1996 CARIFTA Games, Participation (unofficial)
An unofficial count yields the number of about 272 athletes (152 junior (under-20) and 120 youth (under-17)) from about 23 countries:  Antigua and Barbuda (8), Aruba (4), Bahamas (23), Barbados (28), Belize (2), Bermuda (12), British Virgin Islands (3), Cayman Islands (13), Dominica (2), French Guiana (1), Grenada (9), Guadeloupe (20), Guyana (2), Jamaica (56), Martinique (15), Montserrat (4), Netherlands Antilles (4), Saint Kitts and Nevis (5), Saint Lucia (1), Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (1), Trinidad and Tobago (30), Turks and Caicos Islands (11), US Virgin Islands (18).


1996 CARIFTA Games, Austin Sealy Award
The Austin Sealy Trophy for the most outstanding athlete of the games was awarded to Cydonie Mothersill from the Cayman Islands. She won 2 gold medals (100m, and 200m) in the junior (U-20) category.


1996 CARIFTA Games, Medal summary
Medal winners are published by category: Boys under 20 (Junior), Girls under 20 (Junior), Boys under 17 (Youth), and Girls under 17 (Youth). Complete results can be found on the "World Junior Athletics History" website.


1996 CCHA Men's Ice Hockey Tournament
The 1996 CCHA Men's Ice Hockey Tournament was the 25th CCHA Men's Ice Hockey Tournament. It was played between March 8 and March 16, 1996. Opening round games were played at campus sites, while all 'final four' games were played at Joe Louis Arena in Detroit, Michigan. By winning the tournament, Michigan received the Central Collegiate Hockey Association's automatic bid to the 1996 NCAA Division I Men's Ice Hockey Tournament.


1996 CCHA Men's Ice Hockey Tournament, Format
The tournament featured three rounds of play. The three teams that finish below eighth place in the standings were not eligible for postseason play. In the quarterfinals, the first and eighth seeds, the second and seventh seeds, the third seed and sixth seeds and the fourth seed and fifth seeds played a best-of-three series, with the winners advancing to the semifinals. In the semifinals, the remaining highest and lowest seeds and second highest and second lowest seeds play a single-game, with the winners advancing to the finals. The tournament champion receives an automatic bid to the 1996 NCAA Division I Men's Ice Hockey Tournament.


1996 CCHA Men's Ice Hockey Tournament, Conference Standings
Note: GP = Games Played; W = Wins; L = Losses; T = Ties; PTS = Points; GF = Goals For; GA = Goals Against


1996 CECAFA Cup
The 1996 CECAFA Cup was the 22nd edition of the tournament. It was held in Sudan, and was won by Uganda. The matches were played between November 17–29.


1996 CFL Draft
The 1996 CFL Draft took place on May 31, 1996. 61 Canadian football players were chosen from eligible Canadian universities as well as Canadian players playing in the NCAA. This would be the last time that a CFL draft would have seven rounds, switching to six rounds in 1997, until the league reverted to seven in 2013. The Edmonton Eskimos obtained the first overall pick, along with Nick Mazzoli, from the Ottawa Rough Riders in exchange for Dan Murphy and Jay Chistenson.


1996 CFL Draft
In the fifth round, the Montreal Alouettes drafted defensive end James Eggink who tragically had died from cancer in December 1995. This would be the last time that a CFL draft would have seven rounds, switching to six rounds in 1997, until the league reverted to seven in 2013. The Edmonton Eskimos obtained the first overall pick, along with Nick Mazzoli, from the Ottawa Rough Riders in exchange for Dan Murphy and Jay Chistenson.


1996 CFL season
The 1996 Canadian Football League season is considered to be the 43rd season in modern-day Canadian football, although it is officially the 39th Canadian Football League season.


1996 CFL season, CFL News in 1996
At the CFL's Board of Governors Meetings in February 1996, it was decided to end the league's four-year American experiment.


1996 CFL season, CFL News in 1996
The Shreveport Pirates had already disbanded; the league folded the Memphis Mad Dogs and rejected a sale and relocation plan that would have allowed the Birmingham Barracudas to move to Shreveport and survive, forcing that team's closure as well. The Grey Cup champion Baltimore Stallions had opted to move elsewhere rather than face the daunting prospect of competing with the NFL's Baltimore Ravens. When it was apparent the CFL was refocusing on Canada, Stallions owner Jim Speros gave up the Stallions franchise and moved his organisation to Montreal as the third incarnation of the Montreal Alouettes.


1996 CFL season, CFL News in 1996
Up until this time, the city of Montreal had been without Canadian football for nine seasons. Speros revived the Als' traditional colour scheme of blue, white, and red. Their logo was an angry bird running with a football; it was their helmet logo until 2019. Unwilling to continue as the lone American team in the league, the San Antonio Texans voluntarily folded.


1996 CFL season, CFL News in 1996
A dispersal draft was held for the players on four of the five American teams—all except the Stallions. However, all of the Stallions players were released from their contracts. Alouettes general manager Jim Popp, who followed the Stallions organisation to Montreal, managed to re-sign many of them; he was limited to half of the Alouettes roster, since the Stallions as an American team were not subject to the league's requirement that half of a team's roster comprise Canadian citizens, and the Alouettes would be subject to that rule. To stock the roster with Canadians, a special expansion draft, in which only the Canadian citizens on each other team's roster were subject, was held to stock the Alouettes' roster.


1996 CFL season, CFL News in 1996
With the removal of the American teams, the CFL reverted to its traditional "East-West" alignment. The revived Alouettes were placed in the East Division and the Winnipeg Blue Bombers were placed back into the West Division, after 10 seasons.


1996 CFL season, CFL News in 1996
The BC Lions and the Calgary Stampeders underwent ownership changes.


1996 CFL season, Regular season standings, Final regular season standings
Note: GP = Games Played, W = Wins, L = Losses, PF = Points For, PA = Points Against, Pts = Points


1996 CFL season, Grey Cup playoffs
The Toronto Argonauts are the 1996 Grey Cup champions, defeating the Edmonton Eskimos 43–37, at Hamilton's Ivor Wynne Stadium. The Argonauts' Doug Flutie (QB) was named the Grey Cup's Most Valuable Player and Mike Vanderjagt (K) was the Grey Cup's Most Valuable Canadian.


1996 CONCACAF Champions' Cup
The 1996 CONCACAF Champions' Cup was the 32nd edition of the annual international club football competition held in the CONCACAF region (North America, Central America and the Caribbean), the CONCACAF Champions' Cup. It determined that year's club champion of association football in the CONCACAF region and was played from 9 March 1996 through 20 July 1996.


1996 CONCACAF Champions' Cup
The teams were split into 2 zones (North/ Central and Caribbean). The North/Central zone was split into 3 groups, qualifying each winner to the final tournament. The winner of the Caribbean zone, earned a place in a playoff against the US representative for a spot in the final tournament. All qualifying matches in the tournament were played under the home/away match system, while the final tournament was played in Guatemala City.


1996 CONCACAF Champions' Cup
That final stage composed of four teams which played each other in a single round-robin tournament. Mexican team Cruz Azul won their fourth CONCACAF trophy, after finishing 1st. in the final table with 7 points over 3 matches played.


1996 CONCACAF Champions' Cup, Final Group Stage
Final stage was played in Guatemala City, Guatemala. July 15 - 20, 1997.


1996 CONCACAF Cup Winners Cup
The 1996 CONCACAF Cup Winners Cup was the fifth edition of this defunct tournament contended between 1991 and 1998.


1996 CONCACAF Cup Winners Cup, Preliminary Round, Caribbean Zone
The original schedule had United Petrotrin playing Siroco in the first round in September and the winners meeting Robinhood in the second round in October/November, but the ties were apparently changed afterwards.


1996 CONCACAF Cup Winners Cup, Preliminary Round, Central Zone, Round 2
Olimpia and Municipal of Guatemala qualified for the Cuadrangular Final; the tournament was abandoned and both teams obtained byes to the second round of the Recopa 1997.


1996 CONCACAF Cup Winners Cup, Preliminary Round, Interzonal Playoff
Matches not played; neither club progressed to the Recopa 1997. Instead Necaxa were added to the Recopa 1997. tournament, supposedly because of being the only team left at the time of the abandonment of the 1996 edition (notwithstanding their participation in the Champions' Cup) and obtained a bye to the final round of the Recopa 1997 (which was not finished either).


1996 CONCACAF Gold Cup
The 1996 CONCACAF Gold Cup was the third edition of the Gold Cup, the football (soccer) championship of North America, Central America and the Caribbean (CONCACAF).


1996 CONCACAF Gold Cup
The tournament returned to the United States and California; the games were hosted by Los Angeles, San Diego, and Anaheim. The format of the tournament changed from 1993: it was expanded to nine teams, separated into three groups of three and played in January as opposed to the 1993 edition which was played in July.


1996 CONCACAF Gold Cup
The top team in each group, plus the best second-place finisher would advance to the semifinals. For the first time, a non-CONCACAF team was invited: Brazil, who sent their under-23 side. Mexico won their second straight Gold Cup, beating the Brazilians 2–0 in the final.


1996 CONCACAF Gold Cup, Squads
The 9 national teams involved in the tournament were required to register a squad of 20 players; only players in these squads were eligible to take part in the tournament.


1996 CONCACAF Gold Cup Final
The 1996 CONCACAF Gold Cup Final was a football match to determine the winners of the 1996 CONCACAF Gold Cup. The match was held at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum in Los Angeles, United States, on 21 January 1996 and was contested by the winners of the semi-finals, Brazil and Mexico. Mexico, who had won 1993 CONCACAF Gold Cup, successfully defended their title with a 2–0 win over Brazil. As Gold Cup champions, Mexico earned a berth into the 1997 FIFA Confederations Cup in Saudi Arabia as the representative from CONCACAF.


1996 CONCACAF Gold Cup Final
The final was Mexico's second in Gold Cup history, while it was the Brazil's first final, and the first for a non-CONCACAF team to be invited for the tournament and make it to the final.


1996 CONCACAF Gold Cup squads
These are the squad lists of the teams participating in the 1996 CONCACAF Gold Cup.


1996 CONCACAF Men's Pre-Olympic Tournament squads
Below are the rosters for the 1996 CONCACAF Men's Pre-Olympic Tournament.


1996 CONCACAF Pre-Olympic Tournament
The 1996 CONCACAF Pre-Olympic Tournament was the ninth edition of the CONCACAF Pre-Olympic Tournament, the quadrennial, international, age-restricted football tournament organised by CONCACAF to determine which men's under-23 national teams from the North, Central America and Caribbean region qualify for the Olympic football tournament. It was held in Canada, from 10 and 19 May 1996.


1996 CONCACAF Pre-Olympic Tournament
It was the first time in which teams that qualified for the Olympics were permitted to supplement their rosters with three players not restricted by age in its 18-man final list.


1996 CONCACAF Pre-Olympic Tournament
Mexico, as winners qualified for the 1996 Summer Olympics together with the United States who automatically qualified as hosts. Second-placed Canada later lost to Australia in the CONCACAF–OFC play-off and failed to qualify for the Olympics for the third consecutive time.


1996 CONCACAF Pre-Olympic Tournament, Statistics, Goalscorers
There were 48 goals scored in 15 matches, for an average of 3.2 goals per match.


1996 CONCACAF Pre-Olympic Tournament, Qualified teams for Summer Olympics
The following two teams from CONCACAF qualified for the 1996 Summer Olympics, including the United States which qualified as hosts.


1996 CONCACAF U-17 Championship
The 1996 CONCACAF U-17 Tournament determined the three CONCACAF representatives that qualified to the 1997 FIFA U-17 World Championship in Egypt. Trinidad and Tobago hosted the championships between 18–31 August.


1996 CONCACAF U-17 Championship, Final round
Costa Rica, Mexico, and Canada qualified to the Final round as group winners, USA joined as best second place.


1996 CONCACAF U-20 Tournament
The 1996 CONCACAF U-20 Tournament was a football tournament that was played on April 1996 in Mexico. It determined the four CONCACAF teams that participated at the 1997 FIFA World Youth Championship.


1996 CONCACAF U-20 Tournament, Final Ranking
Note: Per statistical convention in football, matches decided in extra time are counted as wins and losses, while matches decided by penalty shoot-out are counted as draws.


1996 CONCACAF U-20 Tournament, Qualification to World Youth Championship
The four best performing teams qualified for the 1997 FIFA World Youth Championship.


1996 CONMEBOL Pre-Olympic Tournament
The 1996 CONMEBOL Pre-Olympic Tournament began on 18 February 1996 and was the 10th CONMEBOL Pre-Olympic Tournament. This was the second tournament open to players under the age of 23 without any other restriction. There was no qualification stage and all 10 members of CONMEBOL automatically qualified. The winner and the runner-up qualified for 1996 Summer Olympics. Players born on or after 1 January 1973 were eligible to play in this competition.


1996 Cairns Cyclones season
The 1996 Cairns Cyclones season was the first season that the Cairns Cyclones rugby league team competed in the inaugural Queensland Cup. The Queensland Cup was formed after the Winfield State League was closed after the end of the 1995 Season. At the time the Queensland Cup was the second tier competition under the Brisbane Rugby League.


1996 Cairns Cyclones season
The Cairns Cyclones team was managed by Nigel Tillett and coached by Gary Smith. They were one of sixteen clubs competing in the fifteen-week-long competition, which included two split rounds. The 'Final 6' system was used in the Finals Series to determine the Premiers.


1996 Cairns Cyclones season, 1996 Cairns Cyclones Squad
1. Shannon Van Balen (Fullback)2. Richard Murgha (Threequarters)3. Mick Skardon (Threequarters)4. Craig Cygler (Threequarters)5. Chris Kelly (Threequarters)6. Paul Fowler (Halves)7. Robbie Schmidt (captain) (Halves)8. Troy Lorimer (Forwards)9. Andy Henley (Forwards)10. Peter Deaves (Forwards)11. Brian Fourmile (Forwards)12. Matt Clifford (Forwards)13. Matt Hensler (Forwards)14. Chad Prien (Replacements)15. John Clifford (Replacements)16. Robbie Hollingsworth (Replacements)17. Scott Tronc (Replacements)Other players


1996 Cairns Cyclones season, Best and Fairest Player Award
Cairns Cyclone's Robbie Schmidt was awarded The Courier Mail Best and Fairest player. The award was given to the Queensland Cup player voted for as the best and fairest over the entire season. After each game, the referees vote to award three votes to the best player, two votes to the second-best player, and one vote to the third-best player.


1996 Cairo shooting
At 7am on 18 April 1996, four Islamists carried out a mass shooting against a group of 88 Greek tourists outside the Europa Hotel in Cairo, Egypt. Eighteen people were killed - 17 Greek tourists and one Egyptian. The victims were outside the hotel, about to board a bus to Alexandria. Al-Jama'a al-Islamiyya claimed responsibility for the attack, saying that they thought the tourists were Israelis. The Egyptian Sunni jihadist group carried out attacks in the 1990s, some of which targeted tourists.


1996 Cal Poly Mustangs football team
The 1996 Cal Poly Mustangs football team represented California Polytechnic State University during the 1996 NCAA Division I-AA football season.


1996 Cal Poly Mustangs football team
Cal Poly competed as an NCAA Division I-AA independent starting in 1996. They had previously been a member of the American West Conference (AWC). The 1996 Mustangs were led by third-year head coach Andre Patterson and played home games at Mustang Stadium in San Luis Obispo, California. They finished the season with a record of five wins and six losses (5–6). Overall, the team was outscored by its opponents 308–356 for the season. This was coach Patterson's last year with the Mustangs. In his three years as head coach, the team compiled a record of 17–16, or a .515 winning percentage.


1996 Cal Poly Mustangs football team, Team players in the NFL
No Cal Poly Mustang players were selected in the 1997 NFL Draft.


1996 Cal State Northridge Matadors football team
The 1996 Cal State Northridge Matadors football team represented Cal State Northridge during the 1996 NCAA Division I-AA football season.


1996 Cal State Northridge Matadors football team
Cal State Northridge and Sacramento State competed for the first time in the Big Sky Conference in 1996. They had been members of the American West Conference (AWC) from 1993 to 1995 and the conference folded after the 1995 season. The 1996 Matadors were led by second-year head coach Dave Baldwin. They played home games at North Campus Stadium in Northridge, California. Cal State Northridge finished the season with a record of seven wins and four losses (7–4, 4–3 Big Sky), including wins against two ranked teams. The Matadors outscored their opponents 407–313 for the season.


1996 Cal State Northridge Matadors football team, Team players in the NFL
No Cal State Northridge players were selected in the 1997 NFL Draft.


1996 Calder Cup playoffs
The 1996 Calder Cup playoffs of the American Hockey League began on April 19, 1996. The sixteen teams that qualified, eight from each conference, played best-of-five series for division semifinals and best-of-seven series for division finals and conference finals. The conference champions played a best-of-seven series for the Calder Cup. The Calder Cup Final ended on June 13, 1996, with the Rochester Americans defeating the Portland Pirates four games to three to win the sixth Calder Cup in team history. Rochester's Dixon Ward won the Jack A. Butterfield Trophy as AHL playoff MVP.


1996 Calder Cup playoffs
The Saint John Flames set an AHL playoff record by winning six games in overtime. This record was equaled by the Milwaukee Admirals in 2004.


1996 Calder Cup playoffs, Playoff seeds
After the 1995-96 AHL regular season, 16 teams qualified for the playoffs. The top four teams from each division qualified for the playoffs. However, due to the uneven number of teams in the each conference, it was possible for the fifth-placed team in the five team divisions to crossover to the playoffs for the four team divisions. This could only happen if the fifth-placed team in a five team division earned more points than the fourth-placed team in the four team division in the same conference.


1996 Calder Cup playoffs, Playoff seeds
In this case, the fifth-placed team from the five team division would play in place of the fourth-placed team from the four team division in that part of the playoff bracket. The Albany River Rats were the Southern Conference regular season champions and also had the best overall record for the regular season. The Springfield Falcons were the Northern Conference regular season champions.


1996 Calder Cup playoffs, Bracket
In each round the team that earned more points during the regular season receives home ice advantage, meaning they receive the "extra" game on home-ice if the series reaches the maximum number of games. There is no set series format due to arena scheduling conflicts and travel considerations.


1996 Calgary Stampeders season
The 1996 Calgary Stampeders finished in 1st place in the West Division with a 13–5 record. They appeared in the West Final but lost to the Edmonton Eskimos.


1996 California Angels season
The California Angels' 1996 season involved the Angels finishing 4th in the American League West with a record of 70 wins and 91 losses.


1996 California Angels season
The season was notable for being the final season the franchise bore the "California Angels" moniker, as the team name was changed to "Anaheim Angels" the following season.


1996 California Angels season
The Angels used 29 different pitchers during the season, the most of any MLB team in 1996.


1996 California Angels season, Regular season, Notable transactions
September 6, 1996: Robert Eenhoorn was selected off waivers by the California Angels from the New York Yankees.


1996 California Angels season, Player stats, Batting, Starters by position
Note: Pos = Position; G = Games played; AB = At bats; H = Hits; Avg. = Batting average; HR = Home runs; RBI = Runs batted in


1996 California Angels season, Player stats, Batting, Other batters
Note: G = Games played; AB = At bats; H = Hits; Avg. = Batting average; HR = Home runs; RBI = Runs batted in


1996 California Democratic presidential primary
The 1996 California Democratic presidential primary was held on March 26, 1996, in California as one of the Democratic Party's statewide nomination contests ahead of the 1996 presidential election. Incumbent President Bill Clinton easily won the primary, facing only minor opposition.


1996 California Golden Bears football team
The 1996 California Golden Bears football team was an American football team that represented the University of California, Berkeley in the Pacific-10 Conference (Pac-10) during the 1996 NCAA Division I-A football season. In their first and only year under head coach Steve Mariucci, the Golden Bears compiled a 6–6 record (3–5 against Pac-10 opponents), finished in a tie for fifth place in the Pac-10, and were outscored by their opponents by a combined score of 407 to 382.


1996 California Golden Bears football team
The team's statistical leaders included Pat Barnes with 3,499 passing yards, Brandon Willis with 701 rushing yards, and Bobby Shaw with 888 receiving yards.


1996 California Proposition 196
California Proposition 196 a California legislative initiative adding drive-by shootings to the list of special circumstances for the death penalty or life imprisonment without possibility of parole for defendants convicted of first degree murder. It was passed in 1996.


1996 California Proposition 209
Proposition 209 (also known as the California Civil Rights Initiative or CCRI) 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.


1996 California Proposition 209, History, Context
The controversy pertaining to affirmative action in California can most notably be traced back to the historic 1978 Supreme Court case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. There were two major decisions from the case that still stand today. Firstly, the quota system that was once used by the University of California, Davis’ admission process for minority students was ruled unlawful. Secondly, higher-level academic institutions were not prohibited from considering race in the admissions process.


1996 California Proposition 209, History, Context
The ruling determined in Bakke acted as “a catalyst for voluntary affirmative action programs.”  Researchers suggest that the development of such programs for the sake of increasing campus diversity explains the controversy surrounding the implementation of Proposition 209 and Bakke marks the origination of affirmative action debates. Consequently, judiciaries and politicians have since devoted efforts to reinterpreting affirmative action, its related practices, and consequences for students.


1996 California Proposition 209, History, Origins
The political campaign to place the language of CCRI on the California ballot as a constitutional amendment was initiated by Joe Gelman (president of the Board of Civil Service Commissioners of the City of Los Angeles), Arnold Steinberg (a pollster and political strategist) and Larry Arnn (president of the Claremont Institute). It was later endorsed by Governor Pete Wilson and supported and funded by the California Civil Rights Initiative Campaign, led by University of California Regent Ward Connerly, a Wilson ally.


1996 California Proposition 209, History, Origins
A key co-chair of the campaign was law professor Gail Heriot, who served as a member of the United States Commission on Civil Rights. The initiative was opposed by affirmative action advocates and traditional civil rights and feminist organizations on the left side of the political spectrum. Proposition 209 was voted into law on November 5, 1996, with 55 percent of the vote, and has withstood legal scrutiny ever since.


1996 California Proposition 209, History, Senate Bill 185
On September 1, 2011, SB 185 passed both chambers of the California State Legislature, but was vetoed by Governor Jerry Brown. SB 185 would have countered Proposition 209 and authorized the University of California and the California State University to consider race, gender, ethnicity, and national origin, along with other relevant factors, in undergraduate and graduate admissions, to the maximum extent permitted by the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, Section 31 of Article I of the California Constitution, and relevant case law. SB 185 was strongly supported by the University of California Students Association.


1996 California Proposition 209, History, Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 5
On December 3, 2012, California State Senator Edward Hernandez introduced California Senate Constitutional Amendment No.5 (SCA-5) in the State Senate. This initiative proposed an amendment to the state constitution to remove provisions of California Proposition 209 related to public post-secondary education, to permit state universities to consider applicants' race, gender, color, ethnicity, or national origin in admission decisions. If passed by both the State Senate and State Assembly, SCA-5 would have been presented to California voters in the November 2014 election. SCA-5 was passed by the California State Senate on January 30, 2014. On February 24, 2014, Gene D. Block, chancellor of UCLA, sent an open letter to all students and faculty expressing his strong opposition to Proposition 209. Following resistance from various citizen groups, including Asian American groups, Senator Hernandez withdrew his measure from consideration.


1996 California Proposition 209, History, Proposition 16
The legislation that later became Proposition 16 was first introduced as California Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 5 (ACA 5). It was introduced by Assemblymembers Shirley Weber, Mike Gipson, and Miguel Santiago on January 18, 2019. ACA 5 is a proposed constitutional amendment that repeals the provisions enacted by Proposition 209. In June 2020, the California State Legislature passed ACA 5 with more than a two-thirds vote in each house, allowing the proposal to become a qualified ballot measure and later Proposition 16. Proposition 16 was rejected by voters in the November 2020 election, meaning that Prop 209 remains in the California Constitution.


1996 California Proposition 209, History, National impact
In November 2006, a similar amendment modeled on California's Proposition 209 was passed in Michigan, titled the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative. The constitutionality of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative was challenged in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. The case, Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, made its way to the United States Supreme Court. On April 22, 2014, the US Supreme Court ruled 6-2 that the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative is constitutional, and that states had the right to ban the practice of racial and gender preferences/affirmative action if they chose to do so through the electoral process.


1996 California Proposition 209, Text
The text of Proposition 209 was drafted by Cal State anthropology professor Glynn Custred and California Association of Scholars Executive Director Thomas Wood. Its passage amended the California constitution to include a new section (Section 31 of Article I), which now reads:


1996 California Proposition 209, Text
(a) The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.


1996 California Proposition 209, Text
(b) This section shall apply only to action taken after the section's effective date.


1996 California Proposition 209, Text
(c) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting bona fide qualifications based on sex which are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.


1996 California Proposition 209, Text
(d) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as invalidating any court order or consent decree which is in force as of the effective date of this section.


1996 California Proposition 209, Text
(e) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting action which must be taken to establish or maintain eligibility for any federal program, where ineligibility would result in a loss of federal funds to the state.


1996 California Proposition 209, Text
(f) For the purposes of this section, "state" shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the state itself, any city, county, city and county, public university system, including the University of California, community college district, school district, special district, or any other political subdivision or governmental instrumentality of or within the state.


1996 California Proposition 209, Text
(g) The remedies available for violations of this section shall be the same, regardless of the injured party's race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin, as are otherwise available for violations of then-existing California antidiscrimination law.


1996 California Proposition 209, Text
(h) This section shall be self-executing. If any part or parts of this section are found to be in conflict with federal law or the United States Constitution, the section shall be implemented to the maximum extent that federal law and the United States Constitution permit. Any provision held invalid shall be severable from the remaining portions of this section.


1996 California Proposition 209, Support
Supporters of Proposition 209 contended that existing affirmative action programs led public employers and universities to reject applicants based on their race, and that Proposition 209 would "restore and reconfirm the historic intention of the 1964 Civil Rights Act." The basic and simple premise of Proposition 209 is that every individual has a right, and that right is not to be discriminated against, or granted a preference, based on their race or gender. Since the number of available positions are limited, discriminating against or giving unearned preference to a person based solely, or even partially on race or gender deprives qualified applicants of all races an equal opportunity to succeed. It also pits one group against another and perpetuates social tension.


1996 California Proposition 209, Opposition
Opponents of Proposition 209 argued that it would end affirmative action practices of tutoring, mentoring, outreach and recruitment of women and minorities in California universities and businesses and would gut state and local protections against discrimination. A large, multiethnic coalition of civil rights groups, politicians, and celebrities stood in opposition to Proposition 209. Immediately after passage of Proposition 209, students held demonstrations and walk-outs in protest at several universities including UC Berkeley, UCLA, UC Santa Cruz, and San Francisco State University.


1996 California Proposition 209, Results, Voter demographics
On November 5, 1996, the Los Angeles Times conducted an exit poll of 2,473 voters who cast ballots in the general election at 40 polling places. The margin of error was 3 percent (but higher for some subgroups). The following is the exit poll data on Proposition 209:


1996 California Proposition 209, Aftermath, Legal challenges
On November 27, 1996, U.S. District Court Judge Thelton Henderson blocked enforcement of the proposition. A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently overturned that ruling. Proposition 209 has been the subject of many lawsuits in state courts since its passage but has withstood legal scrutiny over the years.


1996 California Proposition 209, Aftermath, Legal challenges
On August 2, 2010, the Supreme Court of California found for the second time that Proposition 209 was constitutional. The ruling, by a 6-1 majority, followed a unanimous affirmation in 2000 of the constitutionality of Prop. 209 by the same court.


1996 California Proposition 209, Aftermath, Legal challenges
On April 2, 2012, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the latest challenge to Proposition 209. The three-judge panel concluded that it was bound by a 9th Circuit ruling in 1997 upholding the constitutionality of the affirmative action ban. Ninth Circuit Judge A. Wallace Tashima disagreed in part with the ruling, saying he believes the court "wrongly decided" the issue in 1997.


1996 California Proposition 209, Aftermath, Effect on enrollment, graduation, and income
According to UC Office of the President, "Proposition 209 instigated a dramatic change in UC admissions policy, with URG [under represented group] enrollment at the Berkeley and UCLA campuses immediately falling by more than 60 percent and systemwide URG enrollment falling by at least 12 percent." The same report concluded that "Prop 209 led URG applicants to cascade out of UC into measurably less-advantageous universities, which combined with declines in degree attainment and STEM persistence to lower each URG applicant’s wages by about 5 percent between ages 23 and 35."


1996 California Proposition 209, Aftermath, Effect on enrollment, graduation, and income
Based on "University of California Applicants, Admits and New Enrollees by Campus, Race/Ethnicity", prepared by Institutional Research, the University of California Office of the President, August 11, 2011, enrollment percentages of the four major ethnic groups university-wide are:


1996 California Proposition 209, Aftermath, Effect on enrollment, graduation, and income
African American enrollment rates dropped significantly immediately after the passage of Prop 209. Criticism was raised that of the 4,422 students in UCLA's freshman class of 2006, only 96 (2.26%) were African American.


1996 California Proposition 209, Aftermath, Effect on enrollment, graduation, and income
The percentage of Latino students admitted to the UC system as of 2007 exceeded the Proposition 209 level; however, this is a reflection of the increase in the Latino population in the state of California and the increased capacity within the UC system.


1996 California Proposition 209, Aftermath, Effect on enrollment, graduation, and income
Researchers also found that enrollment statistics for Native American students beginning in 1997 through 2006 declined by 38% cumulatively and, unlike other ethnic groups, has not increased since.


1996 California Proposition 209, Aftermath, Effect on enrollment, graduation, and income
A comprehensive but non-peer reviewed study by Zachary Bleemer found that Prop 209 has had a negative impact on graduation rates, graduate school attendance, and income for black and hispanic students.


1996 California Proposition 209, Aftermath, Private sector response
One response to Proposition 209 was the establishment of the IDEAL Scholars Fund to provide community and financial support for underrepresented students at the University of California, Berkeley. Private universities and colleges, as well as employers, are not subject to Proposition 209 unless they receive public contracts.


1996 California Proposition 209, Aftermath, Public opinion regarding affirmative action
Public opinion polls on affirmative action have varied significantly. It is likely that survey design and the framing of the survey question itself may have significant effects on the survey results.


1996 California Proposition 209, Aftermath, Public opinion regarding affirmative action
In a survey conducted by Gallup in 2013, 67% of U.S. adults believed college admission should be solely based on merit. According to Gallup: "One of the clearest examples of affirmative action in practice is colleges' taking into account a person's racial or ethnic background when deciding which applicants will be admitted. Americans seem reluctant to endorse such a practice, and even blacks, who have historically been helped by such programs, are divided on the matter. Aside from blacks, a majority of all other major subgroups believe colleges should determine admissions solely on merit."


1996 California Proposition 209, Aftermath, Public opinion regarding affirmative action
In a national survey conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2014, among 3,335 Americans, 63% felt that affirmative action programs designed to increase the number of black and minority students on college campuses are a good thing.


1996 California Proposition 209, Aftermath, Public opinion regarding affirmative action
In October 2018, APIA Vote and AAPI Data published the results of their 2018 Asian American Voter Survey and found that 66% of Asian Americans favor "affirmative action programs designed to help blacks, women, and other minorities get better access to education." Previous reports by these organizations have found consistent support for affirmative action by Asian Americans over time, in multiple surveys.


1996 California Proposition 209, Aftermath, Public opinion regarding affirmative action
In February 2019, Gallup published the results of a November and December 2018 survey and found that support for affirmative action programs was growing. They polled 6,502 Americans. Of survey respondents, 65% favored affirmative action programs for women and 61% favored affirmative action programs for minorities.


1996 California Proposition 209, Aftermath, Public opinion regarding affirmative action
Also in February 2019, the Pew Research Center published the results of a January and February 2019 survey and found that 73% of its respondents said that race or ethnicity should not be a factor in college admissions decisions. According to this survey's results, majorities across racial and ethnic groups agree that race should not be a factor in college admissions decisions. White adults are particularly likely to hold this view: 78% say this, compared with 65% of Hispanics, 62% of blacks, and 58% of Asians.


1996 California Proposition 215
Proposition 215, or the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, is a California law permitting the use of medical cannabis despite marijuana's lack of the normal Food and Drug Administration testing for safety and efficacy. It was enacted, on November 5, 1996, by means of the initiative process, and passed with 5,382,915 (55.6%) votes in favor and 4,301,960 (44.4%) against.


1996 California Proposition 215
The proposition was a statewide voter initiative authored by Dennis Peron, Anna Boyce RN, John Entwistle, Jr., Valerie Corral, Dale Gieringer, William Panzer, medical marijuana activist and founder of the L.A. Cannabis Resource Center Scott Tracy Imler, attorney Leo Paoli and psychiatrist Tod H. Mikuriya, and approved by California voters. It allows patients with a valid doctor's recommendation, and the patients' designated Primary Caregivers, to possess and cultivate marijuana for personal medical use, and has since been expanded to protect a growing system of collective and cooperative distribution. The Act added Section 11362.5 to the California Health and Safety Code. California Proposition 215 was the first medical marijuana ballot initiative passed at the state level; causing a conflict in the United States between states' rights advocates and those who support a stronger federal presence.


1996 California Proposition 215, Yes on 215 Campaign
Proposition 215 was conceived by San Francisco marijuana activist Dennis Peron in memory of his partner, Jonathan West, who had used marijuana to treat symptoms of AIDS. In 1991, Peron organized Proposition P, the San Francisco medical marijuana initiative, which passed with 79% of the vote. Prop P did not have force of law, but was simply a resolution declaring the city's support for medical marijuana. Santa Cruz and other cities followed suit with similar measures endorsing medical use of marijuana.


1996 California Proposition 215, Yes on 215 Campaign
The California legislature went on to approve medical marijuana bills by State Senator Milton Marks and Assemblyman John Vasconcellos, but they were vetoed by Governor Pete Wilson. Dennis Peron, suffering from his own personal ill health, worked closely with Dr. Tod Mikuriya to organize Proposition 215. Dr. Mikuriya had worked to decriminalize cannabis and declassify cannabis as a Schedule 1 controlled substance. Dr. Mikuriya spoke worldwide during the 1980s and 1990s in an effort to garner support for the medical use of cannabis.


1996 California Proposition 215, Yes on 215 Campaign
Threats to Dennis Peron would cause Peron to leave the United States following the passage of Proposition 215. Meanwhile, the federal government's interagency Task Force, in conjunction with the resources of California's Attorney General and California's Medical Board, pursued any physician willing to recommend cannabis for medicinal reasons. More than 15 medical doctors would be forced to fight to keep their medical licenses.


1996 California Proposition 215, Yes on 215 Campaign
Frustrated by the Governor's veto and by the Clinton administration's ongoing refusal to allow medical marijuana, Peron decided to turn to the voters. In 1995, Peron, Gieringer and Imler organized Californians for Compassionate Use, a PAC dedicated to putting medical marijuana on the ballot. As the deadline approached and it was becoming clear the unpaid signature gatherers were not on pace to qualify, a group of philanthropists, including George Soros, Peter Lewis, and George Zimmer, stepped in to pay for professional petition circulators through the Santa Monica, CA based political consulting firm of Zimmerman & Markman.


1996 California Proposition 215, Yes on 215 Campaign
The opposition campaign to Proposition 215 included a wide variety of law enforcement, drug prevention groups, and elected officials, including three former Presidents and California Attorney General Dan Lungren. Ballot arguments against the proposition were signed by prominent prosecutors and law enforcement officials who claimed that, while appearing well-intentioned, it was an overly vague, bad law that, "allows unlimited quantities of marijuana to be grown anywhere … in backyards or near schoolyards without any regulations or restrictions," and that it effectively legalized marijuana.


1996 California Proposition 215, Yes on 215 Campaign
Ballot arguments in support were signed by prominent oncologists, a cancer survivor, a nurse, and two politicians, Assemblyman John Vasconcellos and San Francisco District Attorney Terence Hallinan, who wrote that he supported Prop 215 because he didn't "want to send cancer patients to jail for using marijuana."


1996 California Proposition 215, Yes on 215 Campaign
The lead-up to the election saw a series of media-based attacks attempting to make the Yes on 215 Campaign a referendum on the controversial headquarters for the initiative, Dennis Peron's San Francisco Cannabis Buyer's Club. The very first of what would become more than 400 in the state, the SFCBC was a five-story full service medical marijuana club where qualified patients could in fact obtain marijuana for medical purposes (in various forms and qualities) in a retail setting. Far more than just a safe place for patients to consume, the club was a cultural center for many purposes.


1996 California Proposition 215, Yes on 215 Campaign
Dennis Peron would describe 1996 as a year when "the stars aligned for medical marijuana." It was a presidential election year with a Democrat incumbent in a heavily Democratic state. The AIDS epidemic in the late 1980s to the early 1990s as well as recent studies regarding relief for chemotherapy patients were opening people's minds to medical marijuana. On top of that, 60-year-old "Brownie" Mary Rathburn's arrest for baking marijuana brownies made headlines garnering sympathy for medical marijuana.


1996 California Proposition 215, Yes on 215 Campaign
Proposition 215 passed with 55.6% support, setting off a chain reaction across North America of medical marijuana legislation. Canada now also has federal medical marijuana legislation and also operates a medical marijuana program through Health Canada (which also involves the issuance of ID cards, issuance of recommendations by physicians and maintenance of patient records), although not completely identical to that of the state of California. The issue has ALSO been to the floor of the US Congress in the form of the Hinchey-Rohrbacher Amendment, the Truth in Trials Act, and the States Right to Medical Marijuana Act. None of this legislation succeeded in the U.S. Congress.


1996 California Proposition 215, Protections afforded by Proposition 215
Proposition 215 added Section 11362.5 to the California Health and Safety Code, which:


1996 California Proposition 215, Implementation and effect
The initiative was partially implemented through the California Medical Marijuana Program created by Senate Bill 420. Both San Diego County and San Bernardino County initially refused to implement the program, but were rebuffed by the California Supreme Court. San Diego County has since proposed County regulations allowing 36 marijuana dispensaries to operate within its jurisdiction. Implementation across the State varied widely; urban areas in Northern California were the center of California's fledgling marijuana market, while rural areas like Mendocino County, Santa Cruz, and Humboldt saw county-sanctioned gardens and patient registration programs.


1996 California Proposition 215, Implementation and effect
Though medical marijuana was legalized and accepted by the majority of California voters, Proposition 215 does not supersede federal law. Marijuana is still illegal under federal law which causes a conflict between the state and the U.S. Government. City of Garden Grove v. Superior Court, a published California Court of Appeal decision (which in California is binding on all courts), upheld a decision of a trial court to "[order] the Garden Grove Police Department to give [Felix Kha] back his marijuana" stating "[b]ecause the act is strictly a federal offense, the state has 'no power to punish ... [ it] ... as such.'"


1996 California Proposition 215, Implementation and effect
Concerning limits on possession created by Senate Bill 420, the California Supreme Court decision People v. Kelly decided multiple issues. First, it reiterated that "unlike [Proposition 215], which did not immunize medical marijuana users from arrest but instead provided a limited 'immunity' defense to prosecution under state law for cultivation or possession of marijuana [citation], the MMP's identification card system is designed to protect against unnecessary arrest."


1996 California Proposition 215, Implementation and effect
Secondly, it agreed with both Kelly and the California Attorney General that the limits were an "unconstitutionally amendatory insofar as it limits an in-court CUA defense" but by providing more rights, not less, the section concerning limits on possession "should remain an enforceable part of the MMP, applicable to the extent possible — including to those persons who voluntarily participate in the program by registering and obtaining identification cards that provide protection against arrest."


1996 California Proposition 215, Implementation and effect
In 2009, Oakland became the first U.S city to put a tax on marijuana. Approved by voters by a margin of 80%, the measure puts an $18 tax on every $1,000 in gross marijuana sales. The tax is estimated to bring in $300,000 to $1,000,000 dollars annually.


1996 California Proposition 215, Implementation and effect
The California Medical Board prosecuted many California licensed physicians for recommending cannabis under Proposition 215, in an attempt to harm them and take away their licenses to practice medicine despite the clear language of Proposition 215. In a major case against Dr. Tod Mikuriya that went to trial before an Administrative Law Judge in 2002, the Judge decreed that physicians recommending medical cannabis must first do a full physical exam and review all medical tests and information pertinent to the patient despite anecdotal evidence that the patient's self-medication was helpful or needed. The administrative law judge rendering the decision was a director of an organization actively trying to prevent the use of cannabis by persons who were prisoners or criminal defendants.


1996 California Proposition 215, Federal enforcement in California
Since the passage of Proposition 215, federal officials have tried various approaches - from criminal raids and prosecutions to civil injunctions to threatening to seize any property leased for medical cannabis uses - to thwart or slow the progress of medical cannabis in California. It was not until March 2009 that federal officials announced that they would no longer try to thwart medical marijuana distribution/use in California.


1996 California Proposition 215, Federal enforcement in California
During his campaign, President Barack Obama signaled that he would cease the DEA's raids in California as President. On March 18, 2009, Attorney General Eric Holder announced "a shift in the enforcement of federal drug laws, saying the administration would effectively end the Bush administration’s frequent raids on distributors of medical marijuana."


1996 California Proposition 215, Federal enforcement in California
Previously, under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, the United States Department of Justice had taken drastically different approaches to medical cannabis in California. The DOJ under Clinton limited its enforcement to civil measures, such as seeking to revoke the federal prescription licenses of doctors who recommended cannabis or filing for civil injunctions against the major providers under Proposition 215.


1996 California Proposition 215, Federal enforcement in California
Author, activist, and grower "Ask Ed" Rosenthal (of High Times fame) was raided and charged by federal agents the same day DEA Administrator (and later Governor of Arkansas) Asa Hutchinson made a speech to the Commonwealth Club. With local permission, Rosenthal was cultivating marijuana "clones" (or cuttings) to be distributed to Bay Area medical marijuana clubs. The presiding judge, Charles Breyer, did not allow  any testimony that would have substantiated what Rosenthal was doing was legal under state law, or that he was doing it with the sanction and knowledge of local officials. The only exception to this was when Judge Breyer allowed the defense to call then Oakland City Council member Nate Miley as a witness to testify that he had been to and inspected the warehouse where Rosenthal was cultivating.


1996 California Proposition 215, Federal enforcement in California
Such incidents (and the fact that Rosenthal was taking the case to trial while making no clear attempt to prove that he wasn't growing the marijuana) led the jury to suspect they didn't have all the facts. Nonetheless, the jury convicted Rosenthal on all counts. Once released from sequestering, nine of the twelve jurors held a press conference publicly recanting their verdict and asking for leniency in sentencing. The jurors even attended the sentencing hearing, sitting with the defendant they had just convicted. Judge Breyer departed from the 10 Year Mandatory Minimum Sentence and shocked prosecutors by sentencing Rosenthal to 1 day in prison, with credit for time served. Rosenthal would eventually win an appeal only to be retried and re-convicted. He is planning another appeal.


1996 California Proposition 215, Federal enforcement in California
During the Bush Administration, federal officials stepped up the crack down on medical marijuana in California. There are currently more than 100 people facing federal charges in medical cannabis cases, and the DEA conducted more than 50 raids in 2007 alone. The DEA has also begun threatening landlords who lease to marijuana clubs with Asset Forfeiture, a technique where real property can be seized by the federal government if used in the commission of a drug crime. While DEA agents claim they are merely upholding federal law and only going after "major traffickers," advocates claim the DEA targets the most prominent political activists with their raids. Media reports have called federal enforcement in California "notably erratic."


1996 California Proposition 215, Federal enforcement in California
On June 12, 2009, a federal court handed down a sentence to Charles Lynch for a raid that occurred at his Central California medical marijuana dispensary in 2007. The federal judge sentenced Lynch  to a year and a day in prison.


1996 California Proposition 215, Federal enforcement in California
Despite statements as a Senator, where Obama called for marijuana decriminalization, promises as a presidential candidate where he stated that marijuana laws needed to be reconsidered and explicit statements as president that he would respect state medical marijuana laws, Barack Obama has presided over 1.7 million arrests for nonviolent drug offenses, over half of these being marijuana arrests, and a nationwide campaign of raiding medical marijuana dispensaries. Dozens of dispensaries have been closed with their owners and workers facing jail and prison sentences. California has been especially hard hit, with numerous dispensary closures and arrests.


1996 California Proposition 215, Federal enforcement in California
In what may be a shift in federal enforcement attitude, especially in those states where it's legal or decriminalized, President Obama made clear, in January 2014 that he feels cannabis is not as dangerous as alcohol.


1996 California Proposition 215, Guidelines
According to the California Department of Justice, qualified patients and caregivers may possess 8 ounces of dried marijuana, as long as they possess a state-issued identification card. However, Cal. Health and Safety Code Section 1362.77 does not require a state-issued identification card. Under the Health and Safety Code, a card holder or "qualified patient" (one possessing a doctor's recommendation) may possess up to eight oz. of dried herb, plus six mature or 12 immature plants. The state-issued identification card is for the patients' convenience only and is not required. Further, if the recommending physician indicates that a given patient requires more than the prescribed limits, that patient may possess an amount "consistent with that patient's needs."


1996 California Proposition 215, Guidelines
In addition, marijuana smoking is also restricted by location. It may not be smoked wherever smoking is prohibited by law, within 1000 feet of a school, recreation center, or youth center, on a school bus, or in a moving vehicle or boat. According to Cal. Health and Safety Code Section 1362.785 Medical Marijuana use is not required to be accommodated inside the workplace or in any type of correctional facilities or during work hours. It is important to note that under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, an employer may terminate an employee who tests positive for marijuana use.


1996 California Proposition 215, Proposition 215 and the federal courts
The U.S. Supreme Court has twice upheld the ability of federal officials to enforce federal law which conflicts with state law.


1996 California Proposition 215, Proposition 215 and the federal courts
In 2001, the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative claimed "medical necessity" as their legal justification for violating the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The U.S. Supreme Court struck down this argument, holding there could be no claim of medical necessity because in the CSA Congress had specifically negated this defense by unambiguously classifying marijuana as a substance which can have no authorized medical use.


1996 California Proposition 215, Proposition 215 and the federal courts
The 2005 case of Gonzales v. Raich challenged the CSA by claiming that simple cultivation of marijuana plants fell outside of Congress's power to regulate economic activity through its Commerce Clause powers. While initially successful in the Ninth Circuit, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down this argument. The Court found that personal cultivation of marijuana fell within the scope of federal regulation by employing an expansive definition of economic activity, a definition described as "breathtaking" by Justice O'Connor in her dissent because it "threatens to sweep all of productive human activity into federal regulatory reach."


1996 California Proposition 215, Proposition 215 and the federal courts
However, in the majority opinion Justice Stevens expressed, though denying them support at that time, that he hoped "the voices of voters allied with these respondents may one day be heard in the halls of Congress." Justice O'Connor in her dissenting opinion also stated that "a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments," and that "[t]his case exemplifies the role of states as laboratories."


1996 California Proposition 215, Proposition 215 and the federal courts
Justice O'Connor disagreed with the majority's opinion because sanctioning this application of Congress's CSA "extinguishes that experiment, without any proof that the personal cultivation, possession, and use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, if economic activity in the first place, has a substantial effect on interstate commerce and is therefore an appropriate subject of federal regulation." Despite the dissent's favorable attitude toward state medical marijuana policies, federal law still controls, and for medical marijuana to be considered legal, change must be effected through legislation by Congress.


1996 California Proposition 215, Proposition 215 and the federal courts
The U.S. Supreme court on May 18, 2009, refused to hear San Diego’s case against California, where it claimed it wasn’t required to issue state mandated medical marijuana IDs, because the federal ban on marijuana trumped California’s law.


1996 California Proposition 218
Proposition 218 is an adopted initiative constitutional amendment which revolutionized local and regional government finance in California. Called 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 1978. Proposition 218 was approved by California voters during the November 5, 1996, statewide general election.


1996 California Proposition 218
Proposition 218 amended the California Constitution by adding Article XIII C and Article XIII D. Article XIII C added constitutional voter approval requirements for all local government taxes which previously did not exist. Also included is a provision significantly expanding the constitutional local initiative power by voters to reduce or repeal any local government tax, assessment, fee or charge, subject to a significantly reduced signature requirement making ballot qualification easier. Article XIII D added constitutional assessment and property-related fee reforms applicable to all local governments which also previously did not exist. This includes numerous additional requirements for special benefit assessments on real property as well as numerous requirements for property-related fees and charges, such as utility fees imposed by local governments which are no longer allowed to exceed the cost of providing the utility service.


1996 California Proposition 218
The California Senate Office of Research listed Proposition 218 as one of the most significant laws of the 20th century in California. Proposition 218 was the first successful initiative constitutional amendment in California history to add more than one article to the California Constitution and to alter the scope of the constitutional initiative power. The measure was drafted by constitutional attorneys Jonathan Coupal and Jack Cohen.


1996 California Proposition 218, General Information
The official legal title of the measure was: "Voter Approval for Local Government Taxes. Limitations on Fees, Assessments, and Charges. Initiative Constitutional Amendment."


1996 California Proposition 218, General Information
The Findings and Declarations provision contained in Proposition 218 stated that: "The people of the State of California hereby find and declare that Proposition 13 was intended to provide effective tax relief and to require voter approval of tax increases. However, local governments have subjected taxpayers to excessive tax, assessment, fee and charge increases that not only frustrate the purposes of voter approval for tax increases, but also threaten the economic security of all Californians and the California economy itself. This measure protects taxpayers by limiting the methods by which local governments exact revenue from taxpayers without their consent."


1996 California Proposition 218, General Information
Proposition 218 has been part of the California Constitution for 24 years, 9 months.


1996 California Proposition 218, Conditions Leading to Proposition 218
The special assessment and property-related fee reforms contained in Proposition 218 were a response to fiscal conservatives' views of local taxation practices in the 1980s and 1990s following the passage of Proposition 13. After Proposition 13 passed in 1978, local governments looked for ways to raise additional revenues and avoid the two-thirds voter approval requirement for special taxes under Proposition 13.


1996 California Proposition 218, Conditions Leading to Proposition 218
Proposition 218 proponents claimed that local governments discovered a particularly pernicious way to raise additional revenues and avoid the Proposition 13 two-thirds local voter approval requirement for taxes by using assessment districts. Special assessments on real property became a vehicle of choice for local politicians looking to avoid making hard decisions regarding general fund expenditures.


1996 California Proposition 218, Conditions Leading to Proposition 218, The 1992 California Supreme Court Knox Case
The property assessment loophole floodgates opened wide following a controversial 1992 California Supreme Court decision (known as the Knox case) holding that Proposition 13 restrictions, particularly the two-thirds voter approval requirement for local special taxes, did not apply to special benefit assessments on real property.


1996 California Proposition 218, Conditions Leading to Proposition 218, The 1992 California Supreme Court Knox Case
As a result of the Knox decision, local governments could legally impose special assessments on real property for a wide range of purposes without voter approval. Special assessments effectively became unrestricted property tax increases appearing on the property tax bills of millions of California property owners. There were no legal limits on how high special assessments could go, or how many special assessments could be imposed on a parcel of private property.


1996 California Proposition 218, Conditions Leading to Proposition 218, The 1992 California Supreme Court Knox Case
Once the special assessment loophole following the Knox decision was created, one lawyer working with local government politicians wrote that property assessments in California "are now limited only by the limits of human imagination." Some of the more imaginative special assessments imposed by local governments included: (1) A "view tax" in southern California – the better the view of the ocean the property owner had the more the owner paid; (2) In northern California, property owners 27 miles away from a park were assessed because their property allegedly benefited from that park.


1996 California Proposition 218, Conditions Leading to Proposition 218, Property-Related Fee and Charge Abuses By Local Governments
While not receiving the same level of media attention as special assessments on real property, controversial property-related fees and charges became a significant problem following the passage of Proposition 13, as many local governments labeled taxes as "fees" or "charges" and imposed them without voter approval. For example, the California Supreme Court ruled that a local municipal utility, such as a city providing domestic water service, is entitled to a reasonable "return on investment" (otherwise referred to as "profit").


1996 California Proposition 218, Conditions Leading to Proposition 218, Property-Related Fee and Charge Abuses By Local Governments
As a result, a local municipal utility could legally overcharge its customers in excess of the cost of providing the utility service, and then transfer the excess cost revenues to the general fund of the local agency to be spent at the discretion of local politicians. All this could generally be done without voter approval.


1996 California Proposition 218, Proposition 218 Election Campaign
Proposition 218 was considered a sleeper measure by the media as local governments were prohibited from using public funds and resources to campaign against it, and because greater media attention had been given to the Proposition 209 ban on affirmative action and the Proposition 215 medical marijuana initiative measures which appeared on the same election ballot.


1996 California Proposition 218, Proposition 218 Election Campaign
Proposition 218 was initially estimated to cost local governments in California at least $100 million per year with long-term cost estimates being much greater in the billions of dollars per year, and Moody's Investors Service warned the initiative measure would cause "significantly declining credit quality." The credit ratings issue became so heated during the Proposition 218 election campaign that the California State Treasurer, in an effort to calm the municipal bond market, took the extraordinary step of warning measure opponents against exaggerating the possible negative impacts on local government credit ratings and bond issuances when discussing Proposition 218.


1996 California Proposition 218, Proposition 218 Election Campaign, Campaign Opposition and Support
Like Proposition 13 in 1978, Proposition 218 was opposed by the vast majority of prominent newspapers and the political establishment. Opposition to Proposition 218 included public employee unions, local governments, local government interest organizations, environmental interest groups, public education interest groups, and private business firms that underwrite municipal bonds.


1996 California Proposition 218, Proposition 218 Election Campaign, Campaign Opposition and Support
Of the total campaign contributions received against Proposition 218, 74% came from public employee unions, and those interests contributing $10,000 or more represented 91% of the total contributions received by the Proposition 218 opposition campaign.


1996 California Proposition 218, Proposition 218 Election Campaign, Campaign Opposition and Support
Also similar to Proposition 13, there were dire predictions from the measure opponents, especially local government officials, regarding what would happen if Proposition 218 were to be approved by the voters. Some examples included: Expensive landscaping would die and become fodder for devastating fires. Silicon Valley would be shut down forever. Parks, senior centers, and other public buildings would shut down. Neighborhoods would no longer be safe. The initiative would immediately have a devastating effect on local government finance. The initiative would force local governments to go back decades and destroy their method of service delivery. The initiative would be a mortal threat to fire safety.


1996 California Proposition 218, Proposition 218 Election Campaign, Campaign Opposition and Support
The supporters of Proposition 218 focused on the primary benefit that voters would have the constitutional right to vote on local government taxes. Proposition 218 supporters also urged voters to review their property tax bill which would confirm the growing list of property-related fees, charges and special assessments imposed by local governments without voter approval.


1996 California Proposition 218, Proposition 218 Election Campaign, Election Results and Summary Statistics
Proposition 218 passed with 56.55% support statewide, representing a margin of victory of 13.1 percentage points.


1996 California Proposition 218, Proposition 218 Election Campaign, Election Results and Summary Statistics
Proposition 218 passed in 54 (93%) of the 58 counties in California.


1996 California Proposition 218, Proposition 218 Election Campaign, Election Results and Summary Statistics
Proposition 218 passed in 405 (86%) of the 469 cities in California in 1996.


1996 California Proposition 218, Proposition 218 Election Campaign, Election Results and Summary Statistics
Proposition 218 passed in 67 (84%) of the 80 current State Assembly Districts and 34 (85%) of the 40 current State Senate Districts in California (based on 2011 Redistricting currently in effect). This means that Proposition 218 passed in the overwhelming majority of current state legislative districts in California without regard to the political party representation (Democrat or Republican) in those districts. For the 2019–20 Legislative Session, Proposition 218 passed in 79% of the legislative districts held by Democrats and in 100% of the legislative districts held by Republicans.


1996 California Proposition 218, Proposition 218 Election Campaign, Election Results and Summary Statistics
Proposition 218 received 62% support in the 26 California counties with a Republican voter registration advantage and 54% support in the 32 California counties with a Democratic voter registration advantage during the November 1996 statewide election.


1996 California Proposition 218, Proposition 218 Election Campaign, Election Results and Summary Statistics
What made the Proposition 218 victory so unusual was that it was behind in nearly all the polls, especially final polls just before the election. Polling from the Proposition 218 opposition campaign revealed the measure was expected to lose by about 15 percentage points. Proposition 218 was also significantly behind in the final Field Poll with only 36% support from likely voters. Proposition 218 ended up winning by 13 percentage points. The large variation between the final polling numbers and the election results was a politically rare event for statewide initiative measures in California.


1996 California Proposition 218, Profound Impact on California Governance
Following the November 1996 election, a high level official from the California State Association of Counties wrote that Proposition 218 "profoundly changes the way California is governed" and "may prove to be the most revolutionary act in the history of California."


1996 California Proposition 218, Profound Impact on California Governance
The author of an article in a League of California Cities publication wrote the following about the passage of Proposition 218: "Voters now hold the power to direct or withdraw monetary resources for government functions. Motivated by distrust, the voters' objective was to replace reliance on elected representatives with direct voter control over local government finances."


1996 California Proposition 218, Profound Impact on California Governance
Joel Fox, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association when Proposition 218 passed, stated that Proposition 218 is "not in the Proposition 13 class, but it's the next level."


1996 California Proposition 218, Article XIII C – Local Government Taxes
Section 3 of Proposition 218 added Article XIII C to the California Constitution. Article XIII C relates primarily to local government taxes, including applicable voter approval requirements.


1996 California Proposition 218, Article XIII C – Local Government Taxes, Constitutional Definitions
Section 1 of Article XIII C contains definitions applicable to the article.


1996 California Proposition 218, Article XIII C – Local Government Taxes, Constitutional Definitions, "Local Government"
Section 1 definitions include the term "local government" setting forth the public entities subject to the article. The term "local government" for purposes of Proposition 218 is very broadly defined to counter a previous narrow interpretation given by the California Supreme Court under Proposition 13 which created loopholes allowing some local agencies to circumvent constitutional voter approval requirements for taxes. Government entities subject to Proposition 218 are local and regional governments, including counties, cities, a city and county, school districts, community college districts, public authorities, joint powers agencies, and special districts such as water or fire districts. The "local government" definition also expressly states that it includes charter cities having a local charter (similar to a local constitution) as their primary source of power.


1996 California Proposition 218, Article XIII C – Local Government Taxes, Constitutional Definitions, Local Tax Types
Section 1 also defines the types of taxes local governments may levy. A "general tax" is any tax imposed for general governmental purposes. A "special tax" is any tax imposed for specific purposes, including a tax imposed for specific purposes which is placed into a general fund. The general versus special tax distinction existed in California prior to Proposition 218, but Proposition 218 contains a broader definition of "special tax" as also including taxes imposed for specific purposes that are placed into a general fund.


1996 California Proposition 218, Article XIII C – Local Government Taxes, Constitutional Definitions, Local Tax Types
If a local government tax is legally dedicated for one or more specific purposes it is a special tax. Proposition 218 also requires certain taxes relating to real property (e.g., parcel taxes) be levied as special taxes. Proposition 218 further specifies that many local governments, including school districts, do not have the power to levy general taxes which means that such local governments (known as special purpose districts or agencies) can only legally levy special taxes.


1996 California Proposition 218, Article XIII C – Local Government Taxes, Constitutional Definitions, Local Tax Types
To the extent a local government has the power to levy a general tax and that a particular tax is not required to be levied as a special tax, a tax is general only when its revenues are placed into the general fund of the local government and are available for expenditure for any and all governmental purposes.


1996 California Proposition 218, Article XIII C – Local Government Taxes, Constitutional Definitions, "Tax" Definition and Proposition 26 (2010)
During the November 2010 General Election, California voters passed Proposition 26 which, in part, added a broad constitutional definition of "tax" for purposes of Proposition 218. Proposition 218 did not include a specific constitutional definition of "tax," but California appellate courts, prior to the passage of Proposition 26 in 2010, generally broadly construed what constitutes a "tax" such as concluding that a 911 "fee" was really a special tax subject to two-thirds voter approval.


1996 California Proposition 218, Article XIII C – Local Government Taxes, Constitutional Definitions, "Tax" Definition and Proposition 26 (2010)
If a local government levy, charge or exaction is a "tax" under the Proposition 26 constitutional definition, then voter approval is required under Proposition 218 if that tax is a new tax, an increased tax, or a tax extension. A local government levy that is not a tax under Proposition 26 may nonetheless be subject to Proposition 218 constitutional protections under Article XIII D if the levy is either a special assessment on real property or a property-related fee or charge.


1996 California Proposition 218, Article XIII C – Local Government Taxes, Constitutional Definitions, "Tax" Definition and Proposition 26 (2010)
Local government fees and charges that are neither taxes under Proposition 26 nor subject to Article XIII D are generally subject to reduction or repeal using the local initiative power under Proposition 218, including the significantly reduced signature requirement thereunder. This gives local voters a legislative remedy to hold an election concerning a nontax levy approved by a local government where an election is not automatically required by Proposition 218.


1996 California Proposition 218, Article XIII C – Local Government Taxes, Constitutional Definitions, "Tax" Definition and Proposition 26 (2010)
One example is a fee on the extraction of groundwater. In 2017, the California Supreme Court held that a fee imposed upon persons on the extraction of groundwater is no longer a property-related fee subject to the requirements of Proposition 218, although such fees remain subject to Proposition 26 provisions defining when a local levy is a tax.


1996 California Proposition 218, Article XIII C – Local Government Taxes, Voter Approval Requirements and Related Provisions for Local Taxes
Section 2 of Article XIII C contains the voter approval requirements for local government taxes. Under Proposition 218, every local government tax is either a general tax or a special tax. Proposition 218 does not allow a local tax to be a hybrid tax. The type of tax a local government imposes (general or special) is legally significant because it determines the applicable voter approval requirement.


1996 California Proposition 218, Article XIII C – Local Government Taxes, Voter Approval Requirements and Related Provisions for Local Taxes
Special purpose districts or agencies, including school districts, have no power to levy general taxes and can only impose special taxes. This restriction is based on prior judicial interpretations of Proposition 13 which Proposition 218 constitutionalized. As a practical matter, only a city or a county has the power to levy a majority vote general tax under Proposition 218.


1996 California Proposition 218, Article XIII C – Local Government Taxes, Voter Approval Requirements and Related Provisions for Local Taxes
The voter approval requirement under Proposition 218 was generally upheld by a California appellate court in 1998 as not constituting an unconstitutional referendum.


1996 California Proposition 218, Article XIII C – Local Government Taxes, Voter Approval Requirements and Related Provisions for Local Taxes, When Voter Approval Required
The voter approval requirement for taxes under Proposition 218 is triggered when a local government "imposes," "extends," or "increases" a tax. What constitutes a tax "increase" under Proposition 218 was broadly construed by a California appellate court in 2007. The applicable electorate for conducting a local tax election is generally the registered voters of the local government.


1996 California Proposition 218, Article XIII C – Local Government Taxes, Voter Approval Requirements and Related Provisions for Local Taxes, When Voter Approval Required
New local government taxes require voter approval under Proposition 218. The term "imposed" for purposes of triggering the voter approval requirement under Proposition 218 typically refers to the first enactment of a tax.


1996 California Proposition 218, Article XIII C – Local Government Taxes, Voter Approval Requirements and Related Provisions for Local Taxes, When Voter Approval Required
When local governments "increase" a local tax, voter approval is required under Proposition 218. The California Legislature adopted a statute interpreting the term "increase" for purposes of Proposition 218 although the courts have final say in interpreting the applicable constitutional language.


1996 California Proposition 218, Article XIII C – Local Government Taxes, Voter Approval Requirements and Related Provisions for Local Taxes, When Voter Approval Required
A tax is "increased" for purposes of Proposition 218 when a local government makes a decision that does any of the following: (1) increases any applicable rate used to calculate the tax; or (2) revises the methodology by which the tax is calculated, if that revision results in an increased amount being levied on any person or parcel of property. The term "methodology" refers to a mathematical equation for calculating taxes that is officially sanctioned by a local government. In practical terms, a tax is "increased" under Proposition 218 if the math behind it is altered so that either a larger tax rate or a larger tax base is part of the calculation.


1996 California Proposition 218, Article XIII C – Local Government Taxes, Voter Approval Requirements and Related Provisions for Local Taxes, When Voter Approval Required
An example application of the foregoing to an unresolved legal issue is when utility rates are increased in local governments having a related utility users tax. A utility rate increase can also result in increased utility user tax payments and revenues for the benefit of the local government. A properly levied utility rate increase can be applied for purposes of generating increased utility revenues, but if those increased utility rates are also applied for purposes of generating increased utility user tax revenues, that might be a tax "increase" for purposes of triggering the voter approval requirement under Proposition 218.


1996 California Proposition 218, Article XIII C – Local Government Taxes, Voter Approval Requirements and Related Provisions for Local Taxes, When Voter Approval Required
A tax is not "increased" under Proposition 218 when a local government does either or both of the following: (1) adjusts the amount of a tax in accordance with a schedule of adjustments, including a clearly defined formula for inflation adjustment that was adopted by the local government prior to the effective date of Proposition 218 (November 6, 1996); or (2) implements or collects a previously approved tax so long as the tax rate is not increased beyond the level previously approved by the local government, and the methodology previously approved by the local government is not revised so as to result in an increase in the amount being levied on any person or parcel of property.


1996 California Proposition 218, Article XIII C – Local Government Taxes, Voter Approval Requirements and Related Provisions for Local Taxes, When Voter Approval Required
A tax is also not "increased" under Proposition 218 in the case in which the actual payments from a person or property are higher than would have resulted when the local government approved the tax, if those higher payments are attributable to events other than an increased tax rate or revised methodology, such as a change in the density, intensity, or nature of the use of land.


1996 California Proposition 218, Article XIII C – Local Government Taxes, Voter Approval Requirements and Related Provisions for Local Taxes, When Voter Approval Required
When a local government "extends" a local tax, voter approval is required under Proposition 218. The California Legislature adopted a statute narrowly interpreting the term "extended" for purposes of the tax provisions of Proposition 218. However, the courts have final say in interpreting the applicable constitutional language.


1996 California Proposition 218, Article XIII C – Local Government Taxes, Voter Approval Requirements and Related Provisions for Local Taxes, When Voter Approval Required
A tax is "extended" for purposes of Proposition 218 when, as applied to an existing tax, a local government extends the stated effective period for the tax, including, but not limited to, amendment or removal of a sunset provision or expiration date. The term "extend" as applied to a tax has been interpreted not to apply to geographic areas in certain annexation proceedings. While expanding the geographic area subject to a tax may not constitute an "extension," it may constitute a tax "increase" and thereby trigger the voter approval requirement under Proposition 218 on that basis.


1996 California Proposition 218, Article XIII C – Local Government Taxes, Voter Approval Requirements and Related Provisions for Local Taxes, When Voter Approval Required
Some local governments have combined in the same ballot measure a minor tax reduction (which does not require voter approval) with a tax base expansion that does require voter approval under Proposition 218 because it is considered a tax increase. This is often done with utility user tax "modernization" measures with the nominal tax rate reduction component serving to make the tax more politically attractive to voters.


1996 California Proposition 218, Article XIII C – Local Government Taxes, Voter Approval Requirements and Related Provisions for Local Taxes, When Voter Approval Required
When such a ballot measure is presented to voters, the full text of the measure should be reviewed so that voters will be more fully informed about the specifics of the tax proposal, particularly as it relates to any expansion of the tax base which is the legal reason why the tax appears on the ballot for voter approval.


1996 California Proposition 218, Article XIII C – Local Government Taxes, Voter Approval Requirements and Related Provisions for Local Taxes, When Voter Approval Required
Controversy also exists whether utility user tax "modernization" measures permit local governments to impose taxes on online video streaming services. With regard to previously approved "modernization" measures, voters may have unknowingly authorized the imposition of taxes on online video streaming services. This places greater emphasis on the need for voters to carefully review the text of any tax "modernization" measure to determine whether taxes on online video streaming services would be authorized. To the extent that previously approved tax "modernization" measures are interpreted to include taxes on online video streaming services, voters/taxpayers have an available legislative remedy using the local initiative power under Proposition 218 to reduce or repeal any tax on online video streaming services.


1996 California Proposition 218, Article XIII C – Local Government Taxes, Voter Approval Requirements and Related Provisions for Local Taxes, General Tax Vote Requirement
Under Article XIII C, a local government may not impose, extend, or increase any general tax unless the tax is first submitted to the electorate and approved by a majority vote. Proposition 218 requires that general tax elections be consolidated with a regularly scheduled general election for members of the governing body of the local government, except in cases of an emergency declared by a unanimous vote of the governing body. The California Supreme Court construed the election consolidation requirement to not apply when a general tax is proposed by the voters exercising the local initiative power.


1996 California Proposition 218, Article XIII C – Local Government Taxes, Voter Approval Requirements and Related Provisions for Local Taxes, General Tax Vote Requirement
Some local governments, in an effort to accelerate the election date for a general tax measure, have invoked the emergency exception applicable to the election consolidation requirement under questionable circumstances. When this occurs, often the only practical remedy available to voters is to make the emergency exception controversy a political issue during the election campaign, especially since significant additional special election costs are usually incurred as a result of invoking the emergency exception.


1996 California Proposition 218, Article XIII C – Local Government Taxes, Voter Approval Requirements and Related Provisions for Local Taxes, General Tax Vote Requirement
Since general taxes are not legally dedicated for specific purposes, they can generally be spent at the complete discretion of local politicians, including on public employee salaries and benefits.


1996 California Proposition 218, Article XIII C – Local Government Taxes, Voter Approval Requirements and Related Provisions for Local Taxes, General Tax Vote Requirement
Some local governments in an effort to evade the two-thirds voter approval requirement for special taxes under Proposition 218 may express legally nonbinding intent to spend general tax proceeds for one or more specific purposes. This may be done in several forms such as the adoption of intent language before the tax election date, the formation of an advisory committee relating to the expenditure of the tax proceeds, or by placing a companion advisory measure on the same election ballot. Use of a companion advisory measure associated with an unrestricted local tax measure was found by a California appellate court to be a general tax notwithstanding the expanded special tax definition under Proposition 218.


1996 California Proposition 218, Article XIII C – Local Government Taxes, Voter Approval Requirements and Related Provisions for Local Taxes, General Tax Vote Requirement
Controversial general tax measures intended for one or more specific purposes also have the effect of circumventing California accountability laws designed to protect taxpayers by ensuring that local government taxes imposed for specific purposes are actually spent as set forth in the ballot measure.


1996 California Proposition 218, Article XIII C – Local Government Taxes, Voter Approval Requirements and Related Provisions for Local Taxes, General Tax Vote Requirement
Local governments also sometimes refer to a general tax as a "vital services" tax in order to make the tax more politically attractive to voters. A true general tax under Proposition 218 can generally be spent on public services or programs that are not deemed "vital" by a local government. This can include controversial purposes such as financing high public employee salaries and benefits or paying for excessive public employee pension obligations.


1996 California Proposition 218, Article XIII C – Local Government Taxes, Voter Approval Requirements and Related Provisions for Local Taxes, General Tax Vote Requirement
General tax proceeds placed into the general fund of a local government may generally not be subsequently pledged to repay bonded indebtedness. A general tax must be available for expenditure for any and all governmental purposes in order to remain a valid general tax.


1996 California Proposition 218, Article XIII C – Local Government Taxes, Voter Approval Requirements and Related Provisions for Local Taxes, General Tax Vote Requirement
When a controversial general tax measure is presented by a local government, often the only practical remedy available to voters is to make the controversial tax measure a political issue during the election campaign. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association has published various "taxpayer tools" to assist taxpayers in situations such as when a controversial general tax measure is placed on the ballot by a local government.


1996 California Proposition 218, Article XIII C – Local Government Taxes, Voter Approval Requirements and Related Provisions for Local Taxes, Special Tax Vote Requirement
A local government may not impose, extend, or increase any special tax unless the tax is first submitted to the electorate and approved by a two-thirds vote. Proposition 218 contains an additional requirement that any tax subject to voter approval assessed upon a parcel of real property or upon a person as an incident of real property ownership must be a special tax subject to two-thirds voter approval. As a practical matter, this means all parcel taxes (taxes on real property not based on the assessed value of the property) must be levied as special taxes subject to two-thirds voter approval.


1996 California Proposition 218, Article XIII C – Local Government Taxes, Voter Approval Requirements and Related Provisions for Local Taxes, Application of Proposition 218 Tax Restrictions to Local Initiatives
In California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, 3 Cal. 5th 924 (August 2017), the California Supreme Court in a controversial 5–2 split decision held that the election consolidation requirement applicable to general taxes under Proposition 218 does not apply to a local tax initiative placed on the ballot by the electorate exercising the local initiative power.


1996 California Proposition 218, Article XIII C – Local Government Taxes, Voter Approval Requirements and Related Provisions for Local Taxes, Application of Proposition 218 Tax Restrictions to Local Initiatives
The California Cannabis Coalition decision has raised issues concerning whether the voter approval requirements for local taxes under Proposition 218 also apply to a local tax initiative placed on the ballot by the electorate exercising the local initiative power. However, the California Cannabis Coalition case did not involve the voter approval requirements under Proposition 218, but rather involved a narrow election timing issue (the election consolidation requirement) applicable only to general taxes which under Proposition 218 may only be levied by cities or counties in California.


1996 California Proposition 218, Article XIII C – Local Government Taxes, Voter Approval Requirements and Related Provisions for Local Taxes, Application of Proposition 218 Tax Restrictions to Local Initiatives
A Proposition 218 specialist law firm representing local governments in California concluded that the California Cannabis Coalition case was a narrow decision that "leaves the two-thirds-voter-approval requirement for local taxes in place and makes only a very modest change to earlier understandings of Proposition 218 and the law of initiatives."


1996 California Proposition 218, Article XIII C – Local Government Taxes, Voter Approval Requirements and Related Provisions for Local Taxes, Application of Proposition 218 Tax Restrictions to Local Initiatives
In support of the foregoing conclusion, the analysis stated: "The Court goes on, however, to make clear the two-thirds-voter-approval requirement for special taxes – taxes which may be spent only for a stated purpose – does apply to initiatives: 'In article XIII C, section 2, subdivision (d), for example, the enactors adopted a requirement providing that, before a local government can impose, extend, or increase any special tax, voters must approve the tax by a two-thirds vote. That constitutes a higher vote requirement than would otherwise apply. ... That the voters explicitly imposed a procedural two-thirds vote requirement on themselves in article XIII C, section 2, subdivision (d) is evidence that they did not implicitly impose a procedural timing requirement in subdivision (b).'"


1996 California Proposition 218, Article XIII C – Local Government Taxes, Voter Approval Requirements and Related Provisions for Local Taxes, Application of Proposition 218 Tax Restrictions to Local Initiatives
Although the California Cannabis Coalition decision was narrow, it has been heavily criticized because in an effort to grant deference to the local initiative power, "the court erred in the opposite direction by adopting an overly narrow reading of Proposition 218." Another article noted: "The court's decision represents a ridiculously narrow vision of what was intended by Proposition 218." Proposition 218 constitutionally requires that its provisions be "liberally construed to effectuate its purposes of limiting local government revenue and enhancing taxpayer consent."


1996 California Proposition 218, Article XIII C – Local Government Taxes, Voter Approval Requirements and Related Provisions for Local Taxes, Application of Proposition 218 Tax Restrictions to Local Initiatives
The California Supreme Court also previously stated that the constitutional provisions of Proposition 218 are of dignity at least equal to other provisions of the California Constitution. In addition, Proposition 218 also makes it expressly clear with prefacing language that its constitutional requirements applicable to taxes shall apply "[n]otwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution." The local initiative power is provided for in an "other provision of this Constitution." None of the foregoing were referenced in the majority opinion in the California Cannabis Coalition case.


1996 California Proposition 218, Article XIII C – Local Government Taxes, Voter Approval Requirements and Related Provisions for Local Taxes, Application of Proposition 218 Tax Restrictions to Local Initiatives
On October 13, 2017, California Governor Brown signed Assembly Bill No. 765 into law which repealed the initiative special election statutory provision (Section 9214 of the California Elections Code) that was at issue in the California Cannabis Coalition case.


1996 California Proposition 218, Article XIII C – Local Government Taxes, Voter Approval Requirements and Related Provisions for Local Taxes, Application of Proposition 218 Tax Restrictions to Local Initiatives
While the California Cannabis Coalition decision applied only to the election timing requirement for general taxes under Proposition 218, in Altadena Library District v. Bloodgood, 192 Cal. App. 3d 585 (June 1987) the two-thirds voter approval requirement for special taxes under Proposition 13, a different and older constitutional taxpayer protection provision, has previously been applied to a local initiative tax increase proposed by the electorate exercising the local initiative power. That constitutional two-thirds voter approval requirement under Proposition 13 is independent of Proposition 218 tax restrictions. The California Cannabis Coalition decision did not disapprove or otherwise disturb the 1987 Altadena Library District appellate court decision.