Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey
California Proposition 103, Insurance Rate Reductions and Regulation Initiative (1988)
| California Proposition 103 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 8, 1988 | |
| Topic Insurance | |
Status Approved | |
| Type State statute | Origin Citizens |
California Proposition 103 was on the ballot as an initiated state statute in California on November 8, 1988. It was approved.
A "yes" vote supported requiring a minimum 20% rate reduction for automobile and other property/casualty insurance, freezing rates until 1989, requiring a public hearing and insurance commissioner approval for rate changes, and requiring automobile insurance to be calculated according to driving records. |
A "no" vote opposed this initiative that required insurance rate reductions and implemented other insurance regulation. |
Election results
|
California Proposition 103 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
|
|
4,844,312 | 51.13% | ||
| No | 4,630,752 | 48.87% | ||
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title for Proposition 103 was as follows:
| “ | Insurance Rates, Regulation, Commissioner. Initiative Statute. | ” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary for this measure was:
| “ | Requires minimum 20-percent rate reduction from November 8, 1987, levels, for automobile and other property/casualty insurance. Freezes rates until November 8, 1989, unless insurance company is substantially threatened with insolvency. Thereafter requires every insurer offer any eligible person a good-driver policy with 20-percent differential. Requires public hearing and approval by elected Insurance Commissioner for automobile, other property/casualty insurance rate changes. Requires automobile premiums be determined primarily by driving record. Prohibits discrimination, price-fixing, unfair practices by insurance companies. Requires commissioner provide comparative pricing information. Authorizes insurance activities by banks. Summary of Legislative Analyst's estimate of net state and local government impact: Would increase Department of Insurance administrative costs by $10 to S15 million in first year, varying thereafter with workload, to be paid by additional fees on the insurance industry. State and some local governments would have unknown savings from lower insurance rates. Gross premium tax reduction of approximately $125 million for first three years offset by required premium tax rate adjustment. Thereafter, possible state revenue loss if rate reductions and discounts continue but gross premium tax is not adjusted. | ” |
Full Text
The full text of this measure is available here.
Fiscal impact statement
The fiscal estimate provided by the California Legislative Analyst's Office said:[1]
| “ | Would increase Department of Insurance administrative costs by $10 to $15 million in first year, varying thereafter with workload, to be paid by additional fees on the insurance industry. State and some local governments would have unknown savings from lower insurance rates. Gross premium tax reduction of approximately $125 million for first three years offset by required premium tax rate adjustment. Thereafter, possible state revenue loss if rate reductions and discounts continue but gross premium tax is not adjusted.[2] | ” |
Path to the ballot
In California, the number of signatures required for an initiated state statute is equal to 5 percent of the votes cast at the preceding gubernatorial election. For initiated statutes filed in 1988, at least 372,178 valid signatures were required.
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ University of California, "Voter Guide," accessed August 3, 2021
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
 |
State of California Sacramento (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
