Proposition 23

Title:			"None of the Above" Ballot Option. Initiative Statute.
Sponsors:			Teri Shugart Erickson and Alan F. Shugart
Legislative History:			None

Major Provisions:

• Provides that voters may vote for "none of the above" rather than a named candidate in general, special, primary, and recall elections for President, Vice President, United States House of Representatives and United States Senate, Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Controller, Secretary of State, Treasurer, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Insurance Commissioner, Board of Equalization, State Assembly and State Senate.
  
  
• Votes for "none of the above" shall be tallied and listed in official election results, but only votes for named candidates will count for determining the election result.

Background:
Voters in the State of Nevada, for more than 20 years, have had the ability to cast a vote for "none of these candidates" and have their choice counted and reported as part of official election results.

The "none of the above" option has beaten out real candidates in four primary elections.

The theory is that when more voters cast their ballots for "none of the above" than for any of the candidates, they will send a powerful message about the need for reform.

In the early 1990s, consumer advocate Ralph Nader was unsuccessful in his attempts to push a measure that called for voiding an election if "none of the above" got the majority of the vote.

Policy Considerations:

• Proponents claim that one of the primary reasons for placing this initiative on the ballot is to improve voter participation. Is there evidence that this category actually improves voter participation in the State of Nevada? Do Nevada politicians pay attention to the none-of-the above statistics to improve their methods of recruiting candidates and running campaigns to improve voter participation?

Fiscal Impact:
This measure could result in minor costs for the state and for county governments to modify their vote-counting and election-reporting procedures.

Support Arguments:

• At times, we've wanted to protest the choices given to us, express our discontent over negative campaigning or object to the lack of relevant information about the candidates. If we had the option of voting for "none of the above," we would have the opportunity to have our protest counted and our voices heard.
• More people would vote if they had a choice to vote for a worthy candidate or for "none of the above" in an election where none of the candidates was worthy.
• If candidates knew that Californians would vote for "none of the above," they might be more likely to run campaigns based on issues and positive messages rather than campaigns that simply attack opponents.

Support Arguments Signed By:
Amanda Gutwirth, social worker, David James, small business owner, Susan Howell, waitress; Alan F. Shugart, businessman.

Opposition Arguments:

• The hope of the initiative is that will boost voter registration, increase voter turnout, improve the quality of candidates and reduce negative campaigning. Unfortunately, in the one state (Nevada), "none of the above" hasn't achieved any of them.
• "None-of-the-above" option is voting for something that can't win, even if it gets the most votes. Some proven solutions include the Instant Runoff, which allows voters to rank a first, second and third choice, and Proportional Representation, which is the common sense notion that all Californians deserve representation, not just the biggest group in a town or election district.
• Unfortunately, this initiative would just draw votes away from candidates who are trying to provide credible alternatives to the major parties.

Opposition Arguments Signed By:
Sara Amir, spokesperson, Green Party of California; John Strawn, spokesperson, Green Party of California; Dona Spring, city councilmember, Berkeley; John B. Anderson, 1980 Independent Presidential Candidate; Julie Partansky, mayor of Davis.

Cal-Tax Position:
No recommendation. This measure is outside the scope of Cal-Tax's mission.