California Proposition 129, Tax Increase and Drug Control Act (1990)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
California Proposition 129,or the Comprehensive Crime Reduction and Drug Control Act of 1990, was on the November 6, 1990 ballot in California as an initiated constitutional amendment, where it was defeated.

Proposition 129 was complex. It included provisions which were intended to increase personal income and bank and corporation taxes by bringing California's tax laws into closer conformity with federal law, and provisions which were intended to allocate $1.9 billion from the state's then-new Anti-Drug Superfund for various anti-drug programs over an eight-year period.

Proposition 129, if it had passed, would have amended the California Constitution and also revised several California statutes.

Election results

Proposition 129
Defeatedd No5,192,74272.37%
Yes 1,982,372 27.63%

Constitutional change

If Prop 129 had passed, it would have added a Section 9.5 to Article XIII B of the California Constitution. The new section would have said:

SEC. 9.5. "Appropriations subject to limitation" for each entity of government do not include appropriations from the California Anti-Drug Superfund. No adjustment in the appropriation limit of any entity of government shall be required pursuant to Section 3 as a result of revenue being deposited in or appropriated from the California Anti-Drug Superfund."

Fiscal impact

The fiscal estimate provided by the California Legislative Analyst's Office said:

No additional revenues result from this measure.
  • Total General Fund costs of $1.2 billion for transfers to the Anti-Drug Superfund between 1990-91 through 1993-94.
  • From 1994-95 through 1997-98 it is not clear whether any funds would be transferred from the General Fund to the Superfund.
  • If all bonds proposed by this measure are sold at an interest rate of 7.5 percent, cost would be approximately $1.3 billion to pay off principal ($740 million) and interest ($585 million), with average annual payment being approximately $55 million.
  • Additional annual costs of tens of millions of dollars for state and local governments could arise for operation of new correctional facilities.
  • Additional costs resulting from increased criminal arrests and convictions could be offset by increased funding for drug education and prevention.

External links