at least during that
period.
58
Table 5
Correlation Matrix for Voter Turnout Levels and “Yes” Vote Shares on Liberal Ballot Measures, 1912-1944, 19461978, and 1979-2009
1912-1944
1946-1978
1979-2009
1912-1944 "Yes" Vote 1946-1978 "Yes" Vote 1979-2009 "Yes" Vote
Voter
% Liberal
Turnout % Measures
1912-1944 Voter
Pearson
Turnout %
Correlation
1
Sig. (2-tailed)
1912-1944 "Yes"
Voter
% Liberal
Turnout % Measures
Voter
% Liberal
Turnout % Measures
.052
.632
N
86
86
Pearson
.052
1
Vote % on Liberal Correlation
Measures
Sig. (2-tailed) .632
N
1946-1978 Voter
Pearson
Turnout %
Correlation
86
86
1
Sig. (2-tailed)
1946-1978 "Yes"
-.117
.368
N
61
61
Pearson
-.117
1
Vote % on Liberal Correlation
Measures
Sig. (2-tailed)
.368
N
61
1979-2009 Voter
Pearson
Turnout %
Correlation
61
1
Sig. (2-tailed)
1979-2009 "Yes"
.021
.843
N
90
90
Pearson
.021
1
Vote % on Liberal Correlation
Measures
Sig. (2-tailed)
.843
N
90
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
90
59
e.
Conservative ballot measures, 1912-1944, 1946-1978, and 1979-2009.
In order to determine whether there are changes over time in the relationship
between the independent and dependent variables for conservative propositions, Table 6
presents the correlation matrix for voter turnout levels and the “yes” vote shares in favor
of conservative ballot measures over the same three thirty year periods. A statistically
significant correlation between the independent and dependent variables is observed for
the 1979 to 2009 period. Since the Pearson Correlation is at -0.225, this implies that
there is a negative correlation between the level of voter turnout and the “yes” vote
percentage in favor of conservative propositions for the 1979-2009 period. Interestingly,
for the years 1946 to 1978, the Pearson Correlation is positive, which implies that there
are observed increases in voter turnout along with increases in the “yes” vote share for
conservative ballot measures. Although the relationship was not deemed to be significant
since the p-value is at 0.259, it implies the opposite of what was expected, at least during
that period. This observation coincides with the finding in Table 5, where there was a
negative Pearson Correlation between voter turnout levels and the “yes” vote share for
liberal propositions over the same period. While neither relationship is statistically
significant in the 1946-1978 era, it implies that the relationships between the independent
and dependent variables, for both liberal and conservative measures, shifted during that
period. In the 1912-1944 period, the relationship between the independent and dependent
variables fell just short of being statistically significant. The Pearson Correlation is at 0.239, but the p-value came in just above 0.05, at 0.079.
60
Table 6
Correlation Matrix for Voter Turnout Levels and “Yes” Vote Shares on Conservative Ballot Measures, 1912-1944,
1946-1978, and 1979-2009
1912-1944
1946-1978
1979-2009
1912-1944 "Yes" Vote % 1946-1978 "Yes" Vote % 1979-2009 "Yes" Vote %
Voter
Conservative Voter
Turnout % Measures
1912-1944 Voter Pearson
Turnout %
1
N
1912-1944 "Yes" Pearson
-.239
55
55
-.239
1
Correlation
Conservative
Sig. (2-tailed) .079
N
55
55
1946-1978 Voter Pearson
1
N
1946-1978 "Yes" Pearson
.259
35
35
.196
1
Vote % on
Correlation
Conservative
Sig. (2-tailed)
.259
N
35
1979-2009 Voter Pearson
Turnout %
.196
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
Measures
Turnout % Measures
.079
Vote % on
Turnout %
Turnout % Measures
35
1
-.225*
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
1979-2009 "Yes" Pearson
.041
83
83
-.225*
1
Vote % on
Correlation
Conservative
Sig. (2-tailed)
.041
N
83
Measures
Conservative
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
Measures
Conservative Voter
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
83
61
f. Liberal moral/social and economic/governmental ballot measures, 19122009.
Table 7 presents the correlation matrix for voter turnout levels and the “yes” vote
shares for propositions in the liberal moral/social and economic/governmental subcategories. It could be observed that the liberal economic/governmental sub-category had
a Pearson Correlation of 0.019, which implies that there are observed increases in the
level of voter turnout along increases in the “yes” vote percentage on liberal
economic/governmental measures. However, this relationship was not deemed to be
statistically significant. On the other hand, the analysis of voter turnout levels and the
“yes” vote shares for liberal moral/social measures did not result in a positive correlation
between the independent and dependent variables. This indicates that there is no
statistically significant relationship between the level of voter turnout and the vote shares
for either liberal economic/governmental or liberal moral/social propositions.
62
Table 7
Correlation Matrix for Voter Turnout Levels and “Yes” Vote Shares on Liberal Moral/Social and
Economic/Governmental Ballot Measures
Economic/
Moral/Social Voter
Pearson Correlation
Turnout %
Sig. (2-tailed)
Moral/Social
Moral/Social
Economic/
Gov’t "Yes" Vote
Voter Turnout
"Yes" Vote %
Gov’t Voter
% Liberal
%
Liberal Measures
Turnout %
Measures
1
-.007
1
.019
.949
N
92
92
Moral/Social "Yes"
Pearson Correlation
-.007
1
Vote % on Liberal
Sig. (2-tailed)
.949
N
92
Measures
Economic/Gov’t
Pearson Correlation
Voter Turnout %
Sig. (2-tailed)
92
.821
N
145
145
Economic/Gov’t
Pearson Correlation
.019
1
"Yes" Vote % on
Sig. (2-tailed)
.821
N
145
Liberal Measures
145
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
g.
Conservative moral/social and economic/governmental ballot measures,
1912-2009.
Table 8 presents the correlation matrix for voter turnout levels and the “yes” vote
shares for propositions in the conservative moral/social and economic/governmental subcategories. A statistically significant negative correlation was found between the level of
voter turnout and the “yes” vote share on conservative moral/social propositions (Pearson
Correlation = -0.280, p-value = 0.020). Likewise, a statistically significant negative
63
correlation was found between the level of voter turnout and the “yes” vote share on
conservative economic/governmental ballot measures as well (Pearson Correlation =
-0.208, p-value = 0.034). These findings indicate that an increase in voter turnout results
in reductions in the “yes” vote share for both conservative moral/social and conservative
economic/governmental ballot measures. The fact that the relationship was significant
for both sub-categories of conservative measures is particularly noteworthy. It implies
that a wide range—as opposed to a narrower subset—of conservative propositions are
sensitive to variations in turnout. It also suggests that hot button socially conservative
measures are not the only types of conservative initiatives that benefit from low turnout.
64
Table 8
Correlation Matrix for Voter Turnout Levels and “Yes” Vote Shares on Conservative Moral/Social and
Economic/Governmental Ballot Measures
Economic/ Gov’t
Economic/Gov’t Voter
Pearson Correlation
Turnout %
Sig. (2-tailed)
Economic/
“Yes” Vote %
Moral/Social
Gov’t Voter
Conservative
Voter Turnout Conservative
Turnout %
Measures
%
Measures
1
-.208*
1
-.280*
104
104
Economic/Gov’t “Yes”
Pearson Correlation
-.208*
1
Vote % on Conservative
Sig. (2-tailed)
.034
N
104
Moral/Social Voter
Pearson Correlation
Turnout %
Sig. (2-tailed)
“Yes” Vote %
.034
N
Measures
Moral/Social
N
104
.020
69
69
Moral/Social “Yes” Vote Pearson Correlation
-.280*
1
% on Conservative
Sig. (2-tailed)
.020
N
69
Measures
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
69
65
Chapter 9
CONCLUSION
These results demonstrate that the conventional wisdom is half-right.
Increased voter turnout was not shown to be associated with increases in the percentage
of votes cast in favor of liberal measures. The correlation analysis revealed a positive
relationship between increases in the level of voter turnout and the “yes” vote share for
liberal ballot measures, although the relationship only remained positive for liberal
economic/governmental propositions. However, neither relationship was statistically
significant. The correlations between voter turnout and liberal proposition “yes” vote
shares during the three distinct time periods (1912-1944, 1946-1978, and 1979-2009),
and between voter turnout and liberal moral/social propositions, were either not positive
or not statistically significant. Therefore, the hypothesis that increases in voter turnout
will result in increases in the “yes” vote percentage for liberal ballot measures could not
withstand statistical analysis.
On the other hand, increased voter turnout was shown to be associated with
decreases in the percentage of votes cast in favor of conservative measures. The
correlation analysis revealed a statistically significant negative correlation between the
level of voter turnout and the “yes” vote share for conservative ballot measures. When
broken down into the moral/social and economic/governmental sub-categories, the
relationship remained negative and statistically significant in each case. However, when
the conservative measures were separated into the 1912-1944, 1946-1978, and 1979-2009
periods, only the 1979-2009 period contained a statistically significant negative
66
correlation between the independent and dependent variables—although the 1912-1944
period came close. The fact that the relationship is significant in the current era is
particularly noteworthy, as it indicates that this is a factor that should continue to be taken
into account.
Overall, this study demonstrates that conservative propositions appear to have an
electoral advantage in low turnout elections. As such, conservative groups may very well
be able to take advantage of low turnouts and enact measures that are not supported by a
majority of Californians—or even a majority of registered voters. Perhaps a bigger
implication is that the advantages from low turnout benefit not just moral/social
conservative measures, but also economic/governmental conservative propositions.
While moral/social conservative measures may be popular among grassroots
conservatives, they often lack deep-pocketed benefactors. However, many
economic/governmental conservative measures can and do attract the attention of wealthy
proponents who have the resources to qualify an initiative in a short timeframe or
otherwise take advantage of the benefits of a low turnout election. Gerber concluded that
interest groups cannot buy policy outcomes in the initiative process. While
“conservative” interest groups in California may not necessarily be able to buy policy
outcomes in the direct legislation process, they would appear to have a better chance of
doing so in low turnout elections.
Alternatively, despite several recent high profile case studies assuming the
contrary, liberal propositions do not appear to enjoy any electoral advantage from
variations in turnout. As such, liberal advocates, like those seeking to overturn
67
Proposition 8 (2008), should not view high turnout as a panacea where simply getting an
initiative on the ballot in a high turnout election guarantees success. This is not to say
that liberal ballot measures do not enjoy any advantages in California, especially in light
of the state’s Democratic plurality, progressive activism, and wealthy liberal donor base.
It just implies that high turnout has been an exaggerated, if not illusory, advantage for
liberal measures.
Notwithstanding the conclusions reached here, the relationship between voter
turnout and direct legislation outcomes remains fertile ground for additional scholarship.
While this study has concentrated on a single state over an extended period of time using
a fairly dichotomous categorization, other research could further analyze the relationship
in different ways. For example, analyzing the relationship between voter turnout and
ideological ballot measure success in other states would shed light on whether the
association between turnout and conservative measures plays out similarly elsewhere, or
whether it is a uniquely California phenomenon. Such an approach would also be helpful
in determining the opposite; i.e., whether California is unique in the fact that liberal
measures do not benefit from high turnout. A similar analysis could also be undertaken
using local ballot measures. Given that the relationship in California between turnout and
conservative measures was strongest in recent decades, other research could look across
several states in recent election cycles to look for evidence of a nationwide trend.
Another approach would be to further refine the definitions of “liberal” and
“conservative” in order to search for more discreet trends and relationships. Perhaps a
narrower subset of “economic/governmental” or “moral/social” measures, or some other
68
distinct classification of initiatives, would demonstrate an even stronger sensitivity to
variations in turnout. Ballot measures could also be segregated between legislative and
citizen initiatives, and between initiatives and referenda. Although the procedural
differences between various types of measures may not be particularly valuable when
objective content-based definitions are applied, as was done in this study, such an
evaluation would nonetheless add to the body of knowledge on the subject—scant as it is.
Other studies have demonstrated that partisanship, money, and elite/interest group
endorsements can influence ballot measure outcomes. For conservative ballot measures
in California, voter turnout can be added to that list. Additional research will be
necessary to fully understand the depth of the relationship. Hopefully this study will
interest other scholars enough to begin that process.
69
APPENDICES
70
APPENDIX A
Liberal Ballot Measures131
YEAR
#
YES
%
NO%
1
1914
3
33.5
66.5
TURN
OUT
%
78.9
2
1914
4
46.7*
53.3*
78.9
3
1914
9
41.4
58.6
78.9
4
1914
10
52.0
48.0
78.9
5
1914
16
45.8
54.2
78.9
6
1914
24
15.0
85.0
78.9
7
1914
33
45.4
54.6
78.9
131
TITLE & SUMMARY OVERVIEW
Makes it a misdemeanor crime for an employer to
require any employee to work more than 8 hours in
one day or 48 hours in one week.
Referendum opposing an act declaring buildings or
places where lewdness or prostitution take place to
be public nuisances and authorizes such buildings to
be closed down and/or sold in order to abate
nuisance.
Authorizes governor to appoint an auditor of
investments, defines investment companies, and
empowers auditor to examine/investigate
investment company practices; prohibits sale of
securities prior to filing a financial statement and
description of security with auditor.
Provides that no poll or head tax shall be levied in
California for any purpose.
Authorizes state, county, or municipality to
condemn neighboring property within its limits in
excess of that actually intended for proposed
improvement; declares that excess property is
similarly taken for public use; permits cities and
counties to condemn lands w/in 10 miles beyond
their boundaries for certain public purposes with
consent of other county or municipality where lands
are located; requires terms of condemnation, lease,
or disposal of such additional property to be
prescribed by law.
Increases maximum total expenses allowed for
Assembly officers, employees, and attaches from
$500 per day to $600 per day.
Eliminates constitutional provision prohibiting
governor from being elected to U.S. Senate during
his term of office, and instead provides that U.S.
Prior to 1960, ballot measures only appeared on general or special election ballots, but not on
primary ballots. For elections on and after 1960, general elections are designated “G,” primary elections
are designated “P,” and special elections are designated “S.” The “yes” and “no” vote totals for referenda
have been reversed, because in referendum campaigns, the proponent asks for a “no” vote. So to support
the referendum, an elector votes “no.” “Yes” and “no” votes for referenda are marked with an asterisk (*).
71
8
1914
44
56.2
43.8
78.9
9
1914
45
38.8
61.2
78.9
10
1914
47
44.9
55.1
78.9
11
1916
5
31.1
68.9
79.6
12
1918
3
52.1
47.9
59.4
13
1918
6
23.9
76.1
59.4
14
1918
13
54.1
45.9
59.4
15
1918
17
67.0*
33.0*
59.4
16
1918
19
24.7
75.3
59.4
17
1918
20
27.2
72.8
59.4
Senators shall be elected by the people in the
manner provided by law.
Authorizes Legislature to provide for the
establishment of a minimum wage for women and
minors; and for health and safety of any and all
employees in the state.
Prohibits (1) working or requiring employees to
work more than 6 days or 48 hours per week, or (2)
keeping businesses open or selling property on
Sundays. Creates a misdemeanor for violations.
Bans for 8 years after this election any state or local
ballot measure on the question of permitting or
prohibiting transportation, sale, or manufacture of
intoxicating liquors.
Declares all public revenues shall be raised by
taxing land values exclusive of improvements;
forbids taxation of revenue from labor products,
occupation, business; permits assessment of
incomes and inheritances to support old age
pensions, mother’s endowments, and workmen’s
disability insurance. Declares land shall be equally
assessed disregarding improvements made
thereupon.
Restricts and regulates interest rates chargeable
upon loans of money, goods, things in action,
accounts, and judgments; limits fees, charges, and
commissions in connection with loans of money;
provides penalties for violations.
Would permit Legislature to amend or repeal
constitutional provisions establishing and governing
the judicial branch as if those provisions were
general laws.
Exempts counties from the requirement that
compensation be paid into court before a right of
way is appropriated by eminent domain for public
use; authorizes political subdivisions of counties or
districts to take immediate possession of
condemned property upon depositing security with
a court.
Referendum opposing a measure limiting the
amounts produced by tax levies in the aggregate in
the counties; limits yearly increases in county tax
levies to 5% of amount produced in preceding year
unless a greater amount is authorized by a county’s
board of supervisors or the voters.
After Jan. 1, 1919, requires all state, county, city,
and district revenues to be raised solely by taxing
land values irrespective of improvements made
thereon. Declares that land values are created by
communities, so communities should benefit
therefrom.
Authorizes Legislature to establish health insurance
72
18
1918
23
50.6
49.4
59.4
19
1918
25
37.7
62.3
59.4
20
1920
2
53.8*
46.2*
71.9
21
1920
3
30.1
69.9
71.9
22
1920
7
34.1
65.9
71.9
23
1920
8
36.1*
63.9*
71.9
24
1920
12
49.7
50.3
71.9
25
1920
19
68.7
31.3
71.9
26
1922
2
48.0*
52.0*
65.3
27
1922
13
43.7
56.3
65.3
28
1922
18
49.9
50.1
65.3
system applicable to persons and their dependents
whose incomes it deems are insufficient to meet the
hazards of sickness and disability. Provides support
for public health insurance by contributions,
voluntary or compulsory, from employers, workers
who would be eligible for public insurance, and
state appropriations.
Establishes a workmen’s compensation system;
empowers Legislature to establish such a system
and require any or all persons to compensate their
workmen for injury or disability, including
dependents thereof in the event of an employee’s
death in the course of employment irrespective of
fault.
Declares that state and local governments may
acquire by eminent domain property in excess of
that actually required for use in an improvement,
with such property to be deemed acquired for
“public use.”
Referendum opposing a statute that prohibits
manufacture, possession, receipt, transportation, or
serving of alcohol; and prescribes penalties.
Increases salaries for CA Supreme Court from
$8,000 to $10,000 and CA Appellate Courts from
$7,000 to $9,000.
Outlaws dissection/vivisection of any living person
or animal except during surgery.
Referendum opposing a statute that seeks to further
regulate and restrict the sale, prescription, and use
of poisons, opium, morphine, cocaine, and heroine;
and hypodermic needles.
Imposes 2/10 mill per dollar ad valorem tax, with
proceeds going to State University system.
Grants state aid to children of fathers with
permanent physical disabilities preventing gainful
employment.
Referendum opposing a statute that adopts federal
penalties prescribed under Volstead Act and U.S.
Constitution banning liquor; vests state courts,
prosecutors, and police with the duty to enforce
federal prohibition laws; continues to permit local
enforcement of laws banning alcohol.
Eliminates prohibition on increasing or decreasing
salaries of superior court judges during their term of
office. States that state shall pay half and county
shall pay half of superior court judges’ salaries.
Authorizes two or more municipalities to acquire or
control public works for supplying residents with
light, water, power, heat, transportation, telephone,
or other utility service. Requires residents to
approve such acquisition or control by a 2/3 vote if
bonded indebtedness is involved; otherwise requires
73
29
1922
19
29.0
71.0
65.3
30
1922
26
64.9
35.1
65.3
31
1922
28
30.5
69.5
65.3
32
1922
29
19.4
80.6
65.3
33
1924
2
55.4
44.6
73.3
34
1924
8
52.0
48.0
73.3
35
1924
11
60.7
39.3
73.3
36
1924
16
29.9
70.1
73.3
a majority vote for approval.
Creates a new board appointed by the governor;
empowers board to develop and distribute water and
electricity (giving state and political subdivisions
certain preferential rights) and to do anything
convenient in pursuit thereof, including fixing rates,
using state waters and lands, and requiring
reservation of water from appropriation and public
lands from sale. Authorizes board to issue $500
million in bonds to support development of water
and electricity, to be repaid through rates over not
more than 50 years.
Declares that nothing in the Constitution shall
forbid formation of school districts situated in more
than one county or issuance of bonds by such
districts under general laws. Authorizes school
district bd. members to levy and assess taxes for the
purpose of paying off any bond indebtedness
incurred.
Prohibits vivisection (live dissection) or torture of
human, animals, or other living creatures for
pathological investigations or other purposes.
Abolishes present system of taxation; declares
private property rights only attach to products of
labor and not to land; defines “franchises” as
special privileges granted by government permitting
use, control, or monopoly of land; requires that
these “franchises” (i.e., land ownership) be assessed
annually at their full rental value independent of
improvements. Requires all government expenses
to be paid from “franchise” land assessments.
Prohibits all other taxes and license fees.
Declares legislators shall receive $100/mo. in even
numbered years and a mileage reimbursement not to
exceed 5¢/mile. Further declares that the
Legislature shall provide for selection of all
legislative officers and employees, and shall limit
total daily expense for legislative staff to $300/day
in regular session and $200/day in special session.
Amends Constitution to authorize the Legislature to
provide for additional deputies and assistants for
county officers; authorizes Legislature to increase
the compensation of such deputes and assistants
during the term of office of the county officer.
Creates Klamath River Fish and Game Dist. in
Siskiyou and Del Norte Counties; prohibits
construction of dams or obstructions in waters of
the district; declares any obstruction therein as
being a public nuisance.
Creates a board appointed by Governor authorized
to develop and distribute water and electricity, and
to acquire any property or do any thing to further
74
37
1926
2
78.0
22.0
63.4
38
1926
4
48.1
51.9
63.4
39
1926
6
35.4
64.6
63.4
40
1926
9
47.0
53.0
63.4
41
1926
17
43.4
56.6
63.4
42
1926
18
27.4
72.6
63.4
43
1926
19
31.1
68.9
63.4
44
1928
9
78.8
21.2
79.8
that purpose. Gives the state preferential rights
against privately owned utilities selling water or
electricity to the public. Authorizes board to issue
$500 million in bonds to further the purposes stated
herein.
Taxes common carriers transporting persons 4.25%,
and common carriers transporting property 5%, of
their gross receipts. Exempts property used by
common carriers from all other taxes and licenses.
Appropriates half of revenue to the State and half to
counties exclusively for maintaining and repairing
public highways. Permits Legislature to change tax
rates.
Increases tax on gasoline distributors from 2¢ on
every gallon sold to 3¢. Revenues are to be used by
CA Highway Com. to acquire rights of ways for,
and construction of, state highways.
Creates board appointed by Governor to regulate
and license horse racing and pari-mutuel betting
inside of race tracks. Divides revenues collected for
licenses between the Veteran’s Welfare Bd. and the
State Agricultural Bd.
Repeals state law that enforces the federal
prohibition on the manufacture, sale, and
consumption of alcohol.
Forbids appropriating public money for support of
sectarian or denominational schools or those not
exclusively controlled by public school officers;
prohibits teaching sectarian or denominational
doctrines in public schools. Authorizes use of
public funds to purchase Holy Bible, requiring a
copy thereof in every classroom; authorizes daily
readings from the bible by teachers, without
comment; however, no pupil shall be required to
read or hear readings from the bible if their
parent/guardian objects.
Creates a board appointed by Governor authorized
to develop and distribute water and electricity, and
to acquire any property or do any thing to further
that purpose. Gives state preferential rights against
privately owned utilities selling water or electricity
to the public. Authorizes board to issue $500
million in bonds to further the purposes stated
herein.
Declares that all state judges, 60 yrs. or older, who
have completed 24 or more yrs. of service shall
receive a pension equal to half of their last salary.
Confers upon State the same power now possessed
by counties and municipal corporations to condemn
a right of way without full monetary compensation
being immediately paid into court for the owner, but
instead permitting the State to put up a security for
75
45
1928
12
76.3
23.7
79.8
46
1928
19
82.5
17.5
79.8
47
1928
21
36.9
63.1
79.8
48
1930
2
24.2
75.8
64.4
49
1930
3
37.2
62.8
64.4
50
1930
5
51.6
48.4
64.4
51
1930
11
40.4
59.6
64.4
52
1930
17
75.9
24.1
64.4
53
1932 G
1
68.9
31.1
80.7
54
1932 G
2
64.2
35.8
80.7
the property which shall be paid to the owner as
soon as the value of the property is ascertained
according to law.
Empowers Legislature to grant aid to needy
physically handicapped persons who are not already
institutionalized in a state facility.
Empowers Legislature to grant aid to needy blind
persons who are not already institutionalized in a
state facility.
Defines bull-dogging, bull-riding, bull-dodging,
wild-animal racing, wild-animal milking, steerroping, two-men roping, high-lifing, and loinstrapping; prohibits such acts or use of spurs to
make animals buck; prohibits terrifying or exciting
animals by any means for sport, exhibition, or
amusement. Exempts practices related to dairying
or farming, or in breaking animals for domestic use.
Prohibits chewing or twisting any part of an
animal’s body or holding or controlling an animal
with pincers, twisters, or similar instruments.
Prescribes penalties for violations.
Requires up to half of all state taxes on premiums of
fire insurance companies to be distributed to
firemen’s pension, health, life, and accident
insurance funds.
Sets salaries of Governor ($10k) and Lt. Gov.
($4k); states that other statewide officers’ salaries
shall be set by law; authorizes legislature to abolish
office of Surveyor General.
Empowers Legislature to provide for payment of
retirement salaries to State employees and to set
minimum requirements and conditions for
retirement salary eligibility.
Creates Fish & Game Com. of 5 members
appointed by Governor; authorizes Com. to fix
hunting seasons and limits; regulate the taking, sale,
and possession of wildlife; and establish inferior
fish & game districts.
Establishes method of taxing ocean marine insurers,
measured by their underwriting profits from Calif.
as a percentage of their underwriting profits made
in the USA as a whole.
Repeals state law, known as Wright Act, enforcing
federal Volstead Act (Prohibition).
Declares that if Wright Act is repealed, the State
shall have exclusive jurisdiction to license and
regulate the manufacture, sale, possession, of
intoxicating liquors; prohibits public saloons where
intoxicating liquors are sold or consumed; permits
wine and beer to be sold in hotels and restaurants;
authorizes Legislature to permit sale of liquor in
places where it will not be consumed on the
76
55
1932 G
3
25.9
74.1
80.7
56
1932 G
4
33.0
67.0
80.7
57
1932 G
5
48.6
51.4
80.7
58
1932 G
7
17.8
82.2
80.7
59
1932 G
9
32.6
67.4
80.7
60
1933
Jun. S
2
73.6
26.4
54.1
61
1933
Jun. S
3
62.9
37.1
54.1
62
1934
12
53.7
46.3
75.2
63
1934
21
67.8
32.2
75.2
64
1934
23
71.0
29.0
75.2
65
1935
2
34.6
65.4
17.5
premises.
Places restrictions on mortgage foreclosures.
Requires court order to foreclose on a mortgage.
Requires foreclosure action to be dismissed and
mortgage reinstated upon mortgagor paying the
delinquent amount and 3 months advance interest;
creates 12 month redemption period during which
mortgagor may redeem mortgage and retake
possession of property.
Eliminates requirement that all of State’s share of
revenue from taxes on highway transportation
companies be devoted to highway maintenance and
repair.
Creates CA Racing Bd. to regulate and license
racing, racetracks, and wagering on racing in CA.
Increases limit upon Legislature’s total daily
expenses for its officers, employees, and attaches.
Provides for income tax on individuals, estates, and
trusts, and a selective sales tax; creates state public
school equalization fund requiring $40/elementary
pupil and $75/secondary pupil; requires school
district to apply 75% of money received from State
to teachers’ salaries.
Ratifies 1933 Unemployment Relief Bond Act,
which authorizes the issuance of $20 million bond
measure to provide loans to cities and counties for
unemployment relief.
Ratifies act creating the CA Horse Racing Bd.,
which is empowered to license and regulate horse
racing and wagering thereon.
Prescribes 7% per year as interest rate upon loan or
forbearance of money, goods, or things in action;
permits written contracts for rate not exceeding
10%, but forbids any charges whereby borrower
would pay over 10% interest. Exempts building &
loan associations, industrial loan companies, credit
unions, pawnbrokers, personal property brokers,
and banks. Permits Legislature to regulate interest
rates charged by the exempted entities.
Declares no right of way or lands to be used for
reservoir purposes shall be appropriated to the use
of any corporation until full compensation therefore
is paid into court for the owner of the land or right
of way; provides that the state, counties, municipal
corporations or other public corporations may take
immediate possession of such rights of way or lands
upon depositing such money as a court directs to
secure to owner just compensation for taking.
$24 billion bond measure, repayable from State
revenues, for unemployment relief.
Permits the state to borrow and appropriate funds in
anticipation of state tax revenues. Authorizes the
77
66
1936
11
25.8
74.2
83.4
67
1936
13
20.1
79.9
83.4
68
1936
19
45.9
54.1
83.4
69
1938
2
31.3
68.7
74.7
70
1938
6
70.0
30.0
74.7
71
1938
7
58.3
41.7
74.7
72
1938
20
16.9
83.1
74.7
state to borrow up to 50% of the amount of taxes
and revenues paid into the state General Fund
during the preceding year; and to appropriate such
borrowed funds for General Fund purposes.
Requires moneys so borrowed, and interest thereon,
to be repaid from the General Fund w/in 1 year of
the date borrowed.
Creates State Tenure Bd. of 3 members, each
elected from a district. Vests State Tenure Bd. and
local school boards with jurisdiction to hear and
decide charges against instructors, with State Bd.
having the authority to review and overturn
decisions of local school boards.
Grants power of eminent domain to state agencies
or corporations operating any exposition or fair for
which the use of public moneys has been authorized
by the Constitution. Authorizes immediate
possession of land, property, or rights of way upon
deposit of funds into court.
Declares that existing restrictions on legislative
expenses will not cover expenditures for printing,
compiling, and making publicly available histories
of bills, resolutions, and constitutional amendments,
up to $5k per house.
Defines animal “pounds” and regulates their
conduct. Prescribes duties of poundmasters;
prohibits sale, surrender, or use of unwanted or
unclaimed animals in pounds for scientific, medical,
experimental, or commercial purposes; but exempts
kennels maintained by accredited colleges and
universities and state licensed medical laboratories
as long as animals were bred on premises or
lawfully acquired. Directs that unclaimed and stray
animals be put to death by an approved humane
method.
Declares that insurance companies shall be subject
to a 2.6% tax on the amount of their gross
premiums. Exempts reinsurance and ocean marine
insurance policies.
Declares Legislature has plenary authority to
provide for the administration of relief and may
modify, transfer, or enlarge powers of the Relief
Administrator, the Relief Com., or similar state
agencies. States that Legislature or people through
initiative may provide for administration of relief of
hardship and destitution either directly by the state
or through the counties thereof.
Repeals the retail sales tax. Owner-occupied
houses assessed up to $1k are immediately
exempted from taxation. Taxes on improvements
(houses, buildings, orchards, etc.) and tangible
personal property (autos, machinery, stocks, etc.)
78
73
1938
25
44.9
55.1
74.7
74
1939
1
33.9
66.1
82.5
75
1940
1
62.1
37.9
81.4
76
1940
2
64.0
36.0
81.4
77
1940
8
63.6
36.4
81.4
78
1940
16
30.5
69.5
81.4
are gradually abolished over a 9 yr. period.
Continues personal income, inheritance, gasoline,
severance, and corporation taxes. Repeal of taxes
on retail sales and improvements will shift
additional tax burden onto land values. State and
local governments will become more dependent
upon real property taxes.
Creates elected position of State Retirement Life
Payments Administrator. Requires State to issue
$30/week to Californians over 50 who do not have a
job for the rest of their lives.
Requires State to issue $30/week to Californians
over 50 who do not have a job. Requires a $20
million bond issue for initial capital and creates a
state bank to handle retirement payment funds.
Prohibits courts from interfering with
administration of program. Enacts 3% gross
income tax.
A 1939 legislative act required applicants and
recipients of aged aid to sign an agreement with
counties not to sell, transfer, or mortgage real
property w/o the consent of the county bd. of
supervisors. This requirement was repealed in 1940
and all existing agreements were terminated, but the
State Supreme Ct. ruled that undoing existing
agreements would constitute a gift of public funds.
This constitutional measure clarifies that undoing
existing agreements shall be permissible
notwithstanding the prohibition on gifts of public
funds.
Under the CA Old Age Security Act, prior to 1937,
as a condition of granting old age assistance, county
boards of supervisors could require assignment of
real property to the county or place a lien against
real property in return for such assistance. The
Legislature since released such liens and directed
county boards of supervisors to execute appropriate
instruments to effectuate such releases, but the
Supreme Ct. ruled that the Legislature exceeded its
authority in doing so. This measure would permit
the release of such liens to take place.
Creates Fish & Game Comm.; empowers
Legislature to delegate powers relating to
protection, propagation, and preservation of fish
and game.
Requires Legislature to meet at least once each
year, replacing current requirement that Legislature
meet at least once every two years. Replaces
current two-year budgets with an annual budget
process. Limits legislative sessions to 60-days,
replacing current undefined session length.
Changes opening date of regular legislative sessions
79
79
1942
1
44.7*
55.3*
59.3
80
1942
2
42.6
57.4
59.3
81
1942
14
37.6
62.4
59.3
82
1944
3
52.5
47.5
86.1
83
1944
6
39.9
60.1
86.1
84
1944
9
63.8
36.2
86.1
85
1944
10
52.0
48.0
86.1
86
1944
11
32.8
67.2
86.1
87
1946
3
74.4
25.6
63.0
88
1946
6
65.8
34.2
63.0
89
1946
10
60.6
39.4
63.0
from January to March.
Referendum opposing an act that makes “hot cargo”
and “secondary boycotts” illegal. Defines “hot
cargo” as an agreement resulting in employers or
employees refusing to handle goods or perform
services because of another employer’s labor
dispute. Defines “secondary boycott” as an
agreement to stop performing services or cause an
employer economic loss in order to induce him to
refrain from doing business with another employer
who is involved in a labor dispute.
Requires Legislature to meet in regular session at
least once per year instead of at least once every
two years.
Sets default cap on interest rates for loans at 7% per
year; authorizes parties to agree by written contract
to an interest rate up to 10% per year; declares
interest rate on court judgments to be 5% per year.
Authorizes Legislature to fix compensation of Lt.
Gov., Controller, Sec. of State, Sup. of Public
Instruction, and Treasurer. Minimum level of
compensation set at $5,000 per year.
Provides for annual, instead of biannual, sessions of
the Legislature. Requires Legislature to enact oneyear budgets instead of two-year budgets.
Amends constitution to increase amount of state
revenues required to be apportioned to elementary
schools from 100% to 167% of the amount raised
by counties to support public education.
Authorizes Legislature, by 2/3 vote, to suspend the
prohibition on increasing the compensation of local
government elected officials mid-term.
Amends constitution to provide $60 monthly old
age/disability payments to persons who are over 60
yrs. old or totally and permanently disabled.
Recipients are prohibited from gainful employment
and must expend moneys paid to them. Imposes
new 3% income tax to fund program.
Simplifies allocation of schools funds; establishes
minimum teacher salaries of $2,400/yr; increases
state support for education to $120/yr. per pupil.
Authorizes local authorities to determine amount of
money to be raised by school district taxes.
Provides Legislature shall meet annually; limits
sessions in even numbered years to consideration of
the budget; provides that state budget shall be for
one year instead of two years.
Authorizes Legislature to fix Governor’s salary w/a
minimum of $10k/yr. Prohibits mid-term increase
or decrease of salaries of Governor, Lt. Gov.,
Controller, Sec. of State, Sup. of Pub. Instruction,
or Treasurer.
80
90
1946
11
28.7
71.3
63.0
91
1946
16
71.0
29.0
63.0
92
1948
4
50.5
49.5
80.5
93
1948
5
42.6
57.4
80.5
94
1948
6
38.1
61.9
80.5
95
1948
15
35.2
64.8
80.5
96
1949
2
57.5
42.5
61.1
97
1949
3
57.1
42.9
61.1
98
1950
6
22.8
77.2
73.3
99
1950
8
34.3
65.7
73.3
100
1952
2
65.4
34.6
86.9
101
1952
11
43.6
56.4
86.9
102
1952
14
77.3
22.7
86.9
Declares that all persons have right of equal
opportunity to secure employment. Prohibits
employment discrimination on basis of race,
religion, color, national origin, or ancestry. Creates
commission to prevent employment discrimination
through conciliation and education.
Repeals authority of Legislature to levy a $5 annual
educational poll tax on each male between 21 and
50 yrs. old, with funds deposited into the State
School Fund.
Increases maximum state aid for aged persons from
$60 to $75 per month; and from $75 to $85 per
month for blind persons. Makes Dept. of Social
Welfare Director an elective office; names first
director.
Eliminates present provision that legislators shall
receive salaries of $100/mo. Provides that
legislators shall receive compensation as may be
fixed by law, plus mileage not to exceed 5¢/mi.
Prohibits use of nets, traps, set lines, or other
commercial fishing appliances in area of San
Francisco Bay and its tributaries and connecting
bays in order to make the area a recreational fishing
area.
Prohibits use of purse nets and round haul nets for
fishing in ocean waters of the State south of San
Luis Obispo County; provides penalties for
violations.
Reinstates Old Age Security and Aid to the Blind,
with new monthly maximums of $75/mo. for the
aged and $85/mo. for the blind. Authorizes
Legislature to increase or decrease size of monthly
payments.
Provides that budget sessions of the Legislature
shall only consider the budget bill, revenue acts,
charter changes, and session expenses. Limits
length of budget sessions; sets legislator salaries at
$300/mo (up from $100/mo.).; sets maximum time
for which per diem may be paid; limits legislative
per diem allowances to the amount authorized for
other elected officeholders.
Permits wagering and gambling in licensed
establishments.
Repeals prohibition on increasing compensation of
local officeholders after their election or during
their term in office.
Increases required State support for public schools
to $180 per pupil per year.
Removes old-age security system from county
jurisdiction and puts it under state control; increases
state payments to old-age recipients.
Repeals constitutional restrictions on persons of
81
103
1954
4
45.4
54.6
69.7
104
105
1954
1954
6
10
52.3
31.2
47.7
68.8
69.7
69.7
106
1954
12
47.6
52.4
69.7
107
1954
18
71.9
28.1
69.7
108
1956
4
23.4
76.6
86.6
109
1956
5
50.6
49.4
86.6
110
1956
13
66.8
33.2
86.6
111
1956
14
62.3
37.7
86.6
112
1958
5
30.0
70.0
79.5
113
1958
14
29.4
70.6
79.5
114
1958
15
44.1
55.9
79.5
115
1958
16
32.8
67.2
79.5
116
1958
17
18.1
81.9
79.5
117
118
1960 G
1960 G
2
5
42.4
42.0
57.6
58.0
88.3
88.3
Chinese ancestry.
Increases state aid payments to the elderly from
$80/mo. to $100/mo.; permits Legislature to
increase, but not decrease, the amount.
Sets state legislators’ salaries at $500/mo.
Increases terms of State Assembly members from 2
to 4 years and terms of State senators from 4 to 6
years; imposes two 4-year term limit on future
governors.
Removes voting disqualification for persons
convicted of crime after fulfilling terms of
punishment.
Guarantees to foreigners of all ethnicities eligible
for US citizenship the same rights with respect to
the acquisition, possession, enjoyment,
transmission, and inheritance of property (other
than real estate) as native born citizens. The current
constitutional guarantee only applies to foreigners
“of the white race or African descent.”
Creates commission charged with ensuring that as
little oil and gas as possible is wasted in the process
of extracting those resources.
Loosens restriction on serving alcohol only in
public eating places and permits alcohol to be
served on premises where food is not offered;
restricts access of minors to such places.
Repeals inoperative 1920 law that denied aliens
ineligible for citizenship the right to own real
property in CA.
Removes the existing cap (dating from 1924) on the
total expenses for legislative staff that can be
incurred during each day in which the Legislature is
in session. Removes legislative staff hiring and
promotion from civil service rules.
Permits Legislature to fix legislator’s salaries by
statute.
Eliminates prohibition against increasing salaries of
county & municipal officers after their election or
during their terms in office.
Repeals existing prohibition on holding boxing
exhibitions on Sunday and Memorial Day.
Proposes to exclude K-12 religious schools from
qualifying for property tax exemption unless school
serves blind, disabled, or retarded.
Reduces sales/use tax from 3% to 2%; changes tax
rates on incomes under $5k from 1% to 0.5% and
on incomes over $50k from 6% to 46%. Sales/use
taxes may be lowered, but not raised by Legislature.
Income tax rates may only be changed by another
vote of the people.
Increases Assembly terms from 2 to 4 years.
Increases legislative salaries to $750 per month.
82
119
1960 G
8
44.8
55.2
88.3
120
1962 G
1
34.1
65.9
78.7
121
122
1962 G
1962 G
17
19
39.6
51.3
60.4
48.7
78.7
78.7
123
1964 G
15
66.4
33.6
88.4
124
1966 G
1A
73.5
26.5
79.2
125
1966 G
3
55.5
44.5
79.2
126
1966 G
4
46.9
53.1
79.2
127
1966 G
8
56.8
43.2
79.2
128
1966 G
15
43.9
56.1
79.2
129
1970 G
20
56.7
43.3
76.2
130
1972 P
3
51.8
48.2
71.0
131
1972 P
6
59.4
40.6
71.0
132
1972 P
9
35.3
64.7
71.0
Changes prohibitions of eligibility to vote from
those convicted of “infamous crimes” to only those
convicted of felonies, and only during the period of
punishment therefor; and those convicted of
treason. Under current laws, felons can only regain
the right to vote through a gubernatorial pardon.
Provides salaries of legislators shall not exceed 50%
of the annual salary of a member of Congress as of
Jan. 1, 1962.
Fixes legislative salaries at $834 per month.
Current law prohibits increasing the compensation
of local officers after an election or during their
terms. This measure makes an exception to provide
that whenever members of a local board,
commission, or council are serving staggered terms
and one or more of them becomes eligible for a
salary increase by virtue of beginning a new term of
office, the compensation of all the members may be
adjusted at that time.
Declares subscription TV business as contrary to
public policy; prohibits charging for TV programs
transmitted to home TV sets; invalidates existing
TV subscription contracts.
Provides for full-time Legislature; reduces signature
requirement on direct initiative statutes from 8% to
5% of votes cast in last gubernatorial election.
Permits Legislature to define open space lands and
restrict their use to recreation, farming, scenic
beauty, and natural resource development;
establishes tax basis for such lands.
Reduces threshold to pass local G.O. bonds for
libraries and public schools from 2/3 to 60%.
Establishes formula and limits amount of real
property taxes on home or principal office buildings
deductible from gross premiums tax by insurers.
Provides that educational requirement for eligibility
to vote shall not apply to persons who were at least
50 years old and a USA resident for 20 years on
June 27, 1952.
$60 million bond measure for recreation, fish, and
wildlife enhancement.
Deletes provision permitting defendants to defend
himself w/o assistance of counsel; authorizes
Legislature to require defendants to have assistance
of counsel in felony cases.
Eliminates provision requiring naturalized citizens
to be naturalized for 90 days prior to election in
order to be eligible to vote.
Places restrictions on, and penalties for violations
of, chemical content of gasoline, air pollution,
tidelands oil/gas leases, atomic power plants, and
pesticides.
83
133
1972 G
3
51.5
48.5
82.1
134
1972 G
7
68.3
31.7
82.1
135
1972 G
11
62.9
37.1
82.1
136
1972 G
15
32.5
67.5
82.1
137
1972 G
16
39.1
60.9
82.1
138
1972 G
19
33.5
66.5
82.1
139
1974 G
10
56.3
43.7
64.1
140
1974 G
17
47.1
52.9
64.1
141
1976 P
10
45.4
54.6
72.6
142
1976 P
15
32.5
67.5
72.6
143
1976 G
4
54.5
45.5
81.5
144
1976 G
13
24.6
75.4
81.5
145
1976 G
14
37.8
62.2
81.5
Authorizes the Legislature to issue revenue bonds to
finance the acquisition, installation, and
construction of environmental pollution control
facilities.
Lowers voting age to 18. Provides for secret
ballots. Requires Legislature to provide for primary
elections for partisan offices, with judicial and local
offices to remain nonpartisan.
Adds right of privacy to inalienable individual
rights in state constitution.
Requires state employees salaries’ to be the same as
prevailing wage rates in private sector for similar
jobs; limits ability of Governor and Legislature to
ever lower wages.
Requires CHP officers’ salaries to be as least as
high as the highest paid sheriff deputies and police
officers in the State.
Legalizes cultivation, sale, and use of marijuana for
all adults.
Eliminates disqualification of voters convicted of an
infamous crime, embezzlement, or misappropriation
of public funds; adds disqualification of voters
while mentally incompetent or imprisoned or on
parole for felony conviction.
Designates Stanislaus River as part of CA’s Wild &
Scenic Rivers System; prohibits the construction of
dams and other flood control structures that
diminish public use & enjoyment of the river.
Permits Legislature by 2/3 vote to authorize,
without voter approval, refunding bonds to
refinance any outstanding state debt at a lower
interest rate. Would not permit Legislature to
increase state debt; only to refinance existing debt.
However, repayment of state debt could be
postponed through refinancing.
After one year, prohibits construction of nuclear
power plants.
Prohibits denial of admission to U.C. on grounds of
race, religion, sex, or ethnicity; requires U.C. to use
competitive bidding procedures in all procurement
contracts.
Legalizes wagering on greyhound races; establishes
CA Greyhound Racing Com. to license and regulate
the industry.
Amends Agricultural Labor Relations Act to
provide for the appointment of a new ALRB with
new terms of office; authorizes union organizers to
enter an employer’s property for the purpose of
campaigning for an election; allows ALRB to order
payment of treble damages as a penalty for unfair
labor practices; and makes it more difficult to hold
an election to remove a union which has previously
84
146
1978 P
12
38.1
61.9
68.9
147
1978 G
5
45.6
54.4
70.4
148
1980 P
4
41.9
58.9
63.3
149
1980 P
5
73.3
26.7
63.3
150
1980 P
6
54.7
45.3
63.3
151
1980 P
8
50.2
49.8
63.3
152
1980 P
11
44.3
55.7
63.3
153
1980 G
2
48.8
51.2
77.2
154
1980 G
4
24.9
75.1
77.2
155
1980 G
10
46.6
53.4
77.2
156
1982 G
4
52.9
47.1
69.8
won election.
Creates commission to set salary, travel and living
expenses, and retirement benefits for constitutional
officers, legislators, and judges. Prohibits reduction
in benefits once granted.
Outlaws smoking in enclosed public places, places
of employment, and educational and health
facilities; requires restaurants to offer nonsmoking
areas.
Replaces provision requiring voter approval of low
income housing projects and instead only requires
advance public notice, with projects being referable
w/in 60 days of notice.
Prohibits State from holding publishers and
journalists in contempt for refusing to disclose
confidential sources
Eliminates requirement that only people eligible for
citizenship be counted in equalizing district sizes in
reapportionment of congressional, legislative, and
BOE districts; states all districts must be single
member, equipopulous, contiguous, and
consecutively numbered.
Authorizes Legislature to issue revenue bonds to
finance construction of renewable energy power
plants and for the lease or sale of such facilities to
the private sector.
Imposes 10% surtax on energy businesses using or
selling oil, coal, gas, or uranium with proceeds to be
used for public transit and alternative fuel
development. Prohibits surtax from being passed
on to customers.
$85 million bond measure for acquisition of
property in Lake Tahoe area region to be dedicated
to public uses.
State Constitution places a limitation on ad valorem
taxes on real property. The adoption of this
amendment would permit an increase in such taxes
or special assessments to pay for interest and
redemption charges on an indebtedness, approved
by 2/3 of voters, for the acquisition or improvement
of real property by the taxing entity. Also
authorizes an increase in such taxes or assessments
to be used in connection with refunding previously
approved indebtedness issued in accordance with
law.
Provides for designation of smoking and
nonsmoking sections in every enclosed public
place, place of employment, and educational or
health facility.
$85 million bond issue to purchase and preserve
environmentally sensitive lands in the Lake Tahoe
Basin.
85
157
1982 G
11
44.1
55.9
69.8
158
1982 G
12
52.3
47.7
69.8
159
1982 G
13
35.2
64.8
69.8
160
1982 G
15
37.2
62.8
69.8
161
1984 P
19
64.0
36.0
48.7
162
163
1984 G
1986 P
37
46
57.9
59.9
42.1
40.1
74.9
40.5
164
1986 G
65
62.6
37.4
59.4
165
1988 P
70
65.1
34.9
48.2
166
1988 P
71
48.9
51.1
48.2
167
1988 G
84
58.2
41.8
72.8
168
1988 G
97
53.7
46.3
72.8
Establishes CA Redemption Value of 5 cents on
beverage containers that can be redeemed when
container is recycled.
Identifies people’s concern w/ nuclear weapons;
directs governor to write letter to POTUS urging
USA and USSR to agree to halt production and
testing of nuclear weapons.
Proposes to increase both the efficiency with which
water is used and public control over water in the
state. Emphasizes water conservation, protection of
instream water uses, restrictions on storage of water
in New Melones Reservoir, and groundwater mgmt.
Requires certain entities to develop water
conservation programs. Restricts appropriation of
water from rivers and lakes. Restricts groundwater
pumping in 11 groundwater basins where
overpumping is severe.
Requires registration of all handguns; limits number
of handguns in CA to those in circulation in the
state as of 4/30/83; adds criminal and civil penalties
for violations.
$85 million bond measure to Wildlife Conservation
Bd. and Coastal Conservancy for acquisition and
development of coastal wildlife habitat areas.
Establishes CA State Lottery.
Creates additional exemption from the 1% real
property tax limitation whereby additional
assessments may be imposed to pay off
indebtedness used to acquire real property after
7/1/78, if approved by 2/3 of voters in the locality.
Prohibits persons doing business from exposing
individuals to chemicals known to cause cancer or
reproductive toxicity w/o first giving warning;
prohibits discharge of such chemicals into drinking
water; creates new penalties for violations.
$776 million bond measure for acquisition,
protection, and restoration of park, wildlife, coastal,
and natural lands, and lands supporting unique or
endangered plants or animals.
Significantly increases the annual appropriations
limits for state and local governments and school
districts by changing calculations for inflation, state
and local populations, and K-14 average daily
school attendance in order to permit governments to
spend more money than currently allowed.
Completely exempts motor vehicle fuel tax
revenues from the appropriations limit.
$300 million bond measure for shelters and
transitional housing for the homeless; elderly,
disabled, and farmworker housing; and first-time
homebuyers assistance.
Federal law permits states to enforce occupational
86
169
1988 G
98
50.7
49.3
72.8
170
1988 G
99
58.2
41.8
72.8
171
1988 G
103
51.1
48.9
72.8
172
1988 G
105
54.5
45.5
72.8
173
1990 P
107
52.5
47.5
41.5
174
1990 P
111
52.4
47.6
41.5
175
1990 P
112
62.5
37.5
41.5
176
1990 P
117
52.4
47.6
41.5
health and safety programs in private sector
employment. Calif. had done so since 1973. In
1987, the Governor withdrew the state’s
participation in enforcing private sector
occupational heath and safety standards. This
measure requires the Governor to (1) restore
operation of the Calif. Occupational Safety &
Health Admin.; (2) propose sufficient funds in the
budget to minimize risk to workers from industrial
injuries and exposure to toxic substances; and (3)
seek the maximum amount of federal funds to
support the costs of administering the program.
Establishes guaranteed minimum level of funding
for K-14 schools; exempts payments to fund K-14
schools from state’s appropriations limit.
Imposes additional tax on tobacco, to be used for
tobacco-related disease research; anti-tobacco
public education programs; fire prevention; and
environmental conservation.
Requires a minimum 20% rate reduction from Nov.
1987 levels for auto and other property/casualty
insurance. Freezes rates until Nov. 1989.
Thereafter, requires rate changes to be approved by
the Insurance Commissioner. Makes the office of
Insurance Commissioner a statewide elected
position. Requires every insurer to offer all eligible
persons a good-driver auto insurance discount.
Requires auto insurance rates to be determined
primarily by driving record. Prohibits
discrimination, price-fixing, and unfair practices by
insurance companies.
Requires host of public disclosures, including toxic
household products, insurance coverage limits,
nursing home contract terms, initiative campaign
contributors, and corporations doing business in
South Africa.
$150 million bond measure for shelters and
transitional housing for the homeless; elderly,
disabled, and farmworker housing; and first-time
homebuyers assistance.
Increases state gasoline tax by 9¢/gal. Increases
appropriations limits for both state and local
governments, allowing each to annually appropriate
more funds. Increases the minimum funding
guarantee for schools.
Prohibits legislators and statewide officeholders
from accepting honoraria and working as lobbyists
w/in 12 of leaving office; establishes Citizens’
Compensation Comm. to set legislators’ and
statewide officials’ salaries.
Dedicates $30 million annually from General Fund
and existing environmental funds to acquisition of
87
177
1990 G
126
40.9
59.1
58.6
178
1990 G
128
35.7
64.3
58.6
179
1990 G
129
27.6
72.4
58.6
180
1990 G
130
47.9
52.1
58.6
181
1990 G
132
55.8
44.2
58.6
182
1990 G
133
31.9
68.1
58.6
183
1990 G
134
31.0
69.0
58.6
184
1990 G
135
30.4
69.6
58.6
185
1990 G
138
28.8
71.2
58.6
186
1992 G
158
39.9
60.1
75.3
187
1992 G
161
45.9
54.1
75.3
188
1992 G
166
30.8
69.2
75.3
habitat for deer, mountain lions, and
rare/endangered species; wetlands; aquatic habitat;
and open space.
Increases tax on beer from 4¢ to 20¢ per gal.; on
wine from 1¢ to 20¢ per gal.; on fortified wines
from 2¢ to 20¢ per gal.; and on distilled spirits from
$2 to $3.30 per gal.
Regulates use of pesticides; phases out use of
pesticides known to cause reproductive harm and
chemicals known to deplete the ozone layer;
requires reduced emissions of greenhouse gases;
limits underwater oil & gas extraction; creates
elective office of Environmental Advocate;
authorizes $300 million bond issue for redwood
forests acquisition.
Dedicates $1.9 billion in state revenues over next 8
years to drug enforcement, treatment, and gangrelated purposes; authorizes $740 million bond
issue for drug abuse, confinement, and treatment
facilities.
$472 million bond measure for public acquisition of
ancient forests providing wildlife habitat; limits
timber cutting practices and logging sites; requires
retraining of loggers displaced by new regulations.
Establishes Marine Protection Zone w/in 3 miles of
Southern Calif. coast. Beginning 1/1/94, prohibits
use of gill or trammel nets. Imposes additional fees
on fisherman operating in Zone.
Increases sales tax by ½ cent; deposits revenues in
new Safe Streets Fund; appropriates fund revenues
for anti-drug education; anti-drug law enforcement;
prisons/jails, and drug treatment.
Imposes alcohol surtax of 5¢ per 12 oz. of beer, 5
oz. of wine, and 1 oz. of distilled spirits.
Appropriates revenues for alcohol & drug abuse
prevention and treatment, emergency medical care,
mental health programs, child abuse and domestic
violence prevention, law enforcement costs.
Expands state pesticide residue monitoring for
produce and processed foods; appropriates state
funds for pesticide-related research; requires review
of cancerous pesticides.
$300 million bond issue for forest and park
recreation, urban forestry projects, and reforestation
of private lands; limits timber cutting practices.
Creates Office of California Analyst to replace
existing Legislative Analyst’s Office and exempts
costs from restriction on Legislature’s operating
expenses.
Legalizes physician-assisted suicide for terminally
ill mentally competent adults.
Requires employers to provide health care coverage
88
189
1992 G
167
41.2
58.8
75.3
190
1993 S
168
40.2
59.8
36.4
191
1993 S
170
30.7
69.3
36.4
192
1993 S
172
57.8
42.2
36.4
193
1994 P
180
43.3
56.7
35.1
194
1994 G
185
19.5
80.5
60.5
195
1994 G
186
26.6
73.4
60.5
196
1994 G
188
29.3
70.7
60.5
197
1996 G
204
62.9
37.1
65.5
198
1996 G
210
61.5
38.5
65.5
199
1996 G
211
25.6
74.4
65.5
for most employees and their dependents; limits
employee health care contributions.
Increases taxes on top personal income taxpayers,
corporations, banks, insurance companies, and oil
producers.
Removes the requirement that a low-rent housing
project must obtain prior approval from voters in
the city or county where the project is located.
Cities/counties would only be required to give
notice of such projects, and a vote would only be
held if a petition calling for a vote is signed by a
specified number of voters. Restricts the definition
of low-rent housing so that the number of projects
that would be subject to the notice and petition
requirements would be significantly reduced.
Permits an increase in property taxes above 1% to
repay local school bonds on a majority vote of the
public instead of current 2/3 vote requirement.
Imposes an additional 0.5% state sales tax, with
revenues dedicated to local public safety purposes.
Additional revenues intended to offset shift of local
property tax revenues to the State in 1993-94 state
budget act. Additional tax would be collected in all
counties, but counties would only receive additional
funding if they vote to participate in the program.
$2 billion bond measure for acquisition,
development, and conservation of parks, historic
sites, wildlife & forest areas, and the like
throughout CA.
Imposes an additional 4% tax on gasoline; dedicates
revenues for electric trains, clean fuel buses, and
other mass transportation programs.
Creates universal state health insurance program for
all CA residents administered by an elected Health
Commissioner and funded by employer, individual,
and tobacco taxes.
Preempts local smoking laws. Replaces existing
regulations with limited statewide public smoking
ban. Permits smoking in most public places;
increases penalties for tobacco sales to minors.
$995 million bond measure for clean drinking water
grants; increased water supply; fish protection;
pollution cleanup in lakes, rivers, and bays; and
flood protection.
Increases state minimum wage to $5/hour on 1/1/97
and $5.75//hour on 1/1/98.
Prohibits restrictions on class action attorney-client
fee arrangements; prohibits deceptive conduct in
securities transactions that result in loss to pension,
retirement funds, or savings. Imposes civil liability,
including punitive damages, for losses. Prohibits
corporate indemnification of officers found liable
89
200
1996 G
214
42.0
58.0
65.5
201
1996 G
215
55.6
44.4
65.5
202
1996 G
216
38.7
61.3
65.5
203
1996 G
217
49.2
50.8
65.5
204
1998 P
224
38.1
61.9
42.5
205
1998 G
4
57.5
42.5
57.6
206
1998 G
6
59.4
40.6
57.6
207
1998 G
9
26.5
73.5
57.6
for fraudulent acts.
Prohibits health care businesses from discouraging
health care professionals from advocating for
treatment, offering incentives for withholding care,
or refusing services recommended by licensed
caregiver w/o examination by healthcare business’s
own professional. Requires healthcare businesses
to make tax returns public, disclose certain financial
information to consumers including administrative
costs, establish criteria for authorizing or denying
payment for care, and to provide for minimum safe
and adequate staffing of healthcare facilities.
Legalizes medical marijuana; exempts subscribing
physicians from punishment.
Prohibits health care businesses from discouraging
health care professionals from advocating for
treatment, offering incentives for withholding care,
or refusing services recommended by licensed
caregiver w/o examination by healthcare business’s
own professional. Requires healthcare businesses
to make their tax returns public, establish criteria
written by licensed health professionals for denying
payment for care, and to establish staffing standards
for healthcare facilities. Establishes nonprofit
public corporation for consumer advocacy.
Retroactively reinstates highest tax rates on
taxpayers w/ incomes over $115k and $230k, and
joint taxpayers w/ incomes over $230k and $460k.
Allocates revenue to local agencies.
Prohibit contracting with private engineering firms
when work by civil service employees is less costly,
unless there is an urgent need for contract.
Prohibits contracts which Controller or awarding
agency determines are against the public interest or
health, or where the quality of work would be lower
than civil service work. Requires competitive
bidding of state design and engineering contracts
over $50k, unless delay would endanger public
health or safety.
Prohibits use of steel-jawed animal traps and
specified poisons on animals; prohibits commerce
in furs of animals so captured.
Makes possession, transfer, or receipts of horses for
slaughter for human consumption a felony; makes
sale of horsemeat for human consumption a
misdemeanor.
Prohibits assessment of taxes, bonds, or surcharges
to pay for the costs of nuclear power plants. Limits
authority of electric companies to recover costs for
non-nuclear generation plants. Prohibits issuance of
electricity rate reduction bonds and assessments on
customers for payment of bond principal and
90
208
1998 G
10
50.5
49.5
57.6
209
2000 P
12
63.2
36.8
53.9
210
2000 P
20
53.0
47.0
53.9
211
2000 P
26
48.7
51.3
53.9
212
2000 G
33
38.9
61.1
70.9
213
2000 G
36
60.9
39.1
70.9
214
2000 G
39
53.4
46.6
70.9
215
2002 P
40
56.9
43.1
34.6
216
2002 P
45
42.3
57.7
34.6
217
2002 G
52
40.9
59.1
50.6
218
2004 P
56
34.3
65.7
44.3
219
2004 P
57
63.4
36.6
44.3
220
2004 G
63
53.8
46.2
76.0
221
2004 G
66
47.3
52.7
76.0
222
2004 G
67
28.4
71.6
76.0
interest. Restricts electricity customer information
dissemination.
Imposes additional tax on cigarettes to fund state
and county First 5 Commissions, which will
provide early childhood development programs.
$2.1 billion bond measure for water quality grants;
river, lake, and stream protection; tree planting and
forest protection; open space and farmland
preservation; neighborhood park improvements.
Requires that half of future growth in lottery funds
dedicated to public education must go K-14 schools
only (not CSU or UC) and be spent on instructional
materials.
Permits public school and community college
infrastructure bonds to be approved by majority
vote instead of existing 2/3 vote requirement.
Allows legislators to participate in the Public
Employees Retirement System (PERS).
Requires probation, instead of incarceration, for
possession, use, or transportation of illegal drugs
and similar parole violations; authorizes dismissal
of charges after completion of treatment. Doesn’t
apply to sale or manufacture of drugs.
Permits public school and community college
infrastructure bonds to be approved by 55% vote
instead of existing 2/3 vote requirement.
$2.6 billion bond measure for lake, river, stream,
beach, and coastal area protection; improved water
quality; pollution cleanup; open space and farmland
preservation; wildlife preservation; state and local
park renovations.
Allows termed-out legislators to serve an additional
4 years if voters submit petition signatures
permitting their incumbent legislator to seek
reelection after they are termed out.
Allows legally eligible persons to register to vote on
election day. Increases penalties for voter fraud.
Permits Legislature to enact budget and budgetrelated tax and appropriation bills with 55% vote
instead of current 2/3 vote requirement.
One-time $15 billion Economic Recovery Bond
issue to pay off state’s accumulated General Fund
deficit as of June 30, 2004.
Imposes additional 1% state income tax on incomes
over $1 million to fund mental health services
programs.
Restricts number of situations where 3 Strikes Law
would apply. Reduces number of offenses that
qualify as a strike.
Imposes additional 3% telephone surcharge tax to
provide funding to doctors, hospitals, clinics, and
first responders for uncompensated emergency
91
223
2004 G
71
59.1
40.9
76.0
224
2005 S
78
41.5
58.5
50.1
225
2006 P
82
39.2
60.8
33.6
226
2006 G
86
48.3
51.7
56.2
227
2006 G
87
45.4
54.6
56.2
228
2006 G
88
23.3
76.7
56.2
229
2008
Feb. P
2008
Feb. P
92
42.7
57.3
57.7
93
46.4
53.6
57.7
231
2008 G
2
63.5
36.5
79.4
232
2008 G
5
40.5
59.5
79.4
233
2008 G
7
35.5
64.5
79.4
234
2008 G
10
40.5
59.5
79.4
235
2009 S
1A
34.6
65.4
28.4
236
2009 S
1B
38.1
61.9
28.4
230
medical care.
$3 billion bond measure for grants and loans for
stem cell research and construction of stem cell
research facilities.
Establishes state-run discount prescription drug
program; enables low-income residents to purchase
drugs at reduced prices; authorizes state to contract
w/ pharmacies to sell drugs at agreed-upon prices.
Imposes additional 1.7% state income tax on
incomes over $400k ($800k for couples) to fund
preschool for all 4-yr. old children.
Imposes additional tax on cigarettes of $2.60/pack;
uses revenues to provide funding to hospitals,
nursing education, health insurance for children,
and cancer research.
Imposes new oil severance tax on oil extracted in
CA; uses revenues for alternative energy research
and production. Prohibits tax from being passed on
to consumers
Provides additional school funding by an additional
$50 state tax on each real property parcel.
Established minimum funding guarantee for
community colleges in state constitution.
Loosens legislative term limits by permitting
persons to serve 12 years in either chamber instead
of current 6 yrs. in Assembly and 8 yrs. in Senate.
Requires veal calves, chickens, and pregnant pigs to
be confined in ways that permit them to stand up,
lie down, turn around freely, and extend their limbs.
Annually dedicates $460 million in General Fund
moneys to treating persons convicted of drug
offenses; limits court authority to incarcerate drug
offenders; shortens parole for drug offenses.
Requires all utilities, including government-owned
utilities, to generate 40% of their power by 2020,
and 50% of their power by 2025, from renewable
sources; makes changes to CA’s system of
electricity regulation.
$5 billion bond measure for consumer grants and
rebates to purchase high fuel economy and
alternative fuel vehicles; grants for renewable
energy research.
Increases size of state rainy day fund from 5% to
12.5%; with rainy day funds dedicated to savings
for future economic downturns, education,
infrastructure, and debt repayment. Requires
additional revenue above historic trends to be
deposited into state rainy day fund. Triggers $16
billion in tax increases.
Requires State to make additional $9.3 billion
payment to K-14 education. Increases amounts
State would have to pay to K-14 education in future
92
237
2009 S
1C
35.6
64.4
28.4
years.
Allows state lottery to increase the size of prize
payouts in order to increase lottery revenues;
authorizes state to borrow $5 billion from future
lottery profits by securitizing future lottery income
streams.
93
APPENDIX B
Conservative Ballot Measures132
YEAR
#
YES
%
NO%
TURN
OUT
%
TITLE & SUMMARY OVERVIEW
1
1914
2
40.4
59.6
78.9
2
1914
5
45.6*
54.4*
78.9
3
1914
13
48.0
52.0
78.9
4
1914
18
50.6*
49.4*
78.9
5
1914
41
67.5
32.5
78.9
6
1916
1
44.8
55.2
79.6
7
1916
2
47.7
52.3
79.6
8
1916
6
64.3
35.7
79.6
Enacts Prohibition – outlawing manufacture, sale,
gift, or transportation of intoxicating liquor within
the state.
Referendum opposing an act creating state
corporations department, with governor appointing
commissioner of corporations. Dept. of corporations
would have control over investment companies and
investment brokers, including power of examination.
Provides that no elector may vote in any state or
local bond election unless he/she is an owner of
property taxable for payment of such indebtedness.
Referendum opposing an act declaring the buying,
selling, shipping, or trading of any wild game, bird,
or animal (except rabbits and wild geese) protected
by law in the Penal Code, whether dead or alive, to
be a misdemeanor.
Provides that, in addition to civil cases, no judgment
in a criminal case shall be set aside or a new trial
granted for misdirection of the jury or improper
admission of evidence, or for any error as to a matter
of pleading or procedure, unless after examination of
the entire cause—including the evidence—the court
is of the opinion that the error resulted in a
miscarriage of justice.
Defines alcoholic liquor and prohibits its
manufacture, sale, or possession after Jan. 1, 1920.
Defines alcoholic liquor and prohibits its possession,
gift, or sale in saloons, hotels, restaurants, dance
halls and other places of public resort after Jan 1,
1918. Owners of all such places are required to
prohibit drinking therein.
Declares that no state Senator or Assembly member
shall, during the term for which he/she was elected,
hold or accept any employment or other office from
the state. Excludes situations where a state Senator
132
Prior to 1960, ballot measures only appeared on general or special election ballots, but not on
primary ballots. For elections on and after 1960, general elections are designated “G,” primary elections
are designated “P,” and special elections are designated “S.” The “yes” and “no” vote totals for
referendums have been reversed, because in referendum campaigns, the proponent asks for a “no” vote. So
to support the referendum, an elector votes “no.” “Yes” and “no” votes for referenda are marked with an
asterisk (*).
94
9
1918
1
42.9
57.1
59.4
10
1918
18
42.3
57.7
59.4
11
1918
22
47.4
52.6
59.4
12
1918
24
47.5
52.5
59.4
13
1920
1
75.1
24.9
71.9
14
1920
4
41.4
58.6
71.9
15
1920
11
81.9
18.1
71.9
16
1920
14
51.6*
48.4*
71.9
17
1922
5
84.4*
15.6*
65.3
or Assembly member is elected by the people to a
different position.
Bans drinking saloons; regulates traffic in alcohol;
prohibits sale and various other dispositions of
alcohol, with exception of certain vinous and malt
liquors; limits number of municipal licenses for sale
of vinous or malt liquors; permits further municipal
regulations and prescribes penalties.
Creates state board of authorization; requires each
county officer to file financial statements with
governing body of county, which shall submit same
with budget to such state board before making tax
levy; limits yearly increase in amounts raised thereby
to five per cent of amount produced in preceding
year, unless greater amount authorized by such board
or the electors; makes special provisions for school
matters, regulating such five per cent increase by
average daily attendance; declares governing body of
any political subdivision may subject itself to the
provisions hereof; authorizes Legislature to amend or
repeal act.
Makes manufacture, importation, or sale of
intoxicating liquors a misdemeanor.
Declares that stockholders shall not be liable for
debts, and that directors shall not be liable for
misappropriated funds, for any corporation that
adopts and uses as the last word in its name
“Limited” or “Ltd.” States that Legislature is
authorized to impose liabilities upon limited
corporate stockholders at its discretion.
Permits noncitizens eligible for citizenship to acquire
real property in same manner as citizens; permits
majority-noncitizen owned corporations to acquire
real property only as prescribed by treaty; prohibits
noncitizens from serving as guardians of estates of
minors when real property is owned by estate.
Increases number of signatures required to qualify an
initiative related to assessment/collection of taxes
from 8% of votes at last gubernatorial election to
25%.
Imposes alien poll tax on every male alien in the
state between ages 21 and 60.
Referendum opposing a statute that prohibits any
subsidiary corp., agent, or employee of a bank from
selling insurance in CA.
Referendum opposing a measure regulating
construction, alteration, maintenance, use, and
occupancy of tenement housing in CA. Defines
fireproof, semi-fireproof, and wooden buildings;
requires roofs of all semi-fireproof buildings and
wooden buildings in incorporated municipalities to
95
18
1922
12
71.1
28.9
65.3
19
1922
27
40.5
59.5
65.3
20
1924
1
45.8
54.2
73.3
21
1924
10
37.1
62.9
73.3
22
1924
13
50.8
49.2
73.3
23
1926
3
72.3*
27.7*
63.4
24
1926
7
73.2
26.8
63.4
25
1928
8
28.1*
71.9*
79.8
26
1928
16
56.4
43.6
79.8
be constructed of approved incombustible materials
or be well covered with approved composition, fire
resistive, or fire retardant material.
Requires governor to submit to Legislature w/in first
30 days of regular session a budget itemizing all
proposed expenditures and estimated revenues for
each fiscal year of next biennial period. Prescribes
procedure for passage of budget bill; permits
referendum of budget items except those for usual
and current expenses; Gives governor power of lineitem veto.
Increases number of signatures required to qualify
ballot measures relating to assessment or collection
of taxes (or to repeal this provision) from 8% to 15%
of the number of all votes cast for governor at the
previous gubernatorial election.
Requires common carriers upon public highways
(buses, taxis, etc.) to pay an annual state tax of 4% of
their gross receipts from operation, in lieu of all
other taxes and fees thereon. Permits Legislature by
2/3 vote to change the 4% tax rate.
Exempts county fire insurance companies from the
state tax on insurance companies; provides that State
shall reimburse counties for lost revenues caused by
the exemption.
Declares Legislature shall provide for and levy an
annual educational poll tax of not less than $5/yr. on
every male inhabitant between 21 and 50 yrs. old.
Exempts those honorably discharged from the
military, those paying property taxes of at least
$5/yr., and paupers, idiots, imbeciles, and insane
persons.
Referendum opposing a statute that further regulates
the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine and
prohibits the use of dairy terms and symbols in
connection therewith. Imposes an additional 2¢ tax
on every pound of oleomargarine sold in state.
Reduces state tax rate on steam railroads of 250
miles or less in length from 7% to 5.25% of gross
receipts.
Referendum opposing a measure that increases the
registration fee paid by electric motor vehicles and
vehicles equipped wholly with pneumatic tires used
or maintained primarily for transporting passengers
for hire or for transporting property. Graduates such
fees on a weight basis.
Declares that the constitutional provision imposing
stockholder liability for debts of corporations, and
corporate director liability for moneys embezzled for
misappropriated by corporate officers, shall not
apply to (1) exposition companies organized to
conduct fairs, sports, and exhibitions authorized by
96
27
1928
20
65.4
34.6
79.8
28
1930
19
70.6
29.4
64.4
29
1930
21
39.1
60.9
64.4
30
1930
26
17.0
83.0
64.4
31
1932 S
1
78.8*
21.2*
62.5
32
1933
Jun. S
1
62.0
38.0
54.1
33
1933
Jun. S
8
68.2
31.8
54.1
34
1934
2
63.9
36.1
75.2
35
1934
5
72.8
27.2
75.2
law or (2) CA corporations using “Limited” or “Ltd.”
in their titles.
Declares that a trial by jury may be waived in all
criminal cases, by consent of both parties, expressed
in open court by the defendant and his counsel.
Makes state Supreme, appellate, and trial court
judges ineligible to hold other public employment
while holding a judgeship; prohibits sitting judges
from practicing law in or out of court.
Requires Legislature to reimburse cities and counties
for property tax revenues that were previously
diverted by the State away from cities and counties
and used to support state purposes.
Prohibits any store, barber shop, workshop, factory,
or other place of business from being open for
business on Sundays; or performing or employing
any labor on Sundays.
Referendum opposing a statute that prohibits waste
of crude petroleum oil; creates conservation
commission to investigate oil production, determine
whether waste is committed, regulate production,
and enjoin producers from committing waste by way
of excessive production. Authorizes injunctions
against violators.
Caps year-over-year increases in state spending at no
more than 5%, except for schools. State spending
can be increased by more than 5% if approved by 2/3
vote in each house of Legislature. Provides a
spending limitation on local governments for 2 years,
which can be extended by Legislature, where local
governments cannot increase year-over-year annual
spending by more than 5%. Beginning in 1935, adds
property of public utilities to tax rolls, making such
property eligible for taxation like other businesses
and corporations. Requires the state to assume the
responsibility, currently borne by counties, to
provide matching funds for schools at a rate of
$30/day per pupil for elementary schools and
$60/day per pupil for high schools.
Requires Legislature to regulate compensation of
county supervisors, district attorneys, and auditors;
county supervisors would regulate compensation of
other county officers (except municipal court
judges). Prohibits increase of compensation after
election or during term.
Prohibits consumption or sale of intoxicating liquor
(except beer) in public saloons; permits consumption
and sale at bona fide hotels and restaurants
Declares that judges and counsel may comment on a
defendant’s failure to explain or deny any evidence
against him/her, or whether defendant testified or
not, in any criminal case. Declares trial judge may
97
36
1934
13
26.7
73.3
75.2
37
1934
19
36.1
63.9
75.2
38
1936
2
38.2
61.8
83.4
39
1936
7
36.3
63.7
83.4
40
1936
9
32.8
67.2
83.4
41
1936
18
79.1*
20.9*
83.4
42
1936
21
50.2
49.8
83.4
43
1936
22
56.2*
43.8*
83.4
instruct jury regarding law applicable to the facts and
comment on evidence, testimony, and credibility of
any witness. Requires trial judge to inform jury that
jurors are the exclusive judges of all issues of fact
and credibility of witnesses.
Provides that local voters may submit initiative
petitions to local legislative bodies calling for the
prohibition of traffic in beverages containing more
than 0.5% alcohol; and if so petitioned legislative
body shall submit question to voters. If voters
approve, traffic in such beverages shall become
unlawful w/in the local jurisdiction 30 days
thereafter. If approved, opponents can repeal ban by
same process in a subsequent election on the same
question if a majority of voters vote in the negative.
Prohibits Legislature from creating State
indebtedness over $300k unless authorized by a
majority vote of the people and such debt will be
retired within 40 yrs. Requires bonds issued to
mature serially, with first maturity being 3 yrs. after
issuance. Permits first maturity of bonds for revenue
producing utilities to be 15 yrs. Permits 70 year
bonds for acquisition and development of water
resources, including when used for electric energy
production.
Declares that no law imposing individual income or
estate taxes shall be valid unless approved by a
majority of voters following its passage by 2/3 of all
members of each house of the Legislature. Repeals
1935 personal Income Tax Act and similar personal
income tax laws.
Requires appointment to county, district, and
municipal offices be based on integrity, character,
merit, fitness, and industry. Exempts certain
positions. Provides for county civil service
commissions, empowered to provide qualified
persons for appointments within county. Prohibits
employee dismissals except for cause after a hearing.
Prohibits employees from participating in county,
city, or district political activity.
Provides that every city, town, county, city and
county or territory outside of incorporated cities,
shall have the power to regulate, zone, or prohibit the
sale of alcoholic beverages within its limits.
Referendum opposing a legislative statute providing
for an excise tax of 10¢/lb. on all oleomargarine
offered or sold in Calif.
Authorizes Legislature to provide for establishment
of prisons for female inmates convicted of felonies.
Declares Legislature may provide for different types
of punishment and custody for female prisoners.
Referendum against legislative statute requiring
98
44
1938
1
42.0
58.0
74.7
45
1938
13
73.9*
26.1*
74.7
46
1938
14
83.7
16.3
74.7
47
1939 S
3
28.9*
71.1*
82.5
48
1939 S
4
28.4*
71.6*
82.5
every person or organization owning, operating, or
controlling one or more retail merchandise stores to
obtain a State business license; imposing a 50¢
business license application fee; imposing a
progressive license fee of $1 for 1 store, increasing
to a maximum of $500 per store when 9 or stores are
owned or operated by a licensee. Exempts ice
distributors, restaurant facilities of common carriers,
newspaper offices, stores where merchandise sales
are incidental to personal services, and movie
theatres.
Defines what constitutes lawful and unlawful
picketing, boycotting, and displaying of banners.
Prohibits seizure of private property, coercion,
intimidation, obstruction, or interference with use of
public highways, streets, wharves, docks, and other
pubic places, use of abusive or misleading
statements or threats of violence, and certain other
acts in connection with labor disputes. Recognizes
right of employees to strike and collectively bargain.
Provides for civil and criminal punishments for
violations and permits judicial injunctions to prevent
or abate violations. Repeals all conflicting laws.
Referendum opposing an act authorizing the creation
of a public utilities com’n w/in any city, city and
county, county, local government agency, or other
entity rendering service to the public. Authorizes
sale of revenue bonds to defray the costs of
construction or acquisition of public utilities or
improvements or extensions thereof. Authorizes
repayment of bonds from revenues derived from sale
of commodities or services produced or generated by
said public utilities (i.e., water, electricity, etc.).
Provides that upon conviction of a crime involving
moral turpitude, a justice or judge of any state court
shall be suspended from office by the Supreme Ct.
and his/her salary shall also be suspended until the
conviction becomes final. Upon final conviction, the
Supreme Ct. shall permanently disbar the judge and
remove him/her from office. If conviction is
reversed, Supreme Ct. shall terminate suspension and
judge shall received salary for period of suspension.
Referendum opposing the “Personal Property
Brokers Act” (Stats. 1939 ch. 952), which regulates
personal property brokers and requires the same to
obtain a state license. Regulates loans of $300 or
less and interest charges thereon. Exempts banks,
trust companies, credit unions, licensed
pawnbrokers, and building and loan associations.
Provides for administration by Corporations
Commissioner.
Referendum opposing the “Personal Property
99
49
1939 S
5
61.3*
38.7*
82.5
50
1940
9
26.4
73.6
81.4
51
1940
10
62.6
37.4
81.4
52
1940
13
15.1
84.9
81.4
53
1940
15
37.9
62.1
81.4
54
1942
4
45.7
54.3
53.9
55
1944
12
40.8
59.2
86.1
56
1946
5
28.7
71.3
63.0
Brokers Act” (Stats. 1939 ch. 1044), which regulates
personal property brokers and requires the same to
obtain a state license. Regulates loans of $300 or
less and interest charges thereon. Exempts banks,
trust companies, credit unions, licensed
pawnbrokers, and building and loan associations.
Provides for administration by Corporations
Commissioner.
Referendum opposing an act creating the Oil
Conservation Com’n empowered to limit and prorate
production of crude petroleum oil and natural gas,
adopt rules and regulations relating thereto, and to
prescribe procedures for hearings before the Com’n.
Provides for court review. Imposes charges on well
operators and royalty owners to finance enforcement
of the Act.
Exempts from local taxes until 1955 all vessels,
except yachts, of more than 50 tons burden operating
at any port in the state.
A 1931 legislative act provided that no special
assessment district can be created if a majority of
property owners involved protest; and that the total
assessments against the property in the district
cannot equal more than 50% of the true value of the
property, unless approved by a 4/5 vote of the local
governing body. However, St. Supreme Ct. held the
act unconstitutional as applied to chartered cities.
This measure extends legislative act’s provisions to
chartered cities.
Empowers Legislature to authorize sale of state park
lands containing oil or gas deposits that exceed the
value of the land when used for recreational
purposes. Directs proceeds to be deposited in the
General Fund.
Prevents cities and counties from using funds
designated for payment of principal and interest on
bond indebtedness incurred by or on behalf of a
municipally owned public utility as a source to
temporarily cover ongoing costs of the city or
county.
Provides that no income tax shall be valid unless it is
approved by a majority of the voters at an election;
repeals 1935 Personal Income Tax Act and similar
personal income tax laws.
Declares right of employment, free from interference
because employee does or doesn’t belong to or pay
money to a labor union. Declares interference with
such right unlawful and provides remedy by court
action.
Creates court of tax appeals consisting of 3 judges
selected in same way as Supreme Ct. judges. Gives
tax ct. appellate jurisdiction, subject to review by
100
57
1948
2
30.8
69.2
80.5
58
1948
3
50.9
49.1
80.5
59
1948
12
29.5
70.5
80.5
60
1948
17
31.9
68.1
80.5
61
1950
1
19.3
80.7
73.3
62
1950
10
50.8
49.2
73.3
63
1952
5
68.1
31.9
86.9
64
1952
6
69.6
30.4
86.9
65
1956
10
42.7
57.3
86.6
66
1958
18
40.4
59.6
79.5
Supreme Ct., in all cases involving legality,
imposition, or collection of taxes and assessments.
Requires local governments to strictly regulate the
sale of liquor by requiring local governing bodies to
enact and enforce ordinances that (1) regulate the
presence of minors on premises where liquor is sold;
(2) regulate lighting and ventilation on premises
where liquor is sold; and (3) to ensure adequate
sanitary facilities on premises where liquor is sold in
order to protect public morals, welfare, and health.
Limits the number of liquor licenses in each county
to 1 per 2,500 residents.
Empowers Pub. Util. Com. to prescribe the number
of brakemen to be used on railroad trains. Prohibits
feather-bed practices, where employers are required
in collective bargaining agreements to hire more
employees than are actually needed to perform a
task, in employment of railroad brakemen on trains.
Provides that State liquor licenses for retail sale shall
not be valid until approved by governing body of
county or city where premises are located; gives
local governments the authority to regulate or
prohibit sale of liquor w/in their boundaries.
Exempts from civil service seasonal employees of
district agricultural associations; CA Horse Racing
Bd. part-time stewards, judges, and veterinarians;
full & part-time livestock brand inspectors; 4
employees of BOE. Prohibits Legislature from
reinstating certain civil service exemptions once
abolished.
Prohibits state and local governments from imposing
taxes upon personal property, tangible or intangible.
Requires approval of voters in city/county prior to
establishing any low-rent housing project.
Prohibits any public office or any tax exemption
from being awarded to any person/group advocating
forceful overthrow of the state or federal
government.
Requires public officers to take oath swearing that
they are not members of groups advocating
overthrow of the government.
Permits Legislature, notwithstanding civil service
laws, to contract with private architects and
engineers when work cannot be complete by state
employees w/in required time.
Prohibits employers and employees from creating
collective bargaining agreements that (1) make
membership in labor unions or payment of union
dues a condition of employment; (2) make refraining
from joining a union a condition of employment; or
(3) where non-union members are denied
employment. Declares unlawful certain practices
101
67
1962 G
24
40.3
59.7
78.7
68
1964 G
14
65.4
34.6
88.4
69
1964 G
17
61.0
39.0
88.4
70
1966 G
16
43.6
56.4
79.2
71
1968 G
9
32.0
68.0
85.8
72
1970 P
8
28.5
71.5
62.2
73
1970 G
10
44.9
55.1
76.2
74
1970 G
19
71.6
28.4
76.2
75
1972 P
7
67.8
32.2
71.0
76
1972 G
14
34.1
65.9
82.1
relating to membership in labor organizations and
authorizes injunctions and damages suits against
violations or attempted violations.
Denies political party status to communists; prohibits
communists from holding public office; requires
teachers & public employees testify about
communist affiliations.
Prohibits State from denying or abridging right of
any person to decline to sell, lease, or rent residential
real property to any person as he/she chooses.
Declares state policy on manning trains. Provides
that Federal Arbitration Bd. Award No. 282 on
manning freight trains shall be effective in CA.
Provides that nothing contained in state law or state
regulation shall prevent a common railroad carrier
from manning its trains in accordance with the award
of Federal Arbitration Bd. No. 282, or in accordance
with any agreement between a railroad company and
its employees. The practical effect would be to
permit railroads to eliminate the position of firemen
on diesel powered trains since there are no fires to
stoke or coals to shovel on diesel (as opposed to
antiquated steam) locomotives.
Declares state policy to prohibit obscenity; redefines
“obscene”; provides procedures to prosecute
violations; creates action to compel D.A.’s to
prosecute obscenity.
Establishes a limitation on ad valorem taxes on
property. Reduces, in stages, the amount of ad
valorem taxes on property for any given year to an
amount which, when added to ad valorem special
assessments for the immediately preceding year,
does not exceed 1% of the market value of the
property.
Requires Legislature to provide from sources other
than property taxes 50% of costs for public schools
and 90% of costs for social welfare services.
Exempts loans over $100k to corporations and
partnerships from the 10% interest rate cap.
Deletes misdemeanor penalty for charging interest
over specified limit; adds felony for unlicensed
person offering/making loans for interest above
specific limits.
Permits Legislature to prohibit tax valuation of single
family homes at any value greater than that which
would reflect use of property as single family
dwelling.
Limits ad valorem property tax rate for all purposes
except payment of designated types of debts and
liabilities. Eliminates property tax to support welfare
purposes, limits property tax for education, and
requires state funding of these functions from other
102
77
1972 G
17
67.5
32.5
82.1
78
1972 G
18
32.1
67.9
82.1
79
1972 G
21
63.1
36.9
82.1
80
1972 G
22
42.1
57.9
82.1
81
1973 S
1
46.0
54.0
47.6
82
1974 G
15
38.7
61.3
64.1
83
1976 P
5
59.4
40.6
72.6
84
1976 P
12
43.7
56.3
72.6
taxes. Increases sales, use, cigarette, distilled spirits,
and corporation taxes. Requires severance tax on oil
and mineral extraction. Restricts new exemptions
from property taxes to those approved in an election.
States that CA statutes authorizing death penalty are
still in full force & effect and that death penalty shall
not be deemed cruel & unusual punishment under the
Cal. Const.
Permits cities and counties to regulate obscenity,
which is currently regulated by state law. Would
replace the statewide test to determine appeal to
prurient interest with a local test (i.e., in incorporated
area where offense occurred) to determine appeal to
prurient interest. Criminalizes as a misdemeanor
distributing for public display specified material
relating to nudity, sadomasochistic abuse, defecation
and urination. Makes the 6th conviction of such
offenses a felony. Permits injunctions and seizure of
materials.
Eliminates public school integrative bussing by
adding a section to the Education Code stating “No
public school student shall, because of his race,
creed, or color, be assigned to or be required to
attend a particular school.” Repeals section
establishing policy that racial and ethnic imbalance
in pupil enrollment in public schools shall be
prevented and eliminated.
Sets forth permissible and prohibited labor relation
activities of agricultural employers, employees, and
labor organizations. Makes specified strikes,
picketing, and boycotts of agricultural products
unlawful. Criminalizes making threats or using
coercion to dissuade secondary employers not to
transport, process, or distribute agricultural products;
or to dissuade consumers from purchasing
agricultural products. Defines unfair labor practices
for employees and employers. Creates Agricultural
Labor Relations Bd. (ALRB) with power to conduct
union elections, prevent unfair labor practices, and
enforce the Act.
Limits state expenditures; requires surplus revenue to
be used for tax reductions; reduces income tax
levels; requires 2/3 vote for new taxes; limits local
property taxes; requires state reimbursement for local
mandates.
Prohibits any state public body from constructing or
acquiring any low rent housing project until the
voters where the project will be located approve it.
Requires 2/3 vote, instead of majority, to impose
taxes on corporations (including state and national
banks) or to change tax rates imposed on insurers.
Increases maximum permissible rate of interest
103
85
1976 G
5
47.0
53.0
81.5
86
1976 G
10
79.8
20.2
81.5
87
1978 P
8
47.0
53.0
68.9
88
1978 P
13
64.8
35.2
68.9
89
1978 G
6
41.6
58.4
70.4
90
1978 G
7
71.1
28.9
70.4
91
1979 S
1
68.6
31.4
37.4
92
1979 S
2
64.6
35.4
37.4
93
1979 S
4
74.3
25.7
37.4
94
1980 P
9
39.2
60.8
63.3
charged by nonexempt lenders for nonpersonal,
nonfamily, and nonhousehold loans to the higher of
10% or 7% plus the prevailing interest rate charged
by the San Francisco Federal Reserve.
Except as to specified lenders like banks and credit
unions, the state constitution limits interest rates to
10%. This proposal would retain the 10% limit on
loans made primarily for personal, family, or
household purposes, but would increase the
maximum permissible interest rate for other loans to
the higher of 10% or 7% plus the rate currently
charged by the San Francisco Federal Reserve.
Prohibits local governments whose geographic
boundaries include area in 2 or more counties from
levying property taxes unless approved by majority
vote of qualified voters of such local government.
Permits Legislature to tax owner occupied dwellings
at a lower rate than that imposed on other property.
Prohibits increasing taxes on other property to offset
any revenue loss.
Limits real property taxes to 1% of value and limits
annual increases in value; requires 2/3 vote of
Legislature to increase state taxes; authorizes
imposition of local special taxes w/a 2/3 vote of
electorate.
Provides for filing charges against school teachers
and staff for advocating or encouraging homosexual
acts; or for publicly or indiscreetly engaging in such
acts. Prohibits hiring, and requires dismissal of
teachers/staff advocating for or publicly/indiscreetly
engaging in such acts.
Expands categories of first degree murder for which
penalty of death or life w/o parole may be imposed;
increases minimum sentences for 1st and 2nd degree
murder.
Stipulates CA Const. does not require anything more
than U.S. Const. in terms of school integration
bussing.
Amends constitutional limit of 10% interest on loan
interest rates. Maintains 10% ceiling for loans of
personal, family, or household purposes. Removes
ceiling for real estate mortgage loans, business loans,
construction loans, and other nonpersonal loans.
New ceiling would be interest rate charged to banks
by the San Francisco Federal Reserve plus 5%.
Gann Limit - establishes annual spending cap on
state and local governments based on appropriations
for prior fiscal year, adjusted for inflation and cost of
living.
States that income taxes under the Personal Income
Tax Law shall not exceed 50% of the rates in effect
for the 1978 taxable year; exempts business
104
95
1980 P
10
35.4
64.6
63.3
96
1982 P
4
82.8
17.2
52.7
97
1982 P
5
61.8
38.2
52.7
98
1982 P
6
64.4
35.6
52.7
99
1982 P
7
63.5
36.5
52.7
inventory from taxation.
Prohibits state enacted rent control; states rent
control may only be imposed locally by vote of the
people; exempts certain units from rent control;
repeals existing rent control ordinances; prohibits
landlord retaliation against tenants for exercising
rights.
Prohibits granting bail for felony offenses where
violent acts were (1) involved and release is likely to
result in bodily harm to others, or (2) suspect has
threatened others w/ bodily harm and is likely to
carry out the threat. Requires courts to consider
criminal history, seriousness of offense, and flight
risk in setting bail.
Repeals existing gift & inheritance taxes; prohibits
imposition of new gift or inheritance taxes. Reenacts
state “pickup” tax on decedents’ estates. Federal law
permits a taxpayer to reduce his/her federal tax
liability by the amount of the taxpayer’s state death
tax liability. Effect of reenactment of the “pickup”
tax would be to create a CA estate tax that would be
deducted from federal estate tax liability, thereby
providing the state a portion of estate taxes which
would otherwise go to the federal government.
Would only apply in the case of deaths occurring on
or after the measure’s effective date; i.e., the day
after election day. Would not apply to deaths
occurring prior to that date. Does not conflict with
Prop. 6.
Repeals existing statutes governing gift and
inheritance taxes. Prohibits imposition of such taxes
by state or local government without another vote of
the people. Reenacts state “pickup” tax on
decedents’ estates. Federal law permits a taxpayer to
reduce his/her federal tax liability by the amount of
the taxpayer’s state death tax liability. Effect of
reenactment of the “pickup” tax would be to create a
CA estate tax that would be deducted from federal
estate tax liability, thereby providing the state a
portion of estate taxes which would otherwise go to
the federal government. A taxpayer’s total combined
state and federal estate tax would not be increased
because the state share is offset from the federal
liability. The overall effect would be to reduce
annual state death tax revenues in the hundreds of
millions of dollars.
Graduated state personal income tax brackets are
adjusted annually by applying an “inflation
adjustment factor” determined by use of the percent
that the CA Consumer Price Index has changed.
This is referred to as “indexing.” Under existing
statutes, the full percentage change in the Index is
105
100
1982 P
8
56.4
43.6
52.7
101
1982 G
9
38.9
61.1
69.8
102
1984 P
24
53.1
46.9
48.7
103
1984 G
36
45.2
54.8
74.9
104
1984 G
38
70.5
29.5
74.9
105
1984 G
41
37.0
63.0
74.9
106
1986 P
51
62.1
37.9
40.5
107
1986 G
57
72.7
27.3
59.4
108
1986 G
61
34.1
65.9
59.4
being used for the 1980 and 1981 taxable years.
Beginning in 1982 and for later taxable years, the
Index percentage changes which exceed 3% will be
used. This measure changes existing statutes by
providing for the continued use during 1982 and
subsequent taxable years the full percentage Index
changes. The effect will be to marginally reduce
individual state income tax payments, with an
aggregate reduction of income tax revenues to the
state ranging in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
Crime victims bill of rights - including right to
restitution, safe schools, and to have relevant
evidence admitted; permits prior convictions to be
used for impeachment or sentence enhancement;
restricts plea bargaining and admission of mitigating
evidence at parole hearings.
Permits Legislature to loan public school textbooks
to nonpublic schools that don’t discriminate on race
or color.
Accords majority party a 1-vote majority on Senate
& Assembly Rules Comm., with other committees
being proportionate to partisan breakdown; requires
2/3 vote to establish other parliamentary rules;
reduces Legislature’s budget by 30% and requires
pubic audits.
Amends Prop. 13 (1978); adds new restrictions on
real property taxation, enactment of new taxes, and
charging fees; requires 2/3 voter approval for local
government taxes.
Requires Gov. to write letter to POTUS, US Atty.
Gen. and all members of Congress urging federal law
be amended so that all official voting materials shall
be printed only in English.
Creates Public Assistance Com. to survey per capita
expenditures on public aid and public medical
assistance programs in CA and other states. Limits
CA’s expenditure on public aid and public medical
assistance programs to the national average of
spending on such programs (minus CA) plus 10%.
Permits legislative amendment by 2/3 vote.
Provides that in tort suits, defendants remain jointly
and severally liable for economic damages, but that
defendants are no longer jointly and severally liable
for non-economic damages (pain & suffering) and
are only responsible up to their percentage of fault
for non-economic damages.
Prevents retirement benefits paid to former statewide
constitutional officers from increasing based on
compensation paid to their successors.
Sets Governor’s salary at $80k; other statewide
constitutional officers at $52.5k. Limits max.
compensation of elected or appointed state/local
106
109
1986 G
62
58.0
42.0
59.4
110
1986 G
63
73.2
26.8
59.4
111
1986 G
64
29.3
70.7
59.4
112
1988 P
67
82.1
17.9
48.2
113
1988 P
69
32.0
68.0
48.2
114
1988 P
72
38.5
61.5
48.2
115
1988 P
73
58.1
41.9
48.2
116
1988 G
89
55.0
45.0
72.8
117
1988 G
96
64.4
35.6
72.8
118
1988 G
102
34.4
65.6
72.8
government employees to 80% of Governor’s salary;
requires public vote to increase elected state
officerholder’s salaries.
Provides that local special taxes can only be imposed
by 2/3 vote of people; local general taxes can only be
imposed by a 2/3 vote of legislative body and
majority vote of people.
Provides that English is the official language of the
state of California.
Declares that AIDS is an infectious, contagious, and
communicable condition; requires disease to be
placed on reportable disease list maintained by DHS;
provides that AIDS is subject to quarantine and
isolation statutes and regulations; requires DHS to
take steps to preserve public health from AIDS.
Increases sentence for second degree murder of a
peace officer from 15 yrs. to life to 25 yrs. to life,
with no possibility of parole prior to serving 25 yrs.
Declares that AIDS is an infectious, contagious, and
communicable condition; requires disease to be
placed on reportable disease list maintained by DHS;
provides that AIDS is subject to quarantine and
isolation statutes and regulations; requires DHS to
take steps to preserve public health from AIDS.
Requires 3% of General Fund revenues be set aside
in an emergency reserve. Provides that revenues
from sales tax on motor vehicle fuels can only be
used for public streets, highways, and mass transit
guideways. Requires 2/3 legislative vote or majority
public vote before motor vehicle fuel taxes can be
raised. Emergency reserve and fuel tax revenues are
excluded from the annual appropriations limit.
Restricts annual contributions to candidates for
public office to $1k from each person, $2.5k from
each PAC, and $5k from political parties. Permits
local governments to impose stricter limits. Prohibits
transfers of campaign funds between candidates or
their controlled committees. Limits gifts and
honoraria to elected officials to $1k from each single
source per year. Prohibits sending mass mailings at
public expense. Prohibits use of public funds by
public officials or candidates for purpose of seeking
elective office.
Stays grants of parole approvals, denials,
revocations, or suspensions to murderers for 30 days;
permits Governor to review and affirm, modify, or
reverse parole decisions.
Requires persons charged with sex offenses or
certain assaults on public safety officers to be tested
for AIDS and other communicable diseases.
Requires doctors and blood banks to report people
they reasonably believe have AIDS; restricts
107
119
1988 G
106
46.9
53.1
72.8
120
1990 P
114
71.1
28.9
41.5
121
1990 P
115
57.0
43.0
41.5
122
1990 G
136
47.9
52.1
58.6
123
1990 G
140
52.2
47.8
58.6
124
1992 G
163
66.6
33.4
75.3
125
1992 G
164
63.6
36.4
75.3
126
1992 G
165
46.6
53.4
75.3
127
1993 S
174
30.4
69.6
36.4
128
1994 P
179
87.7
12.3
35.1
129
1994 G
184
71.8
28.2
60.5
130
1994 G
187
58.8
41.2
60.5
confidential testing; directs health officers to notify
reported person’s spouse and/or sexual partners;
repeals prohibition on using AIDS tests for insurance
or employability; creates felony for persons
knowingly infected to donate blood.
Limits size of attorney contingency fees to no more
than 25% of first $50k recovered; 15% of next $50k
recovered; and no more than 10% of amount
recovered over $100k.
Increases the types of peace officers the murder of
whom would be a death penalty-eligible offense.
Amends state constitution to afford accused
defendants no greater rights than those supplied by
US Constitution; establishes People’s right to due
process & speedy trial.
Extends 2/3 vote requirement for state legislative
approval of special or general taxes to any new, or
increase in, such taxes and to voter approval of
special taxes through initiative; requires charter cities
to get majority vote approval of new or increased
local general taxes.
Imposes term limits of 6 yrs. for Assembly; 8 yrs. for
Senate, BOE, and statewide offices; eliminates
legislative pensions; reduces Legislature’s
operational expenses.
Prohibits sales or use taxes on food products exempt
from taxation. Exempts candy, bottled water, and
snack foods from sales and use taxation.
Imposes term limits on CA members of U.S. House
of Representatives.
Grants Governor constitutional power to reduce
certain expenditures to balance state budget during
fiscal emergencies; reduces certain welfare benefits.
Amends Constitution to enable parents to choose
their child’s school by requiring State to provide a
voucher for every school age child equal to at least
50% of the prior fiscal year’s per pupil spending for
K-12 schools. Requires Legislature to establish a
procedure whereby public schools may become
independent charter schools. Limits regulation of
private and new voucher schools. Counts voucher
expenditures towards education’s existing minimum
funding guarantee.
Imposes 20 yrs. to life sentence for 2nd degree
murder where defendant intentionally shoots a
firearm from a vehicle at a person outside of the
vehicle w/ intent to inflict great harm.
3 Strikes Initiative – increases sentences for
convicted felons who have previous convictions for
certain violent felonies.
Makes illegal aliens ineligible for public social
services, public health care services, and attendance
108
131
1994 G
189
79.4
20.6
60.5
132
1996 P
194
73.9
26.1
41.2
133
1996 P
195
85.8
14.2
41.2
134
1996 P
196
85.8
14.2
41.2
135
1996 P
199
39.2
60.8
41.2
136
1996 P
201
40.7
59.3
41.2
137
1996 P
202
48.8
51.2
41.2
138
1996 G
207
34.2
65.8
65.5
139
1996 G
209
54.6
45.4
65.5
140
1996 G
213
76.9
23.1
65.5
141
1996 G
218
56.6
43.4
65.5
142
1998 P
222
77.1
22.9
42.5
143
1998 P
225
52.9
47.1
42.5
144
1998 P
226
46.6
53.4
42.5
145
1998 P
227
60.9
39.1
42.5
at public schools. Requires law enforcement to
report suspected illegal aliens.
Adds felony sexual assault to crimes excepted from
right to bail in state Constitution.
Provides that a prisoner’s employment in a joint
venture program while in prison does not entitle
prisoner to unemployment benefits upon release
from prison.
Adds murder during carjacking, murder resulting
from a carjacking kidnap, and murder of a juror to
list of crimes eligible for death penalty or life w/o
parole.
Adds driveway shootings to list of crimes eligible for
death penalty or life w/o parole.
Phases out local rent control laws on mobilehomes;
prohibits new state or local rent control on
mobilehomes.
Requires losing party to pay attorneys’ fees in
shareholder and class action lawsuits for violation of
securities laws. Losing attorney may be required to
pay.
Limits plaintiff’s contingency fee arrangements in
tort cases.
Authorizes courts to impose sanctions for filing
frivolous lawsuits; prohibits attorneys from charging
excessive fees; prohibits restrictions on the right to
negotiate amount of attorneys’ fees.
Eliminates affirmative action by prohibiting
discrimination or preferential treatment on the basis
of race, sex, color, or ethnicity in public education,
employment, or contracting.
Denies recovery of all damages to convicted felons
for crime-related injuries; denies recovery of noneconomic damages to convicted drunk drivers and
most uninsured motorists.
Requires a majority of voters to approve increases in
local general taxes; requires property-related
assessments, fees, or charges to be submitted to
property owners for approval.
Provides that 2nd degree murder of a peace officer on
duty is punishable by life w/o parole; disallows
person convicted of murder from earning credits to
reduce prison sentence.
Establishes support for U.S. congressional term
limits as CA’s official position; requires state and
federal legislators to use their powers to enact
congressional term limits.
Requires employee’s or union member’s permission
to withhold wages or union dues for political
contributions; prohibits foreign contributions to state
or local candidates.
Requires all public school instruction be in English
109
146
2000 P
18
72.6
27.4
53.9
147
2000 P
19
73.6
26.4
53.9
148
2000 P
21
62.1
37.9
53.9
149
150
2000 P
2000 P
22
27
61.4
40.4
38.6
59.6
53.9
53.9
151
2000 P
28
27.8
72.2
53.9
152
2000 P
30
68.5*
31.5*
53.9
153
2000 P
31
71.7*
28.3*
53.9
154
2000 G
35
55.2
44.8
70.9
155
2000 G
37
47.9
52.1
70.9
156
2000 G
38
29.4
70.6
70.9
157
2003 S
54
36.1
63.9
61.2
unless parents request otherwise and show certain
circumstances; provides short-term English
immersion for English-learners.
Overrides courts’ strict construction and expands
situations when death penalty or life w/o parole may
be imposed for a 1st degree murder committed “by
means of lying in wait”, or where 1st degree murder
involved arson or kidnapping.
Extends penalty enhancements for killing a peace
officer in the line of duty to include BART and CSU
police officers.
Requires 14-yr. olds and older to be tried as adults
for murder or sex offenses; increases punishment for
gang-related offenses; requires registration for gang
offenses.
Amends CA Family Code to ban gay marriage.
Permits U.S. congressional candidates to voluntarily
sign non-binding pledge to serve no more than 3
House terms or 2 Senate terms; requires information
to be placed in ballot pamphlet materials if
authorized by candidate.
Repeals additional $0.50 per pack tax on cigarettes
imposed by Prop. 10 (1998); prohibits imposition of
additional tobacco taxes unless enacted by state
Legislature.
Referendum opposing a statute that restores the right
to sue another person’s insurer for unfair claims
settlement practices.
Referendum opposing a statute that amends Prop. 30,
supra, to provide some limits on situations where
another person’s insurer can be sued for unfair
claims settlement practices. For example, Prop. 30
allows both businesses and individuals to sue another
person’s insurer for any type of economic loss. Prop.
31 would only allow individuals to sue for claims
resulting from car accidents.
Amends constitution to eliminate existing restrictions
on state and local governments’ ability to contract
with private entities for engineering and architectural
services and permits use of design-build process.
Requires 2/3 legislative vote; or voter approval of
local electorate, to impose fees on any activity for
the purpose of mitigating the environmental, societal,
or economic effects of the activity when the fees
impose no regulatory obligation upon the fee payor.
Authorizes schools vouchers for attendance at
private or religious schools.
Prohibits state and local governments from
classifying (sorting, separating, or organizing
personal data) on the basis of race, color, or national
origin in public education, contracting, employment,
and other scenarios.
110
158
2004 P
58
71.2
28.8
44.3
159
2004 G
64
59.0
41.0
76.0
160
2004 G
69
62.1
37.9
76.0
161
2004 G
72
50.8*
49.2*
76.0
162
2005 S
73
47.2
52.8
50.1
163
2005 S
74
44.8
55.2
50.1
164
2005 S
75
46.5
53.5
50.1
165
2005 S
76
37.6
62.4
50.1
166
2006 G
83
70.5
29.5
56.2
167
2006 G
85
45.8
54.2
56.2
168
2006 G
90
47.6
52.4
56.2
Requires enactment of a balanced budget where
General Fund expenditures do not exceed estimated
revenues. Allows Governor to proclaim a fiscal
emergency in certain circumstances. Requires the
Legislature to stop all other action until fiscal
emergency has been addressed. Creates budget
reserve account.
Limits ability of private individuals to sue under
unfair business competition laws. Going forward,
only individuals who were actually injured by, and
suffered financial loss due to, an unfair business
practice would be able to sue. Only CA A.G. or
county district attorney could sue on behalf of public
at large.
Requires collection of DNA samples from all felons,
from all adults arrested/charged with any felony, and
from juveniles arrested/charged with specified
crimes.
Referendum opposing a law creating a mandatory
requirement for large and medium employers to
provide health coverage to employees and their
dependents. Caps employee contributions at 20%,
forcing employer to bear 80% of costs. Act first
applies to employers with 200 or more employees;
phases in to eventually cover employers with 50 or
more employees.
Requires parental notification in order for a minor to
receive an abortion. Allows minors to obtain court
orders waiving notification requirement.
Increases length of time required before a teacher
may become a tenured, permanent employee from 2
to 5 years.
Prohibits public employee unions from using
member’s dues for political contributions unless the
member provides prior written consent to do so on an
annual basis.
Imposes a state spending cap of prior year’s
expenditures plus average revenue growth of 3
previous years. Continues prior year’s appropriation
levels if state budget it delayed.
Increases penalties for violent and habitual sex
offenders and child molesters; prohibits sex
offenders from living w/in 2k feet of a school or
park; requires GPS monitoring of felony registered
sex offenders.
Requires parental notification in order for a minor to
receive an abortion. Allows minors to obtain court
orders waiving notification requirement.
Bars government from condemning private property
to promote other private projects or uses; limits
government’s authority to adopt laws restricting uses
of real property.
111
169
2008
Jun. P
98
38.4
61.6
28.2
170
2008 G
4
48.0
52.0
79.4
171
172
2008 G
2008 G
8
9
52.3
53.9
47.7
46.1
79.4
79.4
173
2009 S
1F
74.3
25.7
28.4
Prohibits government from taking private property
for private uses; prohibits imposition of rent control;
prohibits deference to government in eminent
domain cases; requires condemned property to be
offered back to owner if put to different use than
originally taken for.
Requires parental notification in order for a minor to
receive an abortion. Allows minors to obtain court
orders waiving notification requirement.
Amends CA Constitution to ban gay marriage.
Expands victim’s rights in criminal justice process;
establishes victim safety as a factor in bail and
parole; reduces number of parole hearings prisoners
are entitled to.
Prohibits state legislators and statewide elected
officials from receiving salary increases during any
year in which the State budget is running a deficit.
112
APPENDIX C
Liberal Economic/Governmental Ballot Measures
Year→
1914
1914
1914
1914
1914
1914
1916
1918
1918
1918
1918
1918
1918
1918
1918
1920
1920
1922
1922
1922
1922
1922
1924
1924
1924
1926
1926
1926
1926
1928
1930
1930
1930
1930
1932 G
1932 G
1932 G
←Number
3
9
16
24
33
45
5
3
6
13
17
19
20
23
25
3
12
13
18
19
26
29
2
8
16
2
4
18
19
9
2
3
5
17
3
4
7
Year→
1932 G
1933 Jun. S
1934
1934
1934
1935
1936
1936
1936
1938
1938
1938
1938
1939
1940
1940
1940
1942
1942
1942
1944
1944
1944
1944
1944
1946
1946
1946
1948
1948
1949
1950
1952
1952
1954
1954
1956
←Number
9
2
12
21
23
2
11
13
19
6
7
20
25
1
1
2
16
1
2
14
3
6
9
10
11
3
6
10
4
5
3
8
2
11
6
10
14
Year→
1958
1958
1958
1960 G
1960 G
1962 G
1962 G
1962 G
1964 G
1966 G
1966 G
1966 G
1966 G
1972 P
1972 G
1972 G
1972 G
1976 P
1976 G
1978 P
1980 P
1980 P
1980 P
1980 G
1986 P
1988 P
1988 G
1988 G
1988 G
1988 G
1988 G
1990 P
1990 P
1990 G
1990 G
1990 G
1992 G
←Number
5
14
17
2
5
1
17
19
15
1A
4
8
15
6
7
15
16
10
14
12
4
6
11
4
46
71
97
98
99
103
105
111
112
126
133
134
158
Year→
1992 G
1992 G
1993 S
1993 S
1993 S
1994 G
1994 G
1996 G
1996 G
1996 G
1996 G
1996 G
1998 P
1998 G
2000 P
2000 P
2000 G
2000 G
2002 P
2002 G
2004 P
2004 P
2004 G
2004 G
2005 S
2006 P
2006 G
2006 G
2006 G
2008 Feb. P
2008 Feb. P
2009 S
2009 S
2009 S
←Number
166
167
168
170
172
185
186
210
211
214
216
217
224
10
20
26
33
39
45
52
56
57
63
67
78
82
86
87
88
92
93
1A
1B
1C
113
APPENDIX D
Liberal Moral/Social Ballot Measures
Year→
1914
1914
1914
1914
1920
1920
1920
1920
1922
1922
1924
1926
1926
1926
1928
1928
1928
1930
1932 G
1932 G
1932 G
1933 Jun. S
1938
←Number
4
10
44
47
2
7
8
19
2
28
11
6
9
17
12
19
21
11
1
2
5
3
2
Year→
1940
1946
1946
1948
1948
1949
1950
1952
1954
1954
1954
1956
1956
1956
1958
1958
1960 G
1966 G
1970 G
1972 P
1972 P
1972 G
1972 G
←Number
8
11
16
6
15
2
6
14
4
12
18
4
5
13
15
16
8
3
20
3
9
3
11
Year→
1972 G
1974 G
1974 G
1976 P
1976 G
1976 G
1978 G
1980 P
1980 P
1980 G
1980 G
1982 G
1982 G
1982 G
1982 G
1982 G
1984 P
1984 G
1986 G
1988 P
1988 G
1990 P
1990 P
←Number
19
10
17
15
4
13
5
5
8
2
10
4
11
12
13
15
19
37
65
70
84
107
117
Year→
1990 G
1990 G
1990 G
1990 G
1990 G
1990 G
1992 G
1994 P
1994 G
1996 G
1996 G
1998 G
1998 G
1998 G
2000 P
2000 G
2002 P
2004 G
2004 G
2008 G
2008 G
2008 G
2008 G
←Number
128
129
130
132
135
138
161
180
188
204
215
4
6
9
12
36
40
66
71
2
5
7
10
114
APPENDIX E
Conservative Economic/Governmental Ballot Measures
Year→
1914
1914
1914
1916
1918
1918
1920
1920
1922
1922
1922
1924
1924
1926
1926
1928
1928
1930
1930
1932 S
1933 Jun. S
1933 Jun. S
1934
1936
1936
1936
←Number
5
18
13
6
18
24
4
14
5
12
27
1
10
3
7
8
16
19
21
1
1
8
19
2
7
18
Year→
1936
1938
1938
1939 S
1939 S
1939 S
1940
1940
1940
1940
1942
1944
1946
1948
1948
1950
1950
1956
1958
1964 G
1968 G
1970 P
1970 G
1972 P
1972 G
1972 G
←Number
22
1
13
3
4
5
9
10
13
15
4
12
5
3
17
1
10
10
18
17
9
8
10
7
14
22
Year→
1973 S
1974 G
1976 P
1976 P
1976 G
1976 G
1978 P
1978 P
1979 S
1979 S
1980 P
1980 P
1982 P
1982 P
1982 P
1984 P
1984 G
1984 G
1986 P
1986 G
1986 G
1986 G
1988 P
1988 P
1988 G
1990 G
←Number
1
15
5
12
5
10
8
13
2
4
9
10
5
6
7
24
36
41
51
57
61
62
72
73
106
136
Year→
1990G
1992 G
1992 G
1992 G
1996 P
1996 P
1996 P
1996 G
1996 G
1998 P
1998 P
2000 P
2000 P
2000 P
2000 P
2000 G
2000 G
2004 P
2004 G
2004 G
2005 S
2005 S
2005 S
2006 G
2008 Jun. P
2009 S
←Number
140
163
164
165
199
201
202
207
218
225
226
27
28
30
31
35
37
58
64
72
74
75
76
90
98
1F
115
APPENDIX F
Conservative Moral/Social Ballot Measures
Year→
1914
1914
1916
1916
1918
1920
1920
1918
1924
1928
1930
1934
1934
1934
1936
1938
1936
1948
←Number
2
41
1
2
1
1
11
22
13
20
26
2
5
13
9
14
21
2
Year→
1948
1952
1952
1962 G
1964 G
1966 G
1970 G
1972 G
1972 G
1972 G
1978 G
1978 G
1979 S
1982 P
1982 P
1982 G
1984 G
1986 G
←Number
12
5
6
24
14
16
19
17
18
21
6
7
1
4
8
9
38
63
Year→
1986 G
1988 P
1988 P
1988 G
1988 G
1988 G
1990 P
1990 P
1993 S
1994 P
1994 G
1994 G
1994 G
1996 P
1996 P
1996 P
1996 G
1996 G
←Number
64
67
69
89
96
102
114
115
174
179
184
187
189
194
195
196
209
213
Year→
1998 P
1998 P
2000 P
2000 P
2000 P
2000 P
2000 G
2003 S
2004 G
2005 S
2006 G
2006 G
2008 G
2008 G
2008 G
←Number
222
227
18
19
21
22
38
54
69
73
83
85
4
8
9
116
APPENDIX G
Secretary of State Voter Turnout Statistics133
Election
Date
Democratic
Republican
Other
Total
Registered
Total Votes
%
Turnout
# of
Measures
11/5/12
11/3/14
10/26/15
11/7/16
11/5/18
11/2/20
11/7/22
11/4/24
11/2/26
11/6/28
11/4/30
5/3/32
11/8/32
6/27/33
12/19/33
11/6/34
8/13/35
11/3/36
11/8/38
11/7/39
11/5/40
11/3/42
5/16/44
11/7/44
11/5/46
11/2/48
11/8/49
6/6/50
11/7/50
11/4/52
11/2/54
11/6/56
11/4/58
6/7/60
11/8/60
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
319,107
397,962
410,290
592,161
456,096
847,264
1,161,482
n/a
n/a
1,555,705
n/a
1,882,014
2,144,360
n/a
2,419,628
2,300,206
1,968,376
2,418,965
2,541,720
2,892,222
n/a
2,862,063
3,062,205
3,312,668
3,266,831
3,575,635
3,875,630
3,676,495
4,295,330
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
968,429
1,183,672
1,298,062
1,535,751
1,638,575
1,394,850
1,565,264
n/a
n/a
1,430,198
n/a
1,244,507
1,293,929
n/a
1,458,373
1,370,069
1,285,977
1,548,395
1,637,246
1,908,170
n/a
1,826,350
1,944,812
2,455,713
2,415,249
2,646,249
2,676,565
2,519,975
2,926,408
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
244,848
240,723
204,510
185,904
150,557
135,029
162,267
n/a
n/a
154,211
n/a
127,300
173,127
n/a
174,394
150,491
116,625
173,971
204,997
261,605
n/a
236,956
237,820
229,919
203,157
186,937
200,226
178,812
242,888
987,368
1,219,345
n/a
1,314,446
1,203,898
1,374,184
1,532,384
1,822,357
1,912,862
2,313,816
2,245,228
2,377,143
2,889,013
2,582,173
2,648,707
3,140,114
2,622,782
3,253,821
3,611,416
3,605,907
4,052,395
3,820,776
3,370,978
4,141,331
4,383,963
5,061,997
4,568,447
4,925,369
5,244,837
5,998,300
5,885,237
6,408,821
6,752,421
6,375,282
7,464,626
707,776
961,868
283,881
1,045,858
714,525
987,632
1,000,997
1,336,598
1,212,452
1,846,077
1,444,872
1,484,559
2,330,132
1,397,104
900,314
2,630,916
457,787
2,712,342
2,695,904
2,974,406
3,300,410
2,264,288
1,884,820
3,566,734
2,759,641
4,076,981
2,793,164
3,140,472
3,845,757
5,209,692
4,101,692
5,547,621
5,366,053
4,004,059
6,592,591
71.7
78.9
n/a
79.6
59.4
71.9
65.3
73.3
63.4
79.8
64.4
62.5
80.7
54.1
34.0
75.2
17.5
83.4
74.7
82.5
81.4
59.3
55.9
86.1
63.0
80.5
61.1
63.8
73.3
86.9
69.7
86.6
79.5
62.8
88.3
8
48
11
7
25
20
30
18
28
21
26
2
20
10
1
23
3
24
25
5
17
18
1
12
17
19
12
3
11
24
20
19
18
3
15
133
California Secretary of State, “Historical Voter Registration and Voter Participation in
Statewide Primary Elections—1910-2008,”
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ror/hist_stats_gen_prim/historical-voter-reg-primary-jun08.pdf (accessed
January 1 - May 1, 2009); California Secretary of State, “Historical Voter Registration and Participation in
Statewide General Elections 1910-2009,” http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/historical-voter-reg/histvoter-reg-and-part-general-elections-1910-2009.pdf (accessed January 1 - May 1, 2009).
117
6/5/62
11/6/62
11/3/64
6/7/66
11/8/66
6/4/68
11/5/68
6/2/70
11/3/70
6/6/72
11/7/72
11/6/73
6/4/74
11/5/74
6/8/76
11/2/76
6/6/78
11/7/78
11/6/79
6/3/80
11/4/80
6/8/82
11/2/82
6/5/84
11/6/84
6/3/86
11/4/86
6/7/88
11/8/88
6/5/90
11/6/90
6/2/92
11/3/92
11/2/93
6/7/94
11/8/94
3/26/96
11/5/96
6/2/98
11/3/98
3/7/00
11/7/00
3/5/02
11/5/02
10/7/03
3/2/04
11/2/04
11/8/05
6/6/06
11/7/06
3,996,964
4,289,997
4,737,886
4,485,777
4,720,597
4,347,406
4,682,661
4,388,052
4,781,282
5,134,178
5,864,745
5,049,959
5,333,522
5,623,831
4,987,795
5,725,718
5,610,357
5,729,959
5,594,018
5,786,806
6,043,262
5,853,273
6,150,716
6,142,820
6,804,263
6,181,719
6,525,496
6,380,397
7,052,368
6,453,186
6,671,747
6,581,888
7,410,914
7,110,142
6,924,121
7,219,635
6,849,330
7,387,504
6,830,530
6,989,006
6,684,668
7,134,601
6,873,476
6,825,400
6718,111
6,518,631
7,120,425
6,785,188
6,685,288
7,727,908
2,833,889
3,002,038
3,181,272
3,125,884
3,350,990
3,197,815
3,462,131
3,274,967
3,469,046
3,398,716
3,840,620
3,422,291
3,499,773
3,574,624
3,165,495
3,468,439
3,450,469
3,465,384
3,406,854
3,703,515
3,942,768
3,867,531
4,029,684
4,047,509
4,769,129
4,566,785
4,912,581
4,782,248
5,406,127
5,072,331
5,290,202
5,242,805
5,593,555
5,389,313
5,261,009
5,472,391
5,373,746
5,704,536
5,225,686
5,314,912
5,140,951
5,485,492
5,354,358
5,388,895
5,429,256
5,364,832
5,745,518
5,524,609
5,387,865
5,436,314
220,736
239,176
264,985
243,441
269,281
380,396
442,881
390,370
456,019
527,393
760,850
617,569
665,206
729,909
557,466
786,331
874,015
934,643
1,006,0085
1,204,339
1,375,593
1,366,358
1,378,699
1,339,440
1,500,238
1,458,128
1,396,843
1,374,562
1,546,378
1,455,912
1,516,078
1,744,555
2,097,004
2,043,168
1,986,281
2,031,758
2,300,287
2,570,035
2,549,461
2,665,267
2,806,186
3,087,214
3,052,974
3,089,174
3,236,059
3,207,697
3,691,330
3,581,685
3,595,286
3,672,886
7,051,589
7,531,211
8,184,143
7,855,102
8,340,868
7,925,617
8,587,673
8,053,389
8,706,347
9,105,287
10,466,215
9,089,819
9,498,501
9,928,364
8,710,756
9,980,488
9,934,841
10,129,986
10,006,957
10,694,660
11,361,623
11,087,162
11,559,099
11,529,769
13,073,630
12,206,632
12,833,920
12,537,207
14,004,873
12,981,429
13,478,027
13,569,248
15,101,473
14,524,623
14,171,411
14,723,784
14,523,363
15,662,075
14,605,677
14,969,185
14,631,805
15,707,307
15,280,808
15,303,469
15,383,562
15,091,160
16,557,273
15,891,482
15,668,439
15,837,108
4,479,723
5,929,602
7,233,067
5,079,911
6,605,866
5,723,047
7,363,711
5,011,908
6,633,400
6,460,220
8,595,950
4,329,017
5,128,375
6,364,597
6,323,651
8,137,202
6,843,001
7,132,210
3,740,800
6,774,104
8,775,459
5,846,026
8,064,314
5,609,063
9,796,375
4,937,941
7,617,142
6,037,468
10,194,539
5,386,545
7,899,131
6,439,629
11,374,565
5,282,443
4,966,827
8,900,593
6,081,777
10,263,490
6,206,618
8,621,121
7,883,385
11,142,843
5,286,204
7,738,821
9,413,494
6,684,421
12,589,683
7,968,757
5,269,142
8,899,059
63.5
78.7
88.4
64.7
79.2
72.2
85.8
62.2
76.2
71.0
82.1
47.6
54.0
64.1
72.6
81.5
68.9
70.4
37.4
63.3
77.2
52.7
69.8
48.7
74.9
40.5
59.4
48.2
72.8
41.5
58.6
47.5
75.3
36.4
35.1
60.5
41.9
65.5
42.5
57.6
53.9
70.9
34.6
50.6
61.2
44.3
76.0
50.1
33.6
56.2
6
25
17
1
17
2
10
8
20
10
22
1
9
17
15
15
13
8
4
11
11
12
15
9
17
11
13
12
29
17
28
3
13
7
9
10
12
15
9
12
20
8
6
7
2
4
16
8
2
13
118
2/5/08
6/3/08
11/4/08
5/19/09
6,749,406
7,053,860
7,683,495
7,642,108
5,229,425
5,244,394
5,428,052
5,325,558
3,724,922
3,825,503
4,192,544
4,184,346
15,712,753
16,123,787
17,304,091
17,153,012
9,068,415
4,550,227
13,743,177
4,871,945
57.7
28.2
79.4
28.4
7
2
12
6
119
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Abramowitz, A. “Terrorism, Gay Marriage, and Incumbency: Explaining the
Republican Victory in the 2004 Presidential Election.” The Forum 2, no. 4 (2004): 111. http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol2/iss4/art3/ (accessed April 1, 2009).
2. American Civil Liberties Union. “About the ACLU.” http://www.aclu.org/aboutaclu-0 (accessed August 4, 2009).
3. —. “Guardians of Freedom.” http://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/guardiansoffreedom.pdf
(accessed August 6, 2009).
4. —. “Key Issues.” http://www.aclu.org/key-issues (accessed August 6, 2009).
5. American Conservative Union. “About ACU.”
http://www.conservative.org/about/default.asp (accessed August 6, 2009).
6. —. “Statement of Principles.” http://www.conservative.org/about/principles.html
(accessed August 6, 2009).
7. Bowler, S. and T. Donovan. Demanding Choices: Opinion and Voting in Direct
Democracy. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2004.
8. —. “Information and Opinion Change on Ballot Propositions.” Political Behavior
16, no. 4 (1994): 411-435.
9.
Branton, R. “Examining Individual-Level Voting Behavior on State Ballot
Propositions.” Political Research Quarterly 56, no. 3 (2003): 367-77.
10. Broder, D. S. Democracy Derailed: Initiative Campaigns and the Power of Money.
New York: Harcourt, 2000.
11. Burden, B. “An Alternative Account of the 2004 Presidential Election.” The Forum
2, no. 4 (2004): 1-12. http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol2/iss4/art2/ (accessed April
1, 2009).
12. Campbell, A., P. Converse, W. Miller, and D. Stokes. The American Voter. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1960.
13. California Secretary of State. “15-Day Report of Registration, May 4, 2009 for the
May 19, 2009 Special Election.” http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ror/rorpages/15day-stwdsp-09/hist-reg-stats.pdf (accessed November 1, 2009).
120
14. —. “Historical Voter Registration and Participation in Statewide General Elections
1910-2009.” http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/historical-voter-reg/hist-voter-regand-part-general-elections-1910-2009.pdf (accessed October 2009).
15. —. “Historical Voter Registration and Voter Participation in Statewide Primary
Elections—1910-2008.”
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ror/hist_stats_gen_prim/historical-voter-reg-primaryjun08.pdf (accessed October 2009).
16. —. “A History of California Initiatives.”
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/init_history.pdf (accessed September 1, 2009).
17. —. “May 4, 2009 Report of Registration.” http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ror/rorpages/15day-stwdsp-09/ror-050409.htm (accessed October 31, 2009).
18. —. “Statement of the Vote 2000 General Election.”
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2000_general/contents.htm (accessed November
1, 2009).
19. —. “Statewide Election Results.”
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_elections.htm (accessed December 2008 June 2009).
20. —. “Votes for and Against March 7, 2000, Statewide Ballot Measures and
Constitutional Amendments.”
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2000_primary/sum_measures.pdf (accessed
November 7, 2009).
21. —. “Votes for and Against May 19, 2009 State Ballot Measures.”
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2009-special/9-votes-for-against.pdf (accessed
November 1, 2009).
22. Corey, Elizabeth C. and James C. Garand. “Are Government Employees More Likely
to Vote?: An Analysis of Turnout in the 1996 U.S. National Election.” Public Choice
111, no. 3/4 (June 2002): 259-283.
23. Cronin, T. E. Direct Democracy: The Politics of Initiative, Referendum and Recall.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989.
24. Erickson, R. S. “State Turnout and Presidential Voting—a Closer Look.” American
Politics Quarterly 23 (1995): 387-96.
25. Equality California. “Winning Back Marriage Equality in California: Analysis and
Plan.” http://www.eqca.org/atf/cf/%7B34f258b3-8482-4943-91cb-
121
08c4b0246a88%7D/EQCA-WINNING_BACK_MARRIAGE_EQUALITY.PDF
(accessed November 3, 2009).
26. Everson, D. H. “The Effects of Initiatives on Voter Turnout: A Comparative State
Analysis.” The Western Political Quarterly 34, no. 3 (1981): 415-425.
27. Frohnen, Bruce, Jeremy Beer, and Jeffrey Nelson, eds. American Conservatism: An
Encyclopedia. Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, 2006.
28. Fund, John. “Proposition 13: A Watershed Moment Bridging FDR and Reagan.”
The California Journal of Politics and Policy 1, no. 1 (2009): 1-5.
http://www.bepress.com/cjpp/vol1/iss1/15/ (accessed November 27, 2009).
29. Gerber, E. R. The Populist Paradox: Interest Group Influence and the Promise of
Direct Legislation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, 1999.
30. Gerber, E.R. and Justin H. Phillips. “Development Ballot Measures, Interest Group
Endorsements, and the Political Geography of Growth Preferences.” American
Journal of Political Science 47, no. 4 (October 2003): 625-639.
31. Gregg, James E. California Newspaper Editorial Endorsements: Influence on Ballot
Measures. Davis, CA: University of California Institute of Governmental Affairs,
1970.
32. Hadwiger, D. “Money, Turnout, and Ballot Measure Success in California Cities.”
The Western Political Quarterly 45, no. 2 (1992): 539-547.
33. Hamilton, H. D. “Direct Legislation: Some Implications of Open Housing
Referenda.” American Political Science Review 64 (1970): 126-27.
34. Hero, R. E. and C.J. Tolbert. “A Racial/Ethnic Diversity Interpretation of Politics
and Policy in the States of the U.S.” American Journal of Political Science 40, no. 3
(1996): 851-71.
35. Jackman, S. “Same-Sex Marriage Ballot Initiatives and Conservative Mobilization in
the 2004 Election.” Paper presented at the Institute for Research in the Social
Sciences, Palo Alto, CA, 2004.
36. Lee, E. “The American Experience.” The Referendum Device. Edited by Austin
Ranney. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy
Research, 1981.
37. Lowenstein, D. “Campaign Spending and Ballot Propositions: Recent Experience,
Public Choice and the First Amendment.” UCLA Law Review 29 (1982): 505-541.
122
38. Lupia, Arthur. “Voter Information, Endorsements and Electoral Outcomes: Insurance
Reform in California.” Unpublished manuscript. University of California, San
Diego, 1991.
39. Magleby, D. Direct Legislation: Voting on Ballot Propositions in the United States.
Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1984.
40. Martinez, M. D. and J. Gill. “The Effects of Turnout on Partisan Outcomes in U.S.
Presidential Elections 1960-2000.” The Journal of Politics 67, no. 4 (2005): 1248-74.
41. Matsusaka, J. G. “Economics of Direct Legislation.” The Quarterly Journal of
Economics 107, no. 2 (1992): 541-571.
42. —. “Election Closeness and Voter Turnout: Evidence from California Ballot
Propositions.” Public Choice 76 (1993): 313-334.
43. Nagel, J. H. and J.E. McNulty. “Partisan Effects of Voter Turnout in Senatorial and
Gubernatorial Elections.” American Political Science Review 90 (1996): 780-93.
44. Owens, J. R. and L.L. Wade. “Campaign Spending on California Ballot Propositions,
1924-1984: Trends and Voting Effects.” The Western Political Quarterly 39, no. 4
(1986): 675-689.
45. Radcliff, B. “Turnout and the Democratic Vote.” American Politics Quarterly 22
(1994): 259-76.
46. Shockley, J. S. The Initiative Process in Colorado Politics: An Assessment. Boulder,
CO: University of Colorado, Boulder Bureau of Governmental Research and Service,
1980.
47. —. “Statement of John S. Shockley.” IRS Administration of Tax Laws Relating to
Lobbying (Part I): Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the House Committee on
Government Operations. 95th Congress, 1st Sess., 1978, 256-74.
48. Smith, D. A. and C.J. Tolbert. “The Initiative to Party.” Party Politics 7, no. 6
(2001): 739-57.
49. Smith, M. A. “The Contingent Effect of Ballot Initiatives and Candidate Races on
Turnout.” American Journal of Political Science 45, no. 3 (2001): 700-706.
50. Sniderman, P.M. and M.G. Hagen. Race and Inequality: A Study in American
Values. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House, 1984.
123
51. Snyder, James M. “Constituency Preferences: California Ballot Propositions, 197490.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 21, no. 2 (November 1996): 463-488.
52. Stratmann, T. “Is Spending More Potent for or Against a Proposition? Evidence
from Ballot Measures.” American Journal of Political Science 50, no. 3 (2006): 788801.
53. Tolbert, C. J., J.A. Grummel, and D.A. Smith. “The Effects of Ballot Initiatives on
Voter Turnout in the American States.” American Politics Research 29, no. 6 (2001):
625-648.
54. Tolbert, C. J. and D.A. Smith. “The Educative Effects of Ballot Initiatives on Voter
Turnout.” American Politics Research 33, no. 2 (2005): 283-309.
55. University of California, Hastings College of Law. “California Ballot Measures
Database.” UC Hastings School of Law Library.
http://library.uchastings.edu/library/california-research/ca-ballotmeasures.html#ballotinits (accessed December 2008-April 2009).
56. Verba, S. and N.H. Nie. Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social
Equality. New York: Harper & Row, 1972.
57. Wolfinger, R. and S. Rosenstone. Who Votes? New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press, 1980.
58. Wuffle, A. and C. Collet. “Why Democrats Shouldn’t Vote.” Journal of Theoretical
Politics 9 (1997): 137-40.
59. Zisk, B. H. Money, Media, and the Grass Roots: State Ballot Issues and the Electoral
Process. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1987.
124