2010 California Proposition 20
A California Congressional Redistricting Initiative, Proposition 20 was on the November 2, 2010 ballot in California. It was approved by 61.2% of voters. Election officials announced on May 5 that the proposition had collected sufficient signatures to qualify for the ballot. The measure is known by its supporters as the VOTERS FIRST Act for Congress. The Congressional Redistricting Initiative: Ballot language was filed by Charles Munger, Jr., who was also Proposition 20's largest financial supporter. Munger, the son of billionaire Charlie Munger, was a supporter of Proposition 11 in 2008, which created a new way  for political districts to be drawn for California's state legislators and its state Board of Equalization. A competing initiative that also qualified for the November 2 ballot, California Proposition 27 (2010), sought to repeal Proposition 11. Proposition 20 and Proposition 27 each had a so-called "poison pill" provision. This means that if they "both" received a majority vote, the proposition that received the "highest" majority vote is the law that would go into effect. Since Proposition 20 passed but Proposition 27 did not, neither provision was triggered. Congressional redistricting. If this initiative had not succeeded, the next Governor  of California and members of the California State Legislature would have chosen how to draw lines for the 53 U.S. Congressional districts California was determined to be entitled to after the 2010 census. From 2000 to 2010, the population in California underwent a major shift eastward, with people moving to California's inland areas from its coastal enclaves. This meant that California's congressional district boundaries would certainly undergo major upheaval after the 2010 census. As one example, the San Francisco Bay Area had grown less than 1% since the last redistricting, while the Central Valley area had grown by  21%. Los Angeles County had grown 5%, while San Diego, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Imperial Counties had grown by 17%. Another notable factor is that California's population hadn't grown much relative to the population of the rest of the United States, There were fears at the time that California might even have proportionally shrunk and that it could lose one or two seats in Congress. In the end, California's representation in Congress remained the same, which was the first time the state had not increased its congressional representation since the reapportionment following the 1920 census. Constitutional  changes. Proposition 20 amended three sections of Article XXI of the California Constitution. The three sections are: Support. Supporters. Charles Munger launched the campaign to qualify the Congressional Redistricting Initiative for the 2010 ballot. Munger was also a key supporter of 2008's Proposition 11, having given about $2 million to that effort. The New York Times characterized Proposition 20's supporters as "an unlikely collection of election-reform groups, civil rights nonprofits and former officials from both major parties who say that the current system of redistricting has left politicians unaccountable." Supporters of Proposition 20 included: A full  list of the supporters of Proposition 20 is available from the "Yes on Proposition 20" website. Arguments in favor. Arguments were submitted to the official California Voter Guide on behalf of a "yes" vote on Proposition 20, as were rebuttals to the arguments provided by Prop 20 opponents. The signers of these arguments were: The arguments made on behalf of Proposition 20 focus on these themes: Opposition. Opposition to Proposition 20 was primarily driven by the supporters of Proposition 27. Donors against. Two campaign committees officially registered in opposition to Proposition 20. They are: Through September 22, neither of the  committees specifically aimed at Proposition 20 had received any contributions to speak of. However, due to the fact that California Proposition 27 contains "poison pill" language with respect to Proposition 20, any money spent to promote a "yes" vote on Proposition 27 amounts to money spent to hurt Proposition 20, and vice versa. That main campaign committee endorsing a "yes" vote on California Proposition 27 raised millions of dollars, including a substantial amount of money from 17 members of California's delegation to the U.S. Congress as well as members of the California State Legislature such as State Rep. Charles  Calderon, a $100,000 donor to the "Yes on 27" campaign. Arguments against. Arguments were submitted to the official California Voter Guide urging a "no" vote on Proposition 20, as were rebuttals to the arguments provided by Prop 20 supporters. The signers of these arguments were: The themes of the main arguments they made against Proposition 20 (and in favor of Proposition 27) are: Editorial opinion. Yes on Prop 20. Newspapers that editorialized in favor of Proposition 20 include: Path to the ballot. 694,354 signatures were required to qualify the initiative for the ballot. Supporters turned in 1,180,623 signature in  mid-March 2010, and election officials announced on May 5, 2010 that after an inspection process, the signatures met or exceeded the minimum threshold for ballot qualification. The petition drive management company hired to collect the signatures was National Petition Management. NPM was paid $1,937,380 (through May 6) for their signature-gathering services.