2010 ballot measure organizations (Arizona and California)

Back to Ballotpedia:Analysis of the 2010 ballot measures

## Contents

* 1 Summary
* 2 Arizona
* 2.1 National organization interest
* 2.2 State/local interest
* 2.3 Issues that attracted org participation
* 2.4 Possible factors for success/failure
* 3 California
* 3.1 National organization interest
* 3.2 State/local interest
* 3.3 Issues that attracted org participation
* 3.4 Possible factors for success/failure
* 4 See also

NOTE:This page is a research page regarding 2010 ballot measures. The charts below were compiled with data gathered from media sources, such as newspapers, and campaign finance reports. The charts below do not include activists or political parties. The chart below highlight the main organizations active (the discussion page features specific organizations considered in this study) in Arizona and California ballot measure campaigns in 2010. For more about specific ballot measure campaigns visit the individual measure articles: Arizona and California.

## Summary[edit]

Below are some of the most notable statistics about Arizona and California's 2010 ballot measures:

* Arizona Hunting Amendment, Proposition 109 had the most, 13, organizations in support for Arizona. In California, California Proposition 23, the Suspension of AB 32 had 23.
* In Arizona, Arizona First Things First Program Repeal, Proposition 302 had 38 organizations in opposition, while California's California Proposition 26, Supermajority Vote to Pass New Taxes and Fees had 76.
* Arizona had the most national organization participation with Arizona Medical Marijuana Question, having 18, while in California it was California Proposition 23, the Suspension of AB 32, with 42.
* Arizona First Things First Program Repeal, Proposition 302 had the most state/local organization participation in Arizona with 30, while California had the most in California Proposition 26, Supermajority Vote to Pass New Taxes and Fees, with 70.

## Arizona[edit]

See also: Arizona 2010 ballot measures

National and State organizations

Measure  | Issue  | National orgs in support  | National orgs in opposition  | State/local orgs in support  | State/local orgs in opposition  | Result

|
|
|
|
|
|

Arizona Sales Tax Increase, Proposition 100 | Taxes | 0 | 2 | 6 | 1 | a
Arizona Health Insurance Reform Amendment, Proposition 106 | Healthcare | 5 | 1 | 4 | 5 | a
Arizona Civil Rights Amendment, Proposition 107 | Affirmative action | 5 | 4 | 1 | 8 | a
Arizona Hunting Amendment, Proposition 109 | Hunting | 5 | 5 | 8 | 3 | d
Arizona State Trust Lands Question, Proposition 110 | Natural resources | 2 | 0 | 5 | 0 | d
Arizona Lieutenant Governor Amendment, Proposition 111 | Administration of government | 1 | 0 | 6 | 1 | d
Arizona Signature Filing Amendment, Proposition 112 | Direct democracy measures | 1 | 0 | 6 | 1 | d
Arizona Save Our Secret Ballot Amendment, Proposition 113 | Labor | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 | a
Arizona Medical Marijuana Question, Proposition 203 | Marijuana | 9 | 9 | 1 | 7 | a
Arizona Land Conservation Fund Transfer, Proposition 301 | State budgets | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | d
Arizona First Things First Program Repeal, Proposition 302 | State budgets | 1 | 7 | 5 | 25 | d

### National organization interest[edit]

National support was highest in Proposition 107, Proposition 109, and Proposition 203. Interestingly, these three ballot measures have different legislative subjects. Proposition 107 banned affirmative action programs in the state that were administered by statewide or local units of government, including state agencies, cities, counties and school districts. This measure was approved by voters but is currently being disputed in court. Proposition 109 looked to give constitutional protection to hunters while prohibiting citizens from using the ballot initiative to pass laws regulating hunting and fishing, giving legislature complete control. The measure was defeated by voters. Proposition 203 allowed residents with specific medical conditions to be prescribed small amounts of marijuana for personal use. This measure was approved.

Many of the national organizations that took interest in these ballot measures were primarily organizations who were already focused on the topic at hand. However, several unrelated organizations also gave small donations. For example, reports revealed that such organizations such as Justhost.com and PayPal gave donations in opposition of Proposition 203.

### State/local interest[edit]

The three ballot measures with the most state and local organizational support were Proposition 106, Proposition 109, and Proposition 302. Proposition 106, approved by voters, prevented any rules and regulations that force Arizona citizens to participate in a health care plan. Proposition 109 looked to give constitutional protection to hunters while prohibiting citizens from using the ballot initiative to pass laws regulating hunting and fishing, giving legislature complete control. The measure was defeated. Proposition 302 was proposed legislation that would repeal the early childhood service program, First Things First. The measure was defeated.

Proposition 302 had the most state and local participation according to state campaign finance reports and local news reports. Most of the local activity came in opposition from organizations that would be strongly affected if the First Things First program was repealed. There was little support for the measure from local businesses. Native American organizations in particular came out in great numbers opposing Proposition 302.

### Issues that attracted org participation[edit]

Proposition 109, Proposition 203, and Proposition 302 seemed to have the most participation from organizations. This is likely because of their controversial subjects.

Topics included:

* Proposition 109 \- hunting
* Proposition 203 \- marijuana
* Proposition 302 \- state budgets

### Possible factors for success/failure[edit]

No strong correlation between the amount of organizations that support or oppose a ballot measure and the chances of its success or failure in Arizona could be identified. Although, examples do exist that support the argument that a large number of organizations can help approve or defeat a measure, the same cannot be said for all measures. Some had little to no opposition but still failed at the ballot box. For example, Arizona State Trust Lands Question, Proposition 110 (2010) had no official arguments filed opposing the proposition and still did not pass. Similarly, Arizona Lieutenant Governor Amendment, Proposition 111 appeared to have little organizational opposition yet voters said no to Proposition 111 by over 59%.

Arizona ballot measures do not show strong correlations that having more national or state/local organizations have substantial effects on whether ballot measures are successful. Proposition 109, Proposition 110, Proposition 111, and Proposition 112 showed equal or more national organization support than opposition and more state/local organization support than opposition but still failed to be approved by voters..

However, a correlation can be found in Arizona between success or failure of a ballot measure and the amount of money contributed to the support or opposition of these measures. Proposition 106, Proposition 107, Proposition 113, and Proposition 203 all had significantly more donations in support than opposition. All four measures were successful. In addition, Proposition 109 and Proposition 302 had significantly more contributions in opposition which likely contributed to their defeat the ballot box.

See also: 2010 ballot measure campaign contributions

## California[edit]

See also: California 2010 ballot propositions

National and State organizations

Measure  | Issue  | National orgs in support  | National orgs in opposition  | State/local orgs in support  | State/local orgs in opposition  | Result

|
|
|
|
|
|

California Proposition 13, Seismic Retrofitting | Taxes | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | a
California Proposition 14, Top Two Primaries Act | Elections and campaigns | 0 | 2 | 9 | 4 | a
California Proposition 15, Public Funding of Some Elections | Elections and campaigns | 5 | 0 | 11 | 6 | d
California Proposition 16 | Elections and campaigns | 0 | 3 | 5 | 3 | d
California Proposition 17 | Business regulation | 2 | 1 | 10 | 3 | d
California Proposition 19, the Marijuana Legalization Initiative | Marijuana | 15 | 5 | 0 | 7 | d
California Proposition 20, Congressional Redistricting | Elections and campaigns | 3 | 1 | 5 | 3 | a
California Proposition 21, Vehicle License Fee for Parks | Taxes | 4 | 1 | 7 | 1 | d
California Proposition 22, Ban on State Borrowing from Local Governments | State spending | 0 | 0 | 7 | 6 | a
California Proposition 23, the Suspension of AB 32 | Environment | 16 | 26 | 7 | 31 | d
California Proposition 24, Repeal of Corporate Tax Breaks | Taxes | 6 | 4 | 4 | 6 | d
California Proposition 25, Majority Vote for Legislature to Pass the Budget | State spending | 4 | 10 | 12 | 10 | a
California Proposition 26, Supermajority Vote to Pass New Taxes and Fees | Taxes | 10 | 18 | 12 | 58 | a
California Proposition 27, Elimination of Citizen Redistricting Commission | Elections and campaigns  | 10 | 4 | 7 | 4 | d

### National organization interest[edit]

National organization participation was highest in Proposition 19, Proposition 23, and Proposition 26. Proposition 19 was a measure that sought to legalize and regulate marijuana use in California. The measure was defeated. Proposition 23 sought to suspend the "Global Warming Act of 2006." It too was defeated. Proposition 26 required that a two-thirds majority vote be necessary in California state legislation to pass many fees, levies, charges and tax revenue allocations. It was approved.

### State/local interest[edit]

Proposition 23, Proposition 25, and Proposition 26 had the highest participation of state/local organizations. Proposition 23,  sought to suspend the "Global Warming Act of 2006." Proposition 25 ended the requirement of a two-thirds vote for the state of California to pass a budget. Proposition 26 required that a two-thirds majority vote be necessary in California state legislation to pass many fees, levies, charges and tax revenue allocations.

Proposition 23 was opposed by many local environmental organizations as well as many local chambers of commerce. Proposition 25 looked at state spending. The main point of discourse was the future impacts of the proposed measure. Proposition 26 called for stricter requires for local and state governments to pass taxes. The measure gained support from private businesses and opposition from organizations which depended on government funds.

### Issues that attracted org participation[edit]

Proposition 19, Proposition 23, and Proposition 26 showed some of the highest levels of organizational participation.

Topics included:

* Proposition 19 \- marijuana
* Proposition 23 \- environment
* Proposition 26 \- taxes

### Possible factors for success/failure[edit]

Similar to Arizona ballot measures for 2010, there wasn't a strong correlation between the amount of organizations that support or oppose a specific measure and the success or failure of that measure. Also similar to Arizona, there was no strong correlation between the amount of national and/or state/local support or opposition a specific measure had. However, a correlation between campaign contributions for California ballot measures and measure results still remains. California has far more campaign contributions than Arizona.

See also: 2010 ballot measure campaign contributions

## See also[edit]

* Ballotpedia:Analysis of the 2010 ballot measures
* 2010 ballot measures

v • e

2010 ballot measures

I&R States|

Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Florida • Idaho • Illinois • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Mexico • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • South Dakota • Utah • Washington • Wyoming

Non I&R States|

Alabama • Georgia • Hawaii • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Louisiana • New Jersey • North Carolina • Rhode Island • South Carolina • Tennessee • Vermont • Virginia

Political topics|

(Certified topics only): Abortion • Administration of government • Affirmative action • Bond issues • Business regulation • Campaign finance • Civil rights • Constitutional conventions • Earthquakes • Education • Elections • Eminent domain • Energy • English • Firearms • Gambling • Government accountability • Healthcare • Hunting • Direct democracy measures • Insurance • Judicial reform • Labor • Law enforcement • Marijuana • Natural resources • Property rights • Redistricting • State budgets • Taxes • Term limits • Tobacco • Transportation • Veterans • Water

Other|

Scorecard • Petition drive deadlines • Polls • Litigation (Lawsuits) • Potential measures • Tuesday Count • Changes in 2010 to laws governing ballot measures • Official voter guides • Petition signature costs • 2010 ballot measure campaign websites • Certified but removed • Media endorsements • Not on the ballot

Post-election|

2010 analyses • 2010 election results • 2010 amendments to constitutions • Campaign contributions

State ballot measures

State

Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

Year

2026 • 2025 • 2024 • 2023 • 2022 • 2021 • 2020 • 2019 • 2018 • 2017 • 2016 • 2015 • 2014 • 2013 • 2012 • 2011 • 2010 • 2009 • 2008 • 2007 • 2006 • 2005 • 2004 • 2003 • 2002 • 2001 • 2000 • 1999 • 1998 • 1997 • 1996 • 1995 • 1994 • 1993 • 1992 • 1991 • 1990 • 1989 • 1988 • 1987 • 1986 • 1985 • 1984 • 1983 • 1982 • 1981 • 1980 • 1979 • 1978 • 1977 • 1976 • 1975 • 1974 • 1973 • 1972 • 1971 • 1970 • 1969 • 1968 • 1967 • 1966 • 1965 • 1964 • 1963 • 1962 • 1961 • 1960 • 1959 • 1958 • 1957 • 1956 • 1955 • 1954 • 1953 • 1952 • 1951 • 1950 • 1949 • 1948 • 1947 • 1946 • 1945 • 1944 • 1943 • 1942 • 1941 • 1940 • 1939 • 1938 • 1937 • 1936 • 1935 • 1934 • 1933 • 1932 • 1931 • 1930 • 1929 • 1928 • 1927 • 1926 • 1925 • 1924 • 1923 • 1922 • 1921 • 1920 • 1919 • 1918 • 1917 • 1916 • 1915 • 1914 • 1913 • 1912 • 1911 • 1910 • 1909 • 1908 • 1907 • 1906 • 1905 • 1904 • 1903 • 1902 • 1901 • 1900 • 1899 • 1898 • 1897 • 1896 • 1895 • 1894 • 1893 • 1892 • 1891 • 1890 • 1889 • 1888 • 1887 • 1886 • 1885 • 1884 • 1883 • 1882 • 1881 • 1880 • 1879 • 1878 • 1877 • 1876 • 1875 • 1874 • 1873 • 1872 • 1871 • 1870 • 1869 • 1868 • 1867 • 1866 • 1865 • 1864 • 1863 • 1862 • 1861 • 1860 • 1859 • 1858 • 1857 • 1856 • 1855 • 1854 • 1853 • 1852 • 1851 • 1850