Laws governing local ballot measures in California

Laws Governing Local Ballot Measures

State-by-State Laws Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

Terms

Initiative • Home rule • General law city • Charter city • Petition • Initiative petition circulation periods • Circulator • Paid circulator • Volunteer circulator • Circulator affidavit • Signer • Valid signature • Forged signature • Fraudulent signature • Invalid signature • Electronic petition signature • Legislative alteration • Registered voter

This page describes the state constitutional provisions and statutes that govern local ballot measures in California. Jurisdictions often establish additional rules within the parameters of state law; those can be found in local ordinances and home-rule charters.

Explore the links below for more information:

• Laws addressing local ballot measure powers in California
• General requirements for local ballot measures
• Rules for citizen-initiated local ballot measures
• Rules for referred local ballot measures

Law

The California Constitution and California Elections Code establish the rules that govern local ballot measures in the state.

• Constitution: Articles II, XI, and XIII C
• Statute: California Elections Code, Chapter 3, Municipal Elections

General

The following outlines the general rules that govern local ballot measures in California, including both citizen-initiated measures and referred measures from local government bodies.

• Election timing: In California, election timing differs depending on how the ballot measure was placed on the ballot.
  • Initiatives:
    • Initiated ordinances are indirect, which means the city can pass the initiative without alteration or send it to voters. In cities with 1,000 or fewer registered voters, and where the petition is signed by 25% of the voters or 100 voters of the city (whichever is the lesser number), the election occurs at the next regular election occurring not less than 88 days after the call for an election. When at least 10%, but less than 15%, of the registered voters sign the petition in cities with more than 1,000 people, then the election occurs at the next regular election occurring not less than 88 days after the call for election. In cities with more than 1,000 voters where 15% or more of the electors sign, a special election is called at least 88 but no more than 103 days after certification.
    • Initiated charter amendments are direct, which means the city or county governing body cannot adopt them outright. If certified, they must be placed on the ballot. They must be submitted to the voters at an established statewide general, statewide primary, or regularly scheduled municipal election, provided that there are at least 88 days before the election.
  • Referrals:
    • Charters or charter amendments proposed by a charter commission must be submitted to voters at a statewide general election, provided there are at least 95 days before the election. Charters or charter amendments proposed by the city or county's governing body must be submitted to voters at a statewide general election, provided there are at least 88 days before the election.
• Vote requirements: Vote requirements on local ballot measures depend on the type of local ballot measure.
  • Initiatives:
    • General tax measures: 50%+1
    • Special tax measures that dedicate the revenue: 50%+1
    • Charter amendments: 50%+1
    • Ordinances: 50%+1
  • Referrals:
    • General tax measures: 50%+1
    • Special tax measures that dedicate the revenue: 66.67%
    • Charter amendments: 50% +1
    • Ordinances: 50% +1
    • Bond issues for school districts: 55%
    • Bond issues for cities and counties: 66.67%
• Required ballot measures: The California Constitution requires voter-approved ballot measures for the following:
  • All taxes (as defined in Section 1 of Article XIII C), including parcel, sales, business, hotel, utility, and vehicle registration taxes;
  • Adopting, amending, or repealing a city charter; and
  • Bond issues if taxes are being levied to repay them.
• Changes to initiatives: Initiated county ordinances adopted by a county board or approved by voters can only be repealed or amended by voter approval unless the ordinance waives this requirement or provides another means of amendment.
• Number on the ballot: There is no limit on the number of proposed city ordinances that can appear on the ballot; however, the same subject matter cannot be voted upon twice within any 12-month period at a special election. There is no limit on the number of proposed county or district ordinances that can appear on the ballot.
• Advisory questions: Any city, county, school district, community college district, county board of education, and special district can vote to hold an advisory election on any date on which that jurisdiction is currently permitted to hold a regular or special election to ask voters their opinion on an issue.

Initiatives

The following outlines additional rules that govern local citizen-initiated ballot measures in California.

• Authority: Section 11 of Article II of the California Constitution provides citizens of general law cities and counties the power to change ordinances through the initiative and referendum process. Section 3 of Article XI gives all cities and counties the power to adopt charters and the power to amend their charters through initiative and referendum.

• Signatures: The number of signatures required for a local ballot initiative is dependent on the size and type of the city.
  • For initiated ordinances for general law cities:
    • Cities with less than 1,000 registered voters: 25% of the voters or 100 voters of the city, whichever is less
    • Cities with more than 1,000 registered voters: 10% of registered voters
  • For initiatives in chartered governments:
    • Chartered cities: 15% of registered voters
    • Chartered consolidated cities and counties: 10% of registered voters
  • For initiatives in counties:
    • County ordinances: 10% of the entire vote cast in the county for all candidates for Governor at the last gubernatorial election preceding the publication of the notice of intention to circulate an initiative petition
  • County and city veto referendums:
    • For counties and cities where the number of votes cast in the last gubernatorial election exceeded 500,000: 5% of votes cast in the last gubernatorial election
    • For counties and cities where the number of votes cast in the last gubernatorial election did not exceed 500,000: 10% of votes cast in the last gubernatorial election
• Deadlines: The circulation deadline for initiated ordinances or charter amendments is 180 days from receipt of the title and summary.
• Withdrawals: Proponents of local ballot initiatives are allowed to withdraw the initiative up to 88 days prior to the election.

Referrals

The following outlines additional rules that govern local referred ballot measures in California.

• Authority: The Election Code provides that the governing boards of cities, counties, and districts can send ordinances and must send charter amendments and bond issues to voters.
• Deadlines: Charter amendments proposed by charter commissions must be submitted to the voters at an established statewide general election provided there are at least 95 days before the election. Adoptions, repeals, or amendments to a charter proposed by a city or county governing board must be submitted to the voters at an established statewide general election provided there are at least 88 days before the election.

Rulings related to laws governing local ballot measures in California

California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland

On August 28, 2017, the California Supreme Court ruled that the provision of Proposition 218 (1996) requiring local general taxes to go on the ballot during regular general elections rather than special elections did not apply to citizen initiatives. Specifically, the 5-2 ruling stated that Article XIII C, section 2, subdivision (b), of the California Constitution does not restrict the provision of the state's laws governing local initiatives that allows petitioners to collect enough signatures to qualify their initiative for a special election ballot. For cities and counties that follow the initiative process in state law, a petition with signatures equal to 10 percent of registered voters qualifies an initiative for the next general election ballot, while a petition with signatures equal to 15 percent of registered voters qualifies an initiative for a special election held between 88 and 103 days from petition certification. Charter cities are able to have their own process for initiatives which can differ from the state-set process. Proposition 218 added Article XIII C and Article XIII D to the state constitution. Article XIII C, section 2, also contains a voter approval requirement for local taxes and a two-thirds supermajority requirement for taxes earmarked for a specific purpose, such as education or transportation. The ruling did not say whether these provisions would still apply to citizen initiatives. The majority opinion made the following arguments to support this ruling:

• the people's initiative process is separate from the actions of local government as defined by Proposition 218;
• Article XIII C, section 2, of Proposition 218 does not explicitly mention initiatives;
• Article XIII C, section 2(d), was not intended to apply to initiatives either by proponents of Proposition 218 or by the voters that approved Proposition 218; and
• the court’s obligation to "protect and liberally construe the initiative power and to narrowly construe provisions that would burden or limit its exercise" means it must err on the side of not applying restrictions to citizen initiatives.

The following five justices concurred with this ruling:

• Associate Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar (majority opinion author)
• Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye
• Associate Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar
• Associate Justice Ming Chin
• Associate Justice Carol Corrigan

The following two justices dissented:

• Associate Justice Leondra Kruger (dissenting opinion author)
• Associate Justice Goodwin Liu

Reactions

Although the California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland ruling was specifically about Article XIII C 2(b)—the regular general election ballot requirement for general tax measures—the court case discussed Article XIII C as a whole, and the ruling raised questions about whether the other provisions of Article XIII C, section 2, apply to initiatives, including the two-thirds (66.67%) vote requirement for all taxes earmarked for a specific purpose. The initiative process for most cities and counties in California is indirect, which means the local governing body has a chance to approve any initiative with a sufficient number of signatures itself instead of sending it to the voters. Attorneys for the city argued in the case that this ruling could allow the indirect process to be used by city councils or county boards to cooperate with initiative petitioners to bypass the voter approval requirement for taxes entirely. The majority opinion declined to rule on whether or not this was a possibility.

State Senator Scott Wiener (D-11) said, "It’s hard to overstate how important this ruling is. Communities will now have a much easier time funding schools, transportation and other critical needs.”

Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA), said that the ruling could result in city councils and county boards collaborating with tax-increase advocates to use the initiative process to avoid tax measure restrictions that, according to the HJTA, are there to protect taxpayers. Coupal said, “I don’t think there’s any way we can sugarcoat this. This is a significant decision that will lead to unbridled collusion between local governments and special interest groups.”

Coupal also said that the HJTA would seek a constitutional amendment to explicitly apply Proposition 218 restrictions to citizen initiatives.

Roger Jon Diamond, the Santa Monica attorney who represented the California Cannabis Coalition in the case, said that the ruling would not change the supermajority requirements for tax initiatives. Diamond said, “I believe that this does not affect one way or the other whether you need a two-thirds vote or simple majority."

City and County of San Francisco v. All Persons Interested in the Matter of Proposition C

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the Building Owners and Managers Association of California, the California Business Properties Association, and the California Business Roundtable filed a lawsuit challenging Proposition C on August 3, 2018. The groups said that the proposition should have required a two-thirds (66.67%) vote for approval, stating that the measure was a special tax with funds designated to specific projects.

San Francisco Superior Court Judge Ethan Schulman ruled on July 5, 2019, that two measures (both called Proposition C) on the San Francisco ballot in June and November of 2018 were properly certified as approved by city officials. Schulman ruled that Proposition C (June 2018) and Proposition C (November 2018), which proposed tax increases for specific purposes, required a simple majority for approval because they were put on the ballot through a citizen signature petition. The ruling stated that the two-thirds supermajority vote requirement for local special taxes in California applies to tax measures referred to the ballot by lawmakers but not to citizen initiatives.

On June 30, 2020, a panel of three California First District Court of Appeal judges upheld Judge Schulman's ruling and said that the city was correct to apply a simple majority requirement, rather than a two-thirds supermajority requirement, to Proposition C.

On January 27, 2021, the First District Court of Appeal ruled that the supermajority requirement did not apply to Proposition C and only applied to measures placed on the ballot by the city council, board of supervisors, or school board. On April 28, 2021, the California Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of the ruling on Proposition C (June 2018), leaving the lower court ruling in place and allowing the city to continue collecting the tax and to spend the revenue from the tax.

Fresno Building Healthy Communities v. Fresno

See also: Fresno, California, Measure P, Sales Tax for Recreation and Arts (November 2018)

Fresno Building Healthy Communities filed a lawsuit against the city on February 1, 2019, arguing that because Measure P was a citizen initiative, it did not require a two-thirds (66.67%) vote and should have passed with 52 percent approval. The lawsuit argued, based on a previous ruling differentiating election date timing requirements for citizen initiatives from those for measures referred by the local lawmakers, that the two-thirds requirement for special taxes in the state constitution applied to referred measures but not to citizen-initiated ones.

The office of the Fresno City Attorney also filed a suit in Fresno County Superior Court on February 1, 2019, asking the judge to determine the correct vote requirement for Measure P. The city attorney asked the court to consolidate its action with the lawsuit filed by Fresno Building Healthy Communities.

On September 5, 2019, Judge Kimberly Gaab ruled that Measure P was defeated because it required a two-thirds vote for approval. Gaab had previously stated that the cases surrounding this issue were likely to be decided by the California Supreme Court, superseding her decision. Judge Gaab's ruling stated, "The two-thirds vote requirement is not placed on the 'local government.' Rather, proposed special taxes must be 'submitted to the electorate,' which must approve the proposals by a two-thirds vote. Since local government does not approve special tax proposals, it is erroneous to conclude that the two-thirds vote requirement in article XIII C, section 2, subdivision (d) applies only to a 'local government.' Once the initiative is submitted to the voters, it is incumbent upon to [sic] the voters to approve it by a two-thirds vote, or otherwise reject it." Gaab also argued that the ruling in California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland upon which the plaintiff's arguments were based differentiated between the election date issue and the supermajority requirement issue.

The ruling was appealed to the state's Fifth District Court of Appeal. In December 2020, the Fifth District Court of Appeal overturned Judge Gaab's ruling and stated that the measure required approval from a simple majority to pass. Representatives of the city said that it would not appeal the ruling further. On January 7, 2021, the city council voted 5-2 to accept the Fifth District Court of Appeal ruling and against appealing the case further.

Laws governing local ballot measures in the U.S.

Laws governing local ballot measures in the United States

As state laws govern ballot measures, the rules are different from state to state. Click on a state below to explore that state's laws on local ballot measures.

Choose your state...AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWashington, D.C.West VirginiaWisconsinWyoming

http://ballotpedia.org/Laws_governing_local_ballot_measures_in_STATE

See also

• Laws governing local ballot measures
• Laws governing ballot measures in California
• Local ballot measures, California
• Counties in California

Footnotes

Laws governing ballot measures in the United States

Laws governing ballot measures

Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

Changes to laws governing ballot measures

Types of ballot measures

Citizen-initiated ballot measures • Legislatively referred ballot measures • Automatically referred ballot measures • Commission-referred ballot measures • Convention-referred constitutional amendments

Ballot measure policy terms

Glossary of ballot measure policy terms