DOCSLIB.ORG

Attachment D Memorandum: Summary of Declared Drought Emergencies in California

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Attachment D Memorandum: Summary of Declared Drought Emergencies in California Attachment D Memorandum: Summary of Declared Drought Emergencies in California Proposition 1 Water Storage Investment Program Public Benefit Ratio Appeal February 2018 This page is intentionally left blank. MEMORANDUM DATE: 14 July 2016 TO: Dr. Maureen Martin FROM: Jeremy Barroll SUBJECT: History of California Executive Orders Relating to Drought 1976-1977 Drought In January 1977, Governor Jerry Brown declared a state of emergency due to drought and asked for federal assistance. In March 1977, Governor Jerry Brown passed Executive Order B-27-77, which established a Drought Task Force to plan state efforts and inform the public of drought conditions. 1987-1992 Drought In April 1988, Governor George Deukmejian declared a drought and directed the Department of Water Resources to compose a Drought Emergency Plan. February 1991: Governor Pete Wilson passed Executive Order W-3-91, which formed the Drought Action Team and Directed the Department of Water Resources to commission a Drought Water Bank, which served to purchase water from agencies with surplus and sell it to areas of highest need, and also to advise local agencies on water conservation. February 1993: Governor Pete Wilson declared drought officially over. 2007-2009 Drought In June 2008, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger passed Executive Order S-06-08, which called for the Department of Water Resources to expedite grants for local agencies’ conservation projects and water transfers to areas of more extreme shortage. The Order also launched a water conservation campaign and ordered the Climate Variability Advisory Committee to focus on modeling drought- related effects of climate change. In June 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger issued an Emergency Proclamation for the Central Valley, which directed the Office of Emergency Services to coordinate groundwater well enhancements and water deliveries for residential use in the San Joaquin Valley. In February 2009, Governor Schwarzenegger declared a state of emergency due to drought, and asked Californians to cut personal water use by 20%. 1 In June 2009, Governor Schwarzenegger passed Executive Order S-11-09, which called for the California Emergency Management Agency and Department of Social Services to devise a strategy to provide nutrition to those individuals displaced by the drought by July 15, and also suspended the one week waiting period for unemployment insurance for those drought-displaced individuals. In July 2009, Governor Schwarzenegger declared a state of emergency for Fresno County, directing the Emergency Management Agency to lead other state agencies in providing food assistance for Fresno County. 2012- Drought In May 2013, Governor Jerry brown passed Executive Order B-21-13, which directed the Department of Water Resources and State Water Resources Control Board to expedite water transfers for the remainder of 2013 to encourage sales of surplus water to San Joaquin Valley irrigation districts. In January 2014, Governor Jerry Brown declared a State of Emergency due to severe drought conditions. In April 2014, Governor Brown issued a Proclamation of Continued State of Emergency which called for non-mandatory water use reductions, such as by reducing landscape irrigation. In September 2014, Governor Brown passed Executive Order B-26-14, which directed the Department of Water Resources, State Water Resources Control Board and Office of Emergency Services to work with local water agencies to relieve shortages of residential water supply. In December 2014, Governor Brown passed Executive Order B-28-14, which extended a waiver of the California Environmental Quality Act originally passed in Governor Brown’s January 2014 Drought Proclamation through May 2016. In April 2015, Governor Brown passed Executive Order B-29-15 requiring mandatory water use reductions. This was accomplished by requiring cuts for public landscaping and large water using institutions (golf courses etc.), banning new landscape irrigation installation, requiring municipal agencies to implement conservation pricing, subsidizing water-saving technologies and implementing other measures to reduce the state’s overall urban water use by 25%. The Order also requires local water agencies and large agricultural users to report their water use more frequently. In November 2015, Governor Brown passed Executive Order B-35-15, which extended the mandatory water use reduction requirements and prioritized State Water Resources Control Board approval of local agencies’ projects to capture high water flows, such groundwater recharge projects. In May 2016, Governor Brown passed Executive Order B-37-16, which made the mandatory water use reduction of 25% permanent and directed the Department of Water Resources and State Water Resources Control Board to strategize further water reduction targets. The order also makes permanent the requirement that local agencies report their water use monthly. Additionally, certain wasteful practices such as sidewalk hosing and runoff-causing landscape irrigation are permanently outlawed, while local agencies must prepare plans to handle droughts lasting five years. 2 References https://www.gov.ca.gov/s_executiveorders.php https://www.fema.gov/disaster/3023 3 http://www.water.ca.gov/waterconditions/docs/2_drought-1987-92.pdf http://articles.latimes.com/1988-04-17/news/mn-2129_1_drought-contingency-plan http://www.water.ca.gov/waterconditions/docs/a9237_CalSignficantDroughts_v10_int.pdf 4 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Appendix File Anes 1988‐1992 Merged Senate File
    Version 03 Codebook ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ CODEBOOK APPENDIX FILE ANES 1988‐1992 MERGED SENATE FILE USER NOTE: Much of his file has been converted to electronic format via OCR scanning. As a result, the user is advised that some errors in character recognition may have resulted within the text. MASTER CODES: The following master codes follow in this order: PARTY‐CANDIDATE MASTER CODE CAMPAIGN ISSUES MASTER CODES CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSHIP CODE ELECTIVE OFFICE CODE RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE MASTER CODE SENATOR NAMES CODES CAMPAIGN MANAGERS AND POLLSTERS CAMPAIGN CONTENT CODES HOUSE CANDIDATES CANDIDATE CODES >> VII. MASTER CODES ‐ Survey Variables >> VII.A. Party/Candidate ('Likes/Dislikes') ? PARTY‐CANDIDATE MASTER CODE PARTY ONLY ‐‐ PEOPLE WITHIN PARTY 0001 Johnson 0002 Kennedy, John; JFK 0003 Kennedy, Robert; RFK 0004 Kennedy, Edward; "Ted" 0005 Kennedy, NA which 0006 Truman 0007 Roosevelt; "FDR" 0008 McGovern 0009 Carter 0010 Mondale 0011 McCarthy, Eugene 0012 Humphrey 0013 Muskie 0014 Dukakis, Michael 0015 Wallace 0016 Jackson, Jesse 0017 Clinton, Bill 0031 Eisenhower; Ike 0032 Nixon 0034 Rockefeller 0035 Reagan 0036 Ford 0037 Bush 0038 Connally 0039 Kissinger 0040 McCarthy, Joseph 0041 Buchanan, Pat 0051 Other national party figures (Senators, Congressman, etc.) 0052 Local party figures (city, state, etc.) 0053 Good/Young/Experienced leaders; like whole ticket 0054 Bad/Old/Inexperienced leaders; dislike whole ticket 0055 Reference to vice‐presidential candidate ? Make 0097 Other people within party reasons Card PARTY ONLY ‐‐ PARTY CHARACTERISTICS 0101 Traditional Democratic voter: always been a Democrat; just a Democrat; never been a Republican; just couldn't vote Republican 0102 Traditional Republican voter: always been a Republican; just a Republican; never been a Democrat; just couldn't vote Democratic 0111 Positive, personal, affective terms applied to party‐‐good/nice people; patriotic; etc.
    [Show full text]
  • 110Th Congress 17
    CALIFORNIA 110th Congress 17 CALIFORNIA (Population 2000, 33,871,648) SENATORS DIANNE FEINSTEIN, Democrat, of San Francisco, CA; born in San Francisco, June 22, 1933; education: B.A., Stanford University, 1955; elected to San Francisco Board of Super- visors, 1970–78; president of Board of Supervisors: 1970–71, 1974–75, 1978; mayor of San Francisco, 1978–88; candidate for governor of California, 1990; recipient: Distinguished Woman Award, San Francisco Examiner; Achievement Award, Business and Professional Women’s Club, 1970; Golden Gate University, California, LL.D. (hon.), 1979; SCOPUS Award for Out- standing Public Service, American Friends of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem; University of Santa Clara, D.P.S. (hon.); University of Manila, D.P.A. (hon.), 1981; Antioch University, LL.D. (hon.), 1983; Los Angeles Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith’s Distinguished Serv- ice Award, 1984; French Legion d’Honneur from President Mitterand, 1984; Mills College, LL.D. (hon.), 1985; U.S. Army’s Commander’s Award for Public Service, 1986; Brotherhood/ Sisterhood Award, National Conference of Christians and Jews, 1986; Paulist Fathers Award, 1987; Episcopal Church Award for Service, 1987; U.S. Navy Distinguished Civilian Award, 1987; Silver Spur Award for Outstanding Public Service, San Francisco Planning and Urban Renewal Association, 1987; All Pro Management Team Award for No. 1 Mayor, City and State Magazine, 1987; Community Service Award Honoree for Public Service, 1987; American Jew- ish Congress, 1987; President’s Award, St. Ignatius High School, San Francisco, 1988; Coro Investment in Leadership Award, 1988; President’s Medal, University of California at San Fran- cisco, 1988; University of San Francisco, D.H.L.
    [Show full text]
  • California's Affirmative Action Fight
    Research & Occasional Paper Series: CSHE.5.18 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY http://cshe.berkeley.edu/ The University of California@150* CALIFORNIA’S AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FIGHT: Power Politics and the University of California March 2018 John Aubrey Douglass** UC Berkeley Copyright 2018 John Aubrey Douglass, all rights reserved. ABSTRACT This essay discusses the contentious events that led to the decision by the University of California’s Board of Regents to end affirmative action in admissions, hiring and contracting at the university in July 1995. This was a significant decision that provided momentum to California’s passage of Proposition 209 the following year ending “racial preferences” for all of the state’s public agencies. Two themes are offered. In virtually any other state, the debate over university admissions would have bled beyond the confines of a university’s governing board. The board would have deferred to lawmakers and an even more complicated public discourse. The University of California’s unusual status as a “public trust” under the state constitution, however, meant that authority over admissions was the sole responsibility of the board. This provided a unique forum to debate affirmative action for key actors, including Regent Ward Connerly and Governor Pete Wilson, to pursued fellow regents to focus and decide on a hotly debated social issue related to the dispersal of a highly sought public good – access to a selective public university. Two themes are explored. The first focuses on the debate within the university community and the vulnerability of existing affirmative action programs and policies—including a lack of unanimity among the faculty regarding the use of racial preferences.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Public Universities As Interest Groups
    THE ROLE OF PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES AS INTEREST GROUPS IN THE UNITED STATES by Ngo Tu Thanh (Frank Tu) A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of M.A. in Political Science The Department of Political Science Central European University Budapest, Hungary CEU eTD Collection June 2019 Supervisor: Anil Duman © 2020 CEU eTD Collection NGO TU THANH (Frank Tu) ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii ABSTRACT Ngo Tu Thanh (Frank Tu) THE ROLE OF PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES AS INTEREST GROUPS IN THE UNITED STATES Under the direction of Anil Duman The University of California (UC), the California State University (CSU), and the California Community Colleges (CCC) used to receive approximately the same amount of state funding prior to 1988. However, in recent decades, California has adopted numerous policies that favor the CCC. Predicated upon this empirical observation, this thesis argues that the three systems act as interest groups, lobbying for state funding, and the CCC is the most effective, despite being the larger group. This observation contradicts with Olson’s (1965) “group-size paradox” and poses a theoretical puzzle: “Why are the California community colleges more influential in lobbying despite the collective action problems it may face as a larger group?”. Existing theories suggest three potential answers for this puzzle: 1) types of interest, be it public or private, 2) degree of conflict, and 3) public opinion. By conducting content analyses of secondary sources, this thesis finds that the CCC’s goal is to ensure the affordability of higher education, while the UC seeks to preserve its own reputation and quality at the expense of universal access to and affordability of higher education.
    [Show full text]
  • December, 2015 Dan Schnur • Director -- Jesse M
    December, 2015 Dan Schnur • Director -- Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics, University of Southern California (2008 – present) • Director -- USC Dornsife/LA Times Poll -- (2009 - present) • Chairman -- California Fair Political Practices Commission (2010-2011) • California Public Affairs Director – Edelman Public Relations (2007-2008) • Partner -- Command Focus Public Affairs (2003-2006) • Executive Director -- Center for Campaign Leadership (2001-2002) • Communications Director -- McCain for President 2000 (1999-2000) • Political Director -- Technology Network (1997-1998) • Adjunct Instructor -- UC-Berkeley (1996-2011) • Press Secretary -- Wilson for Governor (1994) • Communications Director -- Office of Governor Pete Wilson (1991-1994) • Communications Director -- California Republican Party (1990) • Deputy Press Secretary -- Republican National Committee (1989) • Field Communications Coordinator -- Bush-Quayle '88 (1987-1988) • Press Secretary -- Office of U.S. Congressman Ed Zschau (1986) • Press Assistant -- Office of U.S. Senator Paula Hawkins (1985) • Media Assistant -- Reagan-Bush '84 (1984) Dan Schnur is the Director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California, where he works to motivate students to become active in the world of politics and encourage public officials to participate in the daily life of USC. For years, Dan was one of California’s leading political and media strategists, whose record includes work on four presidential and three gubernatorial campaigns. Schnur served as
    [Show full text]
  • Breaking the Bank Primary Campaign Spending for Governor Since 1978
    Breaking the Bank Primary Campaign Spending for Governor since 1978 California Fair Political Practices Commission • September 2010 Breaking the Bank a report by the California Fair Political Practices Commission September 2010 California Fair Political Practices Commission 428 J Street, Suite 620 Sacramento, CA 95814 Table of Contents Executive Summary 3 Introduction 5 Cost-per-Vote Chart 8 Primary Election Comparisons 10 1978 Gubernatorial Primary Election 11 1982 Gubernatorial Primary Election 13 1986 Gubernatorial Primary Election 15 1990 Gubernatorial Primary Election 16 1994 Gubernatorial Primary Election 18 1998 Gubernatorial Primary Election 20 2002 Gubernatorial Primary Election 22 2006 Gubernatorial Primary Election 24 2010 Gubernatorial Primary Election 26 Methodology 28 Appendix 29 Executive Summary s candidates prepare for the traditional general election campaign kickoff, it is clear Athat the 2010 campaign will shatter all previous records for political spending. While it is not possible to predict how much money will be spent between now and November 2, it may be useful to compare the levels of spending in this year’s primary campaign with that of previous election cycles. In this report, “Breaking the Bank,” staff of the Fair Political Practices Commission determined the spending of each candidate in every California gubernatorial primary since 1978 and calculated the actual spending per vote cast—in 2010 dollars—as candidates sought their party’s nomination. The conclusion: over time, gubernatorial primary elections have become more costly and fewer people turnout at the polls. But that only scratches the surface of what has happened since 19781. Other highlights of the report include: Since 1998, the rise of the self-funded candidate has dramatically increased the cost of running for governor in California.
    [Show full text]
  • Southern California Leadership Council Southern California
    Southern California Leadership Council September 1, 2010 SCAG Regional Council th CoCoCo ---Chairs 818 West Seventh Street, 12 Floor Gray Davis Los Angeles, CA 90017-3435 Greg McWilliams Subject: SB 375 Implementation SCLC Board Dougall Agan George Argyros Southern California and SCAG have been pursuing smart growth policies for Timothy Brick more than a decade. These efforts should continue. SB 375 is an unfunded Janice Bryant state mandate for local governments to pursue specific goals for the reduction Howroyd Bruce Choate of carbon emissions from cars and light trucks through changes in land use Joe Drew and transportation planning and programs in furtherance of AB 32. Since John R. Fielder passage of SB 375, the State of California has de-funded transit, David Fleming transportation and redevelopment support for local government. This John Hawkins continues years of state diversion of revenues from gasoline, sales, income Robert Hertzberg Hasan Ikhrata and other taxes needed for local government programs. Now CARB plans to Jessie Knight, Jr. impose SB 375 per capita targets for the Southern California region of 8% for Janet Lamkin 2020 and 13% for 2035 which exceed the range of possible outcomes Randall Lewis developed by SCAG. Kenneth McNeely John Palinkas Henry Segerstrom Local government cannot achieve these mandated changes without Dominick Servedio increased , not decreased, state support. SCAG's "business as usual" base Sandor W. Shapery case modeling shows the need to continue pre SB375 state funding levels to Robert Sprowls achieve even a 6% per capita reduction in carbon emissions by 2020. Nick Sramek James Thomas Therefore, SCAG, as the region's MPO, must explicitly condition any level or Robert Wolf range of implementation goal on availability of specific performance standards for state support for planning, transit, transportation and redevelopment and ExExEx-Ex ---OfficioOfficio other necessary funding.
    [Show full text]
  • The Making of California's Framework, Standards, and Tests for History
    “WHAT EVERY STUDENT SHOULD KNOW AND BE ABLE TO DO”: THE MAKING OF CALIFORNIA’S FRAMEWORK, STANDARDS, AND TESTS FOR HISTORY-SOCIAL SCIENCE A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION AND THE COMMITTEE ON GRADUATE STUDIES OF STANFORD UNIVERSITY IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Bradley Fogo July 2010 © 2010 by Bradley James Fogo. All Rights Reserved. Re-distributed by Stanford University under license with the author. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- Noncommercial 3.0 United States License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/us/ This dissertation is online at: http://purl.stanford.edu/mg814cd9837 ii I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Samuel Wineburg, Primary Adviser I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. David Labaree I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Milbrey McLaughlin Approved for the Stanford University Committee on Graduate Studies. Patricia J. Gumport, Vice Provost Graduate Education This signature page was generated electronically upon submission of this dissertation in electronic format. An original signed hard copy of the signature page is on file in University Archives. iii Acknowledgements: I wish to thank my adviser Sam Wineburg for the invaluable guidance and support he provided on this project from its inception to the final drafting.
    [Show full text]
  • Legislators of California
    The Legislators of California March 2011 Compiled by Alexander C. Vassar Dedicated to Jane Vassar For everything With Special Thanks To: Shane Meyers, Webmaster of JoinCalifornia.com For a friendship, a website, and a decade of trouble-shooting. Senator Robert D. Dutton, Senate Minority Leader Greg Maw, Senate Republican Policy Director For providing gainful employment that I enjoy. Gregory P. Schmidt, Secretary of the Senate Bernadette McNulty, Chief Assistant Secretary of the Senate Holly Hummelt , Senate Amending Clerk Zach Twilla, Senate Reading Clerk For an orderly house and the lists that made this book possible. E. Dotson Wilson, Assembly Chief Clerk Brian S. Ebbert, Assembly Assistant Chief Clerk Timothy Morland, Assembly Reading Clerk For excellent ideas, intriguing questions, and guidance. Jessica Billingsley, Senate Republican Floor Manager For extraordinary patience with research projects that never end. Richard Paul, Senate Republican Policy Consultant For hospitality and good friendship. Wade Teasdale, Senate Republican Policy Consultant For understanding the importance of Bradley and Dilworth. A Note from the Author An important thing to keep in mind as you read this book is that there is information missing. In the first two decades that California’s legislature existed, we had more individuals serve as legislators than we have in the last 90 years.1 Add to the massive turnover the fact that no official biographies were kept during this time and that the state capitol moved seven times during those twenty years, and you have a recipe for missing information. As an example, we only know the birthplace for about 63% of the legislators. In spite of my best efforts, there are still hundreds of legislators about whom we know almost nothing.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 8 - Executive Politics
    CHAPTER 8 - EXECUTIVE POLITICS TEST BANK MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS 1. Diluted power, independent offices, and multiple avenues for group influence together give California’s executive branch its own form of A. pluralism. B. elitism. C. democracy. D. hyperpluralism. 2. The first governor to serve more than four years in the twentieth century was A. Milton Latham. B. Hiram Johnson. C. Frederick Low. D. Earl Warren. 3. The governor considered aloof and philosophical was A. Pete Wilson. B. Ronald Reagan. C. Earl Warren. D. Jerry Brown. 4. Which of the following is TRUE concerning California governors? A. They can utilize the item veto. B. They have brief “honeymoon” periods. C. They exercise “supreme executive power.” D. All of the above. 154 5. A governor’s personal staff is headed by a A. chief of staff. B. chief assistant. C. foreperson. D. chief operating officer. Copyright © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. 80 Chapter 8: Executive Politics 6. Governor Pat Brown reorganized numerous departments into A. still more departments. B. superagencies. C. a “kitchen” cabinet. D. a cabinet. 7. The internal budget process is dominated by the A. chief of staff. B. the governor. C. legislative analyst. D. Department of Finance. 8. In budget politics, the “Big Five” has shrunk to the “Big Three,” which refers to the governor and A. Assembly Speaker and his/her appointees. B. Senate Pro Tempore and his/her appointees. C. majority leader from each chamber. D. top officials in the Department of Finance. 9. Once the budget is passed, the governor has power of A. the legislative programs.
    [Show full text]
  • Lessons from the Deukmejian Era for Contemporary California State Budgeting
    FROM JERRY­RIGGED TO PETERED OUT: LESSONS FROM THE DEUKMEJIAN ERA FOR CONTEMPORARY CALIFORNIA STATE BUDGETING Daniel J.B. Mitchell, UCLA Ho­Su Wu Professor of Management and Public Policy The new governor took office in the midst of a major state budget crisis. At the time he took office, it was unclear that state could pay its bills if drastic action were not taken. Yet the incoming governor was committed to a no­tax­increase program. Through borrowing, the state managed to surmount its budget crisis. As the economy recovered and resulting tax revenue flowed in, it even was able to engage in major construction projects. When he stood for re­ election, the governor was overwhelmingly returned to office for a second term. Sadly, however, the economy began to slow during that second term. Fears mounted that the state could face a renewed budget crisis. This description may seem to depict the career to date of Arnold Schwarzenegger. He inherited a budget crisis from Gray Davis who he replaced in the 2003 recall. But the introductory vignette actually refers to the story of George Deukmejian (“Duke”) who was first elected in 1982, inheriting a budget crisis from Jerry Brown. (Deukmejian’s construction projects leaned towards prisons for most of his terms in office, needed as state sentencing laws tightened, rather than the roads and other infrastructure pushed by Schwarzenegger.) And as it turned out, the economic downturn that began to take shape towards the end of Deukmejian’s second term indeed did produce a major budget crisis, a legacy he left for his successor, Pete Wilson.
    [Show full text]
  • The California Recall History Is a Chronological Listing of Every
    Complete List of Recall Attempts This is a chronological listing of every attempted recall of an elected state official in California. For the purposes of this history, a recall attempt is defined as a Notice of Intention to recall an official that is filed with the Secretary of State’s Office. 1913 Senator Marshall Black, 28th Senate District (Santa Clara County) Qualified for the ballot, recall succeeded Vote percentages not available Herbert C. Jones elected successor Senator Edwin E. Grant, 19th Senate District (San Francisco County) Failed to qualify for the ballot 1914 Senator Edwin E. Grant, 19th Senate District (San Francisco County) Qualified for the ballot, recall succeeded Vote percentages not available Edwin I. Wolfe elected successor Senator James C. Owens, 9th Senate District (Marin and Contra Costa counties) Qualified for the ballot, officer retained 1916 Assemblyman Frank Finley Merriam Failed to qualify for the ballot 1939 Governor Culbert L. Olson Failed to qualify for the ballot Governor Culbert L. Olson Filed by Olson Recall Committee Failed to qualify for the ballot Governor Culbert L. Olson Filed by Citizens Olson Recall Committee Failed to qualify for the ballot 1940 Governor Culbert L. Olson Filed by Olson Recall Committee Failed to qualify for the ballot Governor Culbert L. Olson Filed by Olson Recall Committee Failed to qualify for the ballot 1960 Governor Edmund G. Brown Filed by Roderick J. Wilson Failed to qualify for the ballot 1 Complete List of Recall Attempts 1965 Assemblyman William F. Stanton, 25th Assembly District (Santa Clara County) Filed by Jerome J. Ducote Failed to qualify for the ballot Assemblyman John Burton, 20th Assembly District (San Francisco County) Filed by John Carney Failed to qualify for the ballot Assemblyman Willie L.
    [Show full text]