Ballot measure campaign spending in 2016

2016 U.S. State
Ballot Measures

2017 »

« 2015

Overview
Election results
Scorecard
Tuesday Count
Lawsuits
Deadlines
Voter guides
Initiatives filed
Year-end analysis
Part 2: Campaigns
Polls
Media editorials
Part 3: Finances
Contributions
Signature costs
Ballot Measure Monthly
Signature requirements

Have you subscribed yet?

Join the hundreds of thousands of readers trusting Ballotpedia to keep them up to date with the latest political news. Sign up for the Daily Brew.
Click here to learn more.

February 28, 2017

By Ballot Measures Project staff

Contributions to ballot measure campaigns crossed the $1 billion mark in 2016, more than doubling the amount raised in 2014. One of the major factors behind this increase was the change in the number of citizen-initiated measures, which tend to produce more expensive campaigns than legislative referrals. Despite a small uptick in the total number of measures from 158 in 2014 to 162 in 2016, the number of initiatives and veto referendums jumped from 40 to 76. California, where almost $500 million was raised, saw 11 more citizen-initiated measures than in 2014. Expenditures also topped $1 billion in 2016, with $2.01 being spent for each individual vote of the 505.7 million votes cast on ballot measures.[1]

Ballotpedia tracks all donations received by committees registered to support or oppose ballot measures. In certain instances, the same committee registered to support or oppose more than one ballot measure, which means the total contributions for all measures combined can be higher than the total amount of money that was actually spent.

The map below shows the total contributions to ballot measures campaigns by state, with darker shades indicating larger aggregate contributions.

## Contents

* 1 Highlights
* 2 Cost per vote
* 2.1 Support campaigns
* 2.2 Opposition campaigns
* 2.3 Differences between campaigns
* 3 Total expenditures
* 3.1 Campaign spending by topic
* 3.2 Campaign spending by state
* 3.3 David and Goliath races
* 4 Close races with significant spending
* 5 See also
* 6 Foot notes

### Highlights[edit]

Of the more than $1 billion raised, 92.5 percent went to campaigns supporting or opposing citizen-initiated measures. The remaining 7.5 percent was contributed to campaigns surrounding legislative referrals. Expenditures followed a similar pattern, with 92.6 percent spent on citizen-initiated measures and 7.4 percent spent on legislative referrals.

HIGHLIGHTS

* Campaigns—support and opposition combined—surrounding 14 different ballot measures featured spending of more than $20 million, with eight of them in California.

* The five support campaigns with the highest cost per vote were for measures about gun control, business taxes, casinos, and charter schools in Nevada, Maine, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts.

* The five opposition campaigns with the highest cost per vote were for measures about business taxes, drug prices, payday lending, and tobacco taxes in Oregon, California, South Dakota, and North Dakota.

* The five topics that spurred the most total campaign spending in 2016 were healthcare, tobacco taxes, education, marijuana, and law enforcement/death penalty.

* More than $20 million was spent on ballot measure campaigns in 11 states, with about $500 million spent in California, $65 million spent in Oregon, and about $60 million spent in both Colorado and Massachusetts.

The most expensive ballot measure ballot of 2016 was in California. Supporters of Proposition 61, an initiative designed to regulate how much the state pays for prescription drugs, spent $20 million, most of which came from the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. Opponents, including multiple pharmaceutical companies, spent $111.2 million in an attempt to defeat the measure. Voters rejected Proposition 61, 53 to 47 percent. California Proposition 56, a measure to increase the state tobacco tax, was approved after supporters and opponents spent a combined total of $107.8 million. Although multiple California ballot propositions saw significant amounts of funds spent, California is also the largest state in the nation. When the pool of voters is taken into account, one ballot initiative in neighboring Nevada stands out from all the rest across the nation.

Nevada Question 1 was approved 50.4 to 49.6 percent. The measure was designed to require firearm transfers to go through a licensed gun dealer. A similar measure, Maine Question 3, was defeated 51.8 to 48.2 percent. Supporters of Question 1 spent $19.6 million. The organization Everytown for Gun Safety contributed $14.5 million to the campaign. Michael Bloomberg, former mayor of New York City, donated $3.5 million. The National Rifle Association contributed $6.6 million to the campaign in opposition to Question 1, which spent $6.7 million. Voter turnout for the measure was 1.1 million, with 558,631 citizens casting votes in favor of the initiative. This means that while campaigns for measures like California Proposition 61 and 56 spent over $100 million for six to nine million votes, supporters of Nevada Question 1 spent $35.14 per vote received. In December 2016, the attorney general determined that the measure could not be enforced. The next highest amount spent per vote was on a corporate tax measure, titled Measure 97, in Oregon, where both supporters and opponents spent over $23 per vote. Measure 97 was the most expensive ballot measure in state history.

## Cost per vote[edit]

One method for analyzing the efficiency of campaigns is to look at the size of their expenditures relative to the number of votes their position received. This is a cost per vote (CPV) amount. The size of a CPV amount does not directly correlate with the amount spent, as it factors in the size of the group of citizens voting. The tables below explore the 10 highest CPV amounts for support and opposition campaigns and the differences in CPV amounts between campaigns battling over the outcome of a ballot measure.

The map below shows the average CPV for the measures in each state, with darker shades representing higher CPV amounts.

### Support campaigns[edit]

The highest CPV amount for any campaign was $35.14. The campaign was Nevadans for Background Checks, which backed Nevada Question 1 and spent $19.6 million. The initiative received 50.45 percent of the total vote. A similar measure, Maine Question 3, was defeated after the support campaign spent $7.2 million, or $19.69 per vote. Committees supporting Oregon Measure 97, a corporate tax increase, had a CPV of $23.25. The third-highest CPV for an initiative support campaign was $20.07 for Massachusetts Question 2. Supporters of the charter school measure spent $25 million but failed to secure a victory. The two campaigns supporting legislative referrals to make the top 10 were for the casino expansion measures in Rhode Island and New Jersey. The CPV for supporters of Rhode Island Question 1 was $21.17, and the CPV for supporters of New Jersey Question 1 was $12.12.

Measure  | Status  | Support  | Opposition  | Difference

|
|
|
|

Nevada Question 1: Background Checks | a | $35.14 | $12.30 | $22.85
Oregon Measure 97: Business Tax | d | $23.25 | $23.20 | $0.06
Rhode Island Question 1: Casino Approval | a | $21.17 | $0.00 | $21.17
Massachusetts Question 2: Charter Schools | d | $20.07 | $8.40 | $11.67
Maine Question 3: Background Checks | d | $19.69 | $3.22 | $16.47
South Dakota Amendment U: Interest Rates | d | $14.39 | $0.09 | $14.29
South Dakota Measure 23: Service Fees | d | $13.90 | $1.15 | $12.75
Missouri Amendment 3: Tobacco Tax | d | $12.21 | $3.25 | $8.96
Oklahoma Question 779: Sales Tax | d | $12.20 | $1.04 | $11.16
New Jersey Question 1: Casino Approval | d | $12.12 | $6.03 | $6.09

### Opposition campaigns[edit]

The highest CPV amount for an opposition campaign was $23.20. The campaign was against Oregon Measure 97. No on 61, the committee that led the campaign against California Proposition 61, spent more than any other committee in 2016. No on 61 spent $111.2 million. Votes against the initiative totaled over seven million, providing for a CPV amount of $15.65. The CPV amount for the campaign against South Dakota Measure 21, an initiative to cap interest rates on short-term loans, also topped $15, with opponents spending $1.4 million and "no" votes totaling 87,355.

Measure  | Status  | Support  | Opposition  | Difference

|
|
|
|

Oregon Measure 97: Business Tax | d | $23.25 | $23.20 | $0.06
California Proposition 61: Drug Prices | d | $3.20 | $15.65 | -$12.45
South Dakota Measure 21: Payday Lending | a | $0.32 | $15.57 | -$15.25
California Proposition 56: Tobacco Tax | a | $4.15 | $14.23 | -$10.08
North Dakota Measure 4: Tobacco Tax | d | $0.09 | $13.85 | -$13.76
Colorado Amendment 72: Tobacco Tax | d | $1.88 | $12.44 | -$10.57
Nevada Question 1: Background Checks | a | $35.14 | $12.30 | $22.85
Massachusetts Question 2: Charter Schools | d | $20.07 | $8.40 | $11.67
Nevada Question 2: Marijuana | a | $7.13 | $7.46 | -$0.33
New Jersey Question 1: Casino Approval | d | $12.12 | $6.03 | $6.09

### Differences between campaigns[edit]

The largest difference between the CPV amounts of support and oppositions campaigns for the same measure is for Nevada Question 1, which was narrowly approved. Supporters had a CPV amount of $35.14. Opponents had a CPV amount of $12.30. The CPV amount difference between the two campaigns was $22.85. The second-largest difference was between campaigns for and against Maine Question 3, a measure similar to Nevada Question 1. In Maine, the CPV for supporters was $19.69 and the CPV for opponents was $3.22. Maine Question 3 was narrowly defeated.

Measure  | Status  | Support  | Opposition  | Difference

|
|
|
|

Nevada Question 1: Background Checks | a | $35.14 | $12.30 | $22.85
Maine Question 3: Background Checks | d | $19.69 | $3.22 | $16.47
South Dakota Measure 21: Payday Lending | a | $0.32 | $15.57 | -$15.25
South Dakota Amendment U: Interest Rates | d | $14.39 | $0.09 | $14.29
North Dakota Measure 4: Tobacco Tax | d | $0.09 | $13.85 | -$13.76
South Dakota Measure 23: Service Fees | d | $13.90 | $1.15 | $12.75
California Proposition 61: Drug Prices | d | $3.20 | $15.65 | -$12.45
Massachusetts Question 2: Charter Schools | d | $20.07 | $8.40 | $11.67
Oklahoma Question 779: Sales Tax | d | $12.20 | $1.04 | $11.16
Maine Question 2: Income Tax | a | $12.11 | $1.34 | $10.77

## Total expenditures[edit]

In 2016, campaigns—support and opposition combined—surrounding 14 different ballot measures featured spending of more than $20 million. Two measures had ballot battles that cost over $100 million. The four most expensive ballot measure battles were in California, and eight of the 15 measures in 2016 with the most expensive support and opposition campaigns were in California. Measures in the top 15 were also seen in Oregon, Massachusetts, Florida, Nevada, New Jersey, and Colorado.

Below are the measures that had combined campaign spending—support and opposition—of more than $20 million:

Measure  | Support  | Opposition  | Total  | Status

|
|
|
|

California Prop. 61: Drug Price Initiative | $19,992,019.73 | $111,247,002.30 | $131,239,022.03 | d
California Prop. 56: Tabacco Tax | $37,263,298.45 | $70,561,604.49 | $107,824,902.94 | a
California Prop. 52: Hospital Fees and Medi-Cal | $66,524,624.97 | $3,714,521.33 | $70,239,146.30 | a
California Prop. 55: Prop. 30 extension | $61,232,466.16 | $0.00 | $61,232,466.16 | a
Oregon Measure 97: Business Tax | $18,793,490.50 | $27,014,613.41 | $45,808,103.91 | d
Massachusetts Question 2: Charter Schools Expansion | $24,958,712.42 | $17,009,617.12 | $41,968,329.54 | d
California Prop. 64: Marijuana Legalization | $31,013,416.87 | $2,070,838.00 | $33,084,254.87 | a
Florida Amendment 1: Solar Energy | $25,933,427.79 | $2,459,396.58 | $28,392,824.37 | d
California Prop. 53: Voter Approval of Bonds | $5,068,166.32 | $21,923,388.97 | $26,991,555.29 | d
Nevada Question 1: Background Checks | $19,632,671.41 | $6,746,750.71 | $26,379,422.12 | a
New Jersey Question 1: Additional Casinos | $8,572,506.09 | $14,477,891.63 | $23,050,397.72 | d
California Prop. 54: Public Display of Bills | $21,639,937.52 | $27,303.65 | $21,667,241.17 | a
California Prop. 66: Death Penalty Procedures | $6,791,163.50 | $14,019,596.04 | $20,810,759.54 | a
Colorado Amendment 72: Tobacco Taxes | $2,414,513.83 | $18,095,518.37 | $20,510,032.20 | d

### Campaign spending by topic[edit]

The following issues spurred the most campaign spending in 2016, and they accounted for about two-thirds of all campaign spending:[2]

Topic  | Total spent  | # of measures

|
|

Healthcare | $215 million | 5
Tobacco tax | $138 million | 5
Education | $85 million | 12
Marijuana | $78 million | 9
Law enforcement/Death penalty | $54 million | 11
Firearms | $43 million | 4
Energy | $36 million | 4

Some details about the measures in the top four topics are below:

* Campaigns for and against healthcare-related measures spent over $215 million, accounting for 21 percent of all 2016 ballot measures campaign costs.
* There were five measures classified as having to do with healthcare. California Proposition 61, a measure to regulate drug prices, was the most expensive, with about $20 million spent in support and over $110 million spent in opposition.

* Tobacco tax measures had campaigns that spent about $138.5 million.
* Support campaigns for the five tobacco tax increases spent about $43 million, while opposition campaigns spent just under $96 million.

* Support and opposition campaigns for education-related measures spent about $85 million.
* 12 measures on the ballot in 2016 concerned education funding or education-related policy.
* The most expensive education-related ballot measure battle was over Massachusetts Question 2, which was designed to authorize charter school expansion in the state. It was defeated after supporters spent $24 million and opponents spent $15 million.

* Marijuana measure campaigns—both recreational and medical—spent a total of $78 million.
* There were nine measures related to marijuana on the ballot in 2016; all nine were designed to liberalize laws governing marijuana, with five designed to legalize recreational marijuana.
* Support campaigns spent about $59 million and opposition campaigns spent about $19 million.
* All but one measure—a recreational marijuana measure in Arizona—passed.

### Campaign spending by state[edit]

Of the 35 states featuring statewide ballot measures in 2016, 29 also had campaigns with at least some spending reported; no campaign spending surrounding statewide ballot measures were reported in six states:

* Hawaii
* Indiana
* Kansas

* Maryland
* Minnesota
* Utah

|

Out of the 35 states featuring statewide measures, the most money was spent on ballot measure campaigns in California, where a total of $556 million was tracked. Of the states with reported campaign finance activity, the least money was spent by supporters and opponents of ballot measures in Alabama, which had 15 measures on the ballot, all of which were put before voters by the legislature.

Most spent:

Below are the states in which more than $20 million was spent on ballot measure campaigns:

State  | Total spent  | # of measures  | Average per measure

|
|
|

California | $555,709,772.60 | 18 | $30,872,765.14
Oregon | $65,240,413.75 | 7 | $9,320,059.11
Colorado | $59,838,961.94 | 9 | $6,648,773.55
Massachusetts | $59,422,001.20 | 4 | $14,855,500.30
Florida | $38,167,837.07 | 5 | $7,633,567.41
Nevada | $37,623,164.16 | 4 | $9,405,791.04
Missouri | $32,091,457.28 | 6 | $5,348,576.21
New Jersey | $27,115,139.51 | 2 | $3,873,591.36
New Jersey | $25,424,722.90 | 2 | $12,712,361.45
Arizona | $22,832,807.80 | 4 | $5,708,201.95
Arizona | $22,731,508.04 | 6 | $3,788,584.67

More than $19 million was spent on ballot measure campaigns in Washington, with the next runner-up at $12 million in South Dakota.

### David and Goliath races[edit]

Of the 162 statewide measures on the ballot in 2016, campaigns surrounding 104 of them saw at least $50,000 in total expenditures. Many of the 58 ballot measure races with less than $20,000 spent were measures that did not have very active support or opposition campaigns. Out of the 104 measures that spurred significant campaign spending, 97 were unbalanced from a campaign finance perspective, meaning that the difference between the war chests on each side was a significant percentage (20 percent or more) of the total spent. In many cases, one side spent millions or tens of millions of dollars more than the other. Out of those 104 races, the side with more money won 74 of them—76 percent:

* Total statewide ballot measures: 162
* Unbalanced campaign finance: 104
* Balanced campaign finance: 7
* No data or minor campaign spending: 58

* Out of the 104 unbalanced races in which campaign finance data was available and more than $20,000 was spent on campaigns in support or opposition of the measures, the breakdown of victories and losses is below:
* Victories after greater spending: 74
* Losses after greater spending: 23

## Close races with significant spending[edit]

In 2016, there were several ballot measure races that were very close at the polls and which spurred significant campaign spending. These could be cases in which the amount of money spent was enough to push the outcome of the measure one way or the other.

Below are the statewide ballot measure races in 2016 that featured significant campaign spending and were passed or defeated by small margins—where additional votes equal to less than 1.5 percent of votes cast could have changed the outcome:

* Maine Question 1—a marijuana legalization initiative—passed by a margin of 50.26 percent to 49.74 percent, with just under 4,000 more "yes" votes than "no" votes. The race was so close that opponents called for a recount, which was ultimately abandoned. The Question 1 support campaign spent almost $3.5 million, compared to the $300,000 spent in opposition.

* Nevada Question 1—a gun control initiative—passed 50.45 percent to 49.55 percent. The support campaign spent $19.6 million to the opposition's $6.7 million. Ultimately, the measure was declared unenforceable by the Nevada attorney general.

* California Prop. 53—a measure to require voter approval of certain bond issues—passed 50.58 percent to 49.42 percent. The support campaign spent over $5 million to the opposition's $22 million.

* Maine Question 2—a tax on income above $200,000 for education—passed by 50.63 percent to 49.37 percent. The support campaign spent about $4.6 million, outspending the opposition nine to one. Opponents of this measure asked for a recount, which did not change the outcome. Moreover, proposals to repeal or significantly amend this measure were introduced in the Maine 2017 legislative session.

* Arizona Prop. 123—an education finance amendment—was approved by a margin of 50.92 percent to 49.08 percent. The support campaign spent about $5.3 million to the opposition's $16,000.

* California Prop. 66—an initiative to speed up the death row appeals process—was approved by 51.13 percent of voters. This measure competed against California Prop. 62—which was designed to repeal the death penalty. The Yes on Prop. 66/No on Prop. 62 campaign spent about $6.8 million, while the No on Prop. 66/Yes on Prop. 62 campaign spent about double that. Since the Prop. 66 support campaign also opposed Prop. 62 and the Prop. 66 opposition campaign supported Prop. 62, it is not possible to know how much money was spent specifically on the campaigns surrounding Prop. 66.

* Arizona Prop. 205—a marijuana legalization initiative—was defeated by a margin of 50.92 percent to 49.08 percent. The support campaign spent about $6.5 million to the opposition's $6.2 million. This was the only recreational marijuana legalization measure to fail in 2016, and opponents explicitly credited the fact that they raised as much money as the support campaign.
* In California, supporters of marijuana legalization spent $31 million, outspending opponents 15 to one.
* In Massachusetts, supporters of marijuana legalization outspent opponents more than two to one.
* In Maine, supporters outspent opponents more than 11 to one.
* in Nevada, supporters spent $4.3 million to the opposition's $3.7 million.

## See also[edit]

* 2016 ballot measures
* Ballot measure campaign finance, 2016
* Ballot measure signature costs, 2016

## Foot notes[edit]

1. ↑ Ballotpedia tracked $542 million in contributions in California. However, $45.8 million of this amount was raised for committees working on multiple ballot propositions. The total amount raised across ballot proposition committees, rather than ballot propositions themselves, was $497 million.
2. ↑ The table below shows approximate spending on each topic. Some factors such as in-kind donations or committees registered to support or oppose multiple measures could affect these numbers.

v • e

2016 ballot measures

I&R States|

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

Non I&R States|

Alabama • Georgia • Hawaii • Indiana • Kentucky • Maryland • Minnesota • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New York • North Carolina • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • Texas • Vermont • Virginia • West Virginia • Wisconsin

Political topics|

Adult entertainment • Alcohol • Assisted death • Banking • Bond issues • Business regulation • Campaign finance • Civil and criminal trials • Civil rights • Constitutional language • County and municipal governance • Death penalty • Definition of a corporation • Education • Elections and campaigns • Energy • English language • Environment • Firearms • Food and agriculture • Forests and parks • Gambling • Government accountability • Healthcare • Hunting and fishing • Labor and unions • Law enforcement • Lottery • Marijuana • Minimum wage • Prisons • Property • Redistricting • Religion • Salaries of government officials • School choice • State and local government budgets, spending and finance • State executive officials • State judiciary • State legislature • Suffrage • Taxes • Tort law • Transportation • Treatment of animals • Veterans • Wages and pay

Other|

Scorecard • Petition drive deadlines and requirements • Polls • Lawsuits • Potential measures • Ballot Measure Monthly • Changes in 2016 to laws governing the initiative process • Not on the ballot • Signature costs • Cost per required signatures analysis • Campaigns • Campaign contributions • Campaign finance • Endorsements • Voter guides

Ballotpedia

About

Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities

* * *

Executive: Leslie Graves, Founder and CEO • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer

Communications: Alison Graves, Director of Communications • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Sarah Groat • Nathaniel Harwood • Dillon Redmond
External Relations:  Geoff Pallay, Director of External Relations • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Ashley Fleming • Thomas Mardik • Hannah Nelson
Operations: Meghann Olshefski, Director of Operations • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch
Tech: Matt Latourelle, Director of Technology Operations • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Joseph Sanchez • Mary Susmitha

Contributors: Scott Rasmussen

* * *

Editorial Content

Josh Altic, Director of Content • Daniel Anderson, Associate Director of Elections & Data • Cory Eucalitto, Associate Director of Features • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor of Ballot Measures • Mandy McConnell, Managing Editor of News • Doug Kronaizl, Managing Editor of Local Expansion • Abbey Smith, Managing Editor of Elections • Janie Valentine, Managing Editor of Law • Joel Williams, Managing Editor of Events • Joseph Greaney, Managing Editor of Policy • Andrew Bahl • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Jon Dunn • Victoria Edwards • Thomas Ellis • Nicole Fisher • Thomas Grobben • Brianna Hosea • Molly Kehoe • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Nathan Maxwell • Jimmy McAllister • Brandon McCauley • Andrew McNair • Ellie Mikus • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Annelise Reinwald • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Emma Soukup • Alexis Thacker • Mina Vogel • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox

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