California Proposition 218, Voter Approval Requirement for Local Tax Increases Initiative (1996)

California Proposition 218
Election date November 5, 1996
Topic Taxes
Status a Approved
Type State statute	Origin Citizens

California Proposition 218 was on the ballot as an initiated constitutional amendment in California on November 5, 1996. It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported requiring local governments to refer ordinances to impose taxes or property-related assessments, fees, and charges to the ballot for voter consideration; requiring that elections for general taxes be held at regulation elections; and requiring a two-thirds supermajority vote of approval for special taxes.

A "no" vote opposed requiring local governments to refer ordinances to impose taxes or property-related assessments, fees, and charges to the ballot for voter consideration; requiring that elections for general taxes be held at regulation elections; and requiring a two-thirds supermajority vote of approval for special taxes.

The measure added Article XIII C and Article XIII D to the California Constitution, which requires local governments to refer ordinances to impose taxes or property-related assessments, fees, and charges to the ballot for voter consideration.

The measure requires a majority vote of the electorate for general taxes (taxes for general governmental purposes). It also required that elections for general taxes be held at regulation elections.

The measure requires a two-thirds vote of the electorate for special taxes (taxes for specific purposes).

Proposition 218 prohibited property-related fees for general government service, including police and fire services, services not immediately available to property owners, programs unrelated to the property-related services.

Election results

California Proposition 218
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		5,202,429	56.55%
No		3,996,702	43.45%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Aftermath

Vote requirement for special taxes proposed through citizen initiatives

See also: Laws governing local ballot measures in California

Superior court ruling and appeal

San Francisco Superior Court Judge Ethan Schulman ruled on July 5, 2019, that two measures (both called Proposition C) on the San Francisco ballot in June and November of 2018 were properly certified as approved by city officials. Schulman ruled that Proposition C (June 2018) and Proposition C (November 2018), which proposed tax increases for specific purposes, required a simple majority for approval because they were put on the ballot through a citizen signature petition. The ruling stated that the two-thirds supermajority vote requirement for local special taxes in California applies to tax measures referred to the ballot by lawmakers but not to citizen initiatives.

Christin Evans, a supporter of November’s Proposition C, said, “Obviously, we’re thrilled. We felt that Prop. C was on firm legal ground from the beginning, and the judge’s opinion left no question that voter-led initiatives will be possible going forward to allow the people to help shape city policy.”

Rex Hime, president of the California Business Properties Association and representing the Howard Jarvis association and the California Business Roundtable, said, “We are disappointed in today’s ruling but will continue to fight to uphold the will of the voters. Prop. 13 and Prop. 218 are unambiguous — voters want a two-thirds vote requirement for special taxes. We will be filing an immediate appeal.”

Appellate court ruling on Proposition C (November 2018), 2020

On June 30, 2020, a panel of three California First District Court of Appeal judges upheld Judge Schulman's ruling and said that the city was correct to apply a simple majority requirement, rather than a two-thirds supermajority requirement, to Proposition C.

California Supreme Court denial to review rulings, 2020

On September 9, 2020, the California Supreme Court denied a request to review the lower courts' rulings.

California appeals court ruling on Proposition C (June 2018), 2021

In August 2018, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association filed a lawsuit seeking to invalidate Proposition C, alleging that it required a two-thirds supermajority requirement to pass. On January 27, 2021, the First District Court of Appeal ruled that the supermajority requirement did not apply to Proposition C and only applied to measures placed on the ballot by the city council, board of supervisors, or school board. Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association President Jonathan Coupal said the group was prepared to sponsor an initiative to require a two-thirds supermajority vote of the people for local tax increases for specific purposes.

On April 28, 2021, the California Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of the ruling on Proposition C (June 2018), leaving the lower court ruling in place and allowing the city to continue collecting the tax and to spend the revenue from the tax.

Fresno Measure P ruling

In Fresno, a judge ruled that special sales tax initiative Measure P required a two-thirds supermajority to pass despite being put on the ballot through a signature petition drive. Click here to read more.

The ruling was appealed to the Fifth District Court of Appeal. In December 2020, the Fifth District Court of Appeal overturned Judge Gaab's ruling and stated that the measure required approval from a simple majority to pass. Representatives of the city said that it would not appeal the ruling further. The Fifth District Court of Appeal ruled that California's Proposition 218 (1996) does not apply to tax measures put on the ballot through a citizen initiative signature petition drive.

Background and arguments

An August 2017 California Supreme Court decision raised questions about how to interpret the state constitution’s voting requirements for special taxes proposed through citizen initiatives.

California voters approved Proposition 218 in 1996, adding Article XII C Voter Approval For Local Tax Levies to the California Constitution. The article includes the requirement that local governments may only enact, extend, or increase a special tax with a two-thirds (66.67%) vote of the electorate. Following the passage of Proposition 218, the two-thirds supermajority vote requirement was applied to legislative referrals, referendums, and citizen initiatives.

In August 2017, however, the California Supreme Court ruled in California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland that one requirement contained in Article XIII C—that general taxes must be put on the ballot during general elections—did not apply to citizen initiatives. The court categorized taxes imposed by citizen initiatives as separate from taxes imposed by local governments. This ruling brought the two-thirds (66.67%) vote requirement into question for special taxes proposed through citizen initiatives.

City and county officials in San Francisco argued that the court's 2017 decision meant that a simple majority—not a two-thirds supermajority—was required for the approval of local citizen initiatives, including tax measures that designate funds for specific purposes. Based on those arguments, the city certified the measures as approved. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association filed a lawsuit against the city and county in August 2018 stating that the commercial rent tax for childcare initiative did not receive sufficient votes.

The association stated the following on its website:

“	Because the tax is expressly for a special purpose, it required a 2/3 vote of the city’s electorate under both Propositions 13 and 218. But it did not pass by that margin. Rather, the tax proposal, designated as Measure C, received a scant 50.87% vote.	”
—Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

Del Norte Deputy County Counsel Joel Campbell-Blair defended the simple majority requirement in the following statement regarding Measure C, the Hotel Tax Increase for Crescent City Harbor District (November 2018):

“	Based on the reasoning of the California Supreme Court in California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, it is County Counsel’s position that, because Measure C was submitted to the electorate by voter initiative, rather than a local government, a simple majority is sufficient for approval, even though it is a special tax. Measure C has therefore passed.	”
—Del Norte Deputy County Counsel

Initiatives in 2018 to establish special taxes

In 2018, eight local citizen initiatives in California proposing special taxes were approved by more than a simple majority but less than a two-thirds (66.67%) vote. Local officials declared two of the measures to be defeated based on the two-thirds supermajority requirement. The other six measures were certified as approved. In one case, Oakland Measure AA, the impartial analysis of the measure stated that it required a two-thirds supermajority vote for approval, but the city council certified the measure as approved after it received 62 percent approval. Measure AA was ruled unenforceable by Alameda County Superior Court Judge Ronnie MacLaren on October 15, 2019. MacLaren wrote that "the court determined that the city is barred from enforcing Measure AA because the ballot measures prepared by the City unambiguously advised voters that Measure AA would require two-thirds of the votes to pass." These measures are listed below:

• Avalon, California, Measure T, Traveler Tax to Fund Hospital Initiative (April 2018)
• Del Norte County, California, Measure C, Hotel Tax Increase for Crescent City Harbor District (November 2018)
• Downieville Fire Protection District, California, Measure C, Parcel Tax (June 2018)
• Fresno, California, Measure P, Sales Tax for Recreation and Arts (November 2018)
• Oakland, California, Measure AA, Education Parcel Tax Charter Amendment (November 2018)
• San Francisco, California, Proposition C, Commercial Rent Tax for Childcare and Early Education (June 2018)
• San Francisco, California, Proposition G, Parcel Tax for the San Francisco Unified School District (June 2018)
• San Francisco, California, Proposition C, Gross Receipts Tax for Homelessness Services (November 2018)

California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland

See also: Upland Measure U and Laws governing local ballot measures in California

On August 28, 2017, the California Supreme Court ruled that the provision of Proposition 218 requiring local general taxes to go on the ballot during regular general elections rather than special elections did not apply to citizen initiatives. Specifically, the 5-2 ruling stated that Article XIII C, section 2, subdivision (b), of the California Constitution does not restrict the provision of the state's laws governing local initiatives that allows petitioners to collect enough signatures to qualify their initiative for a special election ballot. For cities and counties that follow the initiative process in state law, a petition with signatures equal to 10 percent of registered voters qualifies an initiative for the next general election ballot, while a petition with signatures equal to 15 percent of registered voters qualifies an initiative for a special election held between 88 and 103 days from petition certification. Charter cities are able to have their own process for initiatives which can differ from the state-set process. Proposition 218 added Article XIII C and Article XIII D to the state constitution. Article XIII C, section 2, also contains a voter approval requirement for local taxes and a two-thirds supermajority requirement for taxes earmarked for a specific purpose, such as education or transportation. The ruling did not say whether these provisions would still apply to citizen initiatives. The majority opinion made the following arguments to support this ruling:

• the people's initiative process is separate from the actions of local government as defined by Proposition 218;
• Article XIII C, section 2, of Proposition 218 does not explicitly mention initiatives;
• Article XIII C, section 2(d), was not intended to apply to initiatives either by proponents of Proposition 218 or by the voters that approved Proposition 218; and
• the court’s obligation to "protect and liberally construe the initiative power and to narrowly construe provisions that would burden or limit its exercise" means it must err on the side of not applying restrictions to citizen initiatives.

The following five justices concurred with this ruling:

• Associate Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar (majority opinion author)
• Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye
• Associate Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar
• Associate Justice Ming Chin
• Associate Justice Carol Corrigan

The following two justices dissented:

• Associate Justice Leondra Kruger (dissenting opinion author)
• Associate Justice Goodwin Liu

Reactions

Although the California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland ruling was specifically about Article XIII C 2(b)—the regular general election ballot requirement for general tax measures—the court case discussed Article XIII C as a whole, and the ruling raised questions about whether the other provisions of Article XIII C, section 2, apply to initiatives, including the two-thirds (66.67%) vote requirement for all taxes earmarked for a specific purpose. The initiative process for most cities and counties in California is indirect, which means the local governing body has a chance to approve any initiative with a sufficient number of signatures itself instead of sending it to the voters. Attorneys for the city argued in the case that this ruling could allow the indirect process to be used by city councils or county boards to cooperate with initiative petitioners to bypass the voter approval requirement for taxes entirely. The majority opinion declined to rule on whether or not this was a possibility.

State Senator Scott Wiener (D-11) said, "It’s hard to overstate how important this ruling is. Communities will now have a much easier time funding schools, transportation and other critical needs.”

Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA), said that the ruling could result in city councils and county boards collaborating with tax-increase advocates to use the initiative process to avoid tax measure restrictions that, according to the HJTA, are there to protect taxpayers. Coupal said, “I don’t think there’s any way we can sugarcoat this. This is a significant decision that will lead to unbridled collusion between local governments and special interest groups.”

Coupal also said that the HJTA would seek a constitutional amendment to explicitly apply Proposition 218 restrictions to citizen initiatives.

Roger Jon Diamond, the Santa Monica attorney who represented the California Cannabis Coalition in the case, said that the ruling would not change the supermajority requirements for tax initiatives. Diamond said, “I believe that this does not affect one way or the other whether you need a two-thirds vote or simple majority."

Background

The lawsuit was originally filed over a medical marijuana dispensary initiative in Upland—a city in San Bernardino County. Initiative proponents collected enough signatures to qualify the measure for a special election ballot in 2015. The city council, however, voted to put the measure on the ballot for the general election in November 2016 instead, arguing that the initiative called for a licensing fee that amounted to a general tax and citing Article XIII C 2(d). The proponent group, California Cannabis Coalition, sued, resulting in the California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland ruling. Ultimately, city voters rejected the initiative, which was on the ballot as Measure U.

Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency v. Verjil

In 2006, the California Supreme Court ruled that the provisions of Proposition 218 apply to local water, refuse and sewer charges. This meant that a local jurisdiction cannot charge one group of water, refuse or sewer ratepayers in order to subsidize the fees of another group of water, refuse or sewer users.

Municipalities such as Palo Alto, subsequent to the 2006 court ruling, have had to reduce the amount they were charging businesses for water, refuse or sewer, and increase the amount they are charging to standard homeowners, upon recognizing that their charges to the two groups were disproportionate and therefore not allowed under Proposition 218.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Proposition 218 was as follows:

“

Voter Approval for Local Government Taxes. Limitations on Fees, Assessments, and Charges. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary for this measure was:

“

Limits authority of local governments to impose taxes and property-related assessments, fees, and charges. Requires majority of voters approve increases in general taxes and reiterates that two-thirds must approve special tax. Assessments, fees, and charges must be submitted to property owners for approval or rejection, after notice and public hearing. Assessments are limited to the special benefit conferred. Fees and charges are limited to the cost of providing the service and may not be imposed for general governmental services available to the public.

”

Full Text

The full text of this measure is available here.

Constitutional changes

See also: Article XIII C and Article XIII D of the California Constitution

Proposition 218 added Article XIII C and Article XIII D to the California Constitution. The following text was added:

Note: Hover over the text and scroll to see the full text.

ARTICLE XIII C

SECTION 1. Definitions. As used in this article:

(a) "General tax" means any tax imposed for general governmental purposes.

(b) "Local government" means any county, city, city and county, including a charter city or county, any special district, or any other local or regional governmental entity.

(c) "Special district" means an agency of the state, formed pursuant to general law or a special act, for the local performance of governmental or proprietary functions with limited geographic boundaries including, but not limited to, school districts and redevelopment agencies.

(d) "Special tax" means any tax imposed for specific purposes, including a tax imposed for specific purposes, which is placed into a general fund.

SEC. 2. Local Government Tax Limitation. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution:

(a) All taxes imposed by any local government shall be deemed to be either general taxes or special taxes. Special purpose districts or agencies, including school districts, shall have no power to levy general taxes.

(b) No local government may impose, extend, or increase any general tax unless and until that tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a majority vote. A general tax shall not be deemed to have been increased if it is imposed at a rate not higher than the maximum rate so approved. The election required by this subdivision shall be consolidated with a regularly scheduled general election for members of the governing body of the local government, except in cases of emergency declared by a unanimous vote of the governing body.

(c) Any general tax imposed, extended, or increased, without voter approval, by any local government on or after January 1, 1995, and prior to the effective date of this article, shall continue to be imposed only if approved by a majority vote of the voters voting in an election on the issue of the imposition, which election shall be held within two years of the effective date of this article and in compliance with subdivision (b).

(d) No local government may impose, extend, or increase any special tax unless and until that tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a two-thirds vote. A special tax shall not be deemed to have been increased if it is imposed at a rate not higher than the maximum rate so approved.

SEC. 3. Initiative Power for Local Taxes, Assessments, Fees and Charges. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution, including, but not limited to, Sections 8 and 9 of Article II, the initiative power shall not be prohibited or otherwise limited in matters of reducing or repealing any local tax, assessment, fee or charge. The power of initiative to affect local taxes, assessments, fees and charges shall be applicable to all local governments and neither the Legislature nor any local government charter shall impose a signature requirement higher than that applicable to statewide statutory initiatives.

ARTICLE XIII D

SECTION 1. Application. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the provisions of this article shall apply to all assessments, fees and charges, whether imposed pursuant to state statute or local government charter authority. Nothing in this article or Article XIII C shall be construed to:

(a) Provide any new authority to any agency to impose a tax, assessment, fee, or charge.

(b) Affect existing laws relating to the imposition of fees or charges as a condition of property development.

(c) Affect existing laws relating to the imposition of timber yield taxes.

SEC. 2. Definitions. As used in this article:

(a) Agency" means any local government as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 1 of Article XIII C.

(b) Assessment" means any levy or charge upon real property by an agency for a special benefit conferred upon the real property. Assessment" includes, but is not limited to, special assessment," benefit assessment," maintenance assessment" and special assessment tax."

(c) Capital cost" means the cost of acquisition, installation, construction, reconstruction, or replacement of a permanent public improvement by an agency.

(d) District" means an area determined by an agency to contain all parcels which will receive a special benefit from a proposed public improvement or property-related service.

(e) Fee" or charge" means any levy other than an ad valorem tax, a special tax, or an assessment, imposed by an agency upon a parcel or upon a person as an incident of property ownership, including a user fee or charge for a property related service.

(f) Maintenance and operation expenses" means the cost of rent, repair, replacement, rehabilitation, fuel, power, electrical current, care, and supervision necessary to properly operate and maintain a permanent public improvement.

(g) Property ownership" shall be deemed to include tenancies of real property where tenants are directly liable to pay the assessment, fee, or charge in question.

(h) Property-related service" means a public service having a direct relationship to property ownership.

(i) Special benefit" means a particular and distinct benefit over and above general benefits conferred on real property located in the district or to the public at large. General enhancement of property value does not constitute special benefit."

SEC. 3. Property Taxes, Assessments, Fees and Charges Limited. (a) No tax, assessment, fee, or charge shall be assessed by any agency upon any parcel of property or upon any person as an incident of property ownership except:

(1) The ad valorem property tax imposed pursuant to Article XIII and Article XIII A.

(2) Any special tax receiving a two-thirds vote pursuant to Section 4 of Article XIII A.

(3) Assessments as provided by this article.

(4) Fees or charges for property related services as provided by this article.

(b) For purposes of this article, fees for the provision of electrical or gas service shall not be deemed charges or fees imposed as an incident of property ownership.

SEC. 4. Procedures and Requirements for All Assessments. (a) An agency which proposes to levy an assessment shall identify all parcels which will have a special benefit conferred upon them and upon which an assessment will be imposed. The proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel shall be determined in relationship to the entirety of the capital cost of a public improvement, the maintenance and operation expenses of a public improvement, or the cost of the property related service being provided. No assessment shall be imposed on any parcel which exceeds the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel. Only special benefits are assessable, and an agency shall separate the general benefits from the special benefits conferred on a parcel. Parcels within a district that are owned or used by any agency, the State of California or the United States shall not be exempt from assessment unless the agency can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that those publicly owned parcels in fact receive no special benefit.

(b) All assessments shall be supported by a detailed engineer's report prepared by a registered professional engineer certified by the State of California.

(c) The amount of the proposed assessment for each identified parcel shall be calculated and the record owner of each parcel shall be given written notice by mail of the proposed assessment, the total amount thereof chargeable to the entire district, the amount chargeable to the owner's particular parcel, the duration of the payments, the reason for the assessment and the basis upon which the amount of the proposed assessment was calculated, together with the date, time, and location of a public hearing on the proposed assessment. Each notice shall also include, in a conspicuous place thereon, a summary of the procedures applicable to the completion, return, and tabulation of the ballots required pursuant to subdivision (d), including a disclosure statement that the existence of a majority protest, as defined in subdivision (e), will result in the assessment not being imposed.

(d) Each notice mailed to owners of identified parcels within the district pursuant to subdivision (c) shall contain a ballot which includes the agency's address for receipt of the ballot once completed by any owner receiving the notice whereby the owner may indicate his or her name, reasonable identification of the parcel, and his or her support or opposition to the proposed assessment.

(e) The agency shall conduct a public hearing upon the proposed assessment not less than 45 days after mailing the notice of the proposed assessment to record owners of each identified parcel. At the public hearing, the agency shall consider all protests against the proposed assessment and tabulate the ballots. The agency shall not impose an assessment if there is a majority protest. A majority protest exists if, upon the conclusion of the hearing, ballots submitted in opposition to the assessment exceed the ballots submitted in favor of the assessment. In tabulating the ballots, the ballots shall be weighted according to the proportional financial obligation of the affected property.

(f) In any legal action contesting the validity of any assessment, the burden shall be on the agency to demonstrate that the property or properties in question receive a special benefit over and above the benefits conferred on the public at large and that the amount of any contested assessment is proportional to, and no greater than, the benefits conferred on the property or properties in question.

(g) Because only special benefits are assessable, electors residing within the district who do not own property within the district shall not be deemed under this Constitution to have been deprived of the right to vote for any assessment. If a court determines that the Constitution of the United States or other federal law requires otherwise, the assessment shall not be imposed unless approved by a two-thirds vote of the electorate in the district in addition to being approved by the property owners as required by subdivision (e).

SEC. 5. Effective Date. Pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 10 of Article II, the provisions of this article shall become effective the day after the election unless otherwise provided. Beginning July 1, 1997, all existing, new, or increased assessments shall comply with this article. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the following assessments existing on the effective date of this article shall be exempt from the procedures and approval process set forth in Section 4:

(a) Any assessment imposed exclusively to finance the capital costs or maintenance and operation expenses for sidewalks, streets, sewers, water, flood control, drainage systems or vector control. Subsequent increases in such assessments shall be subject to the procedures and approval process set forth in Section 4.

(b) Any assessment imposed pursuant to a petition signed by the persons owning all of the parcels subject to the assessment at the time the assessment is initially imposed. Subsequent increases in such assessments shall be subject to the procedures and approval process set forth in Section 4.

(c) Any assessment the proceeds of which are exclusively used to repay bonded indebtedness of which the failure to pay would violate the Contract Impairment Clause of the Constitution of the United States.

(d) Any assessment which previously received majority voter approval from the voters voting in an election on the issue of the assessment. Subsequent increases in those assessments shall be subject to the procedures and approval process set forth in Section 4.

SEC. 6. Property Related Fees and Charges. (a) Procedures for New or Increased Fees and Charges. An agency shall follow the procedures pursuant to this section in imposing or increasing any fee or charge as defined pursuant to this article, including, but not limited to, the following:

(1) The parcels upon which a fee or charge is proposed for imposition shall be identified. The amount of the fee or charge proposed to be imposed upon each parcel shall be calculated. The agency shall provide written notice by mail of the proposed fee or charge to the record owner of each identified parcel upon which the fee or charge is proposed for imposition, the amount of the fee or charge proposed to be imposed upon each, the basis upon which the amount of the proposed fee or charge was calculated, the reason for the fee or charge, together with the date, time, and location of a public hearing on the proposed fee or charge.

(2) The agency shall conduct a public hearing upon the proposed fee or charge not less than 45 days after mailing the notice of the proposed fee or charge to the record owners of each identified parcel upon which the fee or charge is proposed for imposition. At the public hearing, the agency shall consider all protests against the proposed fee or charge. If written protests against the proposed fee or charge are presented by a majority of owners of the identified parcels, the agency shall not impose the fee or charge.

(b) Requirements for Existing, New or Increased Fees and Charges. A fee or charge shall not be extended, imposed, or increased by any agency unless it meets all of the following requirements:

(1) Revenues derived from the fee or charge shall not exceed the funds required to provide the property related service.

(2) Revenues derived from the fee or charge shall not be used for any purpose other than that for which the fee or charge was imposed.

(3) The amount of a fee or charge imposed upon any parcel or person as an incident of property ownership shall not exceed the proportional cost of the service attributable to the parcel.

(4) No fee or charge may be imposed for a service unless that service is actually used by, or immediately available to, the owner of the property in question. Fees or charges based on potential or future use of a service are not permitted. Standby charges, whether characterized as charges or assessments, shall be classified as assessments and shall not be imposed without compliance with Section 4.

(5) No fee or charge may be imposed for general governmental services including, but not limited to, police, fire, ambulance or library services, where the service is available to the public at large in substantially the same manner as it is to property owners. Reliance by an agency on any parcel map, including, but not limited to, an assessor's parcel map, may be considered a significant factor in determining whether a fee or charge is imposed as an incident of property ownership for purposes of this article. In any legal action contesting the validity of a fee or charge, the burden shall be on the agency to demonstrate compliance with this article.

(c) Voter Approval for New or Increased Fees and Charges. Except for fees or charges for sewer, water, and refuse collection services, no property related fee or charge shall be imposed or increased unless and until that fee or charge is submitted and approved by a majority vote of the property owners of the property subject to the fee or charge or, at the option of the agency, by a two-thirds vote of the electorate residing in the affected area. The election shall be conducted not less than 45 days after the public hearing. An agency may adopt procedures similar to those for increases in assessments in the conduct of elections under this subdivision.

(d) Beginning July 1, 1997, all fees or charges shall comply with this section.

Path to the ballot

See also: Signature requirements for ballot measures in California

In 1996, 433,269 valid signatures were required to qualify an initiated state statute for the ballot. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA) sponsored the ballot initiative.

See also

1996 Measures

• 1996 Measures
• Ballot measure supermajority requirements on the ballot
• Ballot measure process on the ballot
• Taxes on the ballot
• 1996 legislative sessions

California

• California ballot measures
• California ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

• Official California 1996 General Election Voter Guide