Elections in California |
---|
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. [1] [2] 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. [3] According to the California Legislative Analyst, Proposition 19 is a large net tax increase "of hundreds of millions of dollars per year." [4]
According to the ballot summary, Proposition 19:
The proposition was sponsored and heavily promoted by the California Association of Realtors, and became effective on February 16, 2021. [6] [7]
The California Association of Realtors previously sponsored and financed an initiative measure known as 2018 California Proposition 5 on the November 2018 ballot that would have further expanded Proposition 13 property tax breaks for certain homeowners (primarily homeowners over age 55) by allowing them to transfer their lower property tax base to replacement property. [8] That ballot measure failed statewide with 40% support, and also failed to receive majority support in all 58 California counties. [9] Proposition 5 opponents successfully argued that the initiative measure was a "huge tax break to wealthy Californians" and a "huge windfall to the real estate industry." [10]
In 2019, the California Association of Realtors sponsored and financed another initiative measure that would have expanded Proposition 13 property tax breaks for certain homeowners like the 2018 California Proposition 5 ballot measure. However, to generate a net increase in property tax revenue, the initiative also significantly narrowed Proposition 13 property tax reassessment exclusion rules for inherited properties and expanded the scope of business entity ownership changes that would result in commercial property reassessment under Proposition 13. [11] This initiative measure received sufficient signatures to qualify for the November 2020 ballot. [12]
As allowed under California law, [13] the California Association of Realtors negotiated with various special interests to secure legislative approval of an alternative constitutional amendment known as Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 11 (ACA 11). [14] Proposition 19 was added to the ballot via ACA 11 which was authored by San Mateo Assemblymember Kevin Mullin. [15]
Significant controversy arose because the legislative approval of ACA 11 missed the regular legal deadline for placing measures on the November 2020 ballot, and the Legislature also had to enact a separate statute calling a special election for ACA 11 that was consolidated with the regular November 2020 election. [16] In response to the approval and qualification of ACA 11 for the November 2020 ballot, the California Association of Realtors withdrew its 2019 initiative measure that was previously eligible to appear on the November 2020 ballot. [17] The primary differences between Proposition 19 and the 2019 initiative measure withdrawn by the California Association of Realtors are that Proposition 19 excluded the expanded business entity ownership provisions that would have resulted in commercial property reassessment under Proposition 13 (to appease major business interests who did not like the business tax increase component of the 2019 initiative) and that Proposition 19 added the partial firefighting revenue provisions as a political sweetener (to appease firefighting organizations that previously opposed 2018 California Proposition 5). [18] [19]
Thus, compared to the 2019 initiative measure, Proposition 19 retained the expanded Proposition 13 property tax breaks for certain homeowners (primarily homeowners over age 55) like those contained in the defeated 2018 California Proposition 5 ballot measure, retained the property tax increase provisions by significantly narrowing Proposition 13 property tax reassessment exclusion rules for inherited properties, and added the partial firefighting revenue provisions as a political sweetener. [20]
In California, constitutional amendments proposed by the Legislature require approval from two-thirds of the membership of each house. [21]
The following are the votes by the Members of the California Legislature on ACA 11, along with how the voters within the corresponding legislative district subsequently voted on Proposition 19:
Assembly votes are from the California Assembly Daily Journal [22] and Proposition 19 outcomes are from the California Secretary of State. [23] The vote designation of "Abstain" is for those Legislators present on the day of the vote, [24] but who did not record a vote for or against ACA 11. The vote designation of "Absent" is for those Legislators who were absent on the day of the vote. Assembly districts are based on the applicable 2011 district.
District | Last Name | First Name | Party | ACA 11 Vote | Prop 19 Outcome |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
04 | Aguiar-Curry | Cecilia | Dem | Yes | Pass |
31 | Arambula | Joaquin | Dem | Yes | Pass |
16 | Bauer-Kahan | Rebecca | Dem | Yes | Pass |
24 | Berman | Marc | Dem | Yes | Pass |
05 | Bigelow | Frank | Rep | Yes | Fail |
50 | Bloom | Richard | Dem | Abstain | Fail |
76 | Boerner-Horvath | Tasha | Dem | Abstain | Pass |
18 | Bonta | Rob | Dem | Yes | Pass |
73 | Brough | Bill | Rep | No | Fail |
62 | Burke | Autumn | Dem | Yes | Pass |
57 | Calderon | Ian | Dem | Yes | Fail |
51 | Carrillo | Wendy | Dem | Yes | Fail |
60 | Cervantes | Sabrina | Dem | Abstain | Fail |
49 | Chau | Ed | Dem | Yes | Fail |
55 | Chen | Phillip | Rep | Abstain | Fail |
17 | Chiu | David | Dem | Abstain | Pass |
68 | Choi | Steven | Rep | Abstain | Fail |
25 | Chu | Kansen | Dem | Yes | Pass |
08 | Cooley | Ken | Dem | No | Fail |
09 | Cooper | Jim | Dem | Yes | Pass |
35 | Cunningham | Jordan | Rep | Abstain | Fail |
01 | Dahle | Megan | Rep | Yes | Fail |
69 | Daly | Tom | Dem | Yes | Pass |
72 | Diep | Tyler | Rep | Absent | Fail |
13 | Eggman | Susan | Dem | Yes | Pass |
12 | Flora | Heath | Rep | Yes | Fail |
34 | Fong | Vince | Rep | No | Fail |
11 | Frazier | Jim | Dem | Absent | Pass |
43 | Friedman | Laura | Dem | Yes | Fail |
45 | Gabriel | Jesse | Dem | Yes | Fail |
03 | Gallagher | James | Rep | Yes | Fail |
58 | Garcia | Cristina | Dem | Yes | Pass |
56 | Garcia | Eduardo | Dem | Yes | Pass |
64 | Gipson | Mike | Dem | Yes | Pass |
78 | Gloria | Todd | Dem | Yes | Pass |
80 | Gonzalez | Lorena | Dem | Absent | Pass |
21 | Gray | Adam | Dem | Yes | Pass |
14 | Grayson | Tim | Dem | Yes | Pass |
41 | Holden | Chris | Dem | Yes | Fail |
44 | Irwin | Jacqui | Dem | Yes | Pass |
59 | Jones-Sawyer | Reggie | Dem | Yes | Pass |
27 | Kalra | Ash | Dem | Yes | Pass |
54 | Kamlager-Dove | Sydney | Dem | Yes | Pass |
06 | Kiley | Kevin | Rep | No | Fail |
36 | Lackey | Tom | Rep | Yes | Fail |
10 | Levine | Marc | Dem | No | Pass |
37 | Limón | Monique | Dem | Yes | Fail |
28 | Low | Evan | Dem | Yes | Pass |
77 | Maienschein | Brian | Dem | Yes | Pass |
26 | Mathis | Devon | Rep | Yes | Fail |
42 | Mayes | Chad | Ind | Yes | Fail |
07 | McCarty | Kevin | Dem | Yes | Pass |
61 | Medina | Jose | Dem | Yes | Pass |
22 | Mullin | Kevin | Dem | Yes | Pass |
66 | Muratsuchi | Al | Dem | Yes | Fail |
46 | Nazarian | Adrin | Dem | Abstain | Pass |
70 | O'Donnell | Patrick | Dem | Yes | Fail |
33 | Obernolte | Jay | Rep | Yes | Fail |
23 | Patterson | Jim | Rep | Abstain | Fail |
74 | Petrie-Norris | Cottie | Dem | Abstain | Fail |
20 | Quirk | Bill | Dem | Yes | Pass |
65 | Quirk-Silva | Sharon | Dem | Abstain | Fail |
40 | Ramos | James | Dem | Absent | Pass |
63 | Rendon | Anthony | Dem | Yes | Pass |
47 | Reyes | Eloise | Dem | Yes | Pass |
39 | Rivas | Luz | Dem | Yes | Pass |
30 | Rivas | Robert | Dem | Yes | Pass |
52 | Rodriguez | Freddie | Dem | Yes | Pass |
48 | Rubio | Blanca | Dem | Yes | Fail |
32 | Salas | Rudy | Dem | Abstain | Fail |
53 | Santiago | Miguel | Dem | Yes | Pass |
38 | Smith | Christy | Dem | Yes | Fail |
29 | Stone | Mark | Dem | Yes | Pass |
19 | Ting | Phil | Dem | Abstain | Pass |
67 | Vacant | Vacant | Vac | Vacant | Fail |
71 | Voepel | Randy | Rep | Yes | Fail |
75 | Waldron | Marie | Rep | Yes | Fail |
79 | Weber | Shirley | Dem | Yes | Pass |
15 | Wicks | Buffy | Dem | Yes | Pass |
02 | Wood | Jim | Dem | Abstain | Pass |
Senate votes are from the California Senate Daily Journal [25] and Proposition 19 outcomes are from the California Secretary of State. [26] The vote designation of "Abstain" is for those Legislators present on the day of the vote, [27] but who did not record a vote for or against ACA 11. Senate districts are based on the applicable 2011 district.
District | Last Name | First Name | Party | ACA 11 Vote | Prop 19 Outcome |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
26 | Allen | Ben | Dem | Abstain | Fail |
32 | Archuleta | Bob | Dem | Yes | Fail |
39 | Atkins | Toni | Dem | Yes | Pass |
36 | Bates | Patricia | Rep | No | Fail |
15 | Beall | Jim | Dem | Yes | Pass |
08 | Borgeas | Andreas | Rep | Abstain | Fail |
35 | Bradford | Steven | Dem | Yes | Pass |
12 | Caballero | Anna | Dem | Yes | Pass |
29 | Chang | Ling Ling | Rep | Abstain | Fail |
01 | Dahl | Brian | Rep | Yes | Fail |
03 | Dodd | Bill | Dem | Yes | Pass |
24 | Durazo | Maria Elena | Dem | Yes | Pass |
05 | Galgiani | Cathleen | Dem | Yes | Pass |
07 | Glazer | Steve | Dem | Yes | Pass |
33 | Gonzalez | Lena | Dem | Yes | Pass |
16 | Grove | Shannon | Rep | Abstain | Fail |
18 | Hertzberg | Robert | Dem | Yes | Pass |
13 | Hill | Jerry | Dem | Yes | Pass |
40 | Hueso | Ben | Dem | Yes | Pass |
14 | Hurtado | Melissa | Dem | Abstain | Pass |
19 | Jackson | Hannah-Beth | Dem | Yes | Fail |
38 | Jones | Brian | Rep | No | Fail |
20 | Leyva | Connie | Dem | Yes | Pass |
02 | McGuire | Mike | Dem | Yes | Pass |
28 | Melendez | Melissa | Rep | No | Fail |
30 | Mitchell | Holly | Dem | Yes | Pass |
17 | Monning | Bill | Dem | Yes | Pass |
37 | Moorlach | John | Rep | Abstain | Fail |
23 | Morrell | Mike | Rep | No | Fail |
04 | Nielsen | Jim | Rep | No | Fail |
06 | Pan | Richard | Dem | Yes | Pass |
25 | Portantino | Anthony | Dem | Yes | Fail |
31 | Roth | Richard | Dem | Yes | Pass |
22 | Rubio | Susan | Dem | Yes | Fail |
09 | Skinner | Nancy | Dem | Yes | Pass |
27 | Stern | Henry | Dem | Yes | Fail |
34 | Umberg | Tom | Dem | Yes | Fail |
10 | Wieckowski | Bob | Dem | Yes | Pass |
11 | Wiener | Scott | Dem | Yes | Pass |
21 | Wilk | Scott | Rep | Yes | Fail |
The California Association of Realtors sponsored the Proposition 19 constitutional amendment, [28] with the expectation of deriving significant profits from many more home sales under the ballot measure, including from both the expanded tax benefit portability provisions and from the significant narrowing of the inheritance exclusion provisions which will force more home sales. [29] The president of the California Association of Realtors has denied that Proposition 19 is about making money for the Realtors. [30]
In analyzing the Proposition 19 ballot measure, a September 2020 report by the California Budget & Policy Center stated that: "Housing policy and tax policy have historically benefited white households most, including through policies with explicitly racist design and implementation that have blocked Black and brown Californians from homeownership opportunities. By directing additional tax benefits largely to white homeowners, Prop. 19 reinforces racial inequity within California's tax system." [31]
The Greenlining Institute has also criticized Proposition 19 for not helping "first-time homeowners who are disproportionately Black, Indigenous and people of color." [32]
It was reported [33] that the California Association of Realtors, the sponsor of Proposition 19, hired a former employee of a statewide taxpayer association for the sole purpose of using the former employer's job title to confuse voters to support Proposition 19. A radio ad was cited in the article as being deceptive because the former employee led listeners to believe he was advocating for the Proposition 19 tax increase in his capacity as the former legislative director of the statewide taxpayers association. The statewide taxpayers association received many calls from voters who said they were disgusted by the misleading radio ads and large direct mail pieces by the Yes on 19 campaign. The reporting article also cited a California Globe analysis that Proposition 19 is a billion dollar tax increase on California families and that Proposition 19 was in fact opposed by the statewide taxpayers association. [34]
According to the California Initiative Editorial Scorecard, Proposition 19 was opposed by 16 major California newspapers and supported by 5 major California newspapers. [35]
The following major California newspapers opposed Proposition 19: [36]
Newspaper | Position |
---|---|
Los Angeles Times | Oppose |
San Jose Mercury News | Oppose |
Orange County Register | Oppose |
East Bay Times | Oppose |
San Francisco Chronicle | Oppose |
The Press-Enterprise | Oppose |
San Gabriel Valley Tribune | Oppose |
The Daily Breeze | Oppose |
Los Angeles Daily News | Oppose |
The Santa Rosa Press Democrat | Oppose |
Long Beach Press-Telegram | Oppose |
Inland Valley Daily Bulletin | Oppose |
San Bernardino Sun | Oppose |
The Desert Sun | Oppose |
Chico Enterprise-Record | Oppose |
Bakersfield Californian | Oppose |
The following major California newspaper supported Proposition 19: [37]
Newspaper | Position |
---|---|
San Diego Union-Tribune | Support |
Sacramento Bee | Support |
San Luis Obispo Tribune | Support |
Fresno Bee | Support |
Modesto Bee | Support |
According to campaign contribution data from the California Secretary of State, as of November 1, 2020, supporters of Proposition 19 raised $47.0 million, with $40.4 million from the California Association of Realtors and $4.9 million from the National Association of Realtors, for a combined total of $45.3 million (96.4% of all campaign contributions) coming from real estate interests. Opponents of Proposition 19 raised approximately $45,000. [38]
In order to pass, Proposition 19 needed simple majority (>50%) approval by the voters which it narrowly received.
Poll source | Date(s) administered | Sample size [lower-alpha 1] | Margin of error | For Proposition 19 | Against Proposition 19 | Undecided |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SurveyUSA | September 26–28, 2020 | 588 (LV) | ± 5.4% | 56% | 10% | 34% |
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 in a primary election on June 6, 1978 by a nearly two to one margin. It was upheld by the United States Supreme Court in 1992 in Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1 (1992). Proposition 13 is embodied in Article XIII A of the Constitution of the State of California.
Proposition 209 is a California ballot proposition which, upon approval in November 1996, amended the state constitution to prohibit state governmental institutions from considering race, sex, or ethnicity, specifically in the areas of public employment, public contracting, and public education. Modeled on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the California Civil Rights Initiative was authored by two California academics, Glynn Custred and Tom Wood. It was the first electoral test of affirmative action policies in North America. It passed with 55% in favor to 45% opposed, thereby banning affirmative action in the state's public sector.
Proposition 60 was an amendment of the Constitution of California, enacted in 2004, guaranteeing the right of a party participating in a primary election to also participate in the general election that follows. It was proposed by the California Legislature and approved by the voters in referendum held as part of the November 2004 election, by a majority of 67%.
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.
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.
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is a California-based nonprofit lobbying and policy organization that advocates for Proposition 13 and Proposition 218. Officially nonpartisan, the organization also advocates against raising taxes in California.
California Proposition 5, or the Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act was an initiated state statute that appeared as a ballot measure on the November 2008 ballot in California. It was disapproved by voters on November 4 of that year.
Proposition 39 was an initiative state constitutional amendment and statute which appeared on the November 7, 2000, California general election ballot. Proposition 39 passed with 5,431,152 Yes votes, representing 53.4 percent of the total votes cast. Proposition 39 was essentially a milder version of Proposition 26, which would have ended the Proposition 13 supermajority vote requirement altogether, but was defeated with 3,521,327 "Yes" votes, representing 48.7 percent of the total votes cast, in the March 7, 2000, California primary election. The measure was funded by Ann and John Doerr, John T. Walton and Reed Hastings; it was opposed by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.
The California state elections, November 2010 were held on November 2, 2010.
Proposition 218 is an adopted initiative constitutional amendment in the state of California that appeared on the November 5, 1996, statewide election ballot. Proposition 218 revolutionized local and regional government finance in California. Called the “Right to Vote on Taxes Act,” Proposition 218 was sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association as a constitutional follow-up to the landmark Proposition 13 property tax revolt initiative constitutional amendment approved by California voters on June 6, 1978. Proposition 218 was drafted by constitutional attorneys Jonathan Coupal and Jack Cohen.
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 69 was a legislatively referred constitutional amendment that appeared on ballots in California in the June primary election in 2018. This measure put the revenue from the Road Repair and Accountability Act, which increased fuel taxes, in a "lockbox" so that it can only be used for transportation-related purposes. It also exempts said gas tax revenue from the previously existing appropriations mandate and expenditures limit. This state constitution amendment ensures that revenues from SB1 Gas Taxes established by the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 can only be used for transportation-related purposes.
Proposition 16 is a California ballot proposition that appeared on the November 3, 2020, general election ballot, asking California voters to amend the Constitution of California to repeal Proposition 209 (1996). Proposition 209 amended the state constitution to prohibit government institutions from considering race, sex, or ethnicity, specifically in the areas of public employment, public contracting, and public education. Therefore, Proposition 209 banned the use of race- and gender-based affirmative action in California's public sector.
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.
The 2020 California Proposition 18 would allow 17-year-olds to vote in primary and special elections if they will turn 18 by the subsequent general election.
Proposition 1, titled Constitutional Right to Reproductive Freedom and initially known as Senate Constitutional Amendment 10 (SCA 10), was a California ballot proposition and state constitutional amendment that was voted on in the 2022 general election on November 8. Passing with more than two-thirds of the vote, the proposition amended the Constitution of California to explicitly grant the right to an abortion and contraceptives, making California among the first states in the nation to codify the right. The decision to propose the codification of abortion rights in the state constitution was precipitated in May 2022 by Politico's publishing of a leaked draft opinion showing the United States Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. The decision reversed judicial precedent that previously held that the United States Constitution protected the right to an abortion.
The following is a list of ballot measures which were on the ballot for the 2022 United States elections. Some were held prior to the federal elections on November 8. Many were initiated by state legislatures, while others were initiated by public petitions.
Proposition 72, also known as Prop 72, was a California ballot proposition and proposed state constitution amendment intended to exclude rainwater capture systems completed on or after January 1, 2019 from property tax assessments. The measure passed in the June 2018 California primary elections. Supporters of the measure believed it would encourage more homeowners to install these systems and would help conserve water. There was no opposing argument ever submitted to the Secretary of State. Save California Water ran the campaign supporting Prop 72. The amendment was sponsored by Senator Steve Glazer in the California State Legislature. The California Democratic Party supported the amendment. Other supports of the amendment include League of California Cities, Save the Bay, Planning and Conservation League, Trout Unlimited, and Rural County Representatives of California.