California Voter Foundation Logo

California Online Voter Guide

November 2008 General Election
17th edition

Voter Guide toolbar - Propositions selected Welcome Tab Propositions Tab President Tab Congress Tab Legislature Tab

News Stories about the Propositions

CVF's News Stories section provides California voters with convenient access to a sampling of news articles that give an overview of the potential impact of each proposition on the ballot. If you have an article to suggest, please contact us.

 

Prop. 1A News Articles

Excerpts:

Proposition 1A on the Nov. 4 ballot would authorize the sale of $9.95 billion in bonds to help start construction of an 800-mile high-speed rail network that would send electric trains zipping between Northern and Southern California at up to 220 mph.

A trip from the Transbay Terminal in downtown San Francisco and Los Angeles Union Station would take about 2 1/2 hours, according to the state High Speed Rail Authority, and would cost about $55 one way. There would be stops on the Peninsula and in the South Bay.

The system would be the largest public works project in California history - bigger than the California Aqueduct - and would cost $32 billion for the main line between San Francisco and Los Angeles and an additional $10 billion to complete the network by adding extensions to San Diego, Sacramento and Riverside County. The state is banking on getting about a third of the construction budget from state taxpayers, a third from the federal government and a third from private investors.

Should a majority of voters approve, California would proceed with plans to build the nation's first true high-speed rail system with an initial line running between San Francisco and Los Angeles or, perhaps, Anaheim. The bulk of the bond revenues - $9 billion - would be spent on planning and building the system, and the remaining $950 million would be devoted to connecting rail service, such as BART, the Altamont Commuter Express and the Capitol Corridor.

* * *

The pros and cons

A collection of transportation, environmental and business groups support Prop. 1A. High-speed rail, they say, would offer a fast, greener, less costly and less complicated way to travel up and down the state.

"With our population expected to hit 50 million by 2030, people will need either more highways and airports - or they could use high-speed rail," said Kevin Powers, field organizer for the CalPIRG, a consumer group pushing for a fast-train network. "High-speed rail is cheaper to build, faster to ride and far less polluting than the alternatives."

Taxpayer groups and the California Chamber of Commerce are against Prop. 1A. Opponents say the state, stuck in a seemingly interminable battle over how to spend its limited revenues, can't afford high-speed rail. The cost of repaying the bonds over 30 years would total $19.4 billion and would require an annual repayment of $647 million, according to the state legislative analyst.

"That is going to be a significant drain on the general fund," said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

Coupal also questioned the construction cost estimates, noting that mega-projects, such as Boston's Big Dig, often run far over budget. Critics also question whether high-speed rail would work in California.

"We're not opposed to all high-speed rail," Coupal said. "There are places where, given demographic densities, high-speed rail can be effective at moving people from point A to point B. Now is not the right time to attempt a mega-project in California, and we are not convinced it's right for California."

Advocates say high-speed rail would reduce pollution by taking cars off of Interstate 5 and reduce the number of people flying between the Bay Area and Southern California. They say it also would be popular among residents of the booming San Joaquin Valley who lack frequent or low-cost air service. And with gas prices hitting record highs and the state committed to reducing greenhouse gases, the appeal of high-speed rail will only grow, they argue.

"Even though it's a huge investment up front," said Powers, "we're going to see it pay off in the long run in terms of job creation, in terms of savings from not having to build more highways and airports, in terms of reducing pollution."

Early polls show voters like high-speed rail even if they aren't familiar with the details of the bond measure. A Field Poll in July found that just 22 percent of likely voters were aware of the proposition. But when read a brief description, 56 percent favored the measure, and 30 percent were opposed.

The state's official interest in high-speed rail dates to 1993, when the Legislature appointed a commission to study the feasibility of a fast-train network. Their cautious but affirmative conclusion led to the creation of the High Speed Rail Authority in 1996. Since then, the authority has completed an overall environmental study for the project, determined alignments and station locations, completed a business plan and gathered ridership studies and cost estimates.

Critics say the business plan is outdated. If passed, construction would not begin until 2011 and would take seven to 10 years for the first segments to be built. Legislation signed two weeks ago requires it to be updated. Mehdi Morshed, executive director of the authority, said most of the information that would be included in a new business plan is available but can't be compiled into an updated document until 45 days after the state budget is signed and the authority gets the money to prepare the report.

Prop. 2 News Articles

Excerpts:

The fate of the state's 19 million egg-laying hens is coming to a polling place near you.

Same-sex marriage, parental notification of abortion – California's November ballot is studded with weighty issues, but none is ruffling feathers like Proposition 2, which would effectively ban farms from raising hens in cages.

The United Egg Producers predicts the measure would triple the cost of eggs, drive the industry out of the state and deprive consumers of fresh, safe California eggs.

"Californians are already reeling from skyrocketing gas and food prices," said Julie Buckner, a spokeswoman for the No on Proposition 2 campaign. "The last thing they need is to go to the supermarket and pay higher prices for a dozen eggs."

Supporters, including the Humane Society of the United States, say it would add only about a penny to the cost of an egg – and end the practice of cramming hens into cages so small they can't even turn around.

They argue the egg industry has reaped record profits in the past year while the price of an egg has jumped six cents.

"We're talking about a pretty small (additional) increase to get these animals out of these horrible, crammed cages," said Jennifer Fearing, chief economist for the Humane Society, who is managing the Yes on Proposition 2 campaign.

* * *

The focus of the campaign will be California's egg-laying hens, more than 90 percent of which are raised in cages.

Proposition 2 would require hens to be housed in a way that allows them to fully spread their wings without touching the side of an enclosure or other hens. Farmers who violate the law could be charged with a misdemeanor and face a fine of up to $1,000, imprisonment or both.
Laws banning crates for breeding pigs have been enacted in Florida, Arizona, Colorado and Oregon. But Proposition 2 is the first of its kind and would be a major gain for the animal rights movement.

The two sides are gearing up for a costly campaign battle that is drawing contributors from throughout the nation.

Supporters have raised more than $4.2 million, most of which has come from the Humane Society of the United States. Opponents, including several out-of-state egg producers, have raised $1.7 million.

California is the fifth-largest egg-producing state, after Iowa, Ohio, Indiana and Pennsylvania, according to the Agriculture Department and American Egg Board.

Both sides stipulate the initiative would end the confinement of egg-laying hens in cages in California because bigger cages would be too costly.

A study commissioned by the industry concluded that the measure would obligate farmers to build eight to 16 times more henhouses than the current system.

Proponents of the measure contend egg producers would still make healthy profits. But opponents say the measure would cost nearly 3,400 jobs and take $615 million out of the state's economy.

Ryan Armstrong, whose family has been in the egg-producing business for 60 years in San Diego County, said he would go out of business if the measure passes.

"It'll just make California more dependent on other states and other countries for eggs," Armstrong said. "We're near Mexico, which is probably the No. 1 place that we'd buy our eggs if the initiative passed."

Industry officials say the measure would also increase the likelihood of egg-associated salmonella contamination. They say hens are housed indoors to keep them from contact with wild birds and in an environment that protects them from their own waste.

Fearing cites videos of egg-laying farms that show unclean cage conditions.
"Manure is a problem when it's in such concentration as these places with tens of thousands of animals in the same building," she said.

Large concentrations of chicken manure, supporters of the initiative say, create hazardous amounts of ammonia that can endanger surrounding communities.

A report issued earlier this year by the Pew Charitable Trusts and Johns Hopkins School of Public Health called for a 10-year phase-out of intensive confinement systems such as those used to house egg-laying hens.

The report also called for tighter regulation of factory farm waste, finding that its toxic gases can sicken workers and neighbors.

Supporters of the initiative predict their campaign will overcome the opposition of egg producers.
They used 4,000 volunteers to qualify the measure, collecting nearly twice as many signatures as necessary.

"We will spend what it takes to win," Fearing said. "We have a significant grass-roots force that they don't have."

Prop. 3 News Articles

Excerpts:

Proposition 3 is the second state bond measure for children's hospitals in the last four years, and would allocate $980 million to California's eight private, nonprofit, regional children's hospitals plus five facilities that are part of the University of California. The money could be used by the hospitals to pay for construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation and furnishing. Eighty percent of the bond money would be made available for the private regional children's hospitals — each of which can apply for grants up to a maximum of approximately $98 million — and 20 percent would be available to the five hospitals in the UC's chain.

Children's Hospital officials say the money from Proposition 3 is vital to a new rebuild they expect unveil soon — one that will be quite different than the $700 million expansion the hospital proposed last year that included a new 12-story tower.

That plan would have increased the hospital's capacity from 171 beds to about 250 private patient rooms and allowed the hospital to meet a 2013 seismic safety retrofit deadline. However, many North Oakland residents opposed the proposal, saying the 12-story tower was too large and inappropriate for their neighborhood. Many also said they felt excluded by what they considered a closed-door process when developing the project.

* * *

If November's proposition passes, the hospital would have as much as $98 million as well as about $50 million remaining from the 2004 measure, which created a $750 million bond for the children's hospitals. Hospital officials say they hope to make up the remaining money for the project through private donations.

Lubin said he hopes voters realize Proposition 3 is different from the two measures county voters turned down last February, adding the proposition is not a parcel tax and is to help children's hospitals statewide — many of which are struggling to seismically retrofit by the state mandated deadline of 2013.

"This is a bond that will support all of the children's hospitals in the state, not just here in Oakland," Lubin said.

Nevertheless, some of the same arguments that were used against February's measures are being brought up again, especially by residents in North Oakland who are wondering why public money is going to support a private hospital.

"Right now the state is facing very serious budget problems," said Katina Ancar, a North Oakland resident and member of the group Livable Oakland that spearheaded a campaign against measures A and B earlier this year. "And we're being asked to pass a $1 billion bond that basically goes to private hospitals?"

Ancar said she, like other North Oakland residents, understand children's hospitals in the state do good work, but added many public hospitals in the state are too looking for money that will likely have to come from the public.

She also asked why these hospitals are coming back four years after receiving a $750-million bond and asking for more money when many hospitals still have money left from that approval.
"I feel like we don't have any idea why they are asking for this money," Ancar said. "I think there should be more oversight to this whole process."

Prop. 4 News Articles

Prop. 5 News Articles

Excerpts:

Lower-level criminals with major drug problems would be in line for more treatment and less prison time if voters approve the Nonviolent Offender and Rehabilitation Act of 2008.

Proposition 5 seeks to build on the Proposition 36 drug treatment initiative California voters passed in 2000, the success of which is subject to debate.

* * *

Proposition 5 sets aside $150 million in state spending this year and $460 million next year, with cost of living and population adjustments thereafter, for expanded prison and parolee drug programs.

Expands diversion programs to get more addicts out of prison and into treatment.
Earmarks 15 percent of funding for juvenile offenders.

Splits off parole and rehabilitation operations from the state corrections agency under a new secretary, with a new 23-member commission to oversee programs.

Keeps technical parole violators out of prison. Serious and violent offenders would be placed on parole supervision for longer stretches.

Reduces some inmates' prison terms through good-time credits.

Makes marijuana possession an infraction rather than a misdemeanor.

Expands the Board of Parole Hearings from 17 to 29 members. Senate confirmation would no longer be required.

 

Prop. 6 News Articles

Excerpts:

What Prop 6 would do if it passes:

  • Require an additional $365 million to be spent by the state on specific local law enforcement and criminal justice programs, beginning in 2009-10.

  • Increase penalties for certain crimes, especially those related to gangs.

  • Increase number of parole officers.

* * *

People for Prop 6 say:

  • Prop 6 will bring more police and increased safety to streets, along with more juvenile crime prevention.

  • Gang members who commit violent felony crimes will spend more time in prison. Information: www.safeneighborhoodsact.com.

People against Prop 6 say:

  • Prop 6 will waste billions on unproven programs.

  • Anti-gang programs in communities need to be given more time to work. Information: www.votenoprop6.com.

Prop. 7 News Articles

Excerpts:

Two of the world's richest men bankroll alternative-energy initiatives on the November ballot. Each is opposed by some of the very champions of those alternatives.

Adding to the confusion, both measures carry "renewable energy" in their titles.

Political commentators aren't helping much, naming Proposition 7 "Big Solar," and Proposition 10 "Big Wind." But the former promises more power from renewable sources generally, not just the sun. The latter would actually invest more public money in natural gas than wind farms.

A political tussle over the separate initiatives, heralded as solutions to global warming, may confuse voters. In the past, voters have rejected competing or conflicting propositions.

The energy proposals target different sectors of the economy: transportation, which accounts for about 40 percent of California's climate-warming emissions, and electric power, which emits about 25 percent of these greenhouse gases – mainly carbon dioxide.

For Proposition 10, think "vehicles." For Proposition 7, it's "power plants."
Proposition 10 promises to accelerate California's shift away from gasoline to alternative fuels, notably natural gas.

The measure would authorize $5 billion in bonds to help companies and consumers buy fuel-efficient or alternatively fueled vehicles. The largest beneficiaries would be operators of fueling stations for a growing fleet of commercial vehicles and buses that run on natural gas.

* * *

[T. Boone] Pickens, 80, made his fortune in oil. More recently he launched a national campaign attacking America's dependence on imported oil with television spots touting wind power for the nation's electricity grid, so natural gas that now runs power plants can instead fuel vehicles. That's how Proposition 10 earns the moniker "Big Wind."

Pickens can outspend opponents of Proposition 10. Yet they're hitting back with claims the measure is a costly, self-serving initiative that ties public money to bonds that will live beyond the life expectancy of natural gas-fueled trucks.

Billionaire vs. utilities

Billionaire Peter Sperling has no apparent financial gain due him after pouring $3 million into Proposition 7. His wealth comes from Apollo Group Inc., which owns the for-profit University of Phoenix colleges.

Sperling's contribution, however, is dwarfed by the $23.7 million raised by Proposition 7 opponents, mainly California's investor-owned utilities, including Pacific Gas and Electric Co. and Edison International. Foes also include several companies that rely solely on renewable energy from wind, solar or hydroelectric powerhouses.

Environmental opponents include the California League of Conservation Voters, the Environmental Defense Fund and the Union of Concerned Scientists.

These groups see Proposition 7 as poorly drafted and capable of disrupting the diversified renewable energy production they helped establish through years of negotiations with California regulators.

"Proposition 7 was put together by people who don't know what they're doing; they don't understand California's clean energy policies, laws and markets," said Craig Noble, spokesman for the Natural Resources Defense Council, in an online posting.

Formally called the "Renewable Energy Generation" initiative, Proposition 7 would require California's utilities to get at least half of their energy from renewable sources such as wind, solar and geothermal by 2025. It tilts heavily toward solar energy, hence "Big Solar."

California already has one of the most aggressive laws on renewable energy. It requires utilities to ratchet up use of renewables at least 1 percent each year, so that by 2010 they account for at least 20 percent of utilities' electricity.

Utilities are not likely to reach the current target until 2012 or 2013, according to the California Public Utilities Commission. The portion of renewable energy California consumes actually has declined in the past five years, from 14 percent to 12.7 percent.

The biggest obstacle to expanding renewable power is transmission access. Big solar, wind and geothermal projects are planned in the deserts and mountains, away from power grids.

Prop. 7 would have utilities doubling the pace to 2 percent annually and mandate targets of 40 percent by 2020 and 50 percent by 2025. That's well above Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's goal of 33 percent by 2020. The state utility and energy commissions on Friday recommended the California Air Resources Board adopt the governor's plan to fight global warming. It's unclear how much Prop. 7's higher goals would cost consumers.

Excerpts:

We all get it. The glaciers are melting. The sea is rising. Natural disasters are becoming more frequent and more severe. And no matter how many bike miles we log or how many fluorescent light bulbs we buy, conservation alone may not avert the most disastrous consequences of climate change.

Harnessing the near limitless power of the sun, wind, water and earth could help. But how do we do it? Who is going to pay for the solar panels and wind turbines? And how fast does it have to happen?

This November, Californians will have a chance to try to settle some of these questions as they vote on the Solar and Clean Energy Act of 2008. The initiative, Proposition 7, would substantially increase renewable-energy targets. It requires all of California’s electric utilities to generate 20 percent of their energy from clean, renewable sources by 2010.

That requirement would ramp up by 2 percent every year toward a goal of 50 percent renewable energy by 2025. And that would force public and private utilities to find new sources of energy from solar, wind, geothermal, biomass and small hydroelectric dams to power California’s future—in a hurry.

Former San Francisco County Supervisor Jim Gonzalez, chief proponent and campaign strategist for the initiative, said the measure gives California an opportunity to take aggressive steps in combating global warming. “It’s OK to pat yourself on the back for buying a twisty bulb or hybrid car, but wouldn’t it be better to go out and vote for something that’s going to reduce tons of emissions?” he asked.

Proposition 7 received $1.8 million in seed money from Arizona billionaire Peter Sperling, son of University of Phoenix founder John Sperling. Most of that money was spent on signature gathering to qualify the measure for the November ballot.

The opposition group, Californians Against Another Risky Energy Proposition, says there are fundamental flaws in the well-intentioned but poorly written initiative, by locking utilities into long-term contracts and slowing down renewable development by changing the rules by which new projects are approved. But according to a report by the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the clean-energy initiative will have limited impact on ratepayers. The initiative limits rate increases to less than 3 percent per year.

The opposition is funded in large part by PG&E, Southern California Edison and Sempra Energy, who collectively have kicked in just over $1 million to block the measure.

Prop. 8 News Articles

Excerpt:

Even before the California Supreme Court ruled that California's ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional, the group Protect Marriage was busy getting a proposition ready for the November ballot.

"We are intent on protecting the definition of marriage," said Yes on 8 spokeswoman Jennifer Kerns. "A majority of Californians believe that the institution of marriage is best when it's described as one man, one woman."

Kearns pointed to the March, 2000 vote on Proposition 22.

"Sixty-one percent of Californians said they support marriage between a man and a woman," she said.

On May 15, 2008, the state's highest court struck down Proposition 22, calling it unconstitutional.

Proposition 8 would amend the California constitution with a new section that would read "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Rev. Lindi Ramsden, a minister with the Unitarian Universalist Church, is working on the No on 8 campaign. She believes attitudes have changed since 2000.

"People's hearts and minds start to open when they get to know more gay and lesbian people and recognize them as a part of the fabric of our community," Ramsden said. "I think most Californians have come to the conclusion that we can't eliminate the rights of some people in our community."

Kerns said Proposition 8 does not seek to eliminate rights.

"There are certain groups out there who don't believe in civil unions; don't believe in affording civil rights to gay and lesbian couples and prop 8 differs on that," Kerns said. "We realize civil unions exist in California and they provide gay and lesbians with the same rights that married couples receive."

Prop. 9 News Articles

Proposition 9: Victim’s Rights, by Steve Milne, KXJZ, October 17, 2008. (Audio)

Excerpts:

Proposition 9 supporters say it expands the legal rights of crime victims. But opponents argue it threatens money for schools and social services.

***

Under Prop 9 those rights would include allowing victims to state their views during all public criminal proceedings…and being able to consult with prosecutors about what kind of criminal charges are being filed. Prop 9 also cuts the number of parole hearings a prisoner gets and restricts the early release of inmates. 

***

California’s non-partisan Legislative Analyst’s Office says Prop 9’s restrictions on early inmate releases would cost the state hundreds-of-millions of dollars annually. 

However, the LAO also says cutting back on the number of parole hearings each year would likely save the state.

Proposition 9 at a glance, Associated Press, October 1, 2008.

Excerpts:

Proposition 9 adds crime victims' rights to the California Constitution and makes it more difficult for criminals to be paroled.

* * *

If approved by voters, the initiative will require that victims be consulted during bail, plea, sentencing and parole decisions. It would require that restitution be ordered from convicts in every case in which a victim suffers a loss. Reimbursing victims would take priority over other fines, fees or convicts' other financial obligations. It would reduce the number of parole hearings to which inmates serving life sentences are entitled — to as little as one every 15 years. It would let victims keep personal information, evidence and their pretrial testimony secret from defendants. It would prohibit releasing inmates early to ease crowding in prisons or jails.

 

Prop. 10 News Articles

Excerpts:

Two of the world's richest men bankroll alternative-energy initiatives on the November ballot. Each is opposed by some of the very champions of those alternatives.

Adding to the confusion, both measures carry "renewable energy" in their titles.

Political commentators aren't helping much, naming Proposition 7 "Big Solar," and Proposition 10 "Big Wind." But the former promises more power from renewable sources generally, not just the sun. The latter would actually invest more public money in natural gas than wind farms.

A political tussle over the separate initiatives, heralded as solutions to global warming, may confuse voters. In the past, voters have rejected competing or conflicting propositions.

The energy proposals target different sectors of the economy: transportation, which accounts for about 40 percent of California's climate-warming emissions, and electric power, which emits about 25 percent of these greenhouse gases – mainly carbon dioxide.

For Proposition 10, think "vehicles." For Proposition 7, it's "power plants."
Proposition 10 promises to accelerate California's shift away from gasoline to alternative fuels, notably natural gas.

The measure would authorize $5 billion in bonds to help companies and consumers buy fuel-efficient or alternatively fueled vehicles. The largest beneficiaries would be operators of fueling stations for a growing fleet of commercial vehicles and buses that run on natural gas.

* * *

[T. Boone] Pickens, 80, made his fortune in oil. More recently he launched a national campaign attacking America's dependence on imported oil with television spots touting wind power for the nation's electricity grid, so natural gas that now runs power plants can instead fuel vehicles. That's how Proposition 10 earns the moniker "Big Wind."

Pickens can outspend opponents of Proposition 10. Yet they're hitting back with claims the measure is a costly, self-serving initiative that ties public money to bonds that will live beyond the life expectancy of natural gas-fueled trucks.

Billionaire vs. utilities

Billionaire Peter Sperling has no apparent financial gain due him after pouring $3 million into Proposition 7. His wealth comes from Apollo Group Inc., which owns the for-profit University of Phoenix colleges.

Sperling's contribution, however, is dwarfed by the $23.7 million raised by Proposition 7 opponents, mainly California's investor-owned utilities, including Pacific Gas and Electric Co. and Edison International. Foes also include several companies that rely solely on renewable energy from wind, solar or hydroelectric powerhouses.

Environmental opponents include the California League of Conservation Voters, the Environmental Defense Fund and the Union of Concerned Scientists.

These groups see Proposition 7 as poorly drafted and capable of disrupting the diversified renewable energy production they helped establish through years of negotiations with California regulators.

"Proposition 7 was put together by people who don't know what they're doing; they don't understand California's clean energy policies, laws and markets," said Craig Noble, spokesman for the Natural Resources Defense Council, in an online posting.

Formally called the "Renewable Energy Generation" initiative, Proposition 7 would require California's utilities to get at least half of their energy from renewable sources such as wind, solar and geothermal by 2025. It tilts heavily toward solar energy, hence "Big Solar."

California already has one of the most aggressive laws on renewable energy. It requires utilities to ratchet up use of renewables at least 1 percent each year, so that by 2010 they account for at least 20 percent of utilities' electricity.

Utilities are not likely to reach the current target until 2012 or 2013, according to the California Public Utilities Commission. The portion of renewable energy California consumes actually has declined in the past five years, from 14 percent to 12.7 percent.

The biggest obstacle to expanding renewable power is transmission access. Big solar, wind and geothermal projects are planned in the deserts and mountains, away from power grids.

Prop. 7 would have utilities doubling the pace to 2 percent annually and mandate targets of 40 percent by 2020 and 50 percent by 2025. That's well above Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's goal of 33 percent by 2020. The state utility and energy commissions on Friday recommended the California Air Resources Board adopt the governor's plan to fight global warming. It's unclear how much Prop. 7's higher goals would cost consumers.

Prop. 11 News Articles

Excerpts:

Proposition 11 on the November ballot may be designed to take the politics out of redistricting in California, but the politicians aren't going to let go without a fight.

The measure, which is the latest attempt to change the way the state's legislative districts are carved out, would take the decennial redrawing of the state's legislative boundaries out of the hands of the Legislature and give it to a 14-member citizens' commission after the 2010 census.

Nonpartisan groups including Common Cause, the League of Women Voters and AARP, joined by Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and former Democratic state Controller Steve Westly, are backing it.

The California Democratic Party and a variety of civil rights groups are opposing Prop. 11, which they argue sets up a confusing, complicated and unfair method of choosing a commission that won't truly represent all the people of California.

More quietly, Democratic leaders argue that a change in the redistricting rules would be bad news for the party, which controls the current reapportionment process with solid majorities in the Assembly and state Senate.

In a June e-mail inviting Democratic Party leaders and their allies to a strategy session on defeating Prop. 11, state Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland, described the measure as the "last best chance to prevent us from protecting and expanding our majorities in the Legislature in the decade to come."

This isn't a new fight. Since 1982, seven different redistricting reform measures have made the California ballot. None of them has passed.

The most recent ballot measure was Schwarzenegger's Prop. 77 in 2005, which would have given a panel of retired state judges the power to draw the redistricting maps, which then would have had to be approved in a statewide election. It lost, 60 percent to 40 percent.

After the election, Perata and then-Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, D-Los Angeles, agreed that changes were needed in the redistricting effort and promised to push a redistricting reform measure through the Legislature in time to put it on this November's ballot.

Negotiations over a compromise redistricting measure started almost immediately.

"We believed the Legislature was going to uphold its promise to support redistricting reform," said Kathay Feng, executive director of California Common Cause, one of the groups working to draw up a new plan.

* * *

But opponents of the measure say Prop. 11 is designed to provide Republicans like Schwarzenegger, who raised more than $2.4 million to put the initiative on the ballot, with political clout they haven't been able to get under the current redistricting rules.

"To believe this effort to change redistricting doesn't have a political slant is to ignore 30 years of history," said Paul Hef- ner, a political consultant for the No on Prop. 11 effort. "This has never been about fairness. It's been about changing things to give (Republicans) an advantage."

Others argue that an appointed commission can never represent the racial, ethnic, age, geographic and gender diversity of a state like California as well as 120 elected legislators.
"It's a question of accountability," said Nancy Ramirez, Western regional counsel for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund. "This commission will be accountable to no one."

MALDEF and other civil rights groups have fought the Legislature over redistricting in the past, even unsuccessfully challenging the last reapportionment plan in court. But with groups like the NAACP, Chinese for Affirmative Action, the Mexican American Political Association and the Asian Law Caucus, they're lining up with the Democrats to oppose Prop. 11.

* * *

Choosing the redistricting panel

How the 14-member Redistricting Commission would be selected under Proposition 11:
-- Applicants must have been continuously registered in a political party or as a decline-to-state voter for the past five years and must have voted in two of the three most-recent general elections.

-- They can't have run for 10 years for state or federal office, worked for a political party or a candidate, been a member of a party's central committee, worked as a lobbyist or paid staffer to a state or federal official or contributed more than $2,000 a year to any candidate.

-- California registered voters are invited to apply. The state auditor, an appointee of the governor, eliminates applicants with conflicts of interest.

-- A randomly drawn panel of three auditors cuts the pool of candidates to 60 - 20 Democrats, 20 Republicans and 20 minor party/decline to state voters - based on their skills, ability to be impartial and racial and geographical diversity.

-- Each of the four Legislative leaders - two Republicans and two Democrats - can eliminate as many as two people from each of the three subpools. From the remaining candidates, three Republicans, three Democrats and two others are chosen at random.

-- Those commissioners choose the final six commissioners, selecting two from each group, and ensure that the commission represents the state's racial, ethnic, geographical and gender diversity.

-- The 14-member panel will include five Republicans, five Democrats and four minor party/decline-to-state members. Final legislative district maps will need nine votes to be approved, including at least three from each group.

Prop. 12 News Articles

This page was first published on September 29, 2008 | Last updated on October 18, 2008
Copyright California Voter Foundation, All Rights Reserved.