Murrieta Voters Remove Red-Light Cameras — How the 2012 Initiative Played Out
In 2012, the city of Murrieta, California, stood at a crossroads over its use of red-light camera enforcement. A controversial program that many residents viewed as an unfair money grab was suddenly put in the hands of voters after years of tension, legal maneuvering, and debates about whether cameras actually improved safety. A California appellate court had cleared the path for a citizens’ initiative to appear on the November ballot, creating a rare opportunity for the public to decide whether to keep or eliminate the automated enforcement system.
The movement to remove cameras gained traction because Murrieta residents, like many across California, had grown skeptical of red-light programs. Critics argued that the systems were designed primarily for revenue generation rather than safety, with cameras catching minor infractions such as rolling right turns or technical violations rather than egregious red-light running. Proponents of the initiative said voters deserved the final say. Meanwhile, city officials and supporters of the program pushed back, arguing that automated enforcement was an effective way to deter dangerous driving and reduce collisions.
At the center of the controversy was Measure N, a local ballot initiative crafted by citizens frustrated with the existing contract the city had signed with American Traffic Solutions (ATS). The measure was designed to prohibit the city from using red-light enforcement cameras in the future, effectively banning the technology outright. Opponents of the measure attempted to stop it from even reaching the ballot. They filed lawsuits, claiming traffic enforcement was a matter of statewide concern and not something that could be overturned through local referendum. Initially, a lower court agreed and ordered the initiative struck from the ballot. But in September 2012, the appeals court reversed the decision, restoring the measure and setting the stage for a high-profile showdown in November.
On Election Day, November 6, 2012, voters made their voices clear. Measure N passed with approximately 57.3% in favor versus 42.7% opposed, a decisive result that showed more than simple discontent. It represented a broader frustration with automated ticketing and the feeling that local residents had been excluded from the decision to install the cameras in the first place. True to the measure’s mandate, the Murrieta City Council acted in the following months to formally end the program. The council had already shifted its contract with ATS to a month-to-month basis pending the election outcome, signaling that it anticipated possible change. On May 8, 2013, the council voted unanimously to terminate the agreement, ordering all cameras, software, and infrastructure removed. For Murrieta drivers, it marked the end of red-light camera enforcement. Historic camera locations were later archived on PhotoEnforced.com, a resource that tracks where cameras have been installed and removed nationwide.
The battle did not end there, however. Legal disputes over who would bear the costs of the fight lingered. In 2014, a California Court of Appeal ruled that the party who attempted to block the measure from appearing on the ballot—acting on behalf of the camera vendor—was responsible for paying the attorney fees of the citizens who had sponsored the initiative. The court made it clear that interfering with voters’ constitutional right to weigh in on a ballot measure was not only improper but also financially risky for companies trying to preserve lucrative enforcement contracts. This outcome served as a warning to other vendors across the state that legal tactics to suppress local referendums could backfire.
Murrieta’s decision had ripple effects well beyond city limits. It became part of a growing list of California communities that turned against red-light cameras during the early 2010s. Cities such as Anaheim, Bell Gardens, Pasadena, and San Bernardino also ended their programs, citing cost concerns, legal issues, or public backlash. The Murrieta vote provided momentum to anti-camera advocates who pointed to the measure as evidence that voters, when given a choice, often rejected automated enforcement.
The debate over safety versus revenue was central to the Murrieta campaign. Supporters of cameras argued they prevented accidents by deterring red-light running. They cited studies showing declines in certain types of collisions after installation. Opponents, however, noted that rear-end crashes often increased because drivers slammed on their brakes to avoid tickets. They argued that true safety improvements could be achieved through better engineering—such as longer yellow lights, improved signage, and better intersection design—rather than through ticketing machines. In Murrieta, the latter argument resonated with a majority of voters who felt the risks and costs outweighed any benefits.
The legal precedent set in Murrieta also influenced broader policy discussions in California. Lawmakers in Sacramento took note of the controversy, and subsequent legislative proposals sought to regulate red-light and speed camera programs more tightly. The case also illustrated how local democracy could override expensive vendor contracts, a reality that forced cities to weigh public opinion more heavily when considering automated enforcement.
Another interesting aspect of the Murrieta story is how it highlighted the growing role of citizen activism in traffic enforcement policy. While many laws and contracts are decided in city halls and state legislatures, Murrieta proved that organized citizens could mount a successful campaign to change the rules. Petitioners gathered signatures, fought legal battles, and ultimately persuaded a majority of voters. Their persistence ensured that residents—not courts, vendors, or bureaucrats—would decide the future of red-light cameras in their community.
For Murrieta drivers today, the program is a memory rather than a daily frustration. The cameras have been gone for over a decade, and no attempt has been made to reinstall them. The city has relied on traditional policing and engineering improvements to handle traffic enforcement. Residents point to the victory as an example of democracy in action and a reminder that unpopular policies can be overturned when citizens mobilize.
Looking back from 2025, Murrieta’s story remains a touchstone in the nationwide debate over automated enforcement. It demonstrates that public opinion can be decisive, that ballot measures can be an effective check on city contracts, and that courts are reluctant to strip voters of their right to weigh in. It also underscores the risks to vendors who rely on litigation to protect their business interests. Today, with speed cameras expanding in some states and facing bans in others, the lessons from Murrieta continue to resonate.
Murrieta’s case shows that traffic enforcement policy is not only about engineering and safety statistics—it is also about public trust, fairness, and the perception of justice. When residents believe systems are tilted toward revenue generation rather than safety, they will push back. And when given the opportunity, as Murrieta voters had in 2012, they may choose to remove the cameras entirely. The city remains an important case study for communities across the United States as they weigh whether cameras truly serve the public interest or merely serve the balance sheet.
For those interested in the official history of the vote, the results are documented on Ballotpedia. The Murrieta decision will likely be remembered not just as a local policy change but as part of a larger wave of resistance that reshaped automated traffic enforcement in California and beyond.