1978 California Proposition 13
[3] Passage of the initiative presaged a "taxpayer revolt" throughout the country that is sometimes thought to have contributed to the election of Ronald Reagan to the presidency during 1980.
[4] The proposition has been called the "third rail" (meaning "untouchable subject") of California politics, and it has generally been unpopular for lawmakers to attempt to change it.
3d 585 (June 1987), the California Court of Appeal for the Second District determined that the two-thirds (2/3) voter approval requirement for special taxes under Proposition 13 applied to citizens initiatives.
[12] Another explanation that has been offered is that spending by California's government had increased dramatically during the years prior to 1978, and voters sought to limit further growth.
These scandals led to the passage of Assembly Bill 80 (AB 80) in 1966, which imposed standards to hold assessments to market value.
[12] The ensuing anger started to form into a backlash against property taxes which coalesced around Howard Jarvis, a former newspaperman and appliance manufacturer, turned taxpayer activist in retirement.
Officially named the People's Initiative to Limit Property Taxation, and known popularly as the Jarvis-Gann Amendment, Proposition 13 was listed on the ballot through the California ballot initiative process, a provision of the California Constitution that allows a proposed law or constitutional amendment to be offered to voters if advocates collect a sufficient number of signatures on a petition.
Such a real estate slump and downward reassessments occurred during 2009 when the California State Board of Equalization announced an estimated reduction of property tax base year values due to negative inflation.
It said that a revenue-neutral Los Angeles County reform which raises all assessments to true market value and lowers the property tax rate would harm elderly and low-income households.
[39] A 2016 report from the California Legislative Analyst's Office found that property tax revenue to local governments was similarly volatile before and after the passage of Proposition 13.
[41] Additionally, due to the higher cost of new homes, the trade association claims that new residents are more affluent and may provide more sales tax revenues and use less social services of the host community.
[42] Others argue that the real reason for the claimed negative effects is lack of trust for elected officials to spend the public's money wisely.
[49] This is in contrast to the initial campaign, where Jarvis argued that lowering property tax rates would cause landlords to pass savings onto renters, who were upset at their rapidly rising rents driven by the high inflation of the 1970's.
[52] To take advantage of this loophole, businesses only have to make sure that no partnership exceeds the 50% mark in control in order to avoid a reassessment.
[56] A Los Angeles Times article published shortly following the passage of Proposition 13 supported the latter interpretation, stating: "There is no question that the voters knew exactly what they were doing.
It constitutionally requires voter approval for local government taxes and some nontax levies such as benefit assessments on real property and certain property-related fees and charges.
[65] Some[66] disputed the attribution of the decline to Proposition 13's role in the change to state financing of public schools, because schools financed mostly by property taxes were declared unconstitutional (the variances in funding between lower and higher income areas being deemed to violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution) in Serrano vs.
[61] California's spending per pupil was the same as the national average until about 1985, when it began decreasing, which resulted in another referendum, Proposition 98, that requires a certain percentage of the state's budget to be directed towards public education.
[71] Pupil-teacher ratios decreased since the passage of Proposition 30,[72] and according to a National Education Association survey, California had the second-highest starting teacher salary among the 50 states in 2018.
[79] Schwarzenegger, believing that such an act would be inadvisable politically and could end his gubernatorial career, said, "I told Warren that if he mentions Proposition 13 again he has to do 500 sit-ups.
"[80] Gavin Newsom, when asked about the fairness of Proposition 13 in a 2010 interview with The Bay Citizen, said: "The political realities are such that Democrats, not just Republicans and Independents, are overwhelmingly opposed to making adjustments in terms of the residential side of Prop.
[85] Proposition 218, called the "Right to Vote on Taxes Act," is an initiative constitutional amendment approved by California voters on November 5, 1996.
[90] Proposition 39 lowered the required supermajority necessary for voters to impose local school bond acts from two-thirds (2/3) of the votes cast to 55%.
This measure provides reassessment exemptions to all homeowners over the age of 55 moving within the state, for a total of three lifetime moves, financed by narrowing Proposition 58 and Proposition 193 to solely inherited primary residences or farms, with an inflation-adjusted exemption cap of $1 million in market value at the time of death, and requires the heir to continually live in the residence or face reassessment (this requirement does not apply to farm property).
Disheartened by the disparity in taxation, Nordlinger viewed this reassessment as favoritism in the eyes of the law and elected to bring charges up on the Los Angeles County Tax Assessment office and its primary assessor, Kenneth Hahn.
[95] Nordlinger subsequently sued the Los Angeles County Tax Assessor Kenneth Hahn on the grounds of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
[98] In December 2011, Charles E. Young, former University of California, Los Angeles chancellor, brought a lawsuit with a team of lawyers headed by William Norris, a retired federal judge of the United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
[103] Democrat Don Perata, former California senate leader, said this loophole is left open by his party to create justification for ending Proposition 13.
[106] Proposition 15 (also known as split roll)[107] was an initiative constitutional amendment appearing on the November 2020 California statewide ballot[108] that would have raised taxes by amending Proposition 13 to require the reassessment of commercial and industrial properties at market value, including commercial and industrial property owned by a natural person.
15 were the California Teachers Association, multiple chapters of the Service Employees International Union, and the Chan Zuckerberg Advocacy Fund.
