# 2008 California Proposition 4

Elections in California :
Federal government
U.S. President
1852
1856
1860
1864
1868
1872
1876
1880
1884
1888
1892
1896
1900
1904
1908
1912
1916
1920
1924
1928
1932
1936
1940
1944
1948
1952
1956
1960
1964
1968
1972
1976
1980
1984
1988
1992
1996
Dem
Rep
2000
Dem
Rep
2004
Dem
Rep
2008
Dem
Rep
2012
Dem
Rep
2016
Dem
Rep
2020
Dem
Rep
2024
Dem
Rep
U.S. Senate
1849
1850
1852 sp
1856
1857 sp
1860
1860 sp
1868
1872
1873
1873 sp
1878
1880
1885
1886 sp
1887
1891
1891 sp
1893
1895 sp
1897
1900 sp
1903
1905
1909
1911
1914
1916
1920
1922
1926
1928
1932
1934
1938
1940
1944
1946
1946 sp
1950
1952
1954 sp
1956
1958
1962
1964
1968
1970
1974
1976
1980
1982
1986
1988
1992
1992 sp
1994
1998
2000
2004
2006
2010
2012
2016
2018
2022
2022 sp
2024
2024 sp
2028
U.S. House of Representatives
1849
1851
1852
1854
1856
1859
1861
1863
1864
1867
1868
1871
1872
1875
1876
1879
1880
1882
1884
1886
1888
1890
1892
1894
1896
1898
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
1940
1942
1944
1946
12th
1948
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1987
5th sp
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2001
32nd sp
2002
2004
2005
5th sp
48th sp
2006
50th sp
2007
36th sp
2008
12th sp
2009
10th sp
32nd sp
2010
2011
36th sp
2012
2014
2016
2017
34th sp
2018
2020
25th sp
2022
22nd sp
2024
16th
20th sp
30th
45th
47th
vte :
State government
Executive Governor
1849
1851
1853
1855
1857
1859
1861
1863
1867
1871
1875
1879
1882
1886
1890
1894
1898
1902
1906
1910
1914
1918
1922
1926
1930
1934
1938
1942
1946
1950
1954
1958
1962
1966
1970
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2003 (recall)
2006
2010
2014
2018
2021 (recall)
2022
2026
Lieutenant governor
1950
1954
1958
1962
1966
1970
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
2026
Attorney general
1970
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
Secretary of state
1970
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
Treasurer
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
Controller
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
Insurance commissioner
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
Superintendent
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
Board of equalization
2018
2022
Legislature Senate
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
Special
Assembly
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2021 (79th sp)
2022 (17th sp)
2024
Special
Judiciary Court of appeals
1994
1998
2002
2006
Elections by year
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2005
2006
2008
Feb
Jun
Nov
2009
2010
Jun
Nov
2012
Jun
Nov
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
vte :
State propositions
1910–1919
1911
4
7
8
1960–1969
1964
14
1970–1979
1978
6
8
13
1980–1989
1982
8
1986
64
65
1988
98
99
1990–1999
1994
187
1996
196
209
215
218
1998
6
10
227
2000–2009
2000
21
22
36
39
2003
53
54
2004
1A
55
56
57
58
59
60
60A
61
62
63
64
65
66
69
71
2005
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
2006
81
82
83
85
87
89
90
2008
91
92
93
94, 95, 96, and 97
98 and 99
1A
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
2009
1A
1B
1C
1D
1E
1F
2010–2019
2010
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2012
29
30
32
34
37
38
39
2014
1
2
41
42
45
46
47
48
2016
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
2018
68
69
70
71
72
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
2020–2029
2020
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2022
1
26
27
28
29
30
31
2024
1
2
3
4
5
6
32
33
34
35
36
Full listvte :
Los Angeles County
Los Angeles County Board of supervisors
1980
1996
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
Ballot measures
1980
A
2008
R
2012
B
J
2016
M
Elections
2020
2022
2024
Los Angeles Mayor
1896
1898
1900
1902
1904
1906
1909 (sp)
1909
1911
1913
1915
1917
1919
1921
1923
1925
1929
1933
1937
1938
1941
1945
1949
1953
1957
1961
1965
1969
1973
1977
1981
1985
1989
1993
1997
2001
2005
2009
2013
2017
2022
City attorney
2009
Ballot measures
1986
U
2017
S
Elections
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
2019 (sp)
2020
2022
2023 (sp)
2024
Long Beach Mayor
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
vte :
Orange County
Orange County Board of supervisors
2018
2020
2022
2024
District attorney
2018
Anaheim Mayor
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
Irvine Mayor
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
Costa Mesa Municipal
1947
1953
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
vte :
Sacramento
Mayor
2000
2004
2008
2012
2016
2020
2024
vte :
San Diego County
San Diego County Board of supervisors
2020
San Diego Mayor
1887
1889
1891
1893
1895
1897
1899
1901
1903
1905
1907
1909
1911
1913
1915
1917
1919
1921
1923
1925
1927
1929
1931
1932
1935
1939
1943
1947
1951
1955
1959
1963
1967
1971
1975
1979
1983 (sp)
1984
1986 (sp)
1988
1992
1996
2000
2004
2005 (sp)
2008
2012
2013–14 (sp)
2016
2020
2024
City attorney
2004
2008
2012
2016
2020
City council
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
Special
vte :
San Francisco
Mayor
1901
1903
1905
1907
1909
1911
1931
1935
1939
1943
1947
1951
1955
1959
1963
1967
1971
1975
1979
1983 (recall)
1983
1987
1991
1995
1999
2003
2007
2011
2015
2018 (sp)
2019
2024
District attorney
2019
2022 (recall)
2022 (sp)
2024
Board of supervisors
1977
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
Board of education
2018
2022 (recall)
Elections
2004
Mar
Nov
2005
2006
Jun
Nov
2007
2008
Feb
Jun
Nov
2009
2010
Jun
Nov
2011
2012
Jun
Nov
2013
2022
Feb
vte :
San Jose
Mayor
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
2024
vte :
Other localities
Bakersfield
Mayoral elections:
2004
2008
2012
2016
2020
2024
Fresno
Mayoral elections:
1996
2000
2004
2008
2012
2016
2020
2024
Oakland
Mayoral elections:
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
Riverside
Mayoral elections:
1997
2001
2005
2009
2012
2016
2020
2024
San Bernardino
Mayoral elections:
2005
2009
2014
2018
2022
Stockton
Mayoral elections:
2008
2012
2016
2020
2024
vte :
vte :
Proposition 4, or the Abortion Waiting Period and Parental Notification Initiative, also known to its supporters as Sarah's Law, was an initiative state constitutional amendment in the 2008 California general election.
The initiative would prohibit abortion for un-emancipated minors until 48 hours after physician notifies minor's parent, legal guardian or, if parental abuse has been reported, an alternative adult family member.
Proposition 4 was rejected by voters on November 4, 2008.

## Specific provisions

The proposed initiative, if enacted as a constitutional amendment, would:
* Provide exceptions for medical emergency or parental waiver.
* Permit courts to waive notice based on clear and convincing evidence of minor's maturity or best interests.
* Mandate reporting requirements, including reports from physicians regarding abortions on minors.
* Authorize monetary damages against physicians for violation.
* Require minor's consent to abortion, with exceptions.
* Permit judicial relief if minor's consent is coerced.

## Fiscal Impact

* Health and Social Services Costs. Annual costs in the range of $4 million to $5 million for the state and about $2 million for counties, and potential one-time Medi-Cal automation costs unlikely to exceed a few million dollars.
* Costs to Local Law Enforcement and Courts. Annual costs in the range of $5 million to $6 million per year.
* Potential Offsetting Savings. Unknown, potential savings to the state in health care and public assistance costs from decreases in sexually transmitted diseases and teen pregnancy.

## Supporters

* The Friends of Sarah, the Parental or Alternative Family Member Notification Act. is the official ballot committee.
* Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger

### Arguments in favor of Prop. 4

Notable arguments that have been made in favor of Prop. 4 include:
* 34 other U.S. States have had notification laws in place for as long as 25 years.
* When a minor obtains an abortion without the knowledge of a family member or guardian, her health can be endangered if health complications arise after the abortion.
* If a minor becomes pregnant because of sexual violence or predation, a sexual predator may be missed, because the abortion clinic may not report the sexual crime.

### Donors

As of September 27, 2008, the six largest donors to Prop. 4 are:
* Jim Holman, $1,525,590. (Of this, $1.35 million is listed as a loan.)
* Don Sebastiani, $530,000.
* Knights of Columbus, $200,000.
* Life Legal Defense Foundation, $50,000.
* The Lenawee Trust, $100,000.
* The Caster Family Trust, $100,000.

## Path to ballot and prior attempts at passage

The signature-gathering drive to qualify the 2008 Parental Notification petition for the ballot was conducted by petition management firm Bader & Associates, Inc. at a cost of $2,555,000.
Proposition 4 represents the third time that California voters will have considered the issue of a parental notification/waiting period for abortion. The two previous, unsuccessful, initiatives were California Proposition 85 (2006) and California Proposition 73 (2005).
When Prop 73 lost in 2005, some supporters thought that a similar measure would fare better in a general election. However, Prop 85 did worse. Unlike 85 or 73, Proposition 4 allows an adult relative of the minor seeking an abortion to be notified, if the minor's parents are abusive.
Camille Giulio, a spokeswoman for the pro-4 campaign said that the November 2008 election represents a better opportunity for parental notification legislation because:
* There will be a higher voter turnout in November 2008 than when 85 and 73 were voted on.
* Socially conservative voters will be motivated to come to the polls to vote in favor of the much higher profile Proposition 8. While at the polls, they are likely to also vote in favor of 4.
* The two previous campaigns represented narrow defeats in low budget campaigns.
| Year | Proposition | Votes for | % for | Votes against | % against |
| 2005 | Prop 73 | 3,676,592 | 47.2% | 4,109,430 | 52.8% |
| 2006 | Prop 85 | 3,868,714 | 45.8% | 4,576,128 | 54.2% |
| 2008 | Prop 4 | 4,761,465 | 48.0% | 5,157,174 | 52.0% |

## Opposition to Prop. 4

The Campaign for Teen Safety is the official ballot committee against the proposition.
* American Academy of Pediatrics, California District
* American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, District IX
* California Academy of Family Physicians
* California Family Health Council
* California Nurses Association
* California School Counselors Association
* California Teachers Association
* Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California
* California NOW
* Equality California
* The Let California Ring coalition

### Arguments against Prop. 4

Notable arguments that have been made against Prop. 4 include:
* Mandated parental notification laws do not work. No law can mandate family communication.
* Some teenagers can't go to their parents for fear of being forced to leave their home, abuse, or worse.
* Prop 4 may force these teens to delay medical care, turn to self-induced abortions, or consider suicide.
* The reason there are fewer teen pregnancies in states mandating parental notification is that more teenage girls choose to go underground and have unsafe abortions which go unreported.
* Fear of parents being notified in the event of an abortion is highly unlikely to motivate teens to practice abstinence.
* This proposition is extremely gender-biased. It is unlikely that any law would mandate the notification of the father's parents.
* The vote will be biased as those affected by the bill, namely minors, are unable to vote on it.
* If a teen seeks the support of another adult, her parents would automatically be reported to authorities, and an investigation would ensue.

### Consultants

The No on 4 campaign has hired the Dewey Square Group as a consultant.

### Donors to opposition

As of September 27, some of the top donors to the opposition campaign were:
* A number of different Planned Parenthood affiliates, including the Los Angeles, Mar Monte, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Barbara, Shasta Diablo and Pasadena offices, $4,485,000
* California Teachers Association, $450,000.
* California Family Health Council, $80,000.
* Committee for a New Economy, $25,000.
* ACLU, Northern California, $50,000.
* ACLU, Southern California, $10,000.
* Susan Orr, $100,000.
* John Morgridge, $100,000.

## Lawsuit filed over Prop. 4 language

Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California and others filed a lawsuit with the Sacramento County Superior Court in early August to strike out all references to "Sarah" and "Sarah's Law" and "other misleading language in the voter's guide" for Proposition 4. The title "Sarah's Law" refers to the case of 15-year-old "Sarah" who died as a result of an abortion in 1994. Proposition 4's ballot language in the official voter's guide suggests that "Sarah" might have been saved had her parents known about her abortion. Opponents of Proposition 4 argue that "Sarah" was not considered a minor in Texas, where the abortion was performed, and that she already had a child with a man who claimed to be her common-law husband. If this is the case, the proposed law, Proposition 4, would not have helped her, since it wouldn't have applied to her. Based on this reasoning, opponents asked that the references to Sarah be stricken.
Judge Michael Kenny of the Sacramento Superior Court ultimately ruled against the opponents, allowing the original proposed ballot language and arguments, including references to Sarah, to stay in the official California voter's pamphlet.

## Polling information

The Field Poll has conducted and released the results of four public opinion polls on Proposition 4, in July, August, September, and October.
Mark DiCamillo, director of the polling agency, said he believes the current version is running stronger because Latinos overwhelmingly favor it and are expected to vote in higher-than-usual numbers in November.
| Month of Poll | In Favor | Opposed | Undecided |
| July 2008 | 48 percent | 39 percent | 13 percent |
| August 2008 | 47 percent | 44 percent | 9 percent |
| September 2008 | 49 percent | 41 percent | 10 percent |
| October 2008 | 45 percent | 43 percent | 12 percent |

## Newspaper endorsements
### Editorial boards in favor

* San Diego Union Tribune
* Orange County Register

### Editorial boards opposed

* Los Angeles Times
* San Francisco Chronicle

## Results

Proposition 4 :
| Choice | Votes | % |
| No | 6,728,478 | 51.96 |
| Yes | 6,220,473 | 48.04 |
| Valid votes | 12,948,951 | 94.22 |
| Invalid or blank votes | 794,226 | 5.78 |
| Total votes | 13,743,177 | 100.00 |
| Source: November 4, 2008, General Election Statement of Vote |||