 | ||
A California Congressional Redistricting Initiative, Proposition 20 was on the November 2, 2010 ballot in California. It was approved by 61.2% of voters. Election officials announced on May 5 that the proposition had collected sufficient signatures to qualify for the ballot. The measure is known by its supporters as the VOTERS FIRST Act for Congress.
Contents
- Ballot language
- Congressional re districting
- Constitutional changes
- Supporters
- Arguments in favor
- Opposition
- Donors against
- Arguments against
- Yes on Prop 20
- No on Prop 20
- Path to the ballot
- Additional reading
- References
The Congressional Redistricting Initiative:
Ballot language was filed by Charles Munger, Jr., who was also Proposition 20's largest financial supporter. Munger, the son of billionaire Charlie Munger, was a supporter of Proposition 11 in 2008, which created a new way for political districts to be drawn for California's state legislators and its state Board of Equalization.
A competing initiative that also qualified for the November 2 ballot, California Proposition 27 (2010), sought to repeal Proposition 11.
Proposition 20 and Proposition 27 each had a so-called "poison pill" provision. This means that if they both received a majority vote, the proposition that received the highest majority vote is the law that would go into effect. Since Proposition 20 passed but Proposition 27 did not, neither provision was triggered.
Ballot language
Congressional re-districting
If this initiative had not succeeded, the next Governor of California and members of the California State Legislature would have chosen how to draw lines for however many U.S. Congressional districts California is determined to be entitled to after the 2010 census. Estimates are that California will have somewhere between 52 and 54 seats in congress after those census calculations are completed.
From 2000 to 2010, the population in California has undergone a major shift eastward, with people moving to California's inland areas from its coastal enclaves. This means that California's congressional district boundaries will certainly undergo major upheaval after the 2010 census. As one example, the San Francisco Bay Area grew less than 1% since the last redistricting, while the Central Valley area has grown by 21%. Los Angeles County has grown 5%, while San Diego, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Imperial Counties have grown by 17%.
Another notable factor is that California's population hasn't grown relative to the population of the rest of the United States, and may even have proportionally shrunk. There were fears at the time that California could lose one or two seats in Congress. In the end California's representation in Congress remained the same, which was the first time the state had not increased its congressional representation since the reapportionment following the 1920 census.
Constitutional changes
Proposition 20 amended three sections of Article XXI of the California Constitution.
The three sections are:
Supporters
Charles Munger launched the campaign to qualify the Congressional Redistricting Initiative for the 2010 ballot. Munger was also a key supporter of 2008's Proposition 11, having given about $2 million to that effort.
The New York Times characterized Proposition 20's supporters as "an unlikely collection of election-reform groups, civil rights nonprofits and former officials from both major parties who say that the current system of redistricting has left politicians unaccountable."
Supporters of Proposition 20 included:
A full list of the supporters of Proposition 20 is available from the "Yes on Proposition 20" website.
Arguments in favor
Arguments were submitted to the official California Voter Guide on behalf of a "yes" vote on Proposition 20, as were rebuttals to the arguments provided by Prop 20 opponents. The signers of these arguments were:
The arguments made on behalf of Proposition 20 focus on these themes:
Opposition
Opposition to Proposition 20 is primarily driven by the supporters of Proposition 27.
Donors against
State Rep. Charles Calderon, a $100,000 donor to the "Yes on 27" campaign.
Two campaign committees have officially registered in opposition to Proposition 20. Through September 22, neither of the committees specifically aimed at Proposition 20 had received any contributions to speak of. They are:
However, due to the fact that California Proposition 27 contains "poison pill" language with respect to Proposition 20, any money spent to promote a "yes" vote on Proposition 27 amounts to money spent to hurt Proposition 20, and vice versa.
That main campaign committee endorsing a "yes" vote on California Proposition 27 has raised millions of dollars, including a substantial amount of money from 17 members of the California's delegation to the U.S. Congress as well as members of the California State Legislature.
Arguments against
Arguments were submitted to the official California Voter Guide urging a "no" vote on Proposition 20, as were rebuttals to the arguments provided by Prop 20 supporters. The signers of these arguments were:
The themes of the main arguments they make against Proposition 20 (and in favor of Proposition 27) are:
Yes on Prop 20
Newspapers that have editorialized in favor of Proposition 20 include:
No on Prop 20
Path to the ballot
694,354 signatures were required to qualify the initiative for the ballot. Supporters turned in 1,180,623 signature in mid-March 2010, and election officials announced on May 5, 2010 that after an inspection process, the signatures met or exceeded the minimum threshold for ballot qualification.
The petition drive management company hired to collect the signatures was National Petition Management. NPM was paid $1,937,380 (through May 6) for their signature-gathering services.