California Proposition 1A, Local Property and Sales Taxes to Remain with Local Governments Amendment (2004)

California Proposition 1A
Election date November 2, 2004
Topic State and local government budgets, spending and finance
Status a Approved
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin State legislature

California Proposition 1A was on the ballot as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment in California on November 2, 2004. It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported this constitutional amending stating that local property tax and sales tax revenues shall remain with local governments.

A "no" vote opposed this constitutional amending stating that local property tax and sales tax revenues shall remain with local governments.

Election results

California Proposition 1A
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		9,411,198	83.65%
No		1,840,002	16.35%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Proposition 1A was as follows:

“

Protection of Local Government Revenues. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary for this measure was:

“

Protects local funding for public safety, health, libraries, parks, and other locally delivered services. Prohibits the State from reducing local governments’ property tax proceeds. Allows the provisions to be suspended only if the Governor declares a fiscal necessity and two-thirds of the Legislature approve the suspension. Suspended funds must be repaid within three years. Also requires local sales tax revenues to remain with local government and be spent for local purposes. Requires the State to fund legislative mandates on local governments or suspend their operation.

”

Full Text

The full text of this measure is available here.

Fiscal impact statement

The fiscal impact statement was as follows:

“

Proposition 1A would reduce state authority over local finances. Over time, it could have significant fiscal impacts on state and local governments, as described below. Long-Term Effect on Local and State Finance Higher and More Stable Local Government Revenues. Given the number and magnitude of past state actions affecting local taxes, this measure’s restrictions on state authority to enact such measures in the future would have potentially major fiscal effects on local governments. For example, the state could not enact measures that permanently shift property taxes from local governments to schools in order to reduce state costs for education programs. In these cases, this measure would result in local government revenues being more stable—and higher—than otherwise would be the case. The magnitude of increased local revenues is unknown and would depend on future actions by the state. Given past actions by the state, however, this increase in local government revenues could be in the billions of dollars annually. These increased local revenues could result in higher spending on local programs or decreased local fees or taxes. Lower Resources for State Programs. In general, the measure’s effect on state finances would be the opposite of its effect on local finances. That is, this measure could result in decreased resources being available for state programs than otherwise would be the case. This reduction, in turn, would affect state spending and/or taxes. For example, because the state could not use local government property taxes permanently as part of the state’s budget solution, the Legislature would need to take alternative actions to resolve the state’s budget difficulties—such as increasing state taxes or decreasing spending on other state programs. As with the local impact, the total fiscal effect also could be in the billions of dollars annually. Less Change to the Revenue of Individual Local Governments. Proposition 1A restricts the state’s authority to reallocate local tax revenues to address concerns regarding funding for specific local governments or to restructure local government finance. For example, the state could not enact measures that changed how local sales tax revenues are allocated to cities and counties. In addition, measures that reallocated property taxes among local governments in a county would require approval by two-thirds of the Members of each house of the Legislature (rather than majority votes). As a result, this measure would result in fewer changes to local government revenues than otherwise would have been the case.

”

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 1A was voted onto the ballot by the California State Legislature via Senate Constitutional Amendment 4 of the 2003–2004 Regular Session (Resolution Chapter 133, Statutes of 2004).

Votes in legislature to refer to ballot
Chamber	Ayes	Noes
Assembly	64	13
Senate	34	5

See also

2004 Measures

• 2004 Measures
• State and local government budgets on the ballot
• spending on the ballot
• and finance on the ballot
• County and municipal governance on the ballot
• 2004 legislative sessions

California

• California ballot measures
• California ballot measure laws

News and analysis

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

External links

• 2004 General Election Voter Guide