California Proposition 63, Tax Increase on Income Above $1 Million for Mental Health Services Initiative (2004): Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 80: | Line 80: | ||
In California, the number of signatures required for an {{issfull}} is equal to 5 percent of the votes cast at the preceding gubernatorial election. For initiated statutes filed in 2004, at least 373,816 valid signatures were required. | In California, the number of signatures required for an {{issfull}} is equal to 5 percent of the votes cast at the preceding gubernatorial election. For initiated statutes filed in 2004, at least 373,816 valid signatures were required. | ||
<APIWidget template="BallotMeasureSeeAlso" where="ballot_measures.id = 13858" /> | <APIWidget template="BallotMeasureSeeAlso" where="ballot_measures.id = 13858" /> | ||
Latest revision as of 14:16, 18 March 2021
| California Proposition 63 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 2, 2004 | |
| Topic Taxes | |
Status Approved | |
| Type State statute | Origin Citizens |
California Proposition 63 was on the ballot as an initiated state statute in California on November 2, 2004. It was approved.
A "yes" vote supported enacting an additional 1% tax on income above $1 million and dedicating funding from the tax to mental health services and programs. |
A "no" vote opposed enacting an additional 1% tax on income above $1 million and dedicating funding from the tax to mental health services and programs. |
Election results
|
California Proposition 63 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
|
|
6,191,691 | 53.71% | ||
| No | 5,337,216 | 46.29% | ||
Aftermath
Jensen v. Tax Board
In Jensen v. California Franchise Tax Board, the plaintiffs argued that Proposition 63 violated the state and federal equal protection clauses because the tax disproportionately impacted wealthy individuals. In October 2009, the California Court of Appeals ruled against the plaintiffs.
MHA v. Schwarzenegger
In Mental Health Association in California v. Schwarzenegger, the Mental Health Association (MHA) filed a petition to compel the State of California to reinstate $54.85 million in annual funding for the Homeless Adults Program. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) had removed this funding from the state's budget in 2007, saying, "I am deleting the $54,850,000 legislative augmentation for the Integrated Services for Homeless Adults with Serious Mental Illness Program. While I support the goals of the program, this reduction is necessary to limit program expansions and to help bring ongoing expenditures in line with existing resources. To the extent counties find this program beneficial and cost-effective, it can be restructured to meet the needs of each county's homeless population using other county funding sources, such as federal funds, realignment funds, or Proposition 63 funds." In 2010, the California Court of Appeals denied the petition.
In 2018, voters passed a ballot measure, Proposition 2, that authorized the state to use revenue from Proposition 63 on $2 billion in revenue bonds for homelessness prevention housing for persons in need of mental health services.
Overview
Proposition 63 adopted an additional 1% tax on incomes above $1.00 million beginning on January 1, 2005.
Proposition 63 dedicated expenditures from the tax as follows:
- 45% of funds for local capital facilities, including existing planning for a new management and clinical information systems;
- 45% for education and training, including a local needs assessment identifying staff shortages in each professional occupational category;
- 5% for county planning in developing both first stage plans and subsequent three year plans;
- 5% of total available funds for the California Department of Mental Health, California Mental Health Planning Council, and Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission
The ballot measure created a 16-member commission called the Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission, which was to include:
- California Attorney General or designee
- Superintendent of Public Instruction or designee
- Chairperson of the Senate Health and Human Services Committee or another member of the Senate selected by the President pro Tempore of the Senate
- Chairperson of the Assembly Health Committee or another member of the Assembly selected by the Speaker of the Assembly
- Twelve appointees of the Governor, including:
- two persons with a severe mental illness
- a family member of an adult or senior with a severe mental illness
- a family member of a child who has or has had a severe mental illness
- a physician specializing in alcohol and drug treatment
- a mental health professional
- a county sheriff
- a Superintendent of a school district
- a representative of a labor organization
- a representative of an employer with less than 500 employees
- a representative of an employer with more than 500 employees
- a representative of a health care services plan or insurer
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title for Proposition 63 was as follows:
| “ | Mental Health Services Expansion, Funding. Tax on Personal Incomes Above $1 Million. Initiative Statute. | ” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary for this measure was:
| “ |
| ” |
Full Text
The full text of this measure is available here.
Fiscal impact statement
The fiscal impact statement was as follows:
| “ |
|
” |
Path to the ballot
In California, the number of signatures required for an initiated state statute is equal to 5 percent of the votes cast at the preceding gubernatorial election. For initiated statutes filed in 2004, at least 373,816 valid signatures were required.
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
 |
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 |
