Proposition 27 was an unsuccessful ballot proposition on the November 2, 2010 ballot in California, placed there by the initiative process. If approved, this measure would have repealed California Proposition 11 (2008), which authorized the creation of the California Citizens Redistricting Commission to draw the electoral boundaries for State Assembly and State Senate districts. It would also have modified the provision in California law that says that proposed congressional districts can not be subjected to a veto referendum.

According to political journalist Shane Goldmacher, Democratic political strategists said that this initiative was a political tactic to defeat Proposition 20, the Congressional Redistricting Initiative, which was also on the November 2, 2010 ballot: "Democratic political strategists say the best way to ensure a 'no' vote this fall on California Proposition 20 is to confuse the public further with a second ballot measure on the already head spinning topic of political line drawing." This tactic was ultimately unsuccessful, as Proposition 20 passed, extending the commission's power over redistricting to include U.S. House districts.

Proposition 27 and Proposition 20 each had a so-called "poison pill" provision. This meant that if both received a majority vote, the proposition that received the highest majority vote would be the law to go into effect. Since Proposition 20 passed but Proposition 27 did not, neither provision was triggered.

Ballot title and summary

Ballot title:

Financial Accountability in Redistricting Act of 2010" Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute

Official summary:

Eliminates 14-member redistricting commission selected from applicant pool picked by government auditors. Consolidates authority for establishing state Assembly, Senate, and Board of Equalization district boundaries with elected state representatives responsible for drawing congressional districts. Reduces budget, and imposes limit on amount legislature may spend, for redistricting. Provides that voters will have the authority to reject district boundary maps approved by the legislature. Requires populations of all districts for the same office to be exactly the same.

Estimated fiscal impact:

Possible reduction of state redistricting costs of around $1 million over the next year. Likely reduction of state redistricting costs of a few million dollars once every ten years beginning in 2020.

Constitutional changes

If Proposition 27 was approved by California's voters, it would have amended some parts of the California Constitution.

Specifically, it will amend:

Section 9 of Article II Section 1 of Article XXI Section 2 of Article XXI Section 3 of Article XXI

Supporters

Daniel Lowenstein, the official proponent of the measure, is a professor at UCLA and a former chairman of the California Fair Political Practices Commission.

Although Lowenstein's name was on the application for the initiative, he said that the real sponsors are Democratic members of the U.S. Congress led by Howard Berman and Berman's brother Michael Berman of Berman & D'Agostino Campaigns, a paid consultant for Democrats on redistricting issues. Lowenstein says, "It's Michael and Howard together." Both Daniel Lowenstein and Michael Berman worked on the No on California Proposition 77 (2005) campaign where Mr. Lowenstein was chairman and Mr. Berman was the committee's campaign consultant. California Proposition 77 (2005) was a previous attempt at independent redistricting reform that failed at the ballot box. Mr. Lowenstein also wrote scholarly articles that highlight Michael Berman and his company.

During the 2001 California redistricting process, U.S. congresswoman Loretta Sanchez explained how the pre-Proposition 11 Gerrymandering system worked and Michael Berman's importance in the process. "Twenty thousand is nothing to keep your seat. I spend $2 million [campaigning] every year. If my colleagues are smart, they'll pay their $20,000, and Michael [Berman] will draw the district they can win in. Those who have refused to pay? God help them."Mother Jones, "Gerrymandering: Why Your Vote Doesn't Count", September, 2006Christian Science Monitor, "Redistricting abuses voter trust", January 7, 2002The Orange County Register, "Editorial: Prop. 27 would strangle redistricting reform in the cradle", September 3, 2010 Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez did not fund Yes on Proposition 27, but her sister U.S. congresswoman Linda Sanchez was among the members of Congress funding Yes on Proposition 27. However, both Congresswomen Loretta Sanchez and Linda Sanchez did fundCalifornia Secretary of State, "Campaign Finance: A COALITION OF LEGAL EXPERTS, FILMMAKERS, BUSINESSMEN, AND WORKING PEOPLE. MAJOR FUNDING BY SHANGRI-LA ENTERTAINMENT, LLC & AMERICAN FAMILY VOICES - NO ON 77 " the campaign against a previous redistricting measure, California Proposition 77 (2005).

Arguments in favor

Reasons Lowenstein gives to support his measure include:

"Under current law, three randomly selected accountants decide who can be one of the fourteen unelected commissioners who head a bureaucracy that wields the power to decide who represents us. This reform will ensure that those who make the decisions are accountable to the voters and that all their decisions are subject to approval by the voters."Letter to Attorney General requesting ballot title

Arguments were submitted to the official California Voter Guide on behalf of a "yes" vote on Proposition 27, as were rebuttals to the arguments provided by Prop 27 opponents. The signers of these arguments were:

Daniel H. Lowenstein Hank Lacayo, president, "Congress of California Seniors" Mark Murray, the executive director of "Californians Against Waste"

The arguments made by them for publication in the California Voter Guide on behalf of Proposition 27 focus on these themes: If the Citizens Redistricting Commission authorized by Proposition 11 is abolished, and legislative redistricting is instead done as it used to be done, by the members of the California State Legislature, this will save "several million dollars every ten years", according to a non-partisan analysis conducted by the California Legislative Analyst's Office. California is suffering a host of problems that should be tended to prior to paying attention to how state legislative district lines are drawn The members of the Citizens Redistricting Commission are not accountable to voters for the state legislative district boundary lines they draw, whereas the members of the California State Legislature are accountable to voters. Proposition 27 allows voters to have the final say if they object to a specific redistricting plan by subjecting that plan to veto referendum.

Donors

Haim Saban loaned $2 million to the campaign in mid-April. Saban is in the entertainment business and his personal fortune has been helped along by his association with the Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers. Saban also has media holdings in Israel, Europe, Asia and the United States, including a major stake in Univision, a Spanish-language network. Saban's donation to the effort to overturn Proposition 11 has raised eyebrows, because in 2008, he gave $200,000 to the campaign to pass Proposition 11.

Many of the donors were also big-money donors to the Democratic Party. Others, including Haim Saban, Fred Eychaner, George Soros, Edith Wasserman, Louise Gund, Jack C. Bendheim, Kathryn Hall, and George M. Marcus also contributed between $25,000 up to $25 million to the William J. Clinton Foundation.

Many of the donors supporting Proposition 27 were also major contributors opposing California Proposition 77 (2005), seeking to defeat an earlier proposed redistricting plan. AFSCME spent more than $1,000,000 on both Proposition 77 and on Proposition 27. The largest contribution to No on Proposition 77 was $4,000,000 from Stephen Bing's Shangri-La Entertainment Company, a major contributor to 527 political organizations.OpenSecrets.org, "Top Individual Contributors to Federally Focused 527 Organizations, 2004 Election Cycle", #3 on list.OpenSecrets.org, "Top Individual Contributors to Federally Focused 527 Organizations, 2008 Election Cycle", #4 on list. Stephen Bing is not a contributor to Yes on Proposition 27. However, Stephen Bing was the #1 top political contributor in 2002, joined by Haim Saban (#2), Fred Eychaner (#3), Peter G. Angelos (#8), and Louise Gund (#18), who funded both Yes on Proposition 27 and No on Proposition 77.

Through October 20, 2010, these donors have given $20,000 or more to the "Yes on FAIR, Yes on 27--A Coalition of Entrepreneurs, Working People, Businesses, Community Leaders Such as Karen Bass, and Other Concerned Citizens" campaign committee.

(Updated October 20, 2010) Donor (Affiliation) Amount Haim Saban (Saban Capital Group, President) $2,000,000 American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) $1,250,000 American Federation of Teachers (AFT) $1,000,000 Working 4 Working Americans (associated with the United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners) $500,000 Democratic State Central Committee of California $250,000 California State Council of Service Employees Political Issues Committee (SEIU) $200,000 Judy Chu TruPAC $125,000 Charles Calderon for State Assembly Committee $100,000 George Soros $100,000 Peter G. Angelos (Attorney, Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos and majority owner of the Baltimore Orioles baseball team) $100,000 Louise Gund $100,000 Edith Wasserman (Wasserman Foundation, vice-president) $100,000 Fred Eychaner (Newsweb Corporation, Owner) $100,000 Zenith Insurance (Stanley R. Zax, President/Chairman of the Board) $100,000 International Association of Fire Fighters $100,000 Steven S. Myers (Dolphin Capital Holdings, Inc., Chairman/CEO) $100,000 Jack C. Bendheim (Phibro Animal Health Corp., President) $50,000 International Brotherhood of Electric Workers (IBEW) Educational Committee $50,000 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local No. 47 $50,000 California State Association of Electrical Workers $50,000 California State Pipe Trades Council of the United Association $50,000 Joseph W. Cotchett (Attorney with Cotchett, Piper & McCarthy) $25,000 Kathryn Hall (Hall Financial Group, Investor; Former Ambassador to Austria, appointed by President Clinton) $25,000 C. Paul Johnson (Astrale e Tierra Winery, CEO) $25,000 Stephen Grand (Grand-Sakwa Properties, real estate investor) $25,000 George M. Marcus (Marcus & Millichap, Chairman; University of California Regent appointed by former governor Gray Davis) $25,000 Stewart Resnick (Roll International Corp., President and Chairman) $25,000 Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 447 $25,000 DRIVE Committee (The Teamsters Union) $25,000 Santa Ynez Band of Mission Indians $25,000 Lloyd Thomas Galloway (Attorney at Galloway & Associates) $20,000

Note: "Working 4 Working Americans" is described by Capitol Weekly as "a Washington, D.C.–based, labor-backed group."

Donations from individuals

The following table lists the individuals that contributed $20,000 or more to the Yes on Prop. 27 campaign. Many of the top individual donors also are big-money donors to the Democratic Party. The table indicates the individual donor's name, (ordered by contribution, then by last name) the affiliation of the donor, the dollar amount contributed to the Yes on Proposition 27 campaign,California Secretary of State, "Campaign Finance: YES ON FAIR, YES ON 27--A COALITION OF ENTREPERNEURS, WORKING PEOPLE, BUSINESSES, COMMUNITY LEADERS SUCH AS KAREN BASS, AND OTHER CONCERNED CITIZENS DEVOTED TO ELIMINATING BUREAUCRATIC WASTE OF TAX..." whether the donor's address on record is within California or out-of-state, whether the individual also contributed to the No on California Proposition 77 (2005) campaign the amount of money given in 2010 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC),