| Elections in California |
|---|
 |
California Propositions 98 and 99 were competing ballot propositions in the U.S. state of California to limit the use of eminent domain and possibly rent control. They were voted on June 3, 2008; proposition 98 failed, while proposition 99 passed.
The propositions were partly a reaction to the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Kelo v. City of New London , which held that the power of eminent domain can sometimes be used to transfer property from one private owner to another. They addressed the issue differently, and also included other measures. [1]
Proposition 98 would have prohibited "state and local governments from condemning or damaging private property for private uses", changed litigation rules to be more friendly to property owners, and required the government to allow the original owner to repurchase the property at the original price if it ended up being put to a different use than originally stated. In addition, the proposition would have prohibited rent control and similar measures. [2]
Proposition 99 more narrowly prohibited "state and local governments from using eminent domain to acquire an owner-occupied residence [if the owner has occupied the residence for at least one year], as defined, for conveyance to a private person or business entity", subject to some exceptions. It did not prohibit rent control nor the use of eminent domain for properties other than residences occupied by the owner for over a year. [3] The nonpartisan California Legislative Analyst's Office (which prepares analyses for the official state voter guide) concluded, "Proposition 99 would not significantly change current government land acquisition practices." [4]
If both propositions had passed, but Proposition 99 received more votes, only it, and not Proposition 98, would become law. [1] However, this ended up not to matter as only Proposition 99 passed.
Proposition 98 was co-sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, and was also supported by landlord groups. It was opposed by tenant groups and associations of cities and redevelopment agencies, who preferred Proposition 99. By April 2008, supporters of Proposition 98 had raised $3.5 million, and opponents $6.4 million, to conduct their campaigns. [1]
| Choice | Votes | % |
|---|---|---|
 No | 2,677,456 | 61.51 |
| Yes | 1,675,213 | 38.49 |
| Valid votes | 4,352,669 | 95.66 |
| Invalid or blank votes | 197,558 | 4.34 |
| Total votes | 4,550,227 | 100.00 |
| Choice | Votes | % |
|---|---|---|
 Yes | 2,678,106 | 61.96 |
| No | 1,644,509 | 38.04 |
| Valid votes | 4,322,615 | 95.00 |
| Invalid or blank votes | 227,612 | 5.00 |
| Total votes | 4,550,227 | 100.00 |
Proposition 13 is an amendment of the Constitution of California enacted during 1978, by means of the initiative process. The initiative was approved by California voters on June 6, 1978 by a nearly two to one margin. It was upheld as constitutional by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1 (1992). Proposition 13 is embodied in Article XIII A of the Constitution of the State of California.
Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 5–4, that the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development does not violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In the case, plaintiff Susette Kelo sued the city of New London, Connecticut, for violating her civil rights after the city tried to acquire her house's property through eminent domain so that the land could be used as part of a "comprehensive redevelopment plan". Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the five-justice majority that the city's use of eminent domain was permissible under the Takings Clause, because the general benefits the community would enjoy from economic growth qualified as "public use".
California Proposition 14 was a November 1964 initiative ballot measure that amended the California state constitution to nullify the 1963 Rumford Fair Housing Act, thereby allowing property sellers, landlords and their agents to openly discriminate on ethnic grounds when selling or letting accommodations, as they had been permitted to before 1963. The proposition became law after receiving support from 65% of voters. In 1966, the California Supreme Court in a 5–2 split decision declared Proposition 14 unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that decision in 1967 in Reitman v. Mulkey.
Oregon Ballot Measure 37 was a controversial land-use ballot initiative that passed in the U.S. state of Oregon in 2004 and is now codified as Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 195.305. Measure 37 has figured prominently in debates about the rights of property owners versus the public's right to enforce environmental and other land use regulations. Voters passed Measure 49 in 2007, substantially reducing the impact of Measure 37.
Proposition 218 is an adopted initiative constitutional amendment which revolutionized local and regional government finance and taxation in California. Named the "Right to Vote on Taxes Act," it was sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association as a constitutional follow-up to the landmark property tax reduction initiative constitutional amendment, Proposition 13, approved in June 1978. Proposition 218 was approved and adopted by California voters during the November 5, 1996, statewide general election.
Arizona Proposition 207, a 2006 ballot initiative officially titled the Private Property Rights Protection Act, requires the government to reimburse land owners when regulations result in a decrease in the property's value, and also prevents government from exercising eminent domain on behalf of a private party. It was approved by a 64.8% margin. The land use portion of this proposition is similar to Oregon's 2004 Ballot Measure 37, and the eminent domain portion is similar to initiatives advanced in numerous states following the 2005 US Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London.
California Proposition 90 was a 2006 ballot initiative in the state of California, United States. Passing of the initiative would have made two changes to California law:
The 2007 Texas constitutional amendment election took place 6 November 2007.
California's state elections were held November 2, 2004. Necessary primary elections were held on March 2. Up for election were all the seats of the State Assembly, 20 seats of the State Senate, and sixteen ballot measures.
The California state elections, June 2008 were held on June 3, 2008, throughout California. The elections included two ballot propositions and one recall election for a State Senate seat. All primary elections for Californian seats to the House of Representatives, all of the seats of the State Assembly, and all odd-numbered seats of the State Senate were also held.
California's state elections were held November 3, 1998. Necessary primary elections were held on March 3. Up for election were all the seats of the California State Assembly, 20 seats of the California Senate, seven constitutional officers, all the seats of the California Board of Equalization, as well as votes on retention of two Supreme Court justices and various appeals court judges. Twelve ballot measures were also up for approval. Municipal offices were also included in the election.
California's state elections were held November 3, 1992. Necessary primary elections were held on March 3. Up for election were all the seats of the State Assembly, 20 seats of the State Senate, and fifteen ballot measures.
Proposition 1F of 2009 was a measure approved by California voters relating to the salaries of state officers. It was an amendment of the Constitution of California prohibiting pay raises for members of the State Legislature, the Governor, and other state officials during deficit years. It was proposed by the legislature and approved in a referendum held as part of the May 19, 2009 special election ballot, in which the California electorate also voted on five other propositions.
In California state elections, 2014 was the first year in which the top statewide offices were elected under the nonpartisan blanket primary, pursuant to Proposition 14, which passed with 53% voter approval in June 2010. Under this system, which first went into effect during the 2012 election year, all candidates appear on the same ballot, regardless of party. In the primary, voters may vote for any candidate, regardless of their party affiliation. The top two finishers, regardless of party, then advance to face each other in the general election in November.
The California state elections in 2020 were held on Tuesday, November 3, 2020. Unlike previous election cycles, the primary elections were held on Super Tuesday, March 3, 2020.
California state elections in 2018 were held on Tuesday, November 6, 2018, with the primary elections being held on June 5, 2018. Voters elected one member to the United States Senate, 53 members to the United States House of Representatives, all eight state constitutional offices, all four members to the Board of Equalization, 20 members to the California State Senate, and all 80 members to the California State Assembly, among other elected offices.
California Proposition 15 was a failed citizen-initiated proposition on the November 3, 2020, ballot. It would have provided $6.5 billion to $11.5 billion in new funding for public schools, community colleges, and local government services by creating a "split roll" system that increased taxes on large commercial properties by assessing them at market value, without changing property taxes for small business owners or residential properties for homeowners or renters. The measure failed by a small margin of about four percentage points.
Proposition 21, an initiative statute for local rent control officially called the Expands Local Governments’ Authority to Enact Rent Control on Residential Property, was a California ballot proposition that appeared on the ballot for the general election on November 3, 2020 and was rejected. If approved, it would allow local governments to establish rent control on residential properties that have been occupied for over 15 years. It would also allow landlords who own no more than two homes to exempt themselves from such policies. This would essentially repeal some of the provisions in the 1995 Costa–Hawkins Rental Housing Act. Proposition 21 was rejected by 60% of California voters, just like Proposition 10 was before it.
California Proposition 19 (2020), also referred to as Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 11, is an amendment of the Constitution of California that was narrowly approved by voters in the general election on November 3, 2020, with just over 51% of the vote. The legislation increases the property tax burden on owners of inherited property to provide expanded property tax benefits to homeowners ages 55 years and older, disabled homeowners, and victims of natural disasters, and fund wildfire response. According to the California Legislative Analyst, Proposition 19 is a large net tax increase "of hundreds of millions of dollars per year."
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)