2005 California special election

none February 2026 September 2023 2005 California special election California presidential no 2004 California elections 2004 November 8, 2005 2006 California elections 2006 15,891,482Historical Voter Registration and Participation California Secretary of State https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/sov/2020-general/sov/04-historical-voter-reg-participation.pdf 50.14% Special elections were held in California on November 8, 2005, after being called by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on June 13, 2005. The California special election of 2005 was held on November 8, 2005, after being called by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on June 13, 2005. California voters rejected all eight ballot propositions. Propositions 73, 76, and 77 were initiative constitutional amendments while the others were initiative statutes. The election was believed to have been the most expensive in California history. Lobby groups spent hundreds of millions of dollars on gathering signatures and advertising for this election. Overview Schwarzenegger called the election to allow voters to decide on propositions regarding teacher tenure requirements (Proposition 74), the use of union dues for political campaign contributions (Proposition 75), state budgetary spending limits (Proposition 76), and redistricting (Proposition 77). Schwarzenegger originally proposed a fifth proposition on the issue of public pension, but dropped that proposition amid criticism that the proposition would eliminate death benefits to widows of police and firefighters who died in the line of duty.Governor gives up on overhaul of public pensions The four propositions that made it to the ballot eventually came to be known as Governor Schwarzenegger's reform agenda. The governor claimed his agenda would clear the way for correction of the problems he was elected to solve. An alliance of public sector unions expended $24 million campaigning against Schwarzenegger's fiscal reform, with the California Teachers Association expending an additional $56 million and going so far as to mortgage its Sacramento headquarters to fund more campaign spending.Malanga Steven The Beholden State How public sector unions broke California http://www.city-journal.org/2010/20_2_california-unions.html 14 April 2015 City Journal Spring 2010 Manhattan Institute for Policy Research April 14, 2015 https://web.archive.org/web/20150414224801/http://www.city-journal.org/2010/20_2_california-unions.html dead Schwarzenegger likewise spent nearly $8 million of his own fortune campaigning. The tenor was highly divisive, with Schwarzenegger calling his opponents “stooges” and at one point Warren Beatty leading a bus full of public employees to follow the governor and shout down his events.Marinucci Carla Beatty crashes governor's party https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/CAMPAIGN-COUNTDOWN-Beatty-crashes-governor-s-2597014.php 14 April 2015 San Francisco Chronicle 6 November 2005 All Governor Schwarzenegger's other fiscal reform agenda initiatives were defeated by wide margins.http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1126&context=californialawreview Richard Hasen, Assessing California's Hybrid Democracy, 97 Cal. L. Rev. 1501 (2009). April 18, 2015 January 18, 2016 https://web.archive.org/web/20160118062007/http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1126&context=californialawreview dead It had been the most expensive election in California history.Thomas Bryan A Weary State is Left Facing Hefty Price Tag http://archive.dailycal.org/article.php?id=20367 14 April 2015 The Daily Californian 10 November 2005 dead https://web.archive.org/web/20160118062007/http://archive.dailycal.org/article.php?id=20367 18 January 2016 As the results came out in Sacramento a public union boss waived a broom over his head while state employees chanted “sweep, sweep, sweep”.Chronicle political writers Californians say no to Schwarzenegger https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/THE-SPECIAL-ELECTION-CALIFORNIANS-SAY-NO-TO-2574813.php 14 April 2015 San Francisco Chronicle 9 November 2005 SEIU's use of compulsory fees on nonmembers to fund its campaign was later found illegal by the U.S. Supreme Court in Knox v. Service Employees International Union, Local 1000. Four other propositions appeared on the ballot because they qualified for the next statewide elections. The four other propositions were: Proposition 73: Parental notification for abortions by minors Proposition 78: A proposition on prescription drugs put by the pharmaceutical industry Proposition 79: A proposition on prescription drugs put by consumer groups in response to Proposition 78 Proposition 80: Electric industry regulation Final results Proposition Pass Title Yes Votes Pct. No Votes Pct.73 Minor's Pregnancy 3,130,062 47.4 3,465,629 52.6 74 Teacher Tenure 2,987,010 44.9 3,662,932 55.1 75 Public Union Dues 3,092,495 46.5 3,551,011 53.5 76 Spending/Funding 2,522,327 37.9 4,115,388 62.1 77 Redistricting 2,673,530 40.5 3,920,487 59.5 78 Rx Drug Discounts 2,719,999 41.5 3,821,957 58.5 79 Rx Drug Rebates 2,523,803 38.9 3,950,763 61.1 80 Electric Regulation 2,189,126 34.3 4,182,374 65.7 Propositions Proposition 73: Parental Notification Summary Amends California Constitution to bar abortion on unemancipated minor until 48 hours after physician notifies minor's parent/legal guardian, except in medical emergency or with parental waiver. Permits judicial waiver of notice based on clear and convincing evidence of minor's maturity or minor's best interests. Physician must report abortions performed on minors and State shall compile statistics. Authorizes monetary damages for violation. Minor must consent to abortion unless mentally incapable or in medical emergency. Permits judicial relief if minor's consent to abortion is coerced. Opinion Polls Source Yes No Undecided Spread PPIC (10/16-23) 42% 48% 10% NO +6 Survey USA (10/15-17) 60% 38% 2% YES +22 Survey USA (9/30-10/2) 59% 39% 2% YES +20 Field Poll (8/19-29) 45% 44% 10% EVEN PPIC (8/8-15) 44% 48% 10% NO +4 Field Poll (6/13-19) 48% 43% 9% YES +5 Results Option Vote Count Percentagelink=|alt=|14x14px Yes3,130,06247.4%link=|alt=|16x16px No3,465,62952.6% 300px|thumb|Proposition 73 results by county No: #8B8B54 70–80% #BCBC83 60–70% #DEDEBD 50–60% Yes: #7D9CBB 60–70% #B6C8D9 50–60% Tie: #EBEEED 50% Proposition 74: Public School Teachers Tenure Summary Increases length of time required before a teacher may become a permanent employee from two complete consecutive school years to five complete consecutive school years; measure applies to teachers whose probationary period commenced during or after the 2003-2004 fiscal year. Authorizes school boards to dismiss a permanent teaching employee who receives two consecutive unsatisfactory performance evaluations. Opinion Polls Source Yes No Undecided Spread PPIC (10/16-23) 46% 48% 6% NO+2 Survey USA (10/15-17) 53% 45% 1% YES +8 Survey USA (9/30-10/2) 55% 44% 2% YES +10 PPIC (9/12-19) 43% 47% 10% NO +4 Field Poll (8/19-29) 46% 37% 17% YES +9 PPIC (8/8-15) 49% 42% 9% YES +7 Field Poll (6/13-19) 61% 32% 7% YES +29 Results Option Vote Count Percentage link=|alt=|14x14px Yes 2,987,010 44.9% link=|alt=|16x16px No 3,662,932 55.1 300px|thumb|Proposition 74 results by county No: #8B8B54 70–80% #BCBC83 60–70% #DEDEBD 50–60% Yes: #7D9CBB 60–70% #B6C8D9 50–60% Proposition 75: Union Dues - Political Contributions Summary Prohibits public employee labor organizations from using dues or fees for political contributions unless the employee provides prior consent each year on a specified written form. Prohibition does not apply to dues or fees collected for charitable organizations, health care insurance, or other purposes directly benefiting the public employee. Requires labor organizations to maintain and submit to the California Fair Political Practices Commission records concerning individual employees' and organizations' political contributions; those records are not subject to public disclosure. Opinion Polls Source Yes No Undecided Spread PPIC (10/16-23) 46% 46% 8% Even Survey USA (10/15-17) 56% 42% 2% YES +14 Survey USA (9/30-10/2) 60% 37% 3% YES +23 Field Poll (8/19-29) 55% 32% 13% YES +23 PPIC (8/8-15) 48% 33% 9% YES +15 Field Poll (6/13-19) 57% 34% 9% YES +23 Results Option Vote Count Percentagelink=|alt=|14x14px Yes3,092,49546.5%link=|alt=|16x16px No3,551,01153.5% 300px|thumb|Proposition 75 results by county No: #8B8B54 70–80% #BCBC83 60–70% #DEDEBD 50–60% Yes: #7D9CBB 60–70% #B6C8D9 50–60% Proposition 76: State Spending Limits Summary Changes state minimum school funding requirements (Proposition 98), permitting suspension of minimum funding, but terminating repayment requirement, and eliminating authority to reduce funding when state revenues decrease. Excludes above-minimum appropriations from schools' funding base. Limits state spending to prior year total plus revenue growth. Shifts excess revenues from schools/tax relief to budget reserve, specified construction, debt repayment. Requires Governor to reduce state appropriations, under specified circumstances, including employee compensation, state contracts. Continues prior year appropriations if new state budget delayed. Prohibits state special funds borrowing. Requires payment of local government mandates. Opinion Polls Source Yes No Undecided Spread PPIC (10/16-23) 30% 62% 8% NO +32 Survey USA (10/15-17) 54% 41% 5% YES +13 Survey USA (9/30-10/2) 58% 36% 6% YES +22 PPIC (9/12-19) 26% 63% 11% NO +37 Field Poll (8/19-29) 19% 65% 16% NO +46 PPIC (8/8-15) 28% 61% 11% NO +33 Field Poll (6/13-19) 35% 42% 23% NO +7 Results Option Vote Count Percentagelink=|alt=|14x14px Yes2,522,32737.9%link=|alt=|16x16px No4,115,38862.1% 300px|thumb|Proposition 76 results by county No: #5D5D2D 80–90% #8B8B54 70–80% #BCBC83 60–70% #DEDEBD 50–60% Yes: #B6C8D9 50–60% Proposition 77: Redistricting Summary Amends state Constitution's process for redistricting California's Senate, Assembly, Congressional and Board of Equalization districts. Requires three-member panel of retired judges, selected by legislative leaders, to adopt new redistricting plan if measure passes and again after each national census. Panel must consider legislative, public proposals/comments and hold public hearings. Redistricting plan becomes effective immediately when adopted by judges’ panel and filed with Secretary of State. If voters subsequently reject redistricting plan, process repeats. Specifies time for judicial review of adopted redistricting plan; if plan fails to conform to requirements, court may order new plan. Opinion Polls Source Yes No Undecided Spread PPIC (10/16-23) 36% 50% 14% NO +14 Survey USA (10/15-17) 54% 41% 5% YES +13 Survey USA (9/30-10/2) 59% 36% 5% YES +23 PPIC (9/12-19) 33% 50% 17% NO +17 Field Poll (8/19-29) 32% 46% 22% NO +14 PPIC (8/8-15) 34% 49% 17% NO +15 Field Poll (6/13-19) 35% 46% 19% NO +11 Results Option Vote Count Percentagelink=|alt=|14x14px Yes2,673,53040.5%link=|alt=|16x16px No3,920,48759.5% 300px|thumb|Proposition 77 results by county No: #8B8B54 70–80% #BCBC83 60–70% #DEDEBD 50–60% Yes: #B6C8D9 50–60% Proposition 78: Drug Discounts Summary Establishes discount prescription drug program, overseen by the Department of Health Services. Enables certain low - and moderate - income California residents to purchase prescription drugs at reduced prices. Imposes $15 application fee, renewable annually. Requires Department's prompt determination of residents' eligibility, based on listed qualifications. Authorizes Department to contract with pharmacies to sell prescription drugs at agreed-upon discounts negotiated in advance, and to negotiate rebate agreements with drug manufacturers. Permits outreach programs to increase public awareness. Creates state fund for deposit of rebate payments from drug manufacturers. Allows program to be terminated under specified conditions. Opinion Polls Source Yes No Undecided Spread PPIC (9/12-19) 43% 38% 19% YES +5 Field Poll (8/19-29) 49% 31% 20% YES +18 Field Poll (6/13-19) 57% 26% 17% YES +31 Results Option Vote Count Percentagelink=|alt=|14x14px Yes2,719,99941.5%link=|alt=|16x16px No3,821,95758.5% 300px|thumb|Proposition 78 results by county No: #8B8B54 70–80% #BCBC83 60–70% #DEDEBD 50–60% Yes: #B6C8D9 50–60% Proposition 79: Drug Discounts (Consumer Groups Backed) Summary Provides for prescription drug discounts to Californians who qualify based on income-related standards, to be funded through rebates from participating drug manufacturers negotiated by California Department of Health Services. Rebates must be deposited in State Treasury fund, used only to reimburse pharmacies for discounts and to offset administration costs. At least 95% of rebates must go to fund discounts. Prohibits new Medi-Cal contracts with manufacturers not providing the Medicaid best price to this program, except for drugs without therapeutic equivalent. Establishes oversight board. Makes prescription drug profiteering, as defined, unlawful. Opinion Polls Source Yes No Undecided Spread PPIC (9/12-19) 34% 40% 26% NO +6 Field Poll (8/19-29) 42% 34% 24% YES +8 Field Poll (6/13-19) 48% 33% 19% YES +15 Results Option Vote Count Percentagelink=|alt=|14x14px Yes2,523,80338.9%link=|alt=|16x16px No3,950,76361.1% 300px|thumb|Proposition 79 results by county No: #8B8B54 70–80% #BCBC83 60–70% #DEDEBD 50–60% Yes: #7D9CBB 60–70% #B6C8D9 50–60% Proposition 80: Electricity Regulation Summary Subjects electric service providers, as defined, to control and regulation by California Public Utilities Commission. Imposes restrictions on electricity customers' ability to switch from private utilities to other electric providers. Provides that registration by electric service providers with Commission constitutes providers' consent to regulation. Requires all retail electric sellers, instead of just private utilities, to increase renewable energy resource procurement by at least 1% each year, with 20% of retail sales procured from renewable energy by 2010, instead of current requirement of 2017. Imposes duties on Commission, Legislature and electrical providers. Opinion Polls Source Yes No Undecided Spread Field Poll (8/19-29) 33% 35% 32% NO +2 Results Option Vote Count Percentagelink=|alt=|14x14px Yes2,189,12634.3%link=|alt=|16x16px No4,182,37465.7% 300px|thumb|Proposition 80 results by county No: #8B8B54 70–80% #BCBC83 60–70% #DEDEBD 50–60% Yes: #B6C8D9 50–60% References External links Academic institutions Nov. 8, 2005 California Ballot Propositions, Institute of Governmental Studies Library, UC Berkeley California Government agencies November 2005 Statewide Election Results from the California Secretary of State's Elections Division Independent sites VoteCircle.com Non-partisan resources & vote sharing network for Californians Rough and Tumble California Politics, The Capitol Insiders Forum Latest results from PollingPoint Affiliated sites Join Arnold - Vote Yes Alliance for a Better California - Vote No