June, 1998

Proposition 219
Ballot Measures. Application

Background

In addition to voting for candidates for office, Californians vote on a variety of state and local measures--initiatives, referenda, constitutional amendments, bonds, and revisions to local charters. These measures are put before the voters by the state Legislature, local governing bodies (such as city councils and county boards of supervisors), and by individual citizens or groups seeking to change the law.

In most cases, these ballot measures apply to all areas within the state or a local community in the same way. For example, if a statewide measure passes, it applies to all counties in the same way, regardless of whether a majority of voters in any individual county approved the measure. One recent measure, however, was different (Proposition 172 on the November 1993 ballot). The measure, which enacted a statewide sales tax increase, provided that the revenues from the tax increase would go only to those counties that voted in favor of the measure. (Absent this vote the county could still receive the funds if the board of supervisors voted to request an allocation.) As a result, some people who otherwise would have voted "no" may have voted "yes" to ensure that their county received some of the money.

In addition, most ballot measures identify a specific policy that would be adopted if the measure passes. A recent local measure, however, contained an unusual provision. It stated that:

• If the measure were approved by a majority of voters, a tax for general purposes would be enacted.
• If, however, two-thirds of the voters approved the measure, a tax for special purposes would be enacted. Thus, a "yes" vote could mean two different things.

Proposal

This proposition, a constitutional amendment, prohibits the type of measures discussed above by:

• Requiring state and local ballot measures to apply in the same way in all parts of the jurisdiction (that is, the state or a local government) affected by the measures, regardless of how any individual part of that jurisdiction voted. Thus, a ballot measure could not apply only in those areas that voted in favor of the measure.
• Prohibiting ballot measures from containing alternative or additional provisions that would be enacted depending on the percentage of votes cast in favor of the measure. Thus, a ballot measure could not have one outcome if approved by a majority of voters and a different outcome if approved by a two-thirds vote.

Fiscal Effect

There have been only a small number of state and local measures which have used the provisions prohibited by this constitutional amendment. We cannot estimate how many measures to which it would apply in the future or the resulting fiscal effect.

Return to Initiatives and Propositions

Return to Legislative Analyst's Office Home Page