California Article XIII A: Proposition 13, the 1% cap and two-thirds votes
On this page (10 sections)
Article XIII A is Proposition 13, adopted by initiative on June 6, 1978 Verified1. It caps property tax and makes new taxes harder to pass. Our reading: it is a main reason California cities lean on sales taxes, fees and charges rather than property tax.
Key takeaways
- Property tax can't exceed "One percent (1%) of the full cash value" (§1(a)), plus voter-approved debt (§1(b)).
- Value resets at purchase, new construction or change in ownership; otherwise it rises by inflation "not to exceed 2 percent" a year (§2).
- New or higher state taxes need two-thirds of each house (§3).
- Local special taxes need "a two-thirds vote of the qualified electors" (§4). Article XIII C later added rules for general taxes.
Section 1: The 1% cap
(a) The maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property shall not exceed One percent (1%) of the full cash value of such property. The one percent (1%) tax to be collected by the counties and apportioned according to law to the districts within the counties.
* New Article XIII A adopted June 6, 1978. Initiative measure.
(b) The limitation provided for in subdivision (a) shall not apply to ad valorem taxes or special assessments to pay the interest and redemption charges on any of the following:
(1) Indebtedness approved by the voters prior to July 1, 1978.
(2) Bonded indebtedness for the acquisition or improvement of real property approved on or after July 1, 1978, by two-thirds of the votes cast by the voters voting on the proposition.
(3) Bonded indebtedness incurred by a school district, community college district, or county office of education for the construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of school facilities, including the furnishing and equipping of school facilities, or the acquisition or lease of real property for school facilities, approved by 55 percent of the voters of the district or county, as appropriate, voting on the proposition on or after the effective date of the measure adding this paragraph. This paragraph shall apply only if the proposition approved by the voters and resulting in the bonded indebtedness includes all of the following accountability requirements:
(A) A requirement that the proceeds from the sale of the bonds be used only for the purposes specified in Article XIII A, Section 1(b)(3), and not for any other purpose, including teacher and administrator salaries and other school operating expenses.
(B) A list of the specific school facilities projects to be funded and certification that the school district board, community college board, or county office of education has evaluated safety, class size reduction, and information technology needs in developing that list.
(C) A requirement that the school district board, community college board, or county office of education conduct an annual, independent performance audit to ensure that the funds have been expended only on the specific projects listed.
(D) A requirement that the school district board, community college board, or county office of education conduct an annual, independent financial audit of the proceeds from the sale of the bonds until all of those proceeds have been expended for the school facilities projects.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provisions of law or of this Constitution, school districts, community college districts, and county offices of education may levy a 55 percent vote ad valorem tax pursuant to subdivision (b).
[As amended November 7, 2000. Initiative measure.]
Source: California Constitution as published by the California State Senate (current through November 5, 2024) Verified1
Exceptions. The cap doesn't apply to taxes paying for "Indebtedness approved by the voters prior to July 1, 1978," bonds for real property approved "by two-thirds of the votes cast," and school bonds approved by "55 percent of the voters" with accountability requirements (§1(b)) Verified1.
Section 2: Value and the 2% cap
Section 2 is over 17,000 characters. Read it in full on our California Constitution pages. The core:
"The 'full cash value' means the county assessor's valuation of real property as shown on the 1975–76 tax bill under 'full cash value' or, thereafter, the appraised value of real property when purchased, newly constructed, or a change in ownership has occurred after the 1975 assessment." (§2(a)) Verified1
"The full cash value base may reflect from year to year the inflationary rate not to exceed 2 percent for any given year or reduction as shown in the consumer price index or comparable data for the area under taxing jurisdiction" (§2(b)) Verified1
§2 also contains disaster and seismic-retrofit rules, transfers by older and disabled homeowners, and Section 2.1's family-property rules Verified1. Subdivision (h) became "inoperative February 16, 2021, pursuant to Section 2.1 of this article" Verified1.
Section 3: State taxes
(a) Any change in state statute which results in any taxpayer paying a higher tax must be imposed by an act passed by not less than two-thirds of all members elected to each of the two houses of the Legislature, except that no new ad valorem taxes on real property, or sales or transaction taxes on the sales of real property may be imposed.
(b) As used in this section, “tax” means any levy, charge, or exaction of any kind imposed by the State, except the following:
(1) A charge imposed for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the State of conferring the benefit or granting the privilege to the payor.
(2) A charge imposed for a specific government service or product provided directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the State of providing the service or product to the payor.
(3) A charge imposed for the reasonable regulatory costs to the State incident to issuing licenses and permits, performing investigations, inspections, and audits, enforcing agricultural marketing orders, and the administrative enforcement and adjudication thereof.
(4) A charge imposed for entrance to or use of state property, or the purchase, rental, or lease of state property, except charges governed by Section 15 of Article XI.
(5) A fine, penalty, or other monetary charge imposed by the judicial branch of government or the State, as a result of a violation of law.
(c) Any tax adopted after January 1, 2010, but prior to the effective date of this act, that was not adopted in compliance with the requirements of this
section is void 12 months after the effective date of this act unless the tax is reenacted by the Legislature and signed into law by the Governor in compliance with the requirements of this section.
(d) The State bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a levy, charge, or other exaction is not a tax, that the amount is no more than necessary to cover the reasonable costs of the governmental activity, and that the manner in which those costs are allocated to a payor bear a fair or reasonable relationship to the payor’s burdens on, or benefits received from, the governmental activity. [As amended November 2, 2010. Initiative measure.]
Source: California Constitution as published by the California State Senate (current through November 5, 2024) Verified1
Section 3's definition of "tax" parallels the local definition in Article XIII C, §1(e) Verified1.
Section 4: Local special taxes
Cities, Counties and special districts, by a two-thirds vote of the qualified electors of such district, may impose special taxes on such district, except ad valorem taxes on real property or a transaction tax or sales tax on the sale of real property within such City, County or special district. [New section adopted June 6, 1978. Initiative measure.]
Source: California Constitution as published by the California State Senate (current through November 5, 2024) Verified1
"Special" means earmarked. The Supreme Court read "special taxes" to cover "taxes earmarked for a specific purpose" (City and County of San Francisco v. Farrell (1982) 32 Cal.3d 47) Verified2. In Richmond (1982), a transportation sales tax adopted by majority vote stood: "We hold that the sales tax in issue here was validly adopted by a majority vote" (Los Angeles County Transportation Com. v. Richmond (1982) 31 Cal.3d 197) Verified3. Voters closed many of those gaps in 1996 with Article XIII C, which sorts every local tax into general or special Verified1.
The constitutional challenge
Opponents argued Proposition 13 was too sweeping to be adopted by initiative. The Court disagreed: "We conclude that article XIII A fairly may be deemed a constitutional amendment, not a revision" (Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1978) 22 Cal.3d 208) Verified4. The U.S. Supreme Court later rejected an equal protection challenge to acquisition-value assessment (Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1 (1992)) Verified5.
Sections 5–7
| Section | Heading | Status |
|---|---|---|
| § 1 | Maximum Ad Valorem Tax on Real Property—Apportionment of Tax Revenues | In force |
| § 2 | Valuation of Real Property—Appraised Value After 1975 Assessment—Replacement Dwelling | In force |
| § 2.1 | Limitations on Property Tax Increases for Primary Residences | In force |
| § 2.2 | California Fire Response Fund and County Revenue Protection Fund | In force |
| § 2.3 | County Property Tax Revenue Gains Resulting from Real Property Transfers | In force |
| § 3 | Changes in State Taxes—Vote Requirement—Definition of “Tax” | In force |
| § 4 | Imposition of Special Taxes | In force |
| § 5 | Effective Date of Article | In force |
| § 6 | Severability | In force |
| § 7 | California Children and Families First Act of 1998 | In force |
Section headings and status come from the Senate's published text Verified1.
In Williams
- Your tax bill reflects the 1% cap plus any voter-approved debt Verified1. Colusa County collects and apportions it ("The one percent (1%) tax to be collected by the counties") Verified1.
- A new Williams special tax (for example, a parcel tax for a named service) needs two-thirds voter approval (§4; XIII C §2(d)) Verified1.
- General law cities can levy charter-city taxes "subject to the voters' approval pursuant to Article XIIIA" (Gov. Code §37100.5) Verified6.
Common misconceptions
- "Prop 13 freezes taxes." No. Assessed value can rise up to 2% a year and resets on sale or new construction (§2) Verified1.
- "Prop 13 only affects homes." It applies to "real property" generally Verified1.
Check yourself
Pick an answer for each question. You will see right away if it is right, and why.
Show the answer and why
One percent of full cash value Verified1.
Show the answer and why
Up to 2 percent, tracking inflation (§2(b)) Verified1.
Show the answer and why
Two-thirds of qualified electors (§4) Verified1.
Show the answer and why
No. Amador held it "fairly may be deemed a constitutional amendment, not a revision" Verified4.
Show the answer and why
- Approving a new Williams parcel tax for a named service: Williams voters
- Collecting the 1% property tax: Colusa County
- Setting a property's assessed value: Colusa County
A new Williams special tax, such as a parcel tax for a named service, needs two-thirds voter approval. Colusa County collects and apportions the 1% tax, and full cash value is the county assessor's valuation.
From this lesson: “A new Williams special tax (for example, a parcel tax for a named service) needs two-thirds voter approval (§4; XIII C §2(d)).”
Sources cited on this page
- Constitutions of California and the United States, 2025-26 edition (PDF) California Constitution as last amended November 5, 2024. ↗
- City and County of San Francisco v. Farrell (1982) 32 Cal.3d 47 Full opinion text read in the Caselaw Access Project copy. Quotes on this site were machine-checked against that text. ↗
- Los Angeles County Transportation Com. v. Richmond (1982) 31 Cal.3d 197 Full opinion text read in the Caselaw Access Project copy. Quotes on this site were machine-checked against that text. ↗
- Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1978) 22 Cal.3d 208 Full opinion text read in the Caselaw Access Project copy. Quotes on this site were machine-checked against that text. ↗
- Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1 (1992) Full opinion text read on the LII copy. Quotes on this site were machine-checked against that text. ↗
- Government Code §37100.5 (general law city may levy charter-city taxes, with voter approval) Unofficial copy of the statute, read directly. Confirm on leginfo before relying on it. ↗
Page last updated: · Site last built: