Oregon Property Tax Reduction and Limitation, Measure 47 (1996)
The Oregon Property Tax Reduction and Limitation Amendment, also known as Measure 47, was on the November 5, 1996 ballot in Oregon as an initiated constitutional amendment, where it was defeated. The measure reduced property taxes, limited future property tax increases and limited local revenues and replacement fees.
Measure 47 required that property taxes be no higher than 10% less than those imposed in the 1994-1995 tax year, or those imposed in the 1995-1996 tax year. Thereafter, property taxes increases were to be capped at 3% per year.
Measure 47 also instituted a "double majority" rule, requiring at least a 50% voter turnout for any local tax measure in any election besides the general election in an even-numbered year.
|Oregon Measure 47 (1996)|
Election results via: Oregon Blue Book
Text of measure
The ballot measure title read:
This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributed to the original source.
|“||AMENDS CONSTITUTION: REDUCES AND LIMITS PROPERTY TAXES; LIMITS LOCAL REVENUES, REPLACEMENT FEES||”|
The text of the measure can be found here.
The double majority rule
Measure 47 enacted Oregon’s “double majority” rule, which placed an additional requirement on local tax levies: not only did more voters have to vote "yes" than "no", but at least 50% of registered voters had to vote, unless it was a general election on an even numbered year. (These are U.S. presidential election and midterm elections.) (The double majority is a type of supermajority, similar to an absolute majority.)
The double majority has resulted in the defeat of numerous local tax levies. As an indirect result, local governments now often make sure to place such measures on general election ballots.
In 1998, Measure 53 sought to reverse the double majority provision, but won only 49% of the vote.
The measure was sponsored by Bill Sizemore and his Oregon Taxpayers United anti-tax group, as part of the Oregon tax revolt. Proponents were upset by rising property tax rates, much of which was brought by increasing housing prices in the Portland, Oregon area. Proponents also wanted to put an end to the perceived practice of placing local levies up for a vote when turnout would be low.
Opponents feared that slices in taxes would cause cuts to schools, further than those they blamed on Measure 5. Furthermore, they opposed the double-majority rule, arguing it gave lazy people more political power than those willing to vote.
There was some confusion as to the actual effect of Measure 47. Petitioners claimed that Measure 47 would cap the actual assessment of properties – that is, the value of the property as determined by the county – to prevent taxes from being raised more than 3% annually. Others claimed that Measure 47 did not prevent such an action. Sizemore placed an argument in the voter's pamphlet in an attempt to clarify the measure's provisions. Nonetheless, the legislature sent Measure 50 to voters the next year to clarify that the cap was on the assessed value of the property as well.
- Oregon 1996 ballot measures
- 1996 ballot measures
- List of Oregon ballot measures
- History of Initiative & Referendum in Oregon
- Oregon Blue Book Initiative, Referendum and Recall: 1996-1999
- Oregon State Constitution
- of Oregon Official Voters' Pamphlet November 1996
- Oregon State Library, "State of Oregon Official Voters' Pamphlet", accessed December 12, 2013
- Election results for Measure 47
- Pitkin, James (March 29, 2007). "The taxman cometh". Retrieved on 2007-03-29.
- Wong, Peter (March 27, 2007). "Double-majority rule gets revisited", The Statesman Journal. Retrieved on 2007-04-03.
- JULIA SILVERMAN (6/20/2007). "Double majority poised to head to November, 2008 ballot", The Oregonian, The Associated Press.
- Measure 47: Arguments in Favor
|historical ballot measure article requires the text of the measure to be added to the page.|