California Proposition 40, State Senate Redistricting Plan Referendum (2012)

California Proposition 40
Election date November 6, 2012
Topic Redistricting measures
Status a Approved
Type Referendum	Origin Citizens

2012 propositions
June 5
Proposition 28
Proposition 29
November 6
Proposition 30
Proposition 31
Proposition 32
Proposition 33
Proposition 34
Proposition 35
Proposition 36
Proposition 37
Proposition 38
Proposition 39
Proposition 40
Donations • Vendors
Endorsements • Full text
Ballot titles • Fiscal impact
Local measures

California Proposition 40 was on the ballot as a veto referendum in California on November 6, 2012. It was approved.

A "yes" vote was a vote to uphold the State Senate districts drawn by the Citizens Redistricting Commission, which were certified by the commission on August 15, 2011, and that took effect on June 5, 2012.

A "no" vote was a vote to reject the State Senate districts drawn by the Citizens Redistricting Commission, which were certified by the commission on August 15, 2011, and that took effect on June 5, 2012.

Election results

California Proposition 40
Result		Votes	Prozentualer Anteil
Yes		8,354,158	71.94%
No		3,258,740	28.06%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Measure design

Proposition 40 was a veto referendum asking voters to uphold or reject the California State Senate redistricting plan approved by the California Citizens Redistricting Commission. The redistricting maps were certified by the commission on August 15, 2011, and took effect on June 5, 2012. A yes vote was a vote to uphold the maps and a no vote was a vote to reject the maps.

The California Citizens Redistricting Commission was created through approval of California Proposition 11 in 2008.

Referendum sponsor Julie Vandermost, said, "As the Official Sponsor of Proposition 40, our intention was to make sure its qualification for the ballot would stop the current Senate District lines from being implemented in 2012. The Supreme Court reviewed the process and intervened to keep district lines in place. With the court’s action, this measure is not needed and we are no longer asking for a NO vote." In January 2012, the California Supreme Court ruled that the State Senate redistricting maps generated by the California Citizens Redistricting Commission pursuant to Proposition 11 must be used throughout the elections of 2012 despite the referendum being on the ballot.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Proposition 40 was as follows:

"

Redistricting. State Senate Districts. Referendum.

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary for this measure was:

"

A "Yes" vote approves, and a "No" vote rejects, new State Senate districts drawn by the Citizens Redistricting Commission. If the new districts are rejected, the State Senate district boundary lines will be adjusted by officials supervised by the California Supreme Court. State Senate districts are revised every 10 years following the federal census.

”

Full Text

The full text of this measure is available here.

Fiscal impact

See also: Fiscal impact statements for California's 2012 ballot propositions

The following is a summary of the initiative's estimated fiscal impact on state and local government that was prepared by the California Legislative Analyst's Office and the Director of Finance.

"

If the voters vote “yes” and approve the Senate district maps certified by the commission, there would be no effect on state or local governments. If the voters vote “no” and reject the Senate district maps certified by the commission, the California Supreme Court would appoint special masters to establish new Senate district boundaries. This would result in a one-time cost to the state of about $500,000. In addition, counties would incur one-time costs of about $500,000 statewide to develop new precinct maps and related election materials for the districts.

”

Support to approve

"Yes on Prop 40" website logo

The "Yes on 40" campaign supported approving Proposition 40, thereby upholding the Redistricting Commission lines.

Supporters

The arguments in favor of Proposition 40 in the state's official voter guide were submitted by:

• Jennifer A. Waggoner, president of the League of Women Voters of California.
• David Pacheco. Pacheco, president of AARP California.
• Allan Zaremberg. Zaremberg, president of the California Chamber of Commerce.
• John Kabateck, executive director of the National Federation of Independent Business/California

Arguments

The arguments presented in favor of Proposition 40 in the state's official voter guide were as follows:

"

YES ON 40 PROTECTS THE VOTER-APPROVED INDEPENDENT CITIZENS REDISTRICTING COMMISSION A YES vote on Prop. 40 means that the State Senate maps drawn by the voter-approved independent Citizens Redistricting Commission will remain in place. A NO vote on Prop. 40 gives the politicians an opportunity to overturn the fair districts drawn by the independent Commission —costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars in the process. PROP. 40 IS A SIMPLE CHOICE BETWEEN THE VOTER-APPROVED CITIZENS COMMISSION AND SELF-INTERESTED POLITICIANS In 2008, California voters approved Proposition 11, which created the independent Citizens Redistricting Commission to draw the district maps for the State Senate and State Assembly. Before Prop. 11, the politicians in the state Legislature drew their own uncompetitive districts, virtually guaranteeing themselves re-election. Now, a small group of Sacramento politicians is unhappy with the results of the State Senate maps drawn by the independent Commission. These politicians are using this referendum to try to get their uncompetitive districts back. THE POLITICIANS HAVE ALREADY FAILED IN COURT When the same politicians tried a lawsuit against the State Senate maps, the California Supreme Court ruled unanimously against them: “. . . not only do the Commission-certified Senate districts appear to comply with all of the constitutionally mandated criteria set forth in California Constitution, article XXI, the Commission-certified Senate districts also are a product of what generally appears to have been an open, transparent and nonpartisan redistricting process as called for by the current provisions of article XXI.” Vandermost v. Bowen (2012) We welcome you to read the whole ruling: www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S198387.PDF YES ON PROPOSITION 40 UPHOLDS THE WILL OF CALIFORNIA VOTERS California voters have voted three times in the last four years to have district maps drawn by an independent Commission, not the politicians: Yes on Proposition 11 (2008): created the independent Citizens Redistricting Commission to draw the maps for the State Assembly and State Senate Yes on Proposition 20 (2010): extended Prop. 11’s reforms to California’s Congressional districts No on Proposition 27 (2010): rejected politicians’ attempt to eliminate the independent Commission and give the power to draw their own legislative districts back to the politicians YES ON PROPOSITION 40—HOLDS POLITICIANS ACCOUNTABLE The passage of Proposition 11 and Proposition 20 and the defeat of Proposition 27 created a fair redistricting process that doesn’t involve Sacramento politicians! Because of these voter-approved reforms, for the first time in decades, the independent Commission drew fair districts for state legislators and Congress, starting with the 2012 elections. These redistricting reforms have put an end to political backroom deals by ensuring the process is transparent and open to the public. And, politicians are no longer guaranteed re-election, but are held accountable to voters and have to respond to constituent needs. “The Commission took politicians out of the process and returned power to the voters.”—John Kabateck, Executive Director, National Federation of Independent Business/California VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 40—STOP POLITICIANS FROM OVERTURNING VOTER-APPROVED ELECTION REFORM

”

Support to reject

The "No on 40" campaign, also called "Fair Districts 2012," sponsored the referendum and hoped voters would reject the Redistricting Commission lines. They withdrew from all campaign efforts to obtain a "no" vote on Proposition 40 in mid-July 2012.

The argument presented in opposition to Proposition 40 in the state's official voter guide was written by Julie Vandermost, which said, "As the Official Sponsor of Proposition 40, our intention was to make sure its qualification for the ballot would stop the current Senate District lines from being implemented in 2012. The Supreme Court reviewed the process and intervened to keep district lines in place. With the court’s action, this measure is not needed and we are no longer asking for a NO vote."

Polls

See also: Polls, 2012 ballot measures

Poll results for the measure are detailed below.

Date of Poll	Pollster	In favor	Opposed	Undecided	Number polled
September 1-12, 2011	Field Poll	42%	29%	29%	1,001
October 7-10, 2012	California Business Roundtable	44.2%	26.1%	29.7%	830
October 21-28, 2012	California Business Roundtable	48.2%	24.8%	27.0%	2,115

Background

Redistricting ballot measures

See also: Redistricting measures on the ballot and List of California ballot measures

Ballotpedia has tracked the following ballot measure(s) relating to redistricting in California.

1. California Proposition 118, Changes to Redistricting Procedures and Legislative Ethics Initiative (June 1990)
2. California Proposition 119, Citizens Redistricting Commission Initiative (June 1990)
3. California Proposition 77, Changes to Legislative and Congressional Redistricting Initiative (2005)
4. California Proposition 20, Congressional Redistricting Initiative (2010)
5. California Proposition 27, Elimination of Citizens Redistricting Commission Initiative (2010)
6. California Proposition 20, Reapportionment Commission Initiative (1926)
7. California Proposition 28, Legislative Reapportionment Initiative (1926)
8. California Proposition 18, Reapportionment Commission Amendment (1942)
9. California Proposition 23, Senatorial Districts Initiative (1962)
10. California Proposition 39, Reapportionment Commission Initiative (1984)
11. California Proposition 12, Redistricting of Assembly Districts Referendum (June 1982)
12. California Proposition 11, Redistricting of Senate Districts Referendum (June 1982)
13. California Proposition 10, Congressional Redistricting Act (June 1982)
14. California Proposition 14, Redistricting Commission Initiative (1982)
15. California Proposition 6, Reapportionment Provisions Amendment (June 1980)
16. California Proposition 1, Legislative Redistricting Referendum (1928)
17. California Proposition 11, Creation of the California Citizens Redistricting Commission Initiative (2008)
18. California Proposition 13, Senate Districts Initiative (1948)
19. California Proposition 15, Senatorial Districts Initiative (1960)

Path to the ballot

See also: California signature requirements and California ballot initiative petition signature costs

The letter requesting a title and summary for the proposed referendum was signed by Charles H. Bell, Jr. and was received by the Attorney General of California's office on August 16, 2011. The summary was provided on August 26, 2011, and a circulation deadline of November 13, 2011, was given to the referendum. Sponsors of the referendum, who supported a vote to reject Proposition 40, needed to collect 504,760 signatures by November 13, 2011, to qualify the measure for the ballot. Its sponsors turned in 710,924 signatures in 57 of California's 58 counties by the deadline. On February 24, 2012, the California Secretary of State's office announced that the measure had qualified for the ballot.

Cost of signature collection:

The cost of collecting the signatures to qualify Proposition 40 for the ballot came to $584,126.

The primary signature vendor was Bader & Associates.

See also

2012 Measures

• 2012 Measures
• Redistricting measures on the ballot
• 2012 legislative sessions

California

• California ballot measures
• California ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

Suggest a link

• November 2012 official voter guide
• Ballot title, summary and LAO analysis of Proposition 40
• Arguments for and against Proposition 40 in the official state voter guide
• Living Voters Guide to Proposition 40
• Proposition 40, an overview prepared by the League of Women Voters of California
• Proposition 40 on Voter's Edge
• Proposition 40 Cheatsheet from KCET
• Proposition 40 on California Choices (sponsored by Next 10, IGS at UC Berkeley, the UC San Diego Political Science Department, the Bill Lane Center for the American West at Stanford, and the Center for CA Studies at Sac State)
• Proposition 40 at the California Voter Foundation