Smart Voter
State of California June 2, 1998 Primary
Proposition 219
Ballot Measures. Application.

Legislative Constitutional Amendment. Put on the Ballot by the Legislature.

3,265,978 / 67.0% Yes votes ...... 1,610,331 / 33.0% No votes

Infomation shown below: Summary | Fiscal Impact | Yes/No Meaning | Official Information | Arguments |
Summary Prepared by the State Attorney General:
  • Prohibits any statewide initiative, legislative measure, or local ballot measure from excluding or including any county, city or other local jurisdiction from its application based upon voter approval or the casting of a specified percentage of votes for or against the measure within that political subdivision.
  • Provides that no statewide initiative, legislative measure, or local ballot measure can contain language which enables alternative or cumulative provisions of the measure to become law based upon a specified percentage of votes being cast for or against the measure.

Fiscal Impact from the Legislative Analyst:
  • The number of measures this proposition would affect in the future, and the resulting fiscal impact, cannot be estimated.

Meaning of Voting Yes/No
A YES vote of this measure means:
State and local ballot measures would apply in the same way in all parts of the jurisdiction (that is, the state or a local government) affected by the measure, regardless of how any individual part of that jurisdiction voted. In addition, ballot measures could not contain different provisions that would be enacted depending on the percentage of votes cast in favor of the measure.

A NO vote of this measure means:
Current laws affecting ballot measures would not be changed.

Official Sources of Information
Arguments Submitted to the Secretary of State

Summary of Arguments FOR Proposition 219:
Several recent state and local ballot measures contained blackmailing language designed to force voters into supporting the ballot measure--or face having the ballot measure discriminatorily and selectively applied to their local jurisdiction's disadvantage following the election. Proposition 219 would prohibit this extortion and protect the initiative process' integrity.

Full Text of Argument In Favor

Summary of Arguments AGAINST Proposition 219:
Contact FOR Proposition 219:
Senator John R. Lewis
33rd District,
California Senate
State Capitol, Room 3063
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 445-4264
Wade C. Teasdale

Contact AGAINST Proposition 219:

  Live Election Returns

All Propositions
includes results by county (from Sec. of St.)
Nonpartisan Analysis

League of Women Voters

Other Analysis of Prop 219 See also Campaign Finance Info

Prop 219 Contributions Data from the Secretary of State

Contributions Summary for all Propositions
Suggest a link related to this contest
Links to outside sources are provided for information only and do not imply endorsement.

Home (Ballot Lookup) || State Election Links
About Smart Voter || Feedback

Created: June 17, 1998 11:14
Smart Voter '98 <>
Copyright © 1998 League of Women Voters of California, Smart Valley Inc.
The League of Women Voters neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office or political parties.