Vote button trans.png
April's Project of the Month
It's spring time. It's primary election season!
Click here to find all the information you'll need to cast your ballot.




Difference between revisions of "California Proposition 218, Voter Approval Required Before Local Tax Increases (1996)"

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Text replace - '{{California outcome' to '{{Short outcome')
m (Text replace - '* [http://traynor.uchastings.edu/ballot_pdf/' to '* [http://library.uchastings.edu/ballot_pdf/')
Line 57: Line 57:
 
* [http://vote96.sos.ca.gov/Vote96/html/BP/218text.htm Full text of Proposition 218]
 
* [http://vote96.sos.ca.gov/Vote96/html/BP/218text.htm Full text of Proposition 218]
 
* [http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/1996-general/1996-general-sov.pdf November 5, 1996 California election results]  (PDF)
 
* [http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/1996-general/1996-general-sov.pdf November 5, 1996 California election results]  (PDF)
* [http://traynor.uchastings.edu/ballot_pdf/1996g.pdf PDF of the paper version of the November 5, 1996 Ballot Propositions Voter Guide]
+
* [http://library.uchastings.edu/ballot_pdf/1996g.pdf PDF of the paper version of the November 5, 1996 Ballot Propositions Voter Guide]
 
* [http://www.publiclawnews.com/public_law_news/2006/07/california_supr_1.html Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency v. Verjil]
 
* [http://www.publiclawnews.com/public_law_news/2006/07/california_supr_1.html Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency v. Verjil]
 
* [http://www.lao.ca.gov/1996/120196_prop_218/understanding_prop218_1296.html Understanding Prop 218 from the Legislative Analyst's Office]
 
* [http://www.lao.ca.gov/1996/120196_prop_218/understanding_prop218_1296.html Understanding Prop 218 from the Legislative Analyst's Office]

Revision as of 12:07, 10 February 2012

Proposition 218 was on the November 5, 1996 general election ballot in California, where it was approved.

Proposition 218 amended the California Constitution by adding Articles XIII C and XIII D to require local governments to obtain the approval of property owners in a local ballot measure before levying a new or increased tax assessment on those property owners.

Prior to Proposition 218, cities and counties were not required to obtain approval from property owners before levying special tax assessments on them.

Proposition 218 was seen as a victory for fiscal conservatives. It is often cited by local government officials, more than a decade after it passed, as making it harder for them to raise local taxes.[1]

Election results

Proposition 218
ResultVotesPercentage
Approveda Yes 5,202,429 56.55%
No3,996,70243.45%

Constitutional changes

California Constitution
Articles
IIIIIIIVVVIVIIVIIIIXXXAXBXIXIIXIIIXIII AXIII BXIII CXIII DXIVXVXVIXVIIIXIXXIX AXIX BXIX CXXXXIXXIIXXXIVXXXV

Proposition 218 added:

Ballot language

Summary

218.gif

The official ballot summary that appeared on the ballot said:

  • 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.

Fiscal impact

The California Legislative Analyst's Office provided an estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact for Proposition 218. That estimate was:

  • "Short-term local government revenue losses of more than $100 million annually."
  • Long-term local government revenue losses of potentially hundreds of millions of dollars annually."
  • Local government revenue losses generally would result in comparable reductions in spending for local public services."

Supporters

Related lawsuits

External links

References