Special Elections in California Introduction Special Elections in California   - Before the Election   - Election Day & Certification   - Costs of Special Elections   - Registration and Voter Trends Special Election History   - 1973   - 1979   - 1993   - 2003   2005 Special Election   - Spring 2005   - Summer 2005   - Fall 2005   - Arguments   - Challenges to Initiatives   - Election Costs and Cancellation Official Voter Information Election and Its Aftermath Key Websites Public Opinion Editorials Newspaper Articles January 2006

LIBRARY Institute of Governmental Studies University of California 109 Moses Hall #2370  Berkeley, CA 94720-2370  510-642-1472 (voice)  510-643-0866 (fax)

Introduction

Statewide special elections are unique events in California history and generate significant debate and analysis. Fourteen elections have been held since 1911, four in the last 35 years. While special elections can often be politically unpopular with the electorate they determine the fates of significant ballot proposals and new elected officials as well. Most of California's major modern special elections have seen poor voter participation with expensive propositions dominating the ballot. Nevertheless, the most recent special election, the October 2003 recall, featured a number of high-profile candidates along with two ballot propositions.

In January, 2005, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced his plans for reforms in several areas of California government. The areas he targeted included redistricting, pensions for state employees, education funding, teacher merit pay, spending limits and the accountability of Boards and Commissions. Schwarzenegger pushed several bills in the legislature that would enact his reforms and promised that he would take the issues to California voters through a special election if the legislature did not act by March. Schwarzenegger made headlines for supporting various propositions intended for a special election ballot. Then, in June 2005, he made good on his promise and officially declared the election. As California gears up for the 2nd special election in two years, polls indicate California residents are reluctant to participate.

Special Elections in California

Special elections are held to take care of special situations such as the recall of an elected official, a disaster has occurred requiring an immediate vote, a vacancy is to be filled or a special ballot measure must be decided before the next regular election. In many ways, the procedures for special elections are identical to those in regularly scheduled elections. In the case of proposition-based special elections, such as the one set for November 2005, individuals and organizations can create initiatives and put their measures on the ballot as long as they receive the necessary signatures and meet the qualifications and deadlines outlined by California law. The Legislature can also put measures on the ballot by a majority vote. California governors can call special elections in issues to determine a statewide issue by issuing a proclamation 148 days or more, prior to the election day (Election code 12000). The governor does not need legislative approval to call a special election. One the proclamation is declared, a series of deadlines arise for the special election, including filing dates, ballot preparation and summary, voter registration and legislature ballot submissions. All registered California voters can take part in special elections.

The following sections detail the rules, regulations and timeline for proposition-based California special elections.

Before the Election

Initiatives are submitted to the Attorney General's office which has up to 40 days to finalize ballot language, prepare a title and official summary. During this time, the Legislative Analyst's office determines the fiscal impacts of the measure and releases their report. After the ballot title and summary have been prepared, proponents have up to 150 days to circulate the initiative to gain signatures. The measure must qualify for the ballot no later than 131 days before the election (Election code 9013). In the past, lawmakers have been able to override this deadline and still place their initiatives on the ballot by negotiating with the Secretary of State. Initiative Statutes must have the signature of 5% of the total votes cast for governor in the last gubernatorial election to qualify for the election. The number of signatures for Initiative Statute for the 2005 special election is therefore 373,816. Constitutional Amendments require more signatures, at least 8% of the total votes cast for governor at the last gubernatorial election. This would mean 598,105 for each Constitutional Amendment on the 2005 special election. When the correct number of signatures is gathered, they are submitted to counties election officers who tally signatures and then release the results to the Secretary of State's Office. The Secretary decides if the measure meets all the qualifications.

The Secretary of State then issues a press release containing a summary of the measure, for and against arguments and an invitation to any voter or group of voters who makes a formal request. Eligible voters and groups of voters can file arguments for or against the measure if the arguments have not already been made. The press release must be released at least 120 days prior to the date of the election (Election code 9060-9063). The Legislature must adopt measures for the ballot no later than 131 days before the election (Election code 9040). California law mandates that the legislature can add measures to a special election ballot with a two-thirds vote of each house. In earlier special elections, the State Legislature added propositions and the legislature still may add their measures to the 2005 ballot. For measures that have no for or against statements, any voter may request the Secretary of State's permission to prepare and file an argument for either side at any time (Election code 9041). If more than one argument for or more than one argument against any measure is filed within the time prescribed by the Secretary of State, the Secretary shall select one of the arguments for official use on the ballot (Election code 9067). The Secretary of State gives preference for arguments by order: In the case of a measure submitted by the Legislature, members of the Legislature are given preference; In the case of an initiative or referendum measure, the proponent of the measure's petition is given preference; Private associations of California residents; and Individual voters.

The Legislative Analysts Office, the Attorney General's Office and Legislative Council must also submit official titles, summaries, texts and analyses of measures to the Secretary of State's office (Election code 9050, 9087, 9088, and 9091). The date for these submissions is set by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State must make a copy of the ballot pamphlet available for public examination, 20 days or less before the office submits the the pamphlet to be printed (Election code 9092). The Secretary of State must release a statewide list showing the number of voters, by party affiliations, in each county, city and supervisoral district in the state. The list must be released 30 days after the Secretary receives summary statements from each county (Election code 2187). The Secretary of State must begin mailing ballot pamphlets to voters 40 days before the election (Election code 9094). The Secretary of State must mail a specified number of ballots to city and county election officials, the state Legislature, public libraries, and proponents of each measure (Election code 9096). The Secretary must mail the ballots as soon as the pamphlets are available. Counties must mail election pamphlets to registered voters 40-21 days before the election (Election code 13303-13304). Voters can apply for an absentee ballot 29-7 days before the election (Election code 3001).

Finally, counties must send a copy of each election computer vote count program to the Secretary of State's office by 5pm, 7 days before the election (Election code 15001).

Election Day and Vote Certification

The day of the election, the polls open at 7am just as in a regularly scheduled election. Registered voters should vote at their assigned polling places. Registered voters who have moved from one address to another may vote with a provisional ballot at any polling place. The voter can be re-registered at new address for future elections (Election code 3020). The polls must be open from 7am to 8pm election day (Election code 14212). Absentee ballots must be received by 8pm election day (Election code 14212).

Each county must begin the official canvass of election returns no later than the Thursday following the election. The canvass must be open to public scrutiny and results must be reported to the Secretary of State. The canvass will continue daily (except weekends) for six or more hours a day until completed. The canvass must be completed and reports submitted to the Secretary of State at least 35 days after the election (Election code 15501). The Secretary of State must file a "Statement of Vote" at least 39 days after the election containing a full list of state initiatives and candidates with voter returns by county. The Secretary must then file a supplement to the statement of the vote within 120 days of the filing of the statement. The supplement provides additional information such as voter returns by Congressional, Senatorial and Assembly districts.

For accessing parts of the California Election Code, see California Law page of the Official California legislative information website. Select section number from list.

See Voter Bill of Rights from the California Secretary of State regarding offical rights for registered voters.

Election Costs

Section 13001 of the state's Elections Code says all expenses for elections are to be paid from county funds. As special elections can be expensive, there is often resentment from local governments over their costs. In the past, special deals have been proposed to help the counties pay the costs. Governor Pete Wilson's 1993 special election included a payback to the counties. Under that plan, the legislature authorized the reimbursement to counties once the counties had assessed their election costs. The total cost of the election was around $30 million. More recently, the state declined to reimburse counties the $43 million election costs after the 2003 recall that put Schwarzenegger in office.

Gov. Schwarzenegger has already said that the state will bear the cost of the 2005 special election. Schwarzenegger's proclamation for the election calls for the Legislature to approve reimbursing the counties, either by passing a piece of legislation or from the 2006-07 state budget. The Secretary of State Bruce McPherson has estimated the election will cost between $44.6 million and $80 million. Some counties were already set to hold elections in November and adding the statewide propositions to the ballot will not bring an additional cost.

Registration and Voting Trends

Special elections have traditionally seen poor turnout as compared with regularly scheduled elections. In general, registration numbers for California lie between 70 -75% of eligible citizens for regularly scheduled elections with roughly 60% turning out to vote on one or more proposition or candidate. With special elections, the numbers tend to drop. The first modern special election, 1973, had 9,090,617 registered voters with 4,329,179 or 48% casting ballots. Numbers went down further for The 1979 election which featured 10,007,048 registered voters with only 38% turning out. The 1993 special election had a 36% turnout with 14,524,623 registered voters. 15,380,536 were registered for the 2003 recall out of an eligible 22 million citizens. However, turnout was higher in this election, with registered voters turning out with a high of 61%.

In comparison, regular state elections see higher numbers on average. The 2004 general election featured 12,589,683 voters out of 16,557,273 registered voters resulting in a 76% turnout. The 1998 general election had 8,621,121 voters turning out, 57.59% of those registered. The 1992 general election exhibited a 11,374,565 voter turnout, 75.32% of those registered. Going back, 1978 featured 7,132,210 total votes cast, 70.41% of registered voters. Finally, 1972 featured 82.13% of those registered voting, with 8,595,950 total votes.

The February Report of Registration currently shows 22,495,914 registered voters in California. Up to date registration numbers will be published in October, shortly before the Nov. 8 election date. Recent polls show a negative feeling about the special election amongst the electorate leading some scholars to believe that the November special election will also see low turn-out.

California law states that the last day to register to vote in the special election is fifteen days before the election.

There were 11 special elections in California during the period 1915 to 1970. You can read the ballot pamphlets from those elections with candidate and proposition information at the UC Hastings College of Law Library website.

Modern Special Elections

Voter Registration and Participation

1973

One of California's most memorable statewide special elections occurred in 1973, during the governorship of Ronald Reagan. Reagan called the election to decide Proposition 1A, a tax limitation measure he was sponsoring. Prop. 1A would have included changing the constitution to eliminate income tax for lower income residents and reduce middle and upper income income tax by up to 20% from any surplus. It would have also reduced state tax revenues over a period of years and would have limited property tax rates. The proponents of 1A spent more than a million dollars on the campaign. The proposition and the special election failed on Nov. 6, 1973 by a measure of 54-46 %. Only 32.4 % of eligible voters took part. Polls found that voters were confused and suspicious of the measure, believing that it might actually raise their taxes. The proposition's failure is considered by many analysts as one of the most disastrous in Ronald Reagan's career. However, many scholars believe that Prop. 1A paved the way for Proposition 13, the landmark anti-tax proposition passed in 1978.

Read 1973 Special Election Ballot here.

1979

The next statewide special election occurred on Nov. 6, 1979. Governor Jerry Brown called the election to push Proposition 1, a school busing initiative that was also supported by the legislature. There were three other propositions on the ballot.

Proposition 1 was a constitutional amendment which would limit the power of California courts to require desegregation only in cases where the U.S. Constitution already required it. The Proposition gathered attention as it would halt mandatory busing programs instituted to target segregation. Proponents believed that the proposition would end compulsory busing which they claimed hindered voluntary school integration and eliminated parental choice. Opponents claimed that the Proposition would not stop school busing but would create problems for school districts which would need to decide the issue at a district level once the law was passed. They also claimed the the proposition would ultimately lead to prejudice and racial conflict. The proposition passed, 69% to 31%.

Proposition 2 was a constitutional amendment to the limit of 10% on loan interest rates. It would apply a 10% limit to loans primarily for personal, family or household purposes and would also authorize interest rate limits to be higher of 10% or 5% plus rate of interest charged by San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank to member banks. Proponents of the law claimed that the proposition would eliminate a barrier to citizens accessing loans. Opponents maintained that the proposition would weaken California's usury laws and would take money away from the consumer loan market. Prop. 2 passed, 65% to 35%.

Proposition 3 was a constitutional amendment that would cause legislation enacted in 1978 to go into effect. It would change the assessment ratio on property value from 25 % of full value to 100 % of full value. It would also adjust the amount of the exemption given to veterans to reflect changes made by the legislature in the assessment ratio. The proposition would require some state and local agencies to make adjustments in assessed value computations. Prop. 3 was not officially opposed and was popular within the legislature where it was introduced. It passed easily, 75% to 25%.

Proposition 4 or the "Gann initiative" was a high-profile measure. It would place an appropriations limit on most spending from tax proceeds. The limit for each year would be equal to the prior year's spending with upward adjustments allowed for changes in population and the cost of living. Most state and local government appropriations would be subject to the limit. However, the law exempts certain appropriations from the limit including capital outlay, debt service and local government subventions. When the limit is exceeded, Proposition 4 requires the surplus to be returned to the taxpayers within two years. Appropriations in the two year period can be averaged before becoming subject to the excess revenue provisions of the Gann limit. Proposition 4 also proved to be very popular, passing 74% to 25%.

Prop. 4 is credited as the beginning of spending limits in California. The late 1970s were a time of surplus state revenues in California, and voter exasperation at the inability of the legislature and the governor to agree on a plan to return the surplus to the taxpayers in the form of refunds or property tax relief helped fuel the tax revolt that led first to Proposition 13 and then to Proposition 4. With the Gann limit, the issue of spending limits became central in California politics.

All 4 propositions passed on on Nov. 6, 1979 leading some to say the special election was a success. However, out of 15 million eligible voters only 24% voted, keeping to a trend of low turnout for California Special Elections.

Read 1979 Special Election Ballot here.

1993

Pete Wilson called a special election in 1993 as part of his plan to balance the state's budget. He was pushing Proposition 172, a constitutional amendment which would increase the sales tax by half a cent. It was part of Wilson backed legislation that had passed in the legislature. The additional revenues from the one-half % would be allocated specifically for local public safety programs such as police departments, fire protection, district attorneys and county jail operations. The revenues were to be used to offset local revenue losses from the 1992-93 budget, where $2.3 billion in property tax revenues were transferred from cities and counties to schools. The Proposition would deliver an estimated $1.5 billion to cities and counties annually. Opponents charged that the proposition would cost an average family $175 more a year and that it would go over the constitutional spending limit already in place. Opponents also said that funds from the proposition could be used for programs outside public safety. Supporters argued that police and fire department budgets would be substantially damaged from revenue losses from the previous budget. Proponents spent more than $2 million on behalf of the measure. Despite polls that indicated public confusion over the initiative, the proposition passed: 58% to 42%.

Other propositions on the ballot:

Proposition 168 was designed to make it easier for local government to build subsidized housing for the poor without receiving voter approval. The California Constitution prohibits cities or counties from creating low-rent housing unless voters approve of the projects. The measure would require local governments to simply notify the public that low-income housing projects are planned. An election would be required only if a certain number of voters signed petitions demanding it. Proponents of the proposition claimed that it would help create housing for senior citizens, veterans and other residents in need. Opponents said it took the decision making ability away from local citizens. California voters rejected the proposition: 60% to 40%.

Proposition 169 would allow amend the Constitution to allow lawmakers to approve a single implement bill accompany each year's budget. Existing law held that lawmakers must vote separately on tax increases, program cuts and other changes in law needed to implement the budget. The proposition would also allow the Governor to veto individual pieces of the implementation bill without vetoing the entire bill. Proponents of the bill claimed that it was more time effective to place all information under one bill. Opponents claimed that the proposition would allow politicians to raise taxes more easily. The proposition failed with voters voting 61% against it, 38% for it.

Like Prop. 172, Proposition 170 was a tax related measure which would amend the state Constitution to allow school districts to sell bonds for classroom construction with the approval of a majority of voters. The Constitution mandated that a two-thirds majority was necessary to approve school bonds. School bonds often led to higher property taxes. Proponents argued that easier passage of school bonds would create more jobs and stimulate the economy as well as reducing class size and overcrowding in schools. Opponents argued that the proposition would lead to higher taxes on property owners that could be voted in by renters who would not have to pay the increases. The measure proved unpopular and voters rejected it 69% to 31%.

Proposition 171 would alter the Constitution to authorize the Legislature to allow disaster victims to move across county lines and still pay lower taxes. The Constitution held that disaster victims were entitled to lower taxes on property re-built or bought anew in the same county of property damaged in the disaster. The measure was pushed as a way to provide additional property tax relief for victims of the Oakland-Berkeley fire of 1991 and destructive earthquakes and storms of the early 1990's. Opponents claimed that the proposition was unfair as it would lead to higher taxes and rents from increases in property being bought and sold. The proposition proved closer than other initiatives that year with voters passing it 54% to 46%.

Proposition 173 would replace the First-Time Home Buyers Act of 1982, which authorized the sale of $200 million in general obligation bonds with the proceeds used to lower the mortgage loan interest rate charged to first-time home buyers. Prop. 173 would instead allow the state to sell $185 million in bonds for a program to allow mortgage insurance for 5,000 to 10,000 first-time home buyers every year. The insurance would allow them mortgages with low down payments. Supporters argued that the proposition would stimulate the economy and create new jobs as well as allow thousands of Californians to become homeowners. Opponents said that the proposition would not create new jobs and would raise taxes and spending. Prop. 173 lost with 57% voting against it and 42% voting for it.

Finally, Proposition 174 was a school voucher initiative that proved to be the most controversial of the propositions and also the most expensive. Opponents spent $18 million to defeat it and the measure was hotly contested in the months and weeks before the election. The proposition would provide all school-age children in the state with a scholarship or voucher to be used at any participating public or private school. The amount of the would equal half of the amount spent by the state on each child. The scholarship would be used for the payment of tuition and other education fees at schools with 25 pupils or more that choose to join the program. Both private and public schools could become independent and require payments from parents beyond the voucher amounts provided. Prop. 174 would also impose new restrictions on the state and local governments to create new regulations affecting private schools. And the proposition would allow parents to choose which schools within the district their children would attend.

Proponents claimed that Prop. 174 would allow parents to move their children to escape poor quality and crime-ridden schools. Those opposing Prop. 174 said that it would take $1.3 billion from public schools to pay for independent voucher schools. They also argued that the proposition would result in discrimination as voucher schools can maintain requirements for accepting students. The proposition lost 69% to 31%.

The election took place Nov. 2, 1993 and turnout proved to be low with only 36% of registered voters taking part. Only 28% of eligible voters participated. Voters defeated five of seven measures, including the high-profile Prop. 170 and 174. Wilson's chief measure, Prop. 172 was successful however.

Read a copy of the 1993 Special Election Ballot here.

2003

Arguably the most controversial California special election was held on Oct. 7, 2003. Voters recalled Gov. Gray Davis and replaced him with actor Arnold Schwarzenegger. In addition, voters rejected two measures that were placed on the ballot. The recall of Davis was significant in California history. While all governors in the last 30 years have faced some level of recall attempt, Davis was the first statewide official to face a recall election. Gray Davis was elected governor in Nov. 1998 and assumed office in 1999. The reasons for the recall are varied. Some scholars believe that Davis's centrist stance on issues like Indian casinos alienated him from other Democrats in Sacramento. The energy crisis of 2001 and the budget deficit were also important factors, with the public blaming Davis for both problems. Public opinion towards the governor deteriorated over 2002-2003 despite his winning of the 2002 election. By summer, 2003, public opinion polls showed that Davis was widely seen as incompetent and a recall was favored.

The 2003 recall movement against Governor Gray Davis was spearheaded in early 2003 by the People's Advocate, an anti-tax group headed by Ted Costa and by a group of Republican Party activists. Three California political parties endorsed the recall effort: the Republican Party, the Libertarian Party, and the American Independent Party. The campaign was slow to start but after Congressman Darrell Issa (R-San Diego County) launched his own recall effort in early May, the process accelerated. A group formed in late May 2003, Taxpayers against the Recall, took the lead in opposing the recall effort. The group was mainly a coalition of labor leaders and was headed by Steve Smith, a California Democratic Party activist and Davis advisor. The group circulated petitions opposing the recall. The petitions were advisory only. The legal requirement for a successful gubernatorial recall was 897,156 signatures, but about 1.2 million were needed to ensure that there were enough valid ones.

On July 14, 2003 recall supporters claimed that they had gathered at least 1.6 million signatures, and declared an end to the signature gathering phase. On July 23 Secretary of State Kevin Shelley announced that there were 1,356,408 valid signatures and certified that the petition requirement had been met. After a lengthy signature gathering process, the recall was declared by Lenient Governor Cruz Bustamante on July 24, 2003. The process of candidate filing requirements for the recall was relatively easy with potential candidates requiring 65 nomination signatures and a $3,500 filing fee, or 10,000 signatures in lieu of the fee.  As the August 9 filing deadline approached, there were press reports that there might be 200 or more candidates. Secretary of State certified the candidate list on August 13, and the final ballot had 135 certified candidates. The most popular candidates included actor Arnold Schwarzenegger (Republican), Cruz Bustamante (Democrat), Tom McClintock (Republican) and Arriana Huffington (Independent).

With 135 replacement candidates, voters needed to search a very long ballot to find the candidate of their choice. The voting systems in the various counties functioned without major problems, despite a heavy turnout. With Arnold Schwarzenegger receiving more that 48% of the vote, concerns that a replacement governor might be elected by a small plurality proved to be unfounded.

The two propositions on the ballot received minor press compared with the extensive media coverage over the recall and replacement candidates. However, Proposition 54's affirmative action theme became controversial with both sides of that debate making themselves heard. Proposition 53 was a complicated finance measure which largely failed to connect with voters.

Proposition 53 was a infrastructure finance initiative which would amend the Constitution by increasing the amount of general fund revenue used for capital outlay projects for state and local governments. It would establish an infrastructure fund for revenues to be directed. The Proposition would transfer 1 % of general fund revenue beginning with the 2006-07 fiscal year and would gradually increase revenues from the state's general fund to the infrastructure fund. The transfer amounts would be less in years where school funding from the prop. 98 guarantee grew more than the general fund. Supporters claimed that the proposition would guarantee much needed improvements to the state's roads, water systems, public hospitals and public parks. Opposition groups maintained that the proposition represented a blank check for the legislature to spend public money without oversight. The proposition lost 64% to 36%.

Proposition 54 was a controversial measure that dealt with the issue of racial classification by state and local governments. The proposition would prohibit agencies such as schools or public employers from using racial categorization when trying to classify potential employees, students, or contractors. The proposition would not eliminate racial classification from medical records or law enforcement files. Prop. 54 was bitterly contested from it's introduction to election day. Opposition groups felt that racial information was essential for identifying different issues that affect racial groups, such as disease and disproportionate school funding. They maintained that the proposition was a attempt at eliminating affirmative action that could have very damaging consequences. Proponents for Prop. 54, including its author U.C. regent Ward Connelly claimed that the proposition was a move towards creating a color blind society. The proposition proved unpopular with voters who rejected it 64% to 31%.

The election proved to be more popular than most California special elections. 43% of eligible voters turned out, 61% of those registered.


Read a copy of the 2003 Special Election Ballot here.

For more on legal challenges, certification and impact of the 2003 Recall, see IGS Hot Topic: Recall in California

---

Background Reading

 

Special Elections in California. Public Policy Institute of California : San Francisco, Oct. 2005. (Just the Facts). [2] p.

Gerston, Larry N.; Christensen, Terry.
Recall! California's Political Earthquake. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 2004. 187 p.

Lubenow, Gerald C., ed.
California Votes: The 2002 Governor's Race & the Recall That Made History. Berkeley, Calif.: Berkeley Public Policy Press, Institute of Governmental Studies, University of California, 2003.

 

California's Recall Election. Public Policy Institute of California : San Francisco, Oct. 2003. (Just the Facts). [2] p.

Rapoport, Roger ; editors, Stephanie Harolde, Ralph Warner.
California dreaming : the political odyssey of Pat & Jerry Brown. Nolo Press : Berkeley, CA, 1982.

Pack, Robert.
Jerry Brown. Washington, D.C. : Political Profiles, Inc., 1979.

Cannon, Lou.
Governor Reagan : his rise to power. New York : Public Affairs, 2003.

Special Election 2005

The 2005 special election came about as a result of Governor Schwarzenegger's reform platform of early 2005. In his January state of the state speech, the governor outlined several areas that he said needed urgent reform. Chief among these were new spending limits for the state, drastic changes to the state's employee pensions, changes to education funding and teacher merit, redistricting reform and changes to boards and commissions. In his speech, Schwarzenegger called a special session of the legislature to carry out his reforms. Schwarzenegger warned that if the legislature did not make significant action on these reforms by March 1st, he would take the issues to voters.

Spring 2005

After the Governor's January directive, opposition groups immediately formed criticizing both the Governor's reform ideals and the possibility of a special election. The Democrat-controlled California legislature publicly resisted the Schwarzenegger proposals, claiming the Governor's proposals would hurt the poor and middle class. Schwarzenegger accused the Democrats of stalling and continually threatened to move to a special election. The March 1st deadline came and went without legislative action and Schwarzenegger launched a petition drive to put his initiatives on the special election ballot before the June 30 deadline. He campaigned across the California and out of state on his agenda, claiming that he would let Californians vote on his reforms. Political groups like Citizens to Save California were formed and raised more than $26 million to support his initiatives.

The governor also met with resistance from a variety of California organizations and individuals. California employee and teacher unions were especially vocal. They protested his pension restructuring and education spending plans as well as his efforts to change how teachers are given pay raises and tenure. Fire-fighters, police and nurses unions and groups rallied against the Governor's pension reform, claiming that it would hurt the retirement savings of essential state health and safety workers. A large group of unions, public welfare groups and Democratic lawmakers formed the Alliance For a Better California to mount opposition to Schwarzenegger's measures. The alliance raised millions to launch a television and print ads campaign attacking what they called Schwarzenegger's attack on working people. Large-scale public protests at Schwarzenegger speaking events as well as continuous television ads gave Schwarzenegger opposition a very public presence.

Schwarzenegger opposition groups also brought legal challenges to the governor's ballot efforts. TheRestofUs.org, a public interest group filed a complaint with the Fair Political Practices Commission over Schwarzenegger's involvement with Citizens to Save California. They charged that a loophole in the state law allowed Schwarzenegger to unfairly finance his propositions through the Citizens to Save California and other groups. While the law puts a contribution limit of $22,300 for gubernatorial candidates, it does not limit donations to propositions. Therestofus.org and other government watchdog groups proposed a new regulation that would bar unlimited proposition contributions. In a win for Schwarzenegger, Superior court judge Shelleyanne Chang tentatively ruled on March 24, 2005, that regulating contributions would infringe on free speech rights. She later made her ruling final.

As the June 15 deadline approached for Gov. Schwarzenegger to call for a special election, others also used the opportunity to put forth their initiatives. Several received the necessary signatures for inclusion on the ballot. The hotbed issue of pharmaceutical drugs led to two proposals, both offering discounts to middle and lower income Californians. Anti-abortion groups fronted a proposition which would change notification rules for teenagers planning abortions. And electricity re-regulation was pushed in the form of an initiative which restore authority to the California Public Utilities Commission. During the Spring of 2005, more than 80 initiatives were being pushed for the ballot.

Summer 2005

Despite extensive counter-ad's and campaigning, Schwarzenegger's poll numbers plummeted in the Spring and the Governor changed course, eventually endorsing the Put the Kids First Act for teacher tenure reform and California Live Within Our Means Act for California spending reform. He backed away from many of his high profile proposals, including employee pension reform, changes to boards and commissions, and teacher merit pay raises. The governor said he was not abandoning his reforms, only choosing to focus on the issues at another time. Schwarzenegger made his official election proclamation on June 13, 2005 despite polls that indicated Californians do not favor a special election. A Field Poll from June 21, 2005 showed 52% to 37% opposing the special election with 53% to 37% disapproving of the job Schwarzenegger is doing. Subsequent polls confirm the public dissatisfaction with the governor and the special election.

Despite Schwarzenegger's poor ratings, three of his proposals will be on the November ballot. The teacher tenure, spending limits and redistricting propositions all have ties to the governor's original reform proposals. Schwarzenegger has been campaigning on all the three propositions, more heavily over late July and early August. He has also been deep in negotiation with the California legislature. Schwarzenegger has said that he is eager to reach a compromise with the Democratic legislative leaders. The legislature has also declared their wish for reform by compromise. The legislature had until August 18 to add any alternative propositions to the ballot.

Meanwhile, a series of ethics controversies for the governor emerged during the summer, further complicating perceptions of the governor and the special election. In July, Schwarzenegger was targeted for a multi-million deal with bodybuilding magazines which subsidized his salary as governor. Schwarzengger cancelled the deal in mid-July but some government pundits say that his already weakened image has been tarnished. Questions also arose over Schwarzenegger's aides receiving money as campaign consultants. Finally, the governor's investments and real estate holdings are under review. Critics say many of Schwarzenegger's investments and sources of income pose significant conflicts of interest. Given these blows, some analysts conclude that Schwarzenegger's political future is tied up with the success of the special election.

Fall 2005

September

As the California legislative session came to an end on Sept. 9, the issues and debates surrounding the special election continued to garner attention. Gov. Schwarzenegger attacked the legislature for not bringing high profile bills to his desk and for not addressing the reform goals he outlined in January. He denied that he would cancel the special election and continued to campaign on Propositions 74, 76 and 77. He also contributed several million dollars of his own money to support his propositions. Despite this, the governor continued to experience low poll numbers with many of those surveyed saying that the special election should be cancelled. Schwarzenegger targeted unions in his speaking engagements and continued to decry the influence of special interests in Sacramento. On Sept. 16, the governor announced that he would run for governor again in 2006. Some believe Schwarzenegger's move is meant, in part, to spur donations for his special election initiatives.

Meanwhile, for and against campaigns for the November propositions continued at full-speed.

• Both Prop. 73 (Parental Notification) supporters and opposition groups challenged official ballot wording (see Challenges section below) in an effort to change the other side's arguments. A judge forced both parties to correct assertions made in the voter guide. The proposition drew more attention from either side of the abortion debate. Gov. Schwarzenegger formally endorsed the proposition on Sept. 23.
  
  
• Education groups continued in their vocal attack on Prop. 74 (Teacher Tenure) as part of what they call the governor's "attack on education". The television ad campaign against the governor continued and a September Field Poll found the yes vote dropping for the initiative.
  
  
• A coalition of public employee labor unions spent more than $40 million over the summer and fall to defeat Prop. 75 (Union Dues). Gov. Schwarzenegger endorsed Proposition 75 on Sept. 17. Schwarzenegger's speaking engagements focused more closely on union leaders as the source of misplaced power in Sacramento.
  
  
• Schwarzenegger also complained about opposition to Prop. 76 (Spending Limits) saying that tax increases were likely if the proposition failed. Teacher groups and union activists launched a door to door campaign against the initiative, along with Prop. 74 and 75, reiterating their claim that it will harm education spending.
  
  
• Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez accused the Schwarzenegger administration of trying to pressure judges into supporting Prop. 77 (Redistricting). Both Republican and Democratic Legislators refused to support the initiative and endorsed opposition campaigns. The California Supreme court reinstated Prop. 77 after a legal battle to keep the initiative off the ballot.
  
  
• Proposition 78 (Prescription Drugs) was one of the most public propositions of the fall with massive television advertising in support of the industry backed prescription drug plan. Rival plan Prop. 79 did not reach the exposure level of Prop. 78. A Field Poll released in early September found voters confused by the plans and dim support for each. However, the poll found Prop. 78 the more popular of the two. Gov. Schwarzenegger formally endorsed Prop. 78 on Sept. 23.
  
  
• Prop. 80 (Energy Re-Regulation) was pulled from the ballot in the summer (see Challenges section below) when opposition groups challenged the delegation of power to public signatures rather than to the Legislature. The state Supreme court put the proposition back on the ballot, saying it was unfair for voters to not have a chance to decide the issue. Polls found voters almost evenly split on the initiative.

October

Through October, Governor Schwarzengger continued to experience challenges to both his public image and his special election campaign. On Oct. 20, the liberal Alliance for a Better California announced that it had filed a complaint with the U.S. Postal Service alleging Schwarzenegger's administration had mailed fliers under "non-profit organization'' status to thousands of California voters. The fliers were mailed at a 40 percent discount, which could bring significant savings to the Schwarzenegger camp. Schwarzenegger's team denies the allegations. On Oct. 21, the Governor's office asked TV stations Friday to remove ads that feature Schwarzenegger appealing to California voters to help him fix the system in Sacramento. Pundits immediately concluded that Schwarzenegger's administration recognizes the weakness in the governor's image with the public. Schwarzenegger's aids contend that the ads were pulled so that more directly education ads could be run instead.

Despite opposition to his special election efforts, Schwarzenegger did gain some support for his propositions. In the month following his Sept. 16 declaration to run for governor in 2006, Schwarzenegger raised $10 million. Schwarzenegger also donated $4.25 million of his own money to the cause. The Schwarzenegger team continued to campaign against opposition groups throughout October. On Oct. 24, Schwarzenegger appeared on a live forum broadcast on KTVU Channel 2. He fielded questions from unscreened audience members who challenged the governor on his support for propositions 74-77. Political analysts were divided on Schwarzenegger's performance. Some believe he was able to portray the confidence and charisma that got him elected which may bring some to his side on the propositions. Others claimed that he too clearly controlled the format of the event and answered questions with political rhetoric alone. On Oct. 25, Schwarzenegger appeared on a Spanish language television station and answered questions from 60 people. Both the questions and answers leaned towards issues other than the November propositions.

The Governor's administration attacked the Field Poll and the Pubic Policy Institute of California which have both released several polls showing low approval ratings for the governor. Schwarzenegger's administration claim that the pollsters methodology is flawed, with skewed questions and too small of a polling base. Both institutes stand by their poll methods and deny any partisan leanings. Schwarzenegger's team continued their attack on union leaders and others they deem "special interests" in California. Senator Tom McClintock joined Schwarzenegger to promote the special election and the governor's propositions. A McLaughlin & Associates poll released in October showed support for Prop. 74, Prop. 75, Prop. 76, and Prop. 77. The Public Policy Institute released a poll on October 28 which showed Prop. 74 and Prop. 75 very close to dead even. Proposition 76 and 77 continued to fair badly.

Many political scholars believe that the special election will be tied directly with Governor Schwarzenegger's future as a politician, with results that will define his governorship and next year's election. While Proposition 75 continues to lead, the governor's other propositions are largely not favored in public opinion polls. If the propositions that the Governor supports lose on Nov. 8, some pundits believe that his image will be damaged beyond repair. If his propositions win, then he may be able to re-capture credibility. While California voters feel cynical about the special election, Governor Schwarzenegger and California government in general, whether or not low-turn out trends will persist is not yet apparent.

Arguments

Governor Schwarzenegger and other proponents of the special election argue that the Democratic legislature has been so ineffective in dealing with the problems in California that a special election is necessary. They believe that Democratic legislators have grown immune to the consequences of bad decisions and are incompetent when dealing with the important issues. They claim that Schwarzenegger must act through the initiative process to enact any sort of reform. Regarding the individual propositions that they support: They believe that state spending since the Davis administration is a chief reason for California's economic troubles and that the spending limits initiative (Prop. 76) will bring much needed reform. They believe that poor teachers are the cause for California's low education scores and the teacher tenure proposition (Prop. 74) will help weed out bad teachers. Finally, they believe that the new redistricting initiative (Prop. 77) would re-draw districts more fairly and would create a more non-partisan process.

Opponents of the special election claim that reasons for a lack of reform are Gov. Schwarzenegger's inability to deal with the legislature in constructive ways. They believe a special election will cost the state millions it can't afford and that Californians do not want another day at the ballot box. They also claim that the election is an excuse by Schwarzenegger to attack unions which threaten the business community, his political allies. On the propositions themselves, they say that the spending limits initiative will ultimately be ineffective and is too extreme. They believe that the teacher tenure proposition will alienate prospective teachers and hurt an already damaged education system. And they claim that the redistricting proposal will only work against the will of the voters as it falsely promises to de-politicize the process.

Election Impact

Political commentators have been divided on the impact of the election. Some say that low poll numbers indicate the special election is a bad idea and will cost Schwarzenegger politically. Critics say the state cannot afford a special election in a year of budget deficits. Others claim that Schwarzenegger is skilled enough a politician that he will prevail by re-connecting with the public and enacting his agenda outside of the Legislature. Some believed that Schwarzenegger's negotiations with the Legislature would lead to compromises on several of the governor's targeted reforms. However, the governor and legislative leaders did not make the mid-August deadline set by the Secretary of State and Schwarzenegger and the Legislature will no longer have any power to introduce alternative propositions.

Initially, propositions on the ballot such as union dues, teacher tenure and both prescription drugs propositions enjoyed high approval ratings in public opinion polls. Currently, the state spending, redistricting, teacher tenure and both prescription drug propositions are opposed by a majority in polls. The parental notification initiative is evenly divided. The union dues proposition is supported by a majority in polls.

Challenges to Initiatives

Prop. 73

A ballot argument erupted over Proposition 73 (Parental Notification of Abortion) regarding wording in the voter guide written by both supporters and opponents of the initiative. A Sacramento judge gave victories to both sides Aug. 11 by refusing to strike a statement by supporters which declared that parental notification laws in other states had reduced teen pregnancy and abortion rates "without danger and harm to minors.'' However, the judge also refused to strike a statement by opponents which declared that "millions of concerned parents" opposed the initiative. He also ordered opponents to replace wording that said that girls who sought a waiver from a judge would be put "on trial."

Prop. 74

In early October, the California Teachers Association released several advertisements attacking Proposition 74 (Teacher Tenure). The ads claim that the initiative, if passed, would allow teachers to be fired "without giving a reason or even a hearing,". The Schwarzenegger administration counters that teachers would have to be given two unsatisfactory job evaluations for dismissal. They have asked California television stations to stop running the ads. The teachers association claims that the proposition's wording would allow a teacher to be dismissed without a hearing, although teachers could seek a hearing after dismissal. No television stations have commented on the ads or taken them off the air so far.

Prop. 76

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's office threatened to sue Attorney General Bill Lockyer over the title and summary that Lockyer prepared for Proposition 76 (Spending Limits) in late July 2005. Schwarzenegger and his aides felt that Lockyer had emphasized Prop. 76's impact on education funding over it's impact on state spending as a whole. The Gov.'s office accused Lockyer, a Democrat, of being unfair by selecting partisan ballot language for the proposition. The Atty. General's Office denied the accusation but agreed to rewrite the title and summary for election day.

Prop. 77

On July 21 Superior Court Judge Gail Ohanesian ruled that the qualifying signatures for Proposition 77 were gathered illegally and ordered it removed from the ballot. Backers of the proposition improperly submitted one version of the measure to the state Attorney General for preparation of the official title and summary, and used a different version to collect signatures. Proponents of the proposition argued that the differences are immaterial, but Judge Ohanesian ruled that they "go to the substantive terms of the measure."

On July 25 the Third District Court of Appeal temporarily suspended the measure's removal from the ballot, allowing it to be included in the public review period for initiatives. The request to allow public review was part of an appeal by Costa to reverse the Superior Court's disqualification of the measure.

The Court of Appeal ruled on August 9 that the discrepancies between the two versions of the initiative constituted "a clear violation of the constitutional and statutory procedure for the circulating of an initiative petition." The following day the backers of the measure submitted an appeal to the California Supreme Court.

On August 12 the California Supreme Court ruled that "it would not be appropriate to deny the electorate the opportunity to vote" on the measure, thereby placing Proposition 77 back on the ballot.

Prop. 80

Proposition 80 (Energy re-regulation) was removed from the ballot on July 22, 2005 by the Court of Appeals in Sacramento in its ruling on a lawsuit by the energy industry. The court agreed with industry arguments that the state constitution only allows the legislature to increase the authority of the PUC. Therefore a constitutional amendment, requiring additional qualifying signatures, would be necessary rather than the initiative statute that was circulated. Proponents of the proposition immediately appealed the ruling.

On July 27, 2005, the California Supreme Court restored the energy initiative to the ballot, saying the public should be able to vote on the measure before the energy industry's legal challenge is heard. The court said that it was not clear whether or not the ballot measure and the constitutional provision were in conflict. They declared that delaying the initiative now would disrupt the electoral process and the right of the people to decide the matter.

Election Costs and Cancellation

Initiatives

Expensive campaigns have been waged for against the initiatives on the Nov. 8 election ballot. Gov. Schwarzenegger's team initially set a $50 million goal for campaigns on his reform initiatives, Proposition 74, Proposition 76. and Proposition 77. As of Sept. 27, 2005 the Governor took in $25 million through political groups which support his proposals. Some pundits believe that Schwarzenegger has spent all of the money he's raised so far and will need to raise another $30 million if his propositions will have a chance. The governor raised $7 million in new money by the end of the summer. However, opposition groups, many of them backed by powerful unions, have raised more than $10 million for advertisements targeting Schwarzenegger and his reforms. Union groups have spent $45.5 million against the governor's initiatives. The most expensive campaigns so far have been between groups supporting the two prescription drug plans, Propositions 78 and 79. Proposition 78 is backed by the pharmaceutical industry which has raised a record-setting $80 million for the initiative. Groups supporting Prop. 79 have raised more than $10 million. Proportion 75 (Union Dues) has been supported largely by Republican lawmakers and business groups which has raised close to a million dollars for the proposal. Proposition 74 (Teacher Tenure) has raised almost $12 million. The remaining propositions saw varying degrees of campaign support with Prop. 73 (Parental Notification of Abortion) raising $1.1 million, Prop. 76 (Spending Limit) raising $11 million, Prop. 77 (Redistricting) raising $3 million and Prop. 80 (energy Re-Regulation) raising $10 million.

To track up to the date campaign contributions to political action committees representing propositions, see:
Cal-Access Database: Campaign Finance Activity for Propositions and Initiatives.
Select the Nov. 8 election from the drop-down Box.

Financing the Election

While the proposition's proponents and opponents gear up to campaign for or against the ballot initiatives, the question remains: who will pay for the special election? While Schwarzenegger has said that he expects the state to pick up the bill, some county governments have remained distrustful citing the fact that the state failed to pay for the 2003 recall. During the June election proclamation, the governor promised that the costs of the election will be included in the 2006-07 budget. However, some scholars note that the legislature, many of whom do not support the election, will have final say over money appropriated for election finance. The Secretary of State's Office has contacted all 58 counties in California with a promissory note that all costs incurred to cover the cost of the special statewide election shall be included in the state budget for the 2006-2007 fiscal year.

Cancellation and Compromise

As the election date grows closer, a number of Democrats and Republicans have concluded that the special election is a bad idea. While the issue of cost is debated, some have also suggested the possibility of cancellation. In the wake of legal challenges to Propositions 77 and 80 as well as mounting costs, many have publicly called for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to cancel the special election. As the Legislature reached a $117.5 billion budget agreement with the governor, some believe that Schwarzenegger should call off the election and focus on bipartisan reforms rather than moving forward with the initiatives he supports. Canceling the election would move the November initiatives back to the June 2006 primary. Supporters of cancellation claim that the governor could legally issue a proclamation to keep the election from taking place. Another cancellation option being suggested is emergency legislation which could revoke the special election by a two-thirds vote in the Senate and Assembly. However, some analysts believe Republican legislators would be resistant to canceling the election and would not provide the votes to make it happen. Schwarzenegger's administration have claimed that they cannot legally revoke the election. On July 25 2005, the governor declared that he will not cancel the election as important reform issues are at stake. However, observers note that the Governor's staff are discussing the possibility of cancellation.

On August 1st, the Legislative Counsel issued an analysis where they concluded that the Governor can legally cancel the election by issuing a proclamation anytime before the polls open on Nov. 8. The analysis states that the governor may cancel the election as long as no ''vested rights'' are violated. Their opinion went on to say that until the election begins there are no vested rights established. On Aug. 8, 2005, the Secretary of State issued a statement saying that his office has no opinion on the issue and that California law does not address cancellation. Meanwhile, Assemblyman Johan Klehs (D-San Leandro), introduced ACR 81, legislation which urges the governor to cancel the special election. ACR 81 stalled in the Senate in early September when the bill met with heavy resistance from Republican legislators.The Schwarzenegger administration has also said that the governor still wants the special election and would veto the bill if was passed in the legislature.

On Aug. 18, negotiations between the governor and the legislature collapsed after passing the deadline set by the Secretary of State. Legislative leaders and the governor had until midnight Aug. 18 to strike a deal on alternative proposals to Prop. 74, Prop. 76 and Prop. 77. Both the governor and legislators claim that, given more time, there was a good possibility of compromise on the three propositions. Prop. 74 enjoys a lead in recent polls of likely voters. Prop. 76 and Prop. 77 are both highly unpopular. Unless the election is cancelled in advance, all 8 propositions will be on the Nov. 8 ballot.

Official Voter Information

The following propositions will appear on the Nov. 8 ballot:

Prop. 73: Parental Notification
Would require doctors to notify a minor's parent or legal guardian 48 hours before performing an abortion. See IGS Hot Topic: Parental Notification of Abortion.

Prop. 74: Teacher Tenure
Would raise the amount of time new teachers must wait before they are covered by job protection rules from two years to five years. See IGS Hot Topics: Teacher Tenure.

Prop. 75: Union Dues for Political Purposes
Would require California public employee unions to get, annually, the written consent of members and bargaining unit participants to use dues and fees for political purposes. See IGS Hot Topic Use of Union Dues for Political Purposes

Prop. 76: Spending Limits and School Funding
Would empower the governor to impose spending reductions when the legislature fails to act in budget emergencies. See IGS Hot Topic: Spending Limits/School Funding: the California Live Within Our Means Act.

Prop. 77: Reapportionment
Would transfer authority to redraw congressional and legislative district boundaries from the legislature to a panel of retired judges, and would require new districts for the 2006 election. See IGS Hot Topic: California Redistricting.

Prop. 78: Prescription Drug Discounts( State Pharmacy Assistance Program)
Would provide discounted prescription drugs for those in financial need. Would allow companies to drop their prices voluntarily. Supported by the pharmaceutical industry. See IGS Hot Topic: Prescription Drug Discounts.

Prop. 79: Prescription Drug Discounts (Cheaper Prescription Drugs Act)
Would mandate an agreement between the California Department of Health Services and drug companies which would keep drug prices lower for those in financial need. Supported by supported by health and consumer groups, See IGS Hot Topic: Prescription Drug Discounts.

Prop. 80: Electricity Regulation
Would repeal key provisions of the 1996 electricity deregulation and restores authority to regulate rates to the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC). In addition it requires that 20 percent of electricity be from renewable sources by 2010. See IGS Hot Topic: Electric Service Providers Regulation.

The Election and Its Aftermath

The California special election that took place on Nov. 8th was one of the costliest elections in the state's history with record setting amounts raised for ballot propositions by political groups. In addition, the state now owes $54 million counties for administrative costs. The election was also notable in that all 8 of the propositions on the ballot failed. The defeat of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's reform based Propositions was one of the more talked about failures of the election. Propositions 74 through 77 were soundly beaten, with only Proposition 75 managing to garner more than 45 percent of the vote. Opponents of the Governor's reforms developed a labor coalition between public employees unions to defeat the Governor's initiatives. Many political experts believe that Gov. Schwarzenegger's targeting of education funding, school tenure rules and state spending alienated and enraged teachers, nurses and firefighters who spent more than $100 million to defeat his propositions. Supporters of the Governor claim that the reform proposals were defeated because unions conducted a smear campaign and outspent the governor. Throughout the special election campaign, Gov. Schwarzenegger named powerful unions as illegitimate special interests in Sacramento. Schwarzenegger and his team have vowed to work with the legislature and public employee groups to seek the reform not achieved in the special election.

Proposition 73 was the most popular of the propositions losing by 48% to 52% leading some political scholars to predict the issue of parental notification in case of a daughter's abortion has a good chance of resurfacing and winning in future elections. Some found significance in the proposition's winning over many inland areas within California, possibly signaling a significant base of evangelical Christians previously untapped. Religious Republicans are often the most active in supporting anti-abortion legislation and ballot initiatives. Pundits cite supporters lack of campaign funds and advertising as partial reasons for the proposals defeat. Opponents claimed that supporters had an agenda beyond just parental notification and believe voters rejected the proposition on the principle of protecting abortion rights.

The campaigns for Propositions 78 and 79 made for the one of the most expensive races in the special election with backers of Prop. 78 spending more than $80 to pass the initiative Both prescription drugs propositions failed. However, many believe that the pharmaceutical industry, which supported Prop. 78, has actually achieved a success by maintaining control over the current system of drug discounts. Political scholars point to the fact that backers of Prop. 79 spent only $33 million on their campaign, a fraction of the amount spent by their competitors. Polls showed that Californians were confused about the two propositions and pundits believe that voters tended to vote against both initiatives as a result. Both consumer groups and the pharmaceutical industry said they would support legislative efforts aimed at making medications more affordable to low-income residents.

Proposition 80 received relatively minor attention in the months leading up to the election. The proposal lost by a large margin, failing to win over any counties except San Francisco. The proposition was supported by some of the same labor and consumer interests that were fighting the more prominent initiatives backed by the governor and little money was raised. Supporters say they were simply crushed by the powerful energy lobby. Opponents claim that voters made the right choice and de-regulation is the key to successful energy policy. Supporters of re-regulation have announced that are interested in creating new proposals to re-regulate energy within the state but have not done so yet.

Election Returns - Nov. 8 Special Election

See election returns by county at the Secretary of State's Election site.

Voter turnout for the special election was 42.6%, a number that is close to the 43% that came out for the 2003 recall election. Many political analysts believe that the relatively high voter turnout shows Californians value voicing their views on state issues. Polls indicate that California voters are unhappy with the amount of money spent on the campaigns, and the influence of special interests on the process. Many scholars believe that election day's high turnout reflects their frustration. The Schwarzenegger camp has conceded that Californians were unhappy with the special election. However, they believe that the voters are still interested in reforming California. Opponents of the governor believe that voters were expressing their distaste with both the special election and the targets of the Governor's reforms. Both Republican and Democratic lawmakers have pledged to address the reform issue in the future.

The November 8 election also featured a large number of absentee voters. Absentee ballots were still being counted, as of Nov. 17 and ballots received after the election adding an additional half million votes to the election night total. An estimated 4.6 million absentee ballots were issued for Election Day with 6.7 million people casting ballots at the polls. The number of absentee voters in the state has climbed from 4 percent in the late 1970s to an estimated 40.5 percent in this month's election. Some political students have suggested that increased absentee voting may surpass ballot voting in the next few years.

Key Websites

California for Democracy
Political group opposed to the special election.

California Governor's Office

California Labor Federation
California's chapter of the ALF-CIO, they oppose the special election.

California Secretary of State
Secretary's Special Election page with registration and voting information.

Citizens to Save California
Business groups supporting Schwarzenegger measures.

Join Arnold
Pro-Schwarzenegger page supporting the Governor's special election proposals.

League of Women Voters
Special election page

TheRestofUs.org
Non-partisan watchdog group which challenged California law regarding unlimited monies donated to proposition campaigns.

Proportion of voters casting mail ballots will reach a new high in today's election. Field Poll, Release 2178, Nov. 8, 2005.

CA Propositions 75, 76, 77 Defeated; Propositions 73, 74 Could Go Either Way. SurveyUSA Election Poll, #7443, Nov. 7, 2005.

Knowledge Networks 2005 Election Survey. Palo Alto, Hoover Institute, Nov. 7, 2005.

Schwarzenegger Propositions Still Trailing: Three of four ballot initiatives backed by Governor are behind
and Proposition 75 is now in a dead heat. Support for both prescription drug initiatives falls. Polimetrix poll, Nov. 6, 2005.

California voters support parental notification, disagree with pharmaceutical companies on prescription drug discounts, and oppose electricity regulations. Los Angeles Times Poll, Nov. 3, 2005.

Special election hurting Governor’s chances for re-election. Large portions of Democrats do not know their party’s gubernatorial candidates. Feinstein strongly favored for another U.S. Senate term. Field Poll, Release 2176, Nov. 3, 2005.

Voters moving to the NO side on each of the three health-related ballot initiatives – Propositions 73, 78 and 79. Field Poll, Release 2175, Nov. 2, 2005.

NO side leads YES side on all four of the propositions backed by Governor Schwarzenegger," Field Poll, Release 2174, Nov. 1, 2005.

Knowledge Networks 2005 Election Survey. Palo Alto, Hoover Institute, Oct. 17, 2005.
Methodology and results of survey one
Methodology and results of survey two

Baldassare, Mark.
PPIC Statewide Survey: Special Survey on Californians and the Initiative Process. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California, October 2005.

Baldassare, Mark.
Special Survey on Californians and the Initiative Process. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California, Public Policy Institute, September 2005

"Both prescription drug initiatives, Props. 78 and 79, are leading, but few voters can identify the proponents of each initiative. Voters divided on Prop. 73, the Parental Notification of Teen Abortion initiative," Field Poll, Release 2169, Sept. 6, 2005.

"Prop. 75 continues to lead by big margin: strong tide running against prop. 76: Yes vote dropping on Prop. 74: narrow sentiment against prop. 77: divided vote on Prop. 80," Field Poll, Release 2168, Sept. 5, 2005.

"Schwarzenegger's and State Legislature's approval ratings remain low: Voters want special election called off," Field Poll, Release 2167, September 2, 2005.

Baldassare, Mark.
PPIC Statewide Survey: Special Survey on Californians and the Initiative Process. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California, August 2005.

"Schwarzenegger's approval is lower than rating for unions: Voters say state is on wrong track; back teachers over governor," Survey and Policy Research Institute, July 7, 2005.

"Sharp diminishment in voter inclination to re-elect Schwarzenegger. Angelides leads democratic primary. Both he and Westly narrowly lead the governor in early general election match-ups," Field Poll, Release 2163, June 29, 2005.

"Greater than two to one majority believe state is seriously off on wrong track," Field Poll, Release 2162, 2005.

"Union dues consent initiative getting heavy initial support, as do two drug discount propositions. Voters narrowly back parental notification for teen abortion," Field Poll, Release 2160, June 23, 2005.

"Schwarzenegger's Special Election Initiatives - More voters inclined to vote no on Governor's state spending/school funding and redistricting initiatives. Majority favors school teachers tenure changes," Field Poll, Release 2159, June 22, 2005.

"Schwarzenegger's job ratings hit a new low. Voters oppose the Governor's call for a special election. State legislature not highly regarded, but voters more likely to side with it against the Governor," Field Poll, Release 2158, June 21, 2005.

"Special Survey on the California State Budget," Public Policy Institute Statewide Survey, May 2005.

Editorials

The following citations include links to full-text online when available. For more info, see Tips for Finding Full-Text Articles.

Steinberg, Arnold [Opinion].
"Arnold Agonstes: How the election changed the governor -- and California: Could governor ever desert his grand ol' party?
Leftward may be only way for Schwarzenegger to turn," San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 13, 2005.
San Francisco Chronicle

Lesher, David. [Opinion].
Arnold Agonistes: How the election changed the governor -- and California: Where state's angry voters will turn next
Registration trends spotlight major parties losing traction," San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 13, 2005.
San Francisco Chronicle

Nolan, Martin F. [Opinion].
"Arnold Agonistes: How the election changed the governor -- and California: An action hero pol becomes a big bore
Gov's publicity tour flops at California box office," San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 13, 2005.
San Francisco Chronicle

Walters, Dan [Opinion].
"A humbled Schwarzenegger surrenders to dysfunctional status quo," Sacramento Bee, Nov. 11, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Weintraub, Daniel [Opinion].
"Moving on after a bitter, fruitless election year," Sacramento Bee, Nov. 10, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Walters, Dan [Opinion].
"A setback, yes - but Schwarzenegger must redouble reform effort," Sacramento Bee, Nov. 9, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Matier, Philip; Ross, Andrew [Opinion].
"Back to ballot for the Bay Area: Big money: Initative campaigns hugely costly," San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 9, 2005.
San Francisco Chronicle

Skelton, George [Opinion].
"Some Guidance for Voters in This Special Election: Just Say No," Los Angeles Times, Nov. 3, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Lopez, Steve [Opinion].
"Voting Is Only Way to Thwart Governor," Los Angeles Times, Nov. 2, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Schrag, Peter [Opinion].
"Arnold's agenda: The specter of a governor past," Sacramento Bee, Nov. 2, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Rarick, Ethan [Opinion].
"Tactical Confusion: It's a California ballot tradition: confound the voter any way you can," Los Angeles Times, Oct. 31, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Skelton, George [Opinion].
"Governor Is Paying the Price for Breaking His Promise to Schools," Los Angeles Times, Oct. 31, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Matier, Philip; Ross, Andrew [Opinion].
"Governor losing his star power in special election," San Francisco Chronicle, Oct. 31, 2005.
San Francisco Chronicle

Walters, Dan [Opinion].
"No ifs, and or butts: Special election is big for the governor," Sacramento Bee, Oct. 28, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Weintraub, Daniel [Opinion].
"Governor reaches out to the Democrats - finally," Sacramento Bee, Oct. 27, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Skelton, George [Opinion].
"Governor Revs Up Reform Sales Pitch, But Maybe Too Late," Los Angeles Times, Oct.27, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Stewart, Jill [Opinion].
"The D's, the R's and the unions," San Francisco Chronicle, Oct. 14, 2005.
San Francisco Chronicle

Skelton, George [Opinion].
"Sitting Out This Election Could Backfire," Los Angeles Times, Oct. 10, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Herdt, Timm [Opinion].
"After the flames, a vote," Ventura County Star, Oct. 5, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Schrag, Peter [Opinion].
"The governor makes the election choices easy," Sacramento Bee, Sept. 28, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Boren, Jim. [Opinion].
"Special election is about power, egos instead of reform," Modesto Bee, Sept. 27, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

[Opinion].
"Time to be Arnold again," Los Angeles Times, Sept. 19, 2005.
NewsBank

Skelton, George [Opinion].
"Schwarzenegger Puts Political Cart Before the Horse -- but Can He Drive It?" Los Angeles Times, Sept. 15, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Skelton, George [Opinion].
"Gov. Boxes Self Into a Corner With the Right," Los Angeles Times, Sept. 12, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Walters, Dan [Opinion].
"Election masks legislative gridlock," Fresno Bee, Sept. 11, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Walters, Dan [Opinion].
"Schwarzenegger at critical stage - will he rebound or be a footnote?" Sacramento Bee, Aug. 28, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Rarick, Ethan [Opinion].
"If you recall, it was the money," Los Angeles Times, Aug. 28, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Skelton, George [Opinion].
"Special Election Plan: Vote Now, Pay Later," Los Angeles Times, Aug. 15, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Skelton, George [Opinion].
"Up Here in Tahoe, People Are More Concerned With Sewage Spill Than State's Special Election," Los Angeles Times, Aug. 11, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

[Opinion].
"A Schwarzenegger bailout?" Ventura County Star, Aug. 4, 2005.
NewsBank (UCB)

Matier, Phillip; Ross, Andrew [Opinion].
"Governor does everything in big way -- including spending," San Francisco Chronicle, July 31, 2005.
San Francisco Chronicle

W