Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.
California Proposition 219, Uniform Application of Ballot Measures Amendment (June 1998)
| California Proposition 219 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date June 2, 1998 | |
| Topic Direct democracy measures | |
Status Approved | |
| Type Constitutional amendment | Origin State legislature |
California Proposition 219 was on the ballot as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment in California on June 2, 1998. It was approved.
A "yes" vote supported amending the state constitution to require ballot measures, including initiatives, referrals, and local measures, apply uniformly to all in the jurisdiction voting on the measure. |
A "no" vote opposed amending the state constitution to require ballot measures, including initiatives, referrals, and local measures, apply uniformly to all in the jurisdiction voting on the measure. |
Election results
|
California Proposition 219 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
|
|
3,528,939 | 67.26% | ||
| No | 1,718,069 | 32.74% | ||
Overview
Proposition 219 amended the state constitution to prohibit any statewide ballot initiative, legislative referral, or local ballot measure from excluding or including any jurisdiction that votes to decide the measure. It also prohibited any ballot measure from containing language that allows alternative provisions of the measure to become law based on specified percentages of votes cast for or against the measure.[1]
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title for Proposition 219 was as follows:
| “ | Ballot Measures. Application. Legislative Constitutional Amendment. | ” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary for this measure was:
| “ |
-Prohibits any statewide initiative, legislative measure, or local ballot measure from excluding or including any county, city or other local jurisdiction from its application based upon voter approval or the casting of a specified percentage of votes for or against the measure within that political subdivision. -Provides that no statewide initiative, legislative measure, or local ballot measure can contain language which enables alternative or cumulative provisions of the measure to become law based upon a specified percentage of votes being cast for or against the measure. | ” |
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 219:[1]
| “ | The number of measures this proposition would affect in the future, and the resulting fiscal impact, cannot be estimated.[2] | ” |
Support
Supporters
- Senator John Lewis (R)[1]
- Matthew E. Webb, member of the Western Valleys Group of Riverside County[1]
Official arguments
The official arguments in support of Proposition 219 can be found here.
Opposition
Official arguments
There were no official arguments submitted in opposition to Proposition 219.
Path to the ballot
A two-thirds vote was needed in each chamber of the California State Legislature to refer the constitutional amendment to the ballot for voter consideration.
Proposition 219 was voted onto the ballot by the California State Legislature via SCA 18 (Proposition 219).
| Votes in legislature to refer to ballot | ||
|---|---|---|
| Chamber | Ayes | Noes |
| Assembly | 57 | 15 |
| Senate | 28 | 1 |
See also
External links
Footnotes
 |
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 |
