21 Initiatives Await Voters on State’s March Ballot

California’s love affair with direct democracy will flare anew in March, when voters are asked to weigh in on as many as 21 ballot measures addressing everything from same-sex marriage to the state’s dilapidated parks.

Although not quite a record, the 21 measures represent a hefty load for a primary ballot that also will feature high-profile contests for president and U.S. Senate.

The plethora of issues--some of them emotional and complex--raises the specter of “ballot fatigue,” an affliction that causes overwhelmed voters to throw up their hands and nix everything.

“In 1990, there were 28 [measures on the November ballot] and voters turned down 22 of them,” said Robert M. Stern, co-director of the Los Angeles-based Center for Governmental Studies. “They get tired and they just say no.”

And because California has moved its primary from June to March 7, heavy campaigning will begin during the holidays--when many voters are preoccupied with shopping, ski trips and other distractions.

Still, primary election voters tend to be somewhat more dedicated than those who vote only in general elections. And the March 2000 lineup contains at least one measure so fraught with emotion that it will be hard to ignore.

It is an initiative declaring that only marriages between a man and woman are valid in California. Sponsored by state Sen. William “Pete” Knight (R-Palmdale), the “definition of marriage” measure is drawing financial support from wealthy conservatives, Catholic archbishops and the Mormon Church.

Opponents--who include Knight’s gay son--say the measure is unnecessary because gay marriage already is illegal in California. Supporters say that if other states authorize same-sex matrimony, a gay couple wed in one of those could be legally recognized as married in the Golden State. The Knight measure would block that possibility.

“Without this initiative, you could completely redefine family and marriage without there ever being a democratic debate,” said Rob Stutzman, manager of the campaign. “If we’re going to break with thousands of years of history, tradition and social structure, there ought to be a good, sound case made in favor of it.”

Foes of the initiative--versions of which have passed in 30 states--call it a divisive tactic designed to fuel homophobia and reverse recent legislative gains made by California’s gays and lesbians.

“It looks deceptively simple,” said Mike Marshall, manager of the No on Knight Campaign, “but it’s not about marriage at all. It’s about targeting gays and lesbians and their civil rights.”

Proponents have raised $3.9 million this year, while foes have collected about $870,000. Early surveys showed the Knight initiative was favored by 57% of likely voters, but a Field Poll released last week found that number had dropped to 50%. The initiative was opposed by 41% of those polled, with the rest undecided.

Other measures likely to break through the political din include two referendums to repeal legislation expanding the right of accident victims to sue.

Analysts say spending on the measures, which pit the well-heeled insurance industry against well-heeled trial lawyers, could reach a whopping $50 million--enough to buy a good bit of TV time. Proponents are still gathering signatures, but the initiatives are expected to make the ballot.

For pure partisan politics, no measure may spark fireworks quite like the one that would yank redistricting power from the Legislature and give it to the state Supreme Court.

The once-a-decade redrawing of political boundaries is crucial to political power. This time around, it’s the Republicans in peril, facing a partisan remap by the Democrats who control state government. They could erase half a dozen GOP congressional seats.

Republicans believe putting redistricting in the hands of judges would result in a more balanced result that would preserve their slim majority in the House of Representatives.

The trouble with the reapportionment measure, however, is that the topic tends to make voters’ eyes glaze over. To counteract that, sponsors have added a provision that would cut legislators’ annual salaries from $99,000 to $75,000.

Voters also will be asked to approve a whopping $4.69 billion in bond money for flood control and water supply projects, build retirement homes for California veterans, upgrade and expand crime labs, build and remodel libraries and preserve and expand parks.

The park bond is the big daddy, totaling $2.1 billion--with about $750 million for Los Angeles County. It would pay for everything from habitat protection to soccer fields, urban trails and coastal access. Two park bonds failed in the 1990s, but analysts hope a strong economy--plus concern about quality of life--will propel this one to victory.

Other measures on the March ballot would:

* Ban corporate campaign contributions and limit individuals’ donations. Sponsored by Silicon Valley entrepreneur Ron Unz, it also would provide state-financed ads for candidates who agree to limit spending and require contributions of $1,000 or more to be immediately disclosed on the Internet.

* Change the two-thirds vote requirement for passage of local school bonds to a majority vote.

* Repeal the 50-cent tobacco tax created by last year’s Proposition 10. Money from the tax pays for child development and health programs.

* Allow offenders as young as 14

* Grant Indians a monopoly over casino gambling, allowing tribes to expand their operations to include slot machines and card games.

*

Times researcher Patti Williams contributed to this story.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

On the Ballot

These are some of the 21 measures voters will face on the March 7 primary election ballot. Texts and summaries of all propositions are on the California Secretary of State Web site https://www.ss.ca.gov.

*

Same-Sex Marriage

Proposition 22 Declares that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Supporters State Sen. William “Pete” Knight, Protect Marriage Committee

Web site

https://www.protectmarriage.net

Opposition No on Knight Campaign

Web site https://www.noonknight.org

*

INSURANCE

Two referendums would block legislation expanding accident victims’ right to sue insurance companies.

Supporters Consumers Against Fraud and Higher Insurance Costs

Telephone (800) 952-0530

Opposition Consumer groups, trial attorneys

*Still gathering signatures, but expected to qualify.

*

CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

Proposition 25 Bans corporate contributions and limits donations from individuals. Provides state financing of advertisements for candidates who agree to limit spending. Contributions of $1,000 or more must be disclosed on the Internet within 24 hours.

Supporters Ron Unz, Tony Miller

Web site

https://www.VotersRights2000.org

Opposition California Chamber of Commerce

Telephone (916) 444-6670’

*

LEGISLATIVE REAPPORTIONMENT/SALARIES

Proposition 24 Gives the state Supreme Court the once-a-decade job of redrawing legislative boundaries, power now held by the Legislature. Cuts legislators’ annual salaries from $99,000 to $75,000.

Supporters People’s Advocate

Web site

https://www.peoplesadvocate.org

Opposition California Democratic Party

Web site https://www.ca-dem.org

*

“NONE OF THE ABOVE”

Proposition 23 Allows voters to mark “none of the above” if they don’t like any candidates for offices from state legislator to president. Nonbinding; if “none” wins, the candidate with the next-highest number of votes takes office.

Supporter Al Shugart

Web site https://www.nota-cal.com

Opposition None organized.

*

PARKS

Proposition 12 Provides $2.1 billion in bond money to preserve, protect and restore neighborhood and state parks. Includes funding for fish and wildlife habitat, soccer fields, museums, trails, the Los Angeles River and the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy.

Supporters Californians for Safe Neighborhood Parks and Clean Water

Web site https://www.safeparks.org

Opposition California Rifle and Pistol Assn.

Web site https://www.crpa.org

*

TERM LIMITS

Proposition 27 Permits candidates for Congress to voluntarily declare their intent to limit the number of terms they serve, information that would appear on the ballot.

Supporters Californians for a Citizen Congress

Opposition None organized.

*

Juvenile Crime

Proposition 21 Allows offenders as young as 14 to be prosecuted in adult court. Requires incarceration for certain crimes. Removes confidentiality rule for juveniles committing serious felonies.

Supporters Former Gov. Pete Wilson, California Dist. Attys. Assn.

Web site https://www.endgangviolence@szmi.com

Opposition Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice

Web site https://www.cjcj.org

*

SCHOOL BOND VOTES

Proposition 26 Changes the current two-thirds vote requirement for passing local school bonds to a simple majority vote.

Supporters California Teachers Assn., entrepreneur Reed Hastings

Web site

https://www.letsfixourschools.com

Opposition Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn.

Web site https://www.saveourhomes.com

*

WATER

Proposition 13 A $1.97-billion issue to pay for new water supplies in the south, flood control in the north, plus restoration of river habitat and improvement of water quality at beaches.

Supporters Californians for Clean, Safe, Reliable Water

Telephone (916) 731-4801

Opposition None organized.

*

Tobacco Tax

Proposition 28 Repeals the 50-cent tax on cigarettes created by last year’s Proposition 10. The tax money funds childhood development and health programs.

Supporters Ned Roscoe, Cheaper Cigarettes.

Web site

https://www.RepealProp10.com

Opposition Rob Reiner, Coalition to Save Prop 10

Web site https://saveprop10.org

*

INDIAN GAMBLING

Proposition 1A Proposed constitutional amendment granting Indians a monopoly over casino gambling in California. Implements compacts between Gov. Gray Davis and California tribes, permitting them to expand operations to include slot machines and blackjack.

Supporters California Nations Indian Gaming Assn., Web site https://www.cniga.com; National Indian Gaming Assn., Web site https://www.indiangaming.org

Opposition National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling, Web site https://www.ncalg.org; Stand Up for California, Web site https://standup.quiknet.com

*

Sources: California secretary of state’s office, initiative campaigns