California Proposition 62, Voter Approval of Local Taxes (1986)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
California Proposition 62, or the Voter Approval of Taxes Act, was on the November 4, 1986 ballot in California as an initiated state statute, where it was approved.
  • Yes: 3,858,119 (58.0%) Approveda
  • No: 2,798,805 (42.0%)

Proposition 62 established new requirements for the adoption of new or higher general and special taxes by local agencies. Specifically, Proposition 62:

  1. Required all proposals for a new or higher general tax to be approved by two-thirds of the local agency's governing body, and by a majority of the voters.
  2. Required all local ordinances or resolutions proposing a new or higher general or special tax to contain specific information. For example, the ordinance must state the method of collection and the proposed use of the special tax revenues.
  3. Penalized local agencies that fail to comply with the above requirements. The measure requires a reduction in the agency's property tax allocations equal to the revenues derived from the new or higher tax.
  4. Required local agencies to stop collecting any new or higher general tax adopted after July 31, 1985, unless a majority of the voters approve the tax by November 5, 1988.

Ballot summary

The official ballot summary said, "Enacts statutes regarding new or increased taxation by local governments and districts. Imposition of special taxes, defined as taxes for special purposes, will require approval by two-thirds of voters. Imposition of general taxes, defined as taxes for general governmental purposes, will require approval by two-thirds vote of legislative body; submission of proposed tax to electorate; approval by majority of voters. Contains provisions governing election conduct. Contains restrictions on specified types of taxes. Restricts use of revenues. Requires ratification by majority vote of voters to continue taxes imposed after August 1, 1985."

Fiscal impact

The fiscal estimate provided by the California Legislative Analyst's Office said, "This measure would prevent the imposition of new or higher general taxes without voter approval by local agencies other than charter cities. The measure also could reduce the amount of tax revenues collected by local agencies in the future, if a majority of their voters do not authorize the continuation of new or higher taxes adopted after August 1, 1985."

Litigation

There are a number of lawsuit that mention or involve Proposition 62:

  • Rossi v. Brown. 9 Cal. 4th 688, 889 P.2d 557, 38 Cal. Rptr. 2d 363 (1995).
  • Santa Clara County Local Transp. Auth. v. Guardino. 11 Cal. 4th 220, 902 P.2d 225, 45 Cal. Rptr. 2d 207 (1995).
  • Gerken v. Fair Political Practices Comm'n. 6 Cal. 4th 707, 863 P.2d 694, 25 Cal. Rptr. 2d 449 (1993).
  • Rider v. County of San Diego. 1 Cal. 4th 1, 820 P.2d 1000, 2 Cal. Rptr. 2d 490 (1991).
  • Coleman v. County of Santa Clara. 64 Cal. App. 4th 662, 75 Cal. Rptr. 2d 516 (1998).
  • Consolidated Fire Protection Dist. v. All Persons Interested. 63 Cal. App. 4th 211, 73 Cal. Rptr. 2d 586 (1998).
  • McCauley v. Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Ass'n. 68 Cal. App. 4th 1225, 80 Cal. Rptr. 2d 900 (1998).
  • McBrearty v. City of Brawley. 59 Cal. App. 4th 1441, 69 Cal. Rptr. 2d 862 (1997).
  • Howard Jarvis Taxpayers' Ass'n v. Fresno Metro. Projects Auth.. 40 Cal. App. 4th 1359, 48 Cal. Rptr. 2d 269 (1995).
  • Neecke v. City of Mill Vallety. 39 Cal. App. 4th 946, 46 Cal. Rptr. 2d 266 (1995).
  • Fielder v. City of Los Angeles. 14 Cal. App. 4th 137, 17 Cal. Rptr. 2d 630 (1993).
  • Fisher v. County of Alameda. 20 Cal. App. 4th 120, 24 Cal. Rptr. 2d 384 (1993).
  • Santa Clara County Local Transp. Auth. v.Guardino. 34 Cal. App. 4th 858, 24 Cal. Rptr. 2d 854 (1993).
  • Monterey Penisula Taxpayers Ass'n v. County of Monterey. 8 Cal. App. 4th 1520, 11 Cal. Rptr. 2d 188 (1992).
  • Vernon v. State Bd. of Equalization. 4 Cal. App. 4th 110, 5 Cal. Rptr. 2d 414 (1992).
  • City of Woodlake v. Logan. 230 Cal. App. 3d 1058, 282 Cal. Rptr. 27 (1991).
  • Rider v. County of San Diego. 224 Cal. App. 3d 85F (1990).
  • Rider v. County of San Diego. 230 Cal. App. 3d 1676, 272 Cal. Rptr. 857 (1990).
  • Schopflin v. Dole. 208 Cal. App. 3d 617, 256 Cal. Rptr. 314 (1989).
  • California Bldg. Indus. Ass'n v. Governing Bd. of the Newhall Sch. Dist. of Los Angeles City. 206 Cal. App. 3d 212, 253 Cal. Rptr. 497 (1988).
  • City of Westminster v. County of Orange. 204 Cal. App. 3d 623, 251 Cal. Rptr. 511 (1988).

External links