Were Constitutional Protections for Property Rights Violated

The query raises concerns about property rights under the U.S. Constitution, specifically in relation to California Proposition 19 (enacted via ACA 11). Relevant provisions include:

• 5th Amendment: "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
• 14th Amendment: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

These clauses protect against arbitrary deprivation of property (due process) and uncompensated takings. Property tax reassessments under Proposition 19 could potentially implicate these if viewed as a regulatory taking or due process violation, though courts generally uphold uniform tax systems absent discrimination or arbitrariness.

Proposition 19, titled the "Home Protection for Seniors, Severely Disabled, Families, and Victims of Wildfire or Natural Disasters Act," amended the California Constitution by adding Sections 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 to Article XIII A. It was placed on the November 3, 2020 ballot via ACA 11 and narrowly approved by voters (51.11% yes).

Key provisions:

• Expanded Tax Base Transfers: Allows homeowners over 55, severely disabled persons, or wildfire/natural disaster victims to transfer their property tax assessment to a replacement primary residence anywhere in California (up to three times for over-55/disabled; once for disaster victims). Applies to purchases/constructions within two years of sale; upward adjustments for more expensive homes.
• Limited Family Transfers: Restricts parent-child and grandparent-grandchild exclusions from reassessment to principal residences or family farms. Reassesses at market value if not used as the recipient's primary home, with a $1 million exclusion (adjusted annually for inflation starting February 16, 2023).
• Revenue Allocation: Directs additional revenues/net savings to the California Fire Response Fund (75%, for fire suppression staffing) and County Revenue Protection Fund (15%, to reimburse counties for losses). Calculations begin in 2022.

Effective dates: April 1, 2021 (transfers for seniors/disabled/disaster victims); February 16, 2021 (family transfer limits).

This measure built on prior propositions (e.g., Prop 13 (1978), Prop 58 (1986), Prop 60 (1986)) but narrowed inheritance exclusions, leading to higher taxes on non-primary inherited properties.

ACA 11 was introduced as Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 11 on March 29, 2019, originally proposing to add Section 7.4 to Article IV of the California Constitution regarding the Office of the Legislative Analyst.

• Passed Assembly (original version): May 6, 2019.
• Last amended: June 20, 2020 (rewritten to address property tax transfers, exemptions, and revenue allocation— a "gut and amend" tactic).
• Senate passage: June 25, 2020 (29-5).
• Returned to Assembly with Senate amendments: June 25, 2020 (concurrence pending; could not be considered before June 27 under Assembly Rule 77).
• Assembly Rule 77 suspended: June 26, 2020.
• Assembly concurrence and passage: June 26, 2020 (56-5).
• Enrolled: June 29, 2020.
• Chaptered: July 1, 2020 (Res. Chapter 31, Statutes of 2020).

To meet the June 25, 2020, ballot deadline under Elections Code § 9040, the Legislature passed SB 300 (signed June 30, 2020), extending the deadline to July 1, 2020.

No public emergency was declared by the Governor to waive rules. The process involved a gut and amend, where the bill's original content (Legislative Analyst) was replaced with unrelated tax provisions.

One reported case illustrates potential harms: Sheri Duffy and her twin brother inherited their Sunnyvale childhood home after their mother's 2021 death. They supported Proposition 19 based on campaign ads claiming it would allow children to inherit homes "without any tax increases." Post-enactment, their home (valued over $2 million) was reassessed, raising taxes from $1,300 to $18,000 annually. Unable to pay, they sold for $2.4 million in August (each receiving $700,000 after distributions). Duffy felt "duped" by misleading endorsements, including from former Republican Party chair Jim Brulte, who later admitted being misled. This has fueled grassroots repeal efforts, arguing the measure raised taxes contrary to promises.

Such cases could support claims of voter deception, potentially violating election laws or due process if ads were knowingly false.

To challenge Proposition 19's constitutionality (e.g., as a taking, due process violation, or procedural flaw in ACA 11), options exist at federal and state levels. No major court cases have successfully invalidated it to date, but ongoing repeal efforts provide non-judicial avenues.

Federal Level

• U.S. District Court (e.g., Northern or Eastern District of California): File suit alleging 5th/14th Amendment violations (e.g., takings without compensation or unequal protection). Appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, then U.S. Supreme Court.
• U.S. Department of Justice (Civil Rights Division): If systemic discrimination (e.g., against families/inheritors), though unlikely for tax policy.
• Federal Legislators: Limited role, as this is state law; could advocate if broader implications (e.g., Rep. or Sen. from CA via amicus briefs).

State/Local Level

• California Superior Court: Initiate challenge in county court (e.g., where property is located) on state procedural grounds (e.g., Prop 54 violation) or U.S. constitutional claims. Appeal to California Court of Appeal, then California Supreme Court.
• California Attorney General: Defends state laws in court; could investigate false advertising claims under Business & Professions Code § 17500 (unfair competition). Contact: https://oag.ca.gov.
• California Secretary of State: Oversees elections; could review ballot measure processes for future reforms.
• Local Assessors/Boards of Equalization: Handle individual tax appeals (e.g., Los Angeles County Assessor for reassessment disputes).
• State Legislature: Propose amendments/repeals (requires 2/3 vote for constitutional changes). Contact Assembly/Senate members.
• Voter Initiatives: Ongoing repeal campaign led by Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA). A third attempt (Initiative #1935) entered circulation November 7, 2025, aiming for 2026 ballot to restore pre-Prop 19 family transfer rules. Prior efforts collected ~560,000 signatures in 2024 but fell short. Join via hjta.org/repealthedeathtax.

For affected individuals (e.g., Duffy-like cases), consult estate/tax attorneys for equitable relief or class actions. Statute of limitations for challenges (e.g., 4 years for contract-like claims) may apply.