California Proposition 15, Tax on Commercial and Industrial Properties for Education and Local Government Funding Initiative (2020)
California Proposition 15 | |
---|---|
Election date November 3, 2020 | |
Topic Taxes and Property | |
Status Defeated | |
Type Constitutional amendment | Origin Citizens |
California Proposition 15, the Tax on Commercial and Industrial Properties for Education and Local Government Funding Initiative, was on the ballot in California as an initiated constitutional amendment on November 3, 2020. Proposition 15 was defeated.
A "yes" vote supported this constitutional amendment to require commercial and industrial properties, except those zoned as commercial agriculture, to be taxed based on their market value, rather than their purchase price. |
A "no" vote opposed this constitutional amendment, thus continuing to tax commercial and industrial properties based on a property's purchase price, with annual increases equal to the rate of inflation or 2 percent, whichever is lower. |
Election results
California Proposition 15 |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
Yes | 8,213,054 | 48.03% | ||
8,885,569 | 51.97% |
Overview
What would Proposition 15 have changed about how properties are taxed in California?
Proposition 15 would have amended the California State Constitution to require commercial and industrial properties, except those zoned as commercial agriculture, to be taxed based on their market value. In California, the proposal to assess taxes on commercial and industrial properties at market value, while continuing to assess taxes on residential properties based on the purchase price, was known as split roll. The change from the purchase price to market value would have been phased-in beginning in fiscal year 2022-2023. Properties, such as retail centers, whose occupants are 50 percent or more small businesses would have been taxed based on market value beginning in fiscal year 2025-2026 (or at a later date that the legislature decides on). Proposition 15 would have defined small businesses as those that that are independently owned and operated, own California property, and have 50 or fewer employees.
The ballot initiative would have made an exception for properties whose business owners have $3 million or less in holdings in California; these properties would have continued to be taxed based on their purchase price. The ballot initiative would have exempted a small business’s tangible personal property from taxes and $500,000 in value for a non-small business’s tangible personal property.[1]
The state fiscal analyst estimated that, upon full implementation, the ballot initiative was expected to generate between $8 billion and $12.5 billion in revenue per year.[2]
Proposition 15 would have made the California State Legislature responsible for passing laws for a phase-in of the market value-based tax on commercial and industrial properties, how often reassessments would occur (no less than three years between reassessments), and an appeals process for challenging reassessments.[1]
Where did the current tax assessment formula, based on purchase price, come from?
- See also: California Proposition 13 (1978)
In 1978, Californians approved Proposition 13, which required that residential, commercial, and industrial properties are taxed based on their purchase price. The tax is limited to no more than 1 percent of the purchase price (at the time of purchase), with an annual adjustment equal to the rate of inflation or 2 percent, whichever is lower. According to the state Legislative Analyst's Office, market values in California tend to increase faster than 2 percent per year, meaning the taxable value of commercial and industrial properties is often lower than the market value.[2]
How would revenue from the change in taxation have been distributed?
Proposition 15 would have created a process in the state constitution for distributing revenue from the revised tax on commercial and industrial properties. The ballot initiative would have distributed the revenue to specific areas, rather than the General Fund. First, the revenue would have been distributed to (a) the state to supplement decreases in revenue from the state's personal income tax and corporation tax due to increased tax deductions and (b) counties to cover the costs of implementing the measure. Second, 60 percent of the remaining funds would have been distributed to local governments and special districts, and 40 percent would be distributed to school districts and community colleges (via a new Local School and Community College Property Tax Fund). Revenue appropriated for education would have been divided as follows: 11% for community colleges and 89% for public schools, charter schools, and county education offices. There would have also been a requirement that schools and colleges receive an annual minimum of $100 (adjusted each year) per full-time student.[1][2]
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title was as follows:[3]
“ | Increases Funding for Public Schools, Community Colleges, and Local Government Services by Changing Tax Assessment of Commercial and Industrial Property. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.[4] | ” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary was as follows:[3]
“ |
|
” |
Fiscal impact statement
The fiscal impact statement was as follows:[3]
“ |
Increased property taxes on commercial properties worth more than $3 million providing $6.5 billion to $11.5 billion in new funding to local governments and schools.[4] |
” |
Constitutional changes
- See also: California Constitution
The ballot initiative would have added Section 8.7 to Article XVI, Section 8.6 to Article XVI, Section 2.5 to Article XIII A, Section 3.1 to Article XIII, and Section 15 to Article XIII B of the California Constitution.[1]
Full text
The full text of the ballot initiative is below:[1]
Readability score
- See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2020
Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The attorney general wrote the ballot language for this measure.
|
Support
Schools and Communities First, also known as Yes on 15, was leading the campaign in support of the ballot initiative.[5] The campaign named the ballot initiative the Schools and Local Communities Funding Act.[1]
Supporters
The following is a selection of individuals and organizations that endorsed the ballot initiative.[6] Schools and Communities First provided a list of supporters, which is available here.
Officials
- U.S. Senator (New Jersey) Cory Booker (D)
- U.S. Senator Kamala D. Harris (D)
- U.S. Senator (Vermont) Bernie Sanders (Independent)
- U.S. Senator (Massachusetts) Elizabeth Warren (D)
- U.S. Representative Karen Bass (Nonpartisan)
- U.S. Representative Ro Khanna (D)
- U.S. Representative Barbara Lee (D)
- Governor Gavin Newsom (D)
- State Senator Connie Leyva (D)
- State Senator Holly Mitchell (Nonpartisan)
- State Senator Nancy Skinner (D)
- State Senator Bob Wieckowski (D)
- State Senator Scott Wiener (D)
- Assemblymember Rob Bonta (D)
- Assemblymember Kansen Chu (D)
- Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher (D)
- Assemblymember Kevin McCarty (D)
- Assemblymember Kevin Mullin (D)
- Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D)
- San Francisco Mayor London Breed (Nonpartisan)
- Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti (Nonpartisan)
- Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf (D)
- Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg (Nonpartisan)
- State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond (D)
- State Controller Betty Yee (D)
Former Officials
- Former Vice President Joe Biden (D)
- New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (D)
- Former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg (Nonpartisan)
- Former HUD Secretary Julián Castro (D)
- Former U.S. Representative (Texas) Beto O'Rourke (D)
Political Parties
Government Entities
- Oakland Unified School District
- Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
- Los Angeles Unified School District
- Oakland City Council
- Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
- San Francisco Board of Supervisors
- Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
Unions
- American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
- American Federation of Teachers
- California Federation of Teachers
- California Nurses Association
- California Teachers Association
- SEIU California State Council
- Unite HERE International Union California State Council
- United Teachers of Los Angeles
Organizations
- ACLU of Northern California
- ACLU of Southern California
- Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment
- Califoria Calls
- California Alliance for Retired Americans
- California League of Conservation Voters
- Chan Zuckerberg Advocacy
- Consumer Federation of California
- Democracy for America
- Democratic Socialists of America
- Equality California
- Indivisible California
- League of Women Voters of California
- Mi Familia Vota
- New Approach PAC
- PICO California
- Parent Teachers Association of California
- San Francisco Unified School District
- Sierra Club California
Individuals
- Dolores Huerta - Co-Founder of the United Farm Workers
- Nicholas Pritzker - Businessman
Arguments
Official arguments
The following is the argument in support of Proposition 15 found in the Official Voter Information Guide:[7]
|
Opposition
Stop Higher Property Taxes and Save Prop 13, also known as No on Prop 15, was leading the campaign in opposition to the ballot initiative.[8]
Opponents
Stop Higher Property Taxes and Save Prop 13 provided a list of opponents, which is available here.
Officials
- Assemblymember Vince Fong (R)
- California State Board of Equalization Member Ted Gaines (R)
Former Officials
- Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa (D)
Political Parties
Corporations
Organizations
- AMVETS, Department of California
- American Legion, Department of California
- Americans for Tax Reform
- California Beer & Beverage Distributors
- California Black Chamber of Commerce
- California Business Properties Association
- California Business Roundtable
- California Chamber of Commerce
- California Farm Bureau Federation
- California Fuels & Convenience Alliance
- California Grocers Association
- California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce
- California NAACP State Conference
- California New Car Dealers Association
- California Restaurant Association
- California Restaurant Association
- California Small Business Association
- California State National Action Network
- California Taxpayers Association
- Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
- National Federation of Independent Business - California
- New Majority PAC
- Southern California Leadership Council
- Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association
Arguments
Official arguments
The following is the argument in opposition to Proposition 15 found in the Official Voter Information Guide:[9]
|
Campaign finance
The Schools and Communities First PAC and allied committees registered to support the ballot initiative. Together, the committees raised $69.21 million, including $19.81 million from the California Teachers Association Issues PAC.[10]
Eight PACs, including Californians to Stop Higher Property Taxes, were registered to oppose the ballot initiative. Together, the committees had raised $74.74 million, including $39.30 million from the California Business Roundtable Issues PAC.[10]
Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Support | $66,835,107.03 | $2,373,802.43 | $69,208,909.46 | $66,151,591.66 | $68,525,394.09 |
Oppose | $74,223,557.95 | $573,614.21 | $74,797,172.16 | $73,577,129.74 | $74,150,743.95 |
Support
The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in support of the initiative.[10]
Committees in support of Proposition 15 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Committee | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures |
Yes on 15 - Schools and Communities First | $61,338,254.95 | $2,362,907.43 | $63,701,162.38 | $60,694,769.25 | $63,057,676.68 |
Million Voter Project Action Fund - Yes on 15 | $5,063,908.08 | $0.00 | $5,063,908.08 | $5,005,356.58 | $5,005,356.58 |
Pico California Action Supporting Schools and Communities First - Yes on 15, No on 20 | $256,100.00 | $10,000.00 | $266,100.00 | $300,055.46 | $310,055.46 |
Silicon Valley Rising Action Issues Committee, Yes on 15 | $165,000.00 | $895.00 | $165,895.00 | $149,348.45 | $150,243.45 |
California Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) Political Action Committee in Support of Prop 15 | $11,844.00 | $0.00 | $11,844.00 | $2,061.92 | $2,061.92 |
Total | $66,835,107.03 | $2,373,802.43 | $69,208,909.46 | $66,151,591.66 | $68,525,394.09 |
Donors
The following were the top five donors who contributed to the support committees.[10]
Donor | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions |
---|---|---|---|
California Teachers Association Issues PAC | $19,050,000.00 | $761,409.78 | $19,811,409.78 |
Chan Zuckerberg Advocacy | $11,615,000.00 | $0.00 | $11,615,000.00 |
SEIU California State Council | $6,250,000.00 | $52,493.95 | $6,302,493.95 |
SEIU Local 2015 Issues PAC | $3,087,880.87 | $324,375.83 | $3,412,256.70 |
SEIU 1021 Issues PAC | $2,285,000.00 | $21,232.36 | $2,306,232.36 |
Opposition
The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in opposition to the initiative.[10]
Committees in opposition to Proposition 15 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Committee | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures |
No on Prop 15 - Stop Higher Property Taxes and Save Prop 13 | $68,694,068.00 | $496,424.77 | $69,190,492.77 | $68,694,313.00 | $69,190,737.77 |
Protect Prop. 13, No on 15 | $2,795,301.44 | $0.00 | $2,795,301.44 | $2,349,980.83 | $2,349,980.83 |
Family Farmers Against Prop 15 - Stop Higher Food Taxes | $2,404,763.07 | $77,139.44 | $2,481,902.51 | $2,398,770.78 | $2,475,910.22 |
Stop the Tax Hikes, No on 15 and 19 | $238,471.02 | $50.00 | $238,521.02 | $68,958.32 | $69,008.32 |
CalCIMA Issues Pac, No on Proposition 15 | $61,550.00 | $0.00 | $61,550.00 | $57,706.95 | $57,706.95 |
Stop Higher Taxes Committee | $10,900.00 | $0.00 | $10,900.00 | $114.25 | $114.25 |
California State Club Association Against Prop 15: No to Higher Property Taxes | $9,288.33 | $0.00 | $9,288.33 | $0.00 | $0.00 |
Agricultural Council of California Committee in Opposition to Prop. 15 | $9,216.09 | $0.00 | $9,216.09 | $7,285.61 | $7,285.61 |
Total | $74,223,557.95 | $573,614.21 | $74,797,172.16 | $73,577,129.74 | $74,150,743.95 |
Donors
The following were the top five donors who contributed to the opposition committees.[10]
Donor | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions |
---|---|---|---|
California Business Roundtable Issues PAC | $39,140,000.00 | $163,990.19 | $39,303,990.19 |
California Business Properties Association Issues PAC | $2,305,000.00 | $0.00 | $2,305,000.00 |
Nextera Energy, Inc. | $1,295,000.00 | $0.00 | $1,295,000.00 |
California Taxpayers Association - Protect Taxpayer Rights | $1,210,000.00 | $0.00 | $1,210,000.00 |
AMERCO | $896,000.00 | $0.00 | $896,000.00 |
Media editorials
Ballotpedia identified the following media editorial boards as taking positions on the ballot initiative. If you are aware of a media editorial board position that is not listed below, please email the editorial link to editor@ballotpedia.org.
Support
The following media editorial boards published an editorial supporting the ballot measure:
Opposition
The following media editorial boards published an editorial opposing the ballot measure:
Polls
- See also: 2020 ballot measure polls
California Proposition 15, Tax on Commercial and Industrial Properties for Education and Local Government Funding Initiative (2020) | |||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Poll | Support | Oppose | Undecided | Margin of error | Sample size | ||||||||||||||
Berkeley IGS Poll (likely voters) 10/16/2020 - 10/21/2020 | 49.0% | 42.0% | 9.0% | +/-2.0 | 5,352 | ||||||||||||||
PPIC Statewide Survey (likely voters) 10/9/2020 - 10/18/2020 | 49.0% | 45.0% | 6.0% | +/-4.3 | 1,185 | ||||||||||||||
SurveyUSA (likely voters) 9/26/2020 - 9/28/2020 | 49.0% | 21.0% | 30.0% | +/-5.4 | 588 | ||||||||||||||
Berkeley IGS Poll (likely voters) 9/9/2020 - 9/15/2020 | 49.0% | 34.0% | 17.0% | +/-2.0 | 5,942 | ||||||||||||||
PPIC (likely voters) 9/4/2020 - 9/13/2020 | 51.0% | 40.0% | 9.0% | +/-4.3 | 1,168 | ||||||||||||||
Probolsky Research (likely voters) 8/27/2020 - 9/2/2020 | 40.9% | 48.8% | 10.3% | +/-3.3 | 900 | ||||||||||||||
PPIC (likely voters) 4/1/2020 - 4/9/2020 | 53.0% | 47.0% | 1.0% | +/-3.7 | 1,091 | ||||||||||||||
PPIC (likely voters) 11/3/2019 - 11/12/2019 | 46.0% | 45.0% | 9.0% | +/-4.3 | 1,008 | ||||||||||||||
PPIC (likely voters) 9/16/2019 - 9/25/2019 | 47.0% | 45.0% | 8.0% | +/-4.2 | 1,031 | ||||||||||||||
PPIC (likely voters) 4/5/2019 - 4/15/2019 | 54.0% | 45.0% | 1.0% | +/-4.0 | 1,035 | ||||||||||||||
PPIC (likely voters) 1/20/2019 - 1/29/2019 | 49.0% | 43.0% | 8.0% | +/-4.0 | 1,154 | ||||||||||||||
PPIC (likely voters) 10/27/2018 - 11/5/2018 | 56.0% | 40.0% | 4.0% | +/-4.4 | 1,095 | ||||||||||||||
USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times (eligible voters) 9/17/2018 - 10/14/2018 | 46.0% | 22.0% | 31.0% | +/-4.0 | 794 | ||||||||||||||
PPIC (likely voters) 3/25/2018 - 4/03/2018 | 53.0% | 42.0% | 5.0% | +/-4.4 | 867 | ||||||||||||||
AVERAGES | 49.42% | 39.99% | 10.59% | +/-3.88 | 1,657.86 | ||||||||||||||
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org. |
Background
California Proposition 13 (1978)
California Proposition 13, the Tax Limitations Initiative, was on the ballot for the election on June 6, 1978. Voters approved Proposition 13, with 65 percent voting for passage.[11][12] Howard Jarvis, who founded the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, developed Proposition 13. He also worked with Paul Gann on writing the ballot initiative.[13][14]
Proposition 13 required that properties be taxed at no more than 1 percent of their full cash value shown on the 1975-1976 assessment rolls and limited annual increases of assessed (taxable) value to the inflation rate or 2 percent, whichever was less. When a property is sold to new owners, however, the property is reassessed at 1 percent of its full cash value at the time of purchase and the limit on increases to assessed value resets.[11]
Proposition 13 was the beginning of a period in state politics referred to as the tax revolt.[15][16][17] Joel Fox, editor of Fox & Hounds, said Proposition 13 was the "Holy Grail of the tax revolt."[18] The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association described Proposition 13 as "a California tax cut with a national identity," stating, "The tax cut message rolled across the country after Proposition 13 passed. Some say it was the spark that ignited a conflagration, which culminated in the election of Ronald Reagan to the presidency."[19]
In 2014, Gov. Jerry Brown stated that he would not seek to change Proposition 13, saying that the initiative was "sacred doctrine that should never be questioned." Gov. Brown, who was also governor in 1978, said that he should have funded a campaign for an alternative to Proposition 13.[20] In 2017, Jennifer Ito, a research director at the University of Southern California, said, "It’s been an issue that no politician wants to touch. Until recently."[21] In October 2018, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association president Jon Coupal said, "This is not the California of 1978. It has become more progressive." However, he added, Proposition 13 "[is] withstanding the test of time, no matter what anyone says."[22]
Tax policies on the ballot in 2020
- See also: Taxes on the ballot
In 2020, voters in 14 states voted on 21 ballot measures addressing tax-related policies. Ten of the measures addressed taxes on properties, three were related to income tax rates, two addressed tobacco taxes, one addressed business-related taxes, one addressed sales tax rates, one addressed fees and surcharges, and one was related to tax-increment financing (TIF).
Click Show to read details about the tax-related measures on statewide ballots in 2020.
Tax-related policy ballot measures in 2020 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Income Tax
Business-Related Taxes
Property-Related Taxes
In Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, New Jersey, and Virginia, voters also decided eight ballot measures related to exemptions, adjustments, and payments: Florida Amendment 5, Florida Amendment 6, Referendum A, Louisiana Amendment 2, Louisiana Amendment 5, Louisiana Amendment 6, New Jersey Question 2, and Virginia Question 2. Sales Tax
Tobacco
Fees
TIF
|
Path to the ballot
Process in California
In California, the number of signatures required for an initiated constitutional amendment is equal to 8 percent of the votes cast in the preceding gubernatorial election. Petitions are allowed to circulate for 180 days from the date the attorney general prepares the petition language. Signatures need to be certified at least 131 days before the general election. As the verification process can take multiple months, the secretary of state provides suggested deadlines for ballot initiatives.
The requirements to get initiated constitutional amendments certified for the 2020 ballot:
- Signatures: 997,139 valid signatures were required.
- Deadline: The deadline for signature verification was June 25, 2020. However, the process of verifying signatures can take multiple months. The recommended deadlines were March 3, 2020, for an initiative requiring a full check of signatures and April 21, 2020, for an initiative requring a random sample of signatures.
Signatures are first filed with local election officials, who determine the total number of signatures submitted. If the total number is equal to at least 100 percent of the required signatures, then local election officials perform a random check of signatures submitted in their counties. If the random sample estimates that more than 110 percent of the required number of signatures are valid, the initiative is eligible for the ballot. If the random sample estimates that between 95 and 110 percent of the required number of signatures are valid, a full check of signatures is done to determine the total number of valid signatures. If less than 95 percent are estimated to be valid, the initiative does not make the ballot.
Certification of two versions
The first version of the ballot initiative (17-0055) qualified for the ballot on October 15, 2018. On August 13, 2019, the campaign Schools and Communities First, which is behind the proposal, announced that signatures would be collected for a revised version of the ballot initiative (19-0008).[42] Tyler Law, a campaign spokesperson, said that the campaign would not withdraw the qualified initiative from the ballot until the revised initiative qualifies. Law said, “The committee’s got the money. We’re going to get it on the ballot.”[43] On April 2, 2020, the campaign Schools and Communities First reported filing 1.75 million signatures.[44] At least 997,139 (57.02 percent) of the signatures needed to be valid. On May 22, 2020, the office of Secretary of State Alex Padilla announced that a random sample of signatures projected that 74.60 percent were valid. Therefore, the second version of the ballot initiative (19-0008) qualified to appear on the ballot at the general election. On June 23, the state department announced that the first version (17-0055) was withdrawn.
Stages of Initiative #17-0055
On December 15, 2017, Helen Hutchison, Benjamin McBride, and Anthony Thigpenn filed the ballot initiative with the attorney general's office. On February 20, 2018, Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D) issued ballot language for the initiative, allowing proponents to collect signatures. Proponents had until August 20, 2018, to file 585,407 valid signatures.
Sponsors filed the ballot initiative with the intent to get the initiative on the ballot for the election on November 6, 2018. On April 6, 2018, however, sponsors announced that the initiative would be delayed until 2020. Melissa Breach, executive director of the League of Women Voters of California, said, "In moving it we have the benefit to spend a little less because the cost to qualify will be significantly less. And then the benefit is we get this additional two years to do the work with the voters."[45]
On August 14, the campaign backing the ballot initiative filed 855,623 signatures.[46] On October 15, 2018, counties concluded a random sample of signatures, projecting that 661,306 signatures (77.29 percent) were valid, and the initiative was certified to appear on the ballot.[47] On June 23, 2020, the state department announced that this version (17-0055) of the initiative was withdrawn.
The campaign hired Kimball Petition Management, Inc. to collect signatures for Initiative #17-0055 to qualify the measure for the ballot. A total of $3,490,600.39 was spent to collect the 585,407 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $5.96.
Stages of Initiative #19-0008
Anthony Thigpenn, Benjamin Mcbride, and Carol Moon Goldberg filed this initiative on August 13, 2019.[48] On October 17, 2019, Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D) released ballot language for the initiative, allowing the campaign to begin gathering signatures. The deadline to file signatures for the initiative was April 14, 2020.
On December 6, 2019, proponents announced that the number of collected signatures surpassed the 25-percent threshold (249,285 signatures) to require legislative hearings on the ballot initiative. In 2014, Senate Bill 1253 was enacted into law, which required the legislature to assign ballot initiatives that meet the 25-percent threshold to committees to hold joint public hearings on the initiatives not later than 131 days before the election.
On April 2, 2020, the campaign Schools and Communities First filed 1,748,647 signatures. At least 997,139 (57.02 percent) of the signatures needed to be valid. On May 22, 2020, the office of Secretary of State Alex Padilla announced that a random sample of signatures projected that 74.60 percent were valid. Therefore, the ballot initiative qualified to appear on the ballot at the general election.[49]
Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired 2020 Ballcamp to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $5,986,312.94 was spent to collect the 997,139 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $6.00.
Comparisons of Initiatives #17-0055 and #19-0008
Language
The following is a comparison of the petition titles, petition summaries, and fiscal analyses for both versions of the ballot initiative.[3]
Click Show to expand the table.
Component | Initiative #19-0008 | Initiative #17-0055 |
---|---|---|
Title | "Increases Funding for Public Schools, Community Colleges, and Local Government Services by Changing Tax Assessment of Commercial and Industrial Property. Initiative Constitutional Amendment." | "Requires Certain Commercial and Industrial Real Property to be Taxed Based on Fair-Market Value. Dedicates Portion of Any Increased Revenue to Education and Local Services. Initiative Constitutional Amendment." |
Summary | "Increases funding for K-12 public schools, community colleges, and local governments by requiring that commercial and industrial real property be taxed based on current market value. Exempts from this change: residential properties; agricultural properties; and owners of commercial and industrial properties with combined value of $3 million or less. Increased education funding will supplement existing school funding guarantees. Exempts small businesses from personal property tax; for other businesses, exempts $500,000 worth of personal property." | "Taxes certain commercial and industrial real property based on fair-market value—rather than, under current law, the purchase price with limited inflation. Exempts agricultural property and certain small businesses. Dedicates portion of any increased revenue to local services and to supplement, not replace, state’s minimum-funding guarantee to schools. Provides tax exemption for $500,000 worth of tangible personal property used for business and all personal property used for certain small businesses." |
Fiscal | "Net increase in annual property tax revenues of $7.5 billion to $12 billion in most years, depending on the strength of real estate markets. After backfilling state income tax losses related to the measure and paying for county administrative costs, the remaining $6.5 billion to $11.5 billion would be allocated to schools (40 percent) and other local governments (60 percent)." | "Net increase in annual property tax revenues of $6.5 billion to $10.5 billion in most years, depending on the strength of real estate markets. After paying for county administrative costs and backfilling state income tax losses related to the measure, the remaining $6 billion to $10 billion would be allocated to schools (40 percent) and other local governments (60 percent)." |
Provisions
The following is a comparison of some of the proposals' differing provisions:[1][50]
Click Show to expand the table.
Provision | ||
---|---|---|
Which commercial and industrial properties would be taxed at market value? | Property whose business owners (a) have $2.00 million or more in holdings in California and (b) operate on a majority of the property | Property whose business owners have $3.00 million or more in holdings in California |
Which business-owned properties would continue to be taxed based on purchase price? | Businesses with 50 or less full-time employees would continue to have their properties taxed based on purchase price. | Property whose business owners have $3.00 million or less in holdings in California |
How would revenue from that tax be allocated to schools and colleges? | Revenue would be allocated using the state's existing funding distribution formula. | Revenue appropriated for education would be divided as follows: 11% for community colleges and 89% for public schools, charter schools, and county education offices. There would also be a requirement that schools and colleges receive an annual minimum of $100 (adjusted each year) per full-time student. |
When would the taxation changes go into effect? | Change from tax based on purchase price to tax based on market value would be phased-in beginning on January 1, 2020. | Change from tax based on purchase price to tax based on market value would be phased-in beginning on January 1, 2022. Properties, such as retail centers, whose occupants are 50 percent or more small businesses would be taxed based on market value beginning in fiscal year (FY) 2025-2026 or a later date as the legislature determines. |
How much revenue is expected from the changes? | The state fiscal analyst estimated that, upon full implementation, the ballot initiative would generate between $7 billion and $11 billion in revenue. | The state fiscal analyst estimated that, upon full implementation, the ballot initiative would generate between $8 billion and $12.5 billion in revenue. |
Coupal v. Padilla
Lawsuit overview | |
Issue: Is the ballot title for Proposition 15 false, misleading, and prejudice? | |
Court: California Third District Court of Appeal (Appealed from the Sacramento County Superior Court) | |
Ruling: Sacramento County Superior Court ruled in favor of Padilla and Becerra, stating that the ballot title is not false, misleading, or inaccurate | |
Plaintiff(s): Jon Coupal | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Alex Padilla and Attorney General Xavier Becerra |
Source: Sacramento County Superior Court
On July 29, 2020, Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, sued Secretary of State Alex Padilla in the Sacramento County Superior Court. Coupal argued that the ballot language for Proposition 15, as drafted by Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D), was false, misleading, and prejudice. Coupal stated, "This blatant manipulation of the ballot label, as well as the title and summary, is in direct contravention of the Attorney General’s fiduciary duty to prepare impartial ballot material."[51]
On August 6, 2020, Judge Laurie M. Earl issued a tentative ruling in favor of Padilla and Becerra, writing, "... the Court is not convinced that the current title is false or misleading."[52]
On August 6, 2020, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association announced that the superior court's ruling would be appealed to the California Third District Court of Appeal.[53]
How to cast a vote
- See also: Voting in California
Click "Show" to learn more about voter registration, identification requirements, and poll times in California.
How to cast a vote in California | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Poll timesAll polls in California are open from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Pacific Time. An individual who is in line at the time polls close must be allowed to vote.[54] Registration
To vote in California, an individual must be a U.S. citizen and California resident. A voter must be at least 18 years of age on Election Day. Pre-registration is available at 16 years of age. Pre-registration automatically registers voters when they turn 18.[55] On October 10, 2015, California Governor Jerry Brown (D) signed into law Assembly Bill No. 1461, also known as the New Motor Voter Act. The legislation, which took effect in 2016, authorized automatic voter registration in California for any individuals who visit the Department of Motor Vehicles to acquire or renew a driver's license.[56][57] Automatic registrationCalifornia automatically registers eligible individuals to vote when they complete a driver's license, identification (ID) card, or change of address transaction through the Department of Motor Vehicles. Online registration
California has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website. Same-day registrationCalifornia allows same-day voter registration. Californians must be registered to vote at least 15 days before Election Day. If the registration deadline has passed for an upcoming election, voters may visit a location designated by their county elections official during the 14 days prior to, and including Election Day to conditionally register to vote and vote a provisional ballot. The state refers to this process as Same Day Voter Registration.[58] Residency requirementsTo register to vote in California, you must be a resident of the state. State law does not specify a length of time for which you must have been a resident to be eligible. Verification of citizenshipCalifornia's constitution requires that voters be U.S. citizens. When registering to vote, proof of citizenship is not required. Individuals who become U.S. citizens less than 15 days before an election must bring proof of citizenship to their county elections office to register to vote in that election.[58] Verifying your registrationThe site Voter Status, run by the California Secretary of State's office, allows residents to check their voter registration status online. Voter ID requirementsCalifornia does not require voters to present photo identification. However, some voters may be asked to show a form of identification when voting if they are voting for the first time after registering to vote by mail and did not provide a driver license number, California identification number, or the last four digits of their social security number.[59][60] The following list of accepted ID was current as of March 2023. Click here for the California Secretary of State page to ensure you have the most current information.
|
See also
External links
Information
Support
- Schools and Communities First (Yes on Prop 15)
- Schools and Communities First (Yes on Prop 15) Facebook
- Schools and Communities First (Yes on Prop 15) Twitter
Opposition
- Stop Higher Property Taxes and Save Prop 13 (No on Prop 15)
- Stop Higher Property Taxes and Save Prop 13 (No on Prop 15) Facebook
- Stop Higher Property Taxes and Save Prop 13 (No on Prop 15) Twitter
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 California Attorney General, "Initiative 19-0008," September 17, 2019
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 California the Legislative Analyst's Office, "A.G. File No. 2019-0008," February 5, 2018
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 California Secretary of State, "Ballot Title and Summary," accessed July 28, 2020 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>
tag; name "sos" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Schools and Communities First, "Homepage," accessed July 21, 2020
- ↑ Schools and Communities First, "Endorsers," accessed July 8, 2020
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Official Voter Information Guide," accessed September 28, 2020
- ↑ Stop Higher Property Taxes and Save Prop 13, "Homepage," accessed July 21, 2020
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Official Voter Information Guide," accessed September 28, 2020
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 Cal-Access, "Campaign Finance," accessed March 21, 2018
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 UC-Hastings, "Voter Information Guide for 1978, Primary," accessed December 21, 2017
- ↑ California Tax Data, "What is Proposition 13?" accessed December 21, 2017
- ↑ Time, "How California's Fiscal Woes Began: A Crisis 30 Years in the Making," July 1, 2009
- ↑ New York Times, "The California Ballot Measure That Inspired a Tax Revolt," October 16, 2018
- ↑ Hoover Institute, "The Tax Revolt Turns 20," July 1, 1998
- ↑ Wall Stree Journal, "The Terms of Surrender in California’s Tax Revolt," October 26, 2016
- ↑ Reuters, "California's anti-tax crusaders talk revolt," April 7, 2009
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Can Proposition 13 survive California's new appetite for taxes?" November 17, 2016
- ↑ Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, "Proposition 13: A Look Back," accessed December 3, 2018
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, "An experienced Jerry Brown vows to build on what he's already done," October 19, 2018
- ↑ International Business Times, "Activists Vow To Reform Anti-Tax Prop. 13 — The ‘Third Rail’ Of California Politics," October 5, 2017
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Proposition 13 has strictly limited property tax increases since 1978. Voters could get a chance to change that," October 17, 2018
- ↑ Arizona Secretary of State, "Initiative 31-2020," February 14, 2020
- ↑ Colorado Secretary of State, "2019-2020 Initiative Filings, Agendas & Results," accessed April 17, 2020
- ↑ Illinois State Legislature, "Senate Joint Resolution Constitutional Amendment 1," accessed May 2, 2019
- ↑ Illinois State Board of Elections,"Committee Search," accessed May 28, 2019
- ↑ Alaska Division of Elections, "Alaska's Fair Share Act," accessed January 13, 2020
- ↑ Anchorage Daily News, "Group says it has enough signatures to put Alaska oil tax initiative on ballot," January 14, 2020
- ↑ APOC, "Online Reports," accessed January 7, 2020
- ↑ Nebraska Secretary of State, "Initiative Petition text," accessed August 22, 2019
- ↑ California Attorney General, "Initiative 19-0008," September 17, 2019
- ↑ California the Legislative Analyst's Office, "A.G. File No. 2019-0008," February 5, 2018
- ↑ California State Legislature, "Assembly Concurrent Resolution 11," accessed May 8, 2019
- ↑ Colorado General Assembly, "SCR 20-001," accessed June 10, 2020
- ↑ Arkansas State Legislature, "House Joint Resolution 1018," accessed March 7, 2019
- ↑ UA Little Rock Public Radio, "Arkansas Governor Signs $95 Million Highway Funding Bill Into Law," accessed March 25, 2019
- ↑ Arkansas Ethics Commission, "Filings," accessed August 18, 2020
- ↑ Colorado State Legislature, "House Bill 20-1427," accessed June 15, 2020
- ↑ Oregon State Legislature, "HB 2270," accessed June 25, 2019
- ↑ Colorado Secretary of State, "2019-2020 Initiative Filings, Agendas & Results," accessed February 10, 2020
- ↑ Nebraska State Legislature, "LR14CA," accessed April 5, 2019
- ↑ Politico, "Split-roll' backers will refile tax initiative in expensive rewrite," August 13, 2019
- ↑ Ballotpedia staff writer Josh Altic, "Telephone communication with Tyler Law," accessed August 15, 2019
- ↑ Cite error: Invalid
<ref>
tag; no text was provided for refs namedsecondtime
- ↑ Silicon Valley Business Journal, "'Split roll' proponents delay Prop 13 referendum. Did they accidentally kill it?" April 16, 2018
- ↑ Times of San Diego, "Activists Seeking Partial Prop 13 Repeal to Submit Signatures," August 14, 2018
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Ballot Measures," accessed September 28, 2017
- ↑ Cite error: Invalid
<ref>
tag; no text was provided for refs namedText
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Final Random Sample," May 29, 2020
- ↑ California Attorney General, "Initiative 17-0055," January 22, 2018
- ↑ Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, "HJTA Files Suit Against Attorney General for Ballot Material Deception," July 29, 2020
- ↑ Sacramento County Superior Court, "Coupal v. Padilla," August 6, 2020
- ↑ Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, "HJTA Appeals Decision Allowing Deceptive Ballot Information to Remain on the Ballot," August 6, 2020
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Section 3: Polling Place Hours," accessed April 4, 2023
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Voter Registration," accessed April 4, 2023
- ↑ The Los Angeles Times, "Gov. Brown approves automatic voter registration for Californians," October 10, 2015
- ↑ The Sacramento Bee, "California voter law could register millions–for a start," October 20, 2015
- ↑ 58.0 58.1 California Secretary of State, "Registering to Vote," accessed April 4, 2023
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "What to Bring to Your Polling Place," accessed April 4, 2023
- ↑ BARCLAYS OFFICIAL CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, "Section 20107," accessed April 4, 2023
State of California Sacramento (capital) | |
---|---|
Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2024 | 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 |