California Proposition 45 (2002)
From Ballotpedia
Contents |
California Proposition 45 was on the March 5, 2002 statewide ballot in California along with five other statewide ballot propositions. It was an initiated constitutional amendment that was defeated.
- Yes: 2,043,448 (42.3%)
- No: 2,782,039 (57.7%)
The goal of Proposition 45's supporters was to extend, or soften, the term limits on members of the California State Legislature put into place in 1990 with Propostion 140.[1]
The petition drive to place the measure on the ballot was spearheaded by then-California State Senate President Pro Tem John Burton (D-San Francisco).
Ballot language
The ballot title for the initiative said:
Should the California Constitution be amended to allow voters to submit petitions to permit their incumbent legislators to run for reelection and to serve for a maxiumum of four more years beyond their presently allowed terms?[2]
Campaign strategy
Polling showed strong support for term limits from voters of both parties. To respond to this popular sentiment but also rollback the limits, the strategy adopted by the supporters of Proposition 45 was to allow voters in each legislative district to decide whether their own representative should be given an additional four years in office.
According to a review article in "Campaigns and Elections", a national political magazine [3]:
- The political benefits of this new approach were two-fold. First, the initiative could be marketed as a means of restoring local control to voters by giving them the ability to extend or impose term limits only if they saw fit. More brazenly, because this initiative did not repeal term limits, its supporters began to pitch it as a way to "preserve and protect" those limits to voters. Quickly, they signed up most of the state's political establishment, lobbyists and other Capitol interests as supporters.</blockquote>
Fiscal impact
The fiscal estimate provided by the California Legislative Analyst's Office said:
- Counties would incur unknown costs to verify petition signatures, potentially up to several hundreds of thousands of dollars every other year on a statewide basis.
- The state would incur little or no costs to track the eligibility of re-election candidates.
Campaign donations
Supporters of the amendment massively outspent opponents of the amendment, by a margin of $9,622,033 to $1,039,500.[4]
Supporters
Some of the larger donors to the unsuccessful campaign to pass Proposition 45 were:
- California Democratic Party: $3,265,189
- Former Leaders for an Effective Government: $850,000
- California Correctional Peace Officers: $445,000
- Regency Outdoor Advertising: $320,000
- California State Council of Service Employees: $250,000
- Jerry Perenchio: $250,000
- Ameriquest Capital Corporation: $200,000
- California Teachers Association: $200,000.[5]
Opponents
Nearly all of the money spent to defeat the measure ($1,031,000) came from Americans for Limited Terms.
See also
- Term limits in the United States
- California Proposition 93 (2008)
- California Proposition 140 (1990)
- Term limits, California
External links
References
- ↑ California Dreamin'? The Campaign to End Term Limits Patrick Basham, Cato Institute, March 5, 2002
- ↑ Smart Voter Text of initiative
- ↑ Prop. 45: Turning California term limits--case study Campaigns & Elections, June 2002
- ↑ California Follow the Money 2002 Primary Election
- ↑ Donation detail for Proposition 45
