Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.
California Proposition 193, Property Appraisal Exception for Grandparent-Grandchild Property Transfers Amendment (March 1996)
California Proposition 193 | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Election date March 26, 1996 | |
Topic Taxes | |
Status![]() | |
Type Constitutional amendment | Origin State legislature |
California Proposition 193 was on the ballot as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment in California on March 26, 1996. It was approved.
A "yes" vote supported amending the state constitution to not require a new appraisal of real property after the transfer of property between grandparents and grandchildren. |
A "no" vote opposed amending the state constitution to not require a new appraisal of real property after the transfer of property between grandparents and grandchildren. |
Election results
California Proposition 193 |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
3,725,041 | 67.29% | |||
No | 1,810,493 | 32.71% |
Measure design
Proposition 193 amended the California Constitution to state that under certain conditions, real estate transactions between grandparents and grandchildren are exempt from the general rule that a property's tax assessed value should be set at a new level when it is sold.
The conditions under which property transfers between grandparents and grandchildren are exempt from tax-assessment increases beyond the 2% cap are:
- When both parents of the grandchild are deceased.
- When the real estate in question is a principal residence.
- The exemption also applies to the first $1 million of other property.
- Grandchildren are not eligible to receive the exemption if they have already benefited from a purchase or transfer that was similarly exempt from reappraisal.
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title for Proposition 193 was as follows:
“ | Property appraisal. Exception. Grandparent-grandchild transfer. Legislative constitutional amendment. | ” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary for this measure was:
“ |
| ” |
Full Text
The full text of this measure is available here.
Fiscal impact
The California Legislative Analyst's Office provided the following estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact for Proposition 193:[1]
“ | Property tax revenue losses to schools, counties, cities, and special districts of about $1 million annually. School revenue losses would be made up by the state General Fund.[2] | ” |
Support
Supporters
- Assemblyman David Knowles (R)[1]
- State Senator K. Maurice Johannessen (R)[1]
- Assemblyman Bill Hoge (R)[1]
Official arguments
The official arguments in support of Proposition 193 can be found here.
Opposition
Opponents
- Gary Wesley[1]
Official arguments
The official arguments in opposition to Proposition 193 can be found here.
Path to the ballot
A simple majority vote was needed in each chamber of the California State Legislature to refer the measure to the ballot for voter consideration.
Proposition 193 was voted onto the ballot by the California State Legislature via Assembly Constitutional Amendment 17 (Statutes of 1994, Resolution Chapter 110).
Votes in legislature to refer to ballot | ||
---|---|---|
Chamber | Ayes | Noes |
Assembly | 59 | 18 |
Senate | 31 | 1 |
See also
External links
- Official Voter Guide
- Full text of Proposition 193
- March 26, 1996 California elections results
- PDF of the March 26 voter guide
Footnotes