California Proposition 136, Changes to Vote Requirements for New or Increased Taxes Initiative (1990)

California Proposition 136
Election date November 6, 1990
Topic Taxes and Direct democracy measures
Status d Defeated
Type	Origin

California Proposition 136 was on the ballot as an initiated constitutional amendment in California on November 6, 1990. It was defeated.

A "yes" vote supported amending the state constitution to make the following changes: require special property taxes to be on the value of the property rather than a per-unit basis; require any new or increased taxes to be approved by two-thirds of the state legislature; require any new citizen-initiated special taxes to be approved by two-thirds of voters; and require any new local taxes be approved by a simple majority vote.

A "no" vote opposed amending the state constitution to change the vote requirements for new and increased taxes.

Election results

California Proposition 136
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		3,439,621	47.88%
No		3,744,620	52.12%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Proposition 136 was as follows:

“

State, Local Taxation. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary for this measure was:

“

Abolishes per unit basis for special personal property taxes; requires such taxes based on property value; limits rate of tax to 1% of value. Extends 2/3 vote requirement necessary for legislative approval of state general, special taxes to any new, or increase in, such taxes, and to voter approval of special taxes through initiative. Requires charter cities to get majority voter approval of new or increased local general taxes. Provides temporary exceptions for disaster relief. States that conflicting measures on November, 1990 ballot, which impose special taxes with less than 2/3 vote, are invalid.

”

Full Text

The full text of this measure is available here.

Constitutional changes

If Proposition 136 had passed, it would have altered these parts of the California Constitution:

• Section 3 of Article XIII A would have been repealed and replaced with new wording.
• Section 4 of Article XIII A would have been repealed and replaced with new wording.
• A new Section 7 would have been added to Article XIII A.

Fiscal impact

The fiscal estimate provided by the California Legislative Analyst's Office said:

“

Restricts rate of certain special taxes, could limit future ability of state to raise revenues through such taxes. Could limit future passage of initiative statutes proposing approval of special state taxes. Prohibits imposition of new, higher general taxes by charter cities without voter approval, thus potentially preventing such cities from increasing revenues. Unknown fiscal effect on other local governments. Could facilitate local government's enactment of new or higher taxes for disaster relief.

”

Path to the ballot

See also: Signature requirements for ballot measures in California

In California, the number of signatures required for an initiated constitutional amendment is equal to 8 percent of the votes cast at the preceding gubernatorial election. For initiated amendments filed in 1990, at least 595,485 valid signatures were required.

See also

1990 Measures

• 1990 Measures
• Ballot measure supermajority requirements on the ballot
• Local government finance and taxes on the ballot
• Property taxes on the ballot
• State legislative vote requirements on the ballot
• 1990 legislative sessions

California

• California ballot measures
• California ballot measure laws

News and analysis

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

External links

• California Voter Guide (November 1990)