Laws governing local ballot measures in California
 |
All California counties and cities have a mandated initiative and referendum process for local ballot measures.
This article sets out the laws governing local ballot measures in California. It explains:
- Which local units of government make the initiative process available to residents.
- How and whether local units of government, including school districts, can refer local ballot measures (such as school bond propositions) to the ballot.
- An overview of laws governing local recall elections.
Note that California is one of twenty-four states that allow the initiative process at the statewide level.
Types of local government
According to a 2022 study from the U.S. Census Bureau, this state's local governments consist of 57 counties, 482 cities, towns, and villages, and 2,949 special districts.[1]
San Francisco is a consolidated city-county government, exercising powers and responsibilities of both forms of government.
Tax measures
In California, all taxes imposed by local governments are classified as either general or special taxes and must be put before voters as a local ballot measure for approval. Local government entities with the ability to levy taxes upon voter approval include cities, towns, counties, school districts, fire protection districts, transportation authorities, and other special districts such as community service districts and recreation districts. Taxes that appear before voters include:
- Parcel taxes—a type of property tax based on units of property rather than assessed value
- Sale taxes—a percentage of the sale of goods and services
- Business taxes—a percentage of profits, a business license fee, a levy based on the size of a commercial or retail facility, or any other tax levied on businesses
- Hotel taxes—a percentage of hotel, motel, and other short-term lodging charges
- Utility taxes—a fee imposed on water, electric, sewer, or other public utilities
- Vehicle registration fees—a fee imposed on vehicle registration that surpasses the cost of processing and administering the registration
In 1996, California voters approved a statewide initiative—Proposition 218—that added Article XIII C and Article XIII D to the state constitution and governs taxes imposed by local governments. Article XIII C, section 2, provided the following rules for approval of taxes imposed by local governments: (1) general taxes must be approved by a simple majority of voters; (2) general taxes must be put before voters at a regular, general election; and (3) special taxes must be approved by a two-thirds supermajority of voters.
The California Constitution defines taxes as any "levy, charge, or exaction" except the following:
- a charge for a specific service or benefit that is not more than the costs of providing the service;
- a license or registration fee that is not more than the cost of processing and administering the registration or license;
- a charge for entrance to a property, the lease of a property, or the purchase of a property that is not more than the cost of necessary inspections, rule enforcement, administration, and property value;
- a fine within legally prescribed limits given as a penalty for a civil or criminal infraction;
- a charge set as the condition of a development project;
- special benefit assessments established in Article XIII D, which are subject to a protest process.
See law: California Constitution, Article XIII C
General and special taxes
All taxes imposed by local governments are classified as either general or special taxes.
A general tax is any tax levied to fund general government purposes and which goes into the local government entity's general fund. General taxes imposed by local governments must be approved by voters and, moreover, they must be put before voters during regularly scheduled general elections. General taxes require approval from a simple majority of voters—50 percent + one vote.
A special tax is any tax levied for a specific purpose. If revenue from a tax is earmarked in a legally binding way for a service such as education, transportation, fire or police safety, parks and recreational facilities, or mental health services it is a special tax. Special taxes imposed by local governments require a two-thirds (66.67%) vote at the ballot box for approval. If a district or taxing authority was created for a specific purpose, such as a fire protection district or a school district, it has no ability to impose general taxes and can only submit special taxes to the voters.
See law: California Constitution, Article XIII C
Taxes imposed by citizen initiatives
Local citizen initiatives can be used to levy taxes in California. Following the approval of Proposition 218 in 1996, the restrictions outlined above concerning special and general taxes were applied to citizen initiatives. In August 2017, however, the California Supreme Court ruled in California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland that one provision of Proposition 218—the requirement that general taxes be put on the ballot during regular, general elections contained in Article XIII C, section 2(b)—did not apply to citizen initiatives. The court's ruling argued that the citizen initiative process is separate from the actions of local governments and stated that this meant taxes imposed by citizen initiatives do not fall under the category of taxes imposed by local governments. The ruling also stated that the local initiative process in California[2] contained a mechanism by which initiatives can qualify for special election ballots and that this provision should not be restricted by Article XIII C, section 2(b), which does not explicitly mention the initiative power. Since Article XIII C, section 2—which also contains the majority voter approval requirement for general taxes and the two-thirds supermajority voter approval requirement for special taxes—refers to taxes imposed by local governments throughout, this ruling raised questions about whether or not the other provisions of Proposition 218 applied to citizen initiatives. Details about California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland are below.
See ruling:California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland
California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland
On August 28, 2017, the California Supreme Court ruled that the provision of Proposition 218 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.[3] 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:[4]
ReactionsAlthough 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.[4][5] 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.”[5] 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.”[5] Coupal also said that the HJTA would seek a constitutional amendment to explicitly apply Proposition 218 restrictions to citizen initiatives.[6] 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."[5] |
| |||||
Vote requirement for special taxes proposed through citizen initiatives
Superior court ruling and appeal
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.[7]
Christin Evans, a supporter of November’s Proposition C, said, “Obviously, we’re thrilled. We felt that Prop. C was on firm legal ground from the beginning, and the judge’s opinion left no question that voter-led initiatives will be possible going forward to allow the people to help shape city policy.”[7]
Rex Hime, president of the California Business Properties Association and representing the Howard Jarvis association and the California Business Roundtable, said, “We are disappointed in today’s ruling but will continue to fight to uphold the will of the voters. Prop. 13 and Prop. 218 are unambiguous — voters want a two-thirds vote requirement for special taxes. We will be filing an immediate appeal.”[7]
Appellate court ruling on Proposition C (November 2018), 2020
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.[8]
California Supreme Court denial to review rulings, 2020
On September 9, 2020, the California Supreme Court denied a request to review the lower courts' rulings.[9]
California appeals court ruling on Proposition C (June 2018), 2021
In August 2018, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association filed a lawsuit seeking to invalidate Proposition C, alleging that it required a two-thirds supermajority requirement to pass. 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. Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association President Jonathan Coupal said the group was prepared to sponsor an initiative to require a two-thirds supermajority vote of the people for local tax increases for specific purposes.[10]
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.[11]
Fresno Measure P ruling
In Fresno, a judge ruled that special sales tax initiative Measure P required a two-thirds supermajority to pass despite being put on the ballot through a signature petition drive. Click here to read more.
The ruling was appealed to the 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. The Fifth District Court of Appeal ruled that California's Proposition 218 (1996) does not apply to tax measures put on the ballot through a citizen initiative signature petition drive.[9][12]
Background and arguments
An August 2017 California Supreme Court decision raised questions about how to interpret the state constitution’s voting requirements for special taxes proposed through citizen initiatives.
California voters approved Proposition 218 in 1996, adding Article XII C Voter Approval For Local Tax Levies to the California Constitution. The article includes the requirement that local governments may only enact, extend, or increase a special tax with a two-thirds (66.67%) vote of the electorate.[13][14] Following the passage of Proposition 218, the two-thirds supermajority vote requirement was applied to legislative referrals, referendums, and citizen initiatives.
In August 2017, however, the California Supreme Court ruled in California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland that one requirement contained in Article XIII C—that general taxes must be put on the ballot during general elections—did not apply to citizen initiatives. The court categorized taxes imposed by citizen initiatives as separate from taxes imposed by local governments. This ruling brought the two-thirds (66.67%) vote requirement into question for special taxes proposed through citizen initiatives.
City and county officials in San Francisco argued that the court's 2017 decision meant that a simple majority—not a two-thirds supermajority—was required for the approval of local citizen initiatives, including tax measures that designate funds for specific purposes. Based on those arguments, the city certified the measures as approved. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association filed a lawsuit against the city and county in August 2018 stating that the commercial rent tax for childcare initiative did not receive sufficient votes.[15]
The association stated the following on its website:[15]
| “ |
Because the tax is expressly for a special purpose, it required a 2/3 vote of the city’s electorate under both Propositions 13 and 218. But it did not pass by that margin. Rather, the tax proposal, designated as Measure C, received a scant 50.87% vote.[16] |
” |
| —Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association | ||
Del Norte Deputy County Counsel Joel Campbell-Blair defended the simple majority requirement in the following statement regarding Measure C, the Hotel Tax Increase for Crescent City Harbor District (November 2018):
| “ |
Based on the reasoning of the California Supreme Court in California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, it is County Counsel’s position that, because Measure C was submitted to the electorate by voter initiative, rather than a local government, a simple majority is sufficient for approval, even though it is a special tax. Measure C has therefore passed.[16] |
” |
| —Del Norte Deputy County Counsel | ||
Initiatives in 2018 to establish special taxes
In 2018, eight local citizen initiatives in California proposing special taxes were approved by more than a simple majority but less than a two-thirds (66.67%) vote. Local officials declared two of the measures to be defeated based on the two-thirds supermajority requirement. The other six measures were certified as approved. In one case, Oakland Measure AA, the impartial analysis of the measure stated that it required a two-thirds supermajority vote for approval, but the city council certified the measure as approved after it received 62 percent approval. Measure AA was ruled unenforceable by Alameda County Superior Court Judge Ronnie MacLaren on October 15, 2019. MacLaren wrote that "the court determined that the city is barred from enforcing Measure AA because the ballot measures prepared by the City unambiguously advised voters that Measure AA would require two-thirds of the votes to pass."[17] These measures are listed below:
- Avalon, California, Measure T, Traveler Tax to Fund Hospital Initiative (April 2018)
- Del Norte County, California, Measure C, Hotel Tax Increase for Crescent City Harbor District (November 2018)
- Downieville Fire Protection District, California, Measure C, Parcel Tax (June 2018)
- Fresno, California, Measure P, Sales Tax for Recreation and Arts (November 2018)
- Oakland, California, Measure AA, Education Parcel Tax Charter Amendment (November 2018)
- San Francisco, California, Proposition C, Commercial Rent Tax for Childcare and Early Education (June 2018)
- San Francisco, California, Proposition G, Parcel Tax for the San Francisco Unified School District (June 2018)
- San Francisco, California, Proposition C, Gross Receipts Tax for Homelessness Services (November 2018)
School bonds
- See also: School bond elections in California
California school bond elections are local ballot measures that ask voters to decide on whether the school district that is sponsoring the measure should be allowed to issue bonds, and incur the additional indebtedness that bonds bring with them.
All public school districts in California are entitled to refer bond issues to the local ballot.
California also has a statewide school building program known as the School Facilities Grant Program which is supported by statewide bond measures such as Proposition 1D in 2006. Statewide bond measures require a simple majority to pass.
Local school districts can also issue school construction bonds and levy property taxes to pay for them, as long as the voters in the district approve.
Local recall rules
|
| Recall news |
|---|
| Recalls by state |
| Recalls by year |
| Recalls by type |
The citizens of California are granted the authority to perform a recall election by Article 2, Sections 13-19 of the California Constitution.
The authority to conduct a recall election in California only applies to politicians at the state and local levels; as with most states, the right of recall in California does not extend to recalling federal politicians. In California, citizens can recall "judges of courts of appeal and trial courts".
- For additional detail, see: Laws governing recall in California
Initiative process availability
The local units of government in California that make the initiative process available are:
- All 361 general law cities, which have a state mandated initiative and referendum process for ordinances.
- All 121 charter cities, which have a state mandated initiative and referendum process for charter amendments.
- All 44 general law counties, which have a state mandated initiative and referendum process for ordinances.
- All 14 charter counties, which have a state mandated initiative and referendum process.[18]
Authority
| Ballot Law Portal |
| Laws Governing Ballot Measures |
| California Constitution |
|---|
| Articles |
| I • II • III • IV • V • VI • VII • VIII • IX • X • XA • XB • XI • XII • XIII • XIII A • XIII B • XIII C • XIII D • XIV • XV • XVI • XVIII • XIX • XIX A • XIX B • XIX C • XX • XXI • XXII • XXXIV • XXXV |
Constitution
Section 11 of Article II of the California Constitution gives the citizens of general law cities and counties the power change ordinances through initiative and referendum.
Text of Article II, Section 11:
| “ | (a) Initiative and referendum powers may be exercised by the electors of each city or county under procedures that the Legislature shall provide. Except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (c), this section does not affect a city having a charter.
(b) A city or county initiative measure shall not include or exclude any part of the city or county from the application or effect of its provisions based upon approval or disapproval of the initiative measure, or based upon the casting of a specified percentage of votes in favor of the measure, by the electors of the city or county or any part thereof. (c) A city or county initiative measure shall not contain alternative or cumulative provisions wherein one or more of those provisions would become law depending upon the casting of a specified percentage of votes for or against the measure.[16] |
” |
Section 3 of Article XI gives all cities and counties the power to become charter cities and counties and gives all citizens the power to amend their charters through initiative and referendum.
Text of Article XI, Section 3:
| “ | (a) For its own government, a county or city may adopt a charter by majority vote of its electors voting on the question. The charter is effective when filed with the Secretary of State. A charter may be amended, revised, or repealed in the same manner. A charter, amendment, revision, or repeal thereof shall be published in the official state statutes. County charters adopted pursuant to this section shall supersede any existing charter and all laws inconsistent therewith. The provisions of a charter are the law of the State and have the force and effect of legislative enactments.
(b) The governing body or charter commission of a county or city may propose a charter or revision. Amendment or repeal may be proposed by initiative or by the governing body. (c) An election to determine whether to draft or revise a charter and elect a charter commission may be required by initiative or by the governing body. (d) If provisions of 2 or more measures approved at the same election conflict, those of the measure receiving the highest affirmative vote shall prevail.[16] |
” |
| A guide to local ballot initiatives | |
|---|---|
 | |
Statutes
Section 9201 of the California Elections Code mandates the power to change ordinances in general law cities through initiative and referendum. Section 9101 mandates the same for general law counties. Section 9255 mandates the powers of initiative and referendum regarding charter amendments.
California Elections Code:
| “ |
9201. Any proposed ordinance may be submitted to the legislative body of the city by a petition filed with the elections official of the legislative body, in the manner hereinafter prescribed, after being signed by not less than the number of voters specified in this article. The petition may be in separate sections, providing that the petition complies with this article. The first page of each section shall contain the title of the petition and the text of the measure. The petition sections shall be designated in the manner set forth in Section 9020.[16] |
” |
| “ |
9101. Any proposed ordinance may be submitted to the board of supervisors by filing an initiative petition with the county elections official, signed by not less than the number of voters specified in this article.[16] |
” |
| “ |
9255(b) The following city or city and county charter proposals shall be submitted to the voters at an established statewide general, statewide primary, or regularly scheduled municipal election, pursuant to Section 1200, 1201, or 1301, provided that there are at least 88 days before the election: (1) An amendment or repeal of a charter proposed by the governing body of a city or a city and county on its own motion. (2) An amendment or repeal of a city charter proposed by a petition signed by 15 percent of the registered voters of the city. (3)An amendment or repeal of a city and county charter proposed by a petition signed by 10 percent of the registered voters of the city and county.[16] |
” |
Initiative process features in general law cities
| Local I&R Laws in the 50 States |
 |
| Source: Local Ballot Initiatives: How citizens change laws with clipboards, conversations, and campaigns |
All information on the initiative and referendum process features is drawn from these sections of the California Elections Code: California Elections Code sections 9200-9226 and California Elections Code sections 9235-9247
| |||||
Initiative process features in charter cities
The petition process for charter amendments is substantially the same as that for general law ordinances. For the specific charter amendment features see California Elections Code section 9255-9269
| |||||
Initiative process in the top 10 most populated cities
|
External links
- Research document of California local I&R laws
- California league of cities
- The local initiative in California
- Center for Governmental Studies, "Democracy by Initiative" Second Edition, 2008
Footnotes
- ↑ U.S. Census Bureau, "2022 Census of Governments – Organization," accessed October 16, 2023
- ↑ Note: Some charter cities have their own processes established by the city charters that differ from the state-set process.
- ↑ For example, San Francisco's process is direct, and San Jose's requires signatures equal to 5 percent of registered voters to qualify for a general election and 10 percent to qualify for a special election.
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 California Courts, "California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland," accessed August 28, 2017
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 San Diego Union Tribune, "California Supreme Court suggests lower bar for passing tax increases through ballot initiatives," August 29, 2017
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, "California Supreme Court: Local tax hikes proposed via initiative are different from those by elected officials," August 28, 2017
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 The San Francisco Chronicle, "Judge says SF correct in passing two tax measures on simple majority vote," July 5, 2019
- ↑ Mission Local, "Court of Appeal sides with San Francisco on Prop. C — City on cusp of unlocking hundreds of millions of dollars for homeless services," June 30, 2020
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 Lexology, "California Supreme Court Denies Review in Local Tax Simple vs. Super-Majority Vote Case," September 9, 2020
- ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "Calif. appeals court upholds S.F.'s commercial rent tax to pay for children's services," accessed February 11, 2021
- ↑ Courthouse News Service, "San Francisco Wins Legal Battle Over Disputed Childcare Tax," April 28, 2021
- ↑ Fresno Bee, "Big victory for Fresno parks as Measure P tax wins in court. City opponents accept ruling," December 17, 2020
- ↑ Article XII C of the California Constitution defines a special tax as “any tax imposed for specific purposes, including a tax imposed for specific purposes, which is placed into a general fund.”
- ↑ California Legislative Information, “California Constitution, Article XIII C, Voter Approval For Local Tax Levies,” accessed December 8, 2021
- ↑ 15.0 15.1 Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, "(PR): HJTA Files Suit Over San Francisco's Measure C Special Tax," August 3, 2018
- ↑ 16.0 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4 16.5 16.6 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Mercury News, "Oakland loses Measure AA lawsuit, judge calls it a ‘fraud on voters’," accessed October 16, 2019
- ↑ Ballotpedia, "Types and #'s of local government by state," September 1, 2012
- ↑ California EC 9203 b
- ↑ California EC 9237.5 and 9238
- ↑ California State Legislature, "Senate Bill 1153," accessed December 9, 2021
- ↑ California Elections Code Sections 9160, 9280, 9313, 9314, and 9500," accessed April 13, 2014
- ↑ California Elections Code Sections 9160, 9280, 9313, 9314, and 9500," accessed April 13, 2014
- ↑ 24.0 24.1 24.2 24.3 24.4 Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for Incorporated Places in California: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2019
| |||||||||||||
