Other State Propositions on the November 8, 2005 Ballot
September 2005
Proposition 75: Restrictions on Using Public Employee Union Dues for Political Contributions
Proposition 77: Redistricting Reform
California Special Election November 8, 2005
Read this page in Spanish
Two of the propositions on the state ballot could have an indirect impact on education:
Proposition 75 asks voters to change state law so that public employee unions would have to get written consent each year from their members to be able to spend part of their dues for political purposes, such as supporting or opposing political candidates or issues.
Current law
Currently public employees—such as teachers, nurses, firefighters, and police—can choose whether to join a union. However, even if they choose not to join, they must pay dues to cover the costs of the union representing them in collective bargaining and providing other services. But nonmembers have the right to object to their dues being used for political purposes without their consent. And each year unions must publicly report what share of their expenditures was used for political purposes.
What Proposition 75 would change
Proposition 75 would require unions to get annual, written consent from both their members and nonmembers to be able to use their dues for political purposes. The unions would also have to keep certain records, including copies of any consent forms, and submit them to the Fair Political Practices Commission. The records could not be publicly disclosed. The restriction does not apply to dues or fees collected for charitable organizations, health care insurance, or other purposes directly benefiting the public employee.
Cost to the taxpayer
The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) estimates that there would be minor state and local government implementation costs that could be offset by revenues from both fines collected from unions who do not comply with the measure and fees charged by government agencies to cover the costs of processing payroll deductions for union dues. To view the Legislative Analyst’s estimate of fiscal effects, go to: www.lao.ca.gov/ballot_source/Propositions.aspx.
Related Information
Text of Proposition 75 from the website of the secretary of state (PDF)
Legislative Analyst's Office Analysis of Proposition 75
Proposition 77 would give a panel of retired judges, called “special masters,” the authority to redraw the boundaries of legislative districts.
Current law
Under current law, every 10 years state legislators redraw the congressional, state senatorial and assembly, and board of equalization districts to reflect changes in population based on the U.S. Census. Redistricting helps determine the partisan makeup of legislative bodies and affects the representation of ethnic groups and geographic areas in the state.
A history of conflict
Because of the high political stakes involved, redistricting has been a contentious topic for many years:
1970 Census: In 1971 the governor vetoed the Legislature’s reapportionment act and the California Supreme Court appointed three special masters to redraw the boundaries.
1980 Census: In 1981 the Legislature enacted a plan that was used only in the 1982 elections because a referendum overturned it. Following voter rejection of a different redistricting reform proposal on the November 1982 ballot, the Legislature enacted a final redistricting plan one month later.
1990 Census: In 1992, following the inability of the governor and Legislature to agree on a reapportionment plan, the California Supreme Court appointed three special masters, who drew up a plan that was implemented in time for the June 1992 elections.
2000 Census: An initiative to transfer the authority for redistricting to the California Supreme Court was removed from the ballot by that court because it included unrelated provisions concerning legislators’ pay, violating the single-subject rule for initiatives.
What Proposition 77 would do
Proposition 77 calls for the state Legislature to appoint—within 20 days after the measure takes effect—a panel of three retired judges, called special masters, to redraw the new districts. In the future, the redistricting would occur the year after the national census was taken.
How the special masters would be chosen
The Judicial Council of California (which is the policymaking body of the California courts) would select by lot 24 retired state or federal judges based on certain criteria, including that Republicans and Democrats must be equally represented.
From this pool of 24, the majority and minority leaders of the state Senate and Assembly (two from each political party) would each nominate three judges who are not registered members of the same party as that of the legislator making the nomination. After the 12 judges were selected, each of the four legislators would be able to strike the name of one nominee. From the list of remaining nominees, the chief clerk of the Assembly would then draw, by lot, three persons to serve as special masters. If the drawing failed to produce at least one Republican and one Democrat, then the clerk would redraw until that was accomplished.
Cost to the taxpayer
If the measure passed, there would be one-time state redistricting costs equaling half the funds spent for redistricting in 2001 for a total of a few million dollars, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO). But the measure calls for future redistricting efforts to be half the funds spent for redistricting in 2001 plus inflation, leading to savings for each subsequent redistricting effort. To view the Legislative Analyst’s estimate of fiscal effects, go to: www.lao.ca.gov/ballot_source/Propositions.aspx.
Related Information
Text of Proposition 77 from the website of the secretary of state (PDF)
Legislative Analyst's Office Analysis of Proposition 77
Trouble reading this page? Our site is best viewed in IE 5, Safari 1, Firefox 1 or AOL 9 or higher.