Local ballot measure elections in 2014

2014 Local Ballot Measures
By election date
By state
By topic
	Election stats • Measures • TopicsLocal election costs Local pension measures Pension Hotspots Reports Original case study on San Jose and San Diego: Pension reform: San Jose and San Diego voters weigh in Notable measures Fracking • GMOs • Marijuana • Minimum wage • Sports arenas • Secession • Other School bonds & taxes; Approval rates of School bonds and taxes Lawsuits 2014 statewide ballot measures
All about Local Measures; Calendar • Local news

This page is a summary of all the local 2014 ballot measure elections covered by Ballotpedia. Ballotpedia staff covered all local ballot measure elections in California and selected local ballot measures in other states based on hot-button political topics. Local ballot measure elections occur in all 50 states.

Notable topics

Ballotpedia covered the following notable local topics in detail in 2014:

Fracking

See also: Local fracking on the ballot

The first of at least 11 2014 local measures seeking a ban on fracking was defeated in Johnson County, Illinois, on March 18, 2014. Since then, two more local fracking bans were defeated, one in Loveland, Colorado, on June 24 and one in Youngstown, Ohio, on May 20.

Two out of three fracking bans in California were approved. Voters in Santa Barbara County decisively rejected Measure P. Perhaps the 20 to 1 advantage in campaign spending helped expedite this defeat; Measure P opponents spent over $7 million, while supporters barely broke a quarter million in spending. The slightly lower-profile measures in Mendocino County and San Benito County were approved by voters.

A measure in Butte County was proposed for the 2014 ballot, but the election date for it was delayed until June 2016.

Activists in Youngstown, Ohio, failed for a fourth time to pass their "Community Bill of Rights," which included a fracking ban. Their Issue 4 measure received only 42 percent approval, down from their last attempt in May of 2014 that garnered 46 percent approval. Other anti-fracking "Bills of Rights" in Ohio fared just as poorly, with measures defeated in Kent and Gates Mills. The only fracking ban that found favor with voters in Ohio in 2014 was approved in the city of Athens, giving anti-fracking folks a score of one for four in the Buckeye State. A "Community Bill of Rights" fracking ban initiative was enacted in Niles, Ohio. Petitioners collected enough signatures to qualify it for the ballot, but the city council voted to directly approve it, precluding the necessity of a vote on election day.

Texas, an energy-friendly state to which the oil and gas industry has brought substantial wealth, was the only state to feature a perfect approval record for anti-fracking measures, with just one ban proposed and approved. This measure was approved in Denton and is the first local law in the state to permanently prohibit the process of hydraulic fracturing. A lawsuit was immediately filed against the initiative, however, by the Texas Oil and Gas Association.

GMOs

See also: Local GMO on the ballot

Two local initiatives banning genetically modified organisms (GMOs) were approved early in 2014 in Oregon, one in Jackson County and one in Josephine County. The Jackson County measure generated impressive campaign spending, with over $1.3 million in total, combining the support campaign and the deep-pocketed but unsuccessful opposition. Despite state legislation seeking to preclude local GMO bans, activists launched efforts to qualify similar measures for the ballot in Lane County and Benton County. Although several lawsuits were filed against the sponsors of these petitions, activists planned to put the measures before voters in 2015 or 2016.

Two local measures, one in Humboldt County, California, and one in Maui County, Hawaii, sought to prohibit the cultivation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Both measures were approved on November 4, 2014. The very high-profile and contentious Maui County measure, however, was a very close race with just 51 percent of the electorate voting "yes." Opponents of this measure broke local campaign spending records by amassing a war chest of over $9.7 million, largely donated by Monsanto and Dow AgroSciences, LLC, the two companies that expected to be hit the hardest by the new restrictions on GMOs. This measure was immediately tied up in court by the giant agro-chemical businesses.

Minimum wage

See also: Local wages and pay on the ballot

In March, Chicago featured the first of many local measures concerning a minimum wage increase, where voters in a sampling of city precincts overwhelmingly approved an advisory question asking for a $15 per hour minimum wage for large companies.

Philadelphia voters were the next to speak out about minimum wage at the ballot box. On May 20, 2014, they overwhelmingly approved a measure that required the city to apply the same minimum wage that direct city contractors receive to indirect city contractors as well. This measure, combined with an executive order from Mayor Michael Nutter, resulted in a minimum wage of $12.00 per hour designed to begin on January 1, 2015, for all direct and indirect city contractors.

In Washington, where SeaTac City voters were the first to approve a $15 per hour minimum wage, compensation for low-wage workers has been an important issue. An initiative effort to increase the minimum wage in Seattle was rewarded by the city council approving a $15 per hour minimum wage itself, which was immediately challenged by an ultimately unsuccessful veto referendum.

Minimum wage proved to be a hot button issue for the November 4 election in 2014 as well, and many other local measures were seen seeking minimum wage increases.

In most of the places where local voters saw minimum wage increase measures, they approved them. Whether in San Francisco or Oakland, California, or in local advisory questions across Wisconsin, voters mostly said "yes." One measure, however, seeking a $12 per hour minimum wage in a small city called Eureka in northern California was rejected by a margin of 62 to 38 percent.

Las Cruces, the second largest cities in New Mexico, also featured an initiative seeking a minimum wage increase on the November ballot. The measure qualified for the ballot, but it was approved directly by the city council, making an election unnecessary.

Marijuana

See also: Local marijuana on the ballot & Local marijuana tax on the ballot

Past local marijuana measures in Michigan

Marijuana was featured heavily in both state and local measures on November 4. For a rundown of statewide results on the issue see this page.

Washington, D.C.:

See also: Notable Washington, D.C, measures

Everyone interested in the fate of cannabis prohibition turned their eyes towards the nation's capital, where Initiative 71 was proposed to legalize marijuana according to city law. Those who favor legal marijuana were not disappointed. Nearly 65 percent of voters approved the initiative. The measure, however, will necessitate some conflict resolution between the city government and the federal government - especially Congress - as law makers try to smooth out the conflicts between the capital's new law and federal law prohibiting recreational marijuana use.

Michigan:

See also: Notable Michigan measures

In Michigan, supporters of marijuana legalization were, perhaps, a little disappointed by local results. The Safer Michigan Coalition saw their near perfect record with local legalization initiatives tarnished by four decisive losses and one measure that, when all ballots were counted, ended up behind by just a handful of votes. Six measures making small amounts of marijuana legal according to local law were approved, giving the pro-marijuana enthusiasts a winning score of just over 50 percent at the polls on November 4, 2014. For information on all local measures concerning marijuana in Michigan, visit this page.

Colorado:

See also: Notable Colorado measures

In April of 2014, voters in Palmer Lake, Colorado, defeated a veto referendum targeting a local ban on recreational marijuana, leaving the prohibition intact. If they had approved the measure, the retail sale of recreational pot would have been legal according to both state law, through Amendment 64, and local law.

Colorado featured a smorgasbord of local measures concerning marijuana on November 4 as well. Some asked to legalize retail sale of pot and marijuana shops, while others asked to prohibit the operation of pot shops. In the end the election results were just as mixed; two prohibitions against retail sale of marijuana were approved and two were defeated. All five of the measures seeking to explicitly allow the retail sale of marijuana, however, were defeated by the time all the ballots were counted, although one was only behind by a small margin. For details see this page.

Maine:

See also: Notable Maine measures

In Maine, one measure seeking local legalization was approved and one was defeated.

New Mexico:

See also: Notable New Mexico measures

Voters in Bernalillo and Santa Fe counties got to express their opinion on legal marijuana through advisory questions. Although no legally binding effect was produced, voters in both counties approved an end to pot prohibition, with an approval rate of nearly 60 percent in Bernalillo County and an overwhelming 73 percent in Santa Fe County.

California:

See also: Notable California measures

A Long Beach election in April of 2014 featured a marijuana tax measure, Measure A, that could restrict medical marijuana use through making it slightly more expensive. The possibility of keeping marijuana from needy patients through prices boosted by the tax was the basis for many of the unsuccessful arguments opponents used against what they called an unfair tax measure, which imposed a sales tax of 6 percent on all medical marijuana and gave the city power to raise the rate to a maximum of 10 percent. The measure also authorized an annual tax of at least $15 - with a potential maximum of $50 - per square foot for pot plant cultivation spaces in marijuana dispensaries. Many pro-marijuana activists were proponents of the tax, eager to pay taxes in exchange for seeing a legal medical marijuana presence in the city. Proponents generally argued that the tax would bring in essential revenue to the city.^[1]

A variety of proposals seeking to increase or decrease regulation of medical marijuana cultivation and dispensaries were seen by voters in California on November 4, 2014. For details about each measure and its results see this page.

Massachusetts:

See also: Notable Massachusetts measures

Results for the advisory-only public policy questions featured on ballots in eight legislative districts showed approval in each case. Details can be found here.

Pensions

See also: Local pensions on the ballot

One of the most notable pension-related measure of the year in California was slated for the November ballot in Ventura County, California, where the Committee for Pension Fairness was working with the Ventura County Taxpayers Association to move new county employees from a defined benefit plan to a 401(k)-style, defined contribution plan. The measure was ruled illegal in district court, however, where the ruling sharply limited the possibilities of reform in many other counties throughout California.

A similar measure - Proposition 487 - was on the ballot for voters in the city of Phoenix, Arizona, where a group called Citizens for Pension Reform, working with the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, collected over 54,000 signatures to qualify its initiative for an election. Phoenix voters, however, decisively defeated the initiative.

Five pension-related measures made local California ballots in 2014. All five were approved.

a Measure A in Orange County

Measure A was overwhelmingly approved on June 3, 2014. The Orange County system requires contributions to the public pension fund from both employees and employers. Prior to Measure A, however, the county was allowed to pay the employee contribution on behalf of many county officials. Measure A prohibited the county from paying the mandatory employee contributions to the pension fund for county supervisors or any other elected county officials.^[2]

a Measure Y in Porterville

Measure Y was one element of the comprehensive charter reform recommended by the Porterville Charter Review Committee, which took the form of 14 ballot measures. Measure Y ensured that the city's charter was consistent with the California Constitution with regard to pensions and pension benefit termination. It also affirmed that the city retained full power over its pension system, including the power to create, modify or eliminate pension and healthcare benefits, provided alterations are consistent with state law.

a Piedmont City Measure A

Measure A concerned the financial problem of unfunded pension liabilities. It authorized the city to issue $8 million in bonds in order to refinance a $7.8 million side fund debt owed to CalPERS, seeking a lower interest rate than the 7.5 percent that CalPERS was charging.

a Measure EE in the city of Oakland:

In Oakland, voters had an easy pension decision to make. Measure EE was designed to replace an old, closed-down pension system - the Oakland Municipal Employee's Retirement System (OMERS) - with pre-purchased insurance annuities. OMERS was closed for new hires in 1970 and was replaced by participation in the pension giant CalPERS. As of November 4, 2014, the old system still paid for the retirement benefits of 22 former employees. Analysts found that the city could get more money back from the fund if it purchased annuities from insurance companies guaranteeing the same benefits to the remaining retirees. The estimated savings amounted to nine tenths of a million dollars, making Measure EE an simple sell to the voters.^[3]

a Measure JJ in the city of Yorba Linda:

When elected officials request a raise or increased benefits, voters are compelled to think long and hard about whether the public servants in question have earned it. When they request to have benefits cut, however, allowing more money to remain in the pockets of taxpayers, voters tend to have an easy choice. Measure JJ in the city of Yorba Linda was one such proposal. Upon approval, Measure JJ eliminated the pension and healthcare benefits for city council members going forward. Unsurprisingly, over 85 percent of voters were on board.^[4]

An initiative seeking to rollback public pension increases in Pacific Grove, California, from 2002 was removed from the November 4 ballot by a judicial ruling.