Progeny of Proposition 13

There he goes again. Six years after winning passage of California's tax-slashing Proposition 13, Howard Jarvis is on another antitax crusade. He is canvassing the state to win support for Proposition 36, the most controversial initiative on the California ballot this November. The measure is designed to plug the loopholes that local governments have used to maintain revenues since Proposition 13 cut property taxes by 51% in 1978. "If you liked 13," says Jarvis, "then vote for 36!"

Jarvis' proposal is one of more than 200 initiatives and referendums that voters in 42 states will be considering on Nov. 6. This year's economic recovery has led to some sweeping antitax initiatives recalling the tax revolt that peaked with Proposition 13. California, Michigan and Nevada, for example, have proposals on the ballot that would not only limit property taxes but also restrict state and local governments from using fees or other sources to raise revenue without voter approval.

In California, Jarvis and his team have used sophisticated direct-mail techniques to raise nearly $4 million and gather more than a million signatures for Proposition 36. Analysts point out that the measure would reduce local agencies' revenues by an estimated $2.8 billion and school revenues by about $750 million over the course of two years. The $1.7 billion property-tax rebate that it proposes would go to perhaps 40% of California's households, leaving out renters and people who have bought homes since 1978. Businesses might some day also have to pay higher taxes to keep California solvent if Proposition 36 crimps other revenue sources. Standard & Poor's has shaken up investors by placing many of California's bonds on its "credit watch" list. Land developers, corporations, investment banks and labor unions are expected to spend $2 million to fight the proposal. Says John Hay, president of the California Chamber of Commerce: "It's a can of worms, horribly flawed, poorly written and researched." Jarvis calls his opponents "clowns" and "turkeys," branding their arguments "crapola." A poll last week showed the battle over Proposition 36 too close to call.

Michigan's counterpart to Proposition 36 is Proposal C. The measure would roll back state and local property taxes to 1981 levels and would require voter approval of any new tax increase. Moreover, an increase in license-plate fees and other state-agency charges would have to be approved by a four-fifths majority in the state legislature.

Opponents of the measure claim that it would cut state and local revenues by $1 billion and eliminate some 20,000 jobs. Democratic Governor James Blanchard, who says that Proposal C would devastate Michigan's fragile economy, has assembled a coalition of business, labor, education and political leaders to fight the measure.

While nuclear freeze initiatives appeared on ballots in nine states in 1982, there is only one of them this year. South Dakota's Measure No. 3 would require the Governor to notify the Federal Government that "the people of South Dakota mandate a verifiable nuclear-arms freeze." Voters in Santa Monica, Calif., Ann Arbor, Mich., and 14 other municipalities will decide on Nuclear Free Zone proposals, plans that would outlaw nuclear-weapons activities, including research.

In Colorado, citizens will vote on whether to prohibit all state spending for abortions, even in cases in which the mother's life is in danger. West Virginia voters will decide whether to authorize "voluntary contemplation, meditation or prayer in school classrooms." Perhaps the most academic proposition is one on the Oklahoma ballot: it would eliminate the tax exemption for Civil War soldiers and their widows, which would affect all potential taxpayers still alive from that 120-year-old conflict.