# 1980 Massachusetts Proposition 2½

Elections in Massachusetts :
General
1942
1944
1946
1948
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1970
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022 :
Federal government
U.S. President
1788–89
1792
1796
1800
1804
1808
1812
1816
1820
1824
1828
1832
1836
1840
1844
1848
1852
1856
1860
1864
1868
1872
1876
1880
1884
1888
1892
1896
1900
1904
1908
1912
1916
1920
1924
1928
1932
1936
1940
1944
1948
1952
1956
1960
1964
1968
1972
1976
1980
Dem
1984
1988
1992
1996
2000
Dem
2004
Dem
GOP
2008
Dem
GOP
2012
2016
Dem
GOP
2020
Dem
GOP
2024
Dem
GOP
U.S. Senate
Class 1: 1788
1790
1796 (S)
1796
1798
1800 (S)
1803
1808 (S)
1810 (S)
1811
1813 (S)
1815
1815 (S)
1816 (S)
1818 (S)
1820
1820 (S)
1822
1826
1827
1829 (S)
1833
1839
February 1841 (S)
1845
1851
1851 (S)
1857
1863
1869
1874 (S)
1875
1881
1887
1893
1899
1905
1911
1916
1922
1928
1934
1940
1946
1952
1958
1962 (S)
1964
1970
1976
1982
1988
1994
2000
2006
2010 (S)
2012
2018
2024
Class 2: 1788
1793
1796
1800 (S)
1803 (S)
1805
1810
1811 (S)
1816
1822 (S)
1826 (S)
1828
1835
January 1841 (S)
1841
1845 (S)
1847
1853
1855 (S)
1859
1865
1871
1873 (S)
1877
1883
1889
1895
1901
1905 (S)
1907
1913
1918
1924
1930
1936
1942
1944 (S)
1948
1954
1960
1966
1972
1978
1984
1990
1996
2002
2008
2013 (S)
2014
2020
U.S. House
1788/1789
1790/1792
1792/1793
1794/1795
1796/1797
1798/1799
1800/1801
1802/1803
1804
1806
1808
1810/1811
1812/1813
1814/1815
3rd
1816/1817
1818/1819
1820/1821
1822/1823
1824/1825
1826/1827
1828
1830/1832
1833/1834
1834/1835
1836
1838/1839
1840/1841
1842/1844
1844/1846
1846
1848/1850
1850/1851
1852
1854
1856
1858
1860
1862
1864
1866
1868
1870
1872
1874
1876
1878
1880
1882
1884
1886
1888
1890
1892
1894
1896
1898
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
1940
1942
1944
1946
1948
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1991 (1st)
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2001 (9th)
2002
2004
2006
2007 (5th)
2008
2010
2012
2013 (5th)
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024 :
State government
Governor
1780
1781
1782
1783
1784
1785
1786
1787
1788
1789
1790
1791
1792
1793
1794
1795
1796
1797
1798
1799
1800
1801
1802
1803
1804
1805
1806
1807
1808
1809
1810
1811
1812
1813
1814
1815
1816
1817
1818
1819
1820
1821
1822
1823
1824
1825
1826
1827
1828
1829
1830
Apr. 1831
Nov. 1831
1832
1833
1834
1835
1836
1837
1838
1839
1840
1841
1842
1843
1844
1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
1850
1851
1852
1853
1854
1855
1856
1857
1858
1859
1860
1861
1862
1863
1864
1865
1866
1867
1868
1869
1870
1871
1872
1873
1874
1875
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1886
1887
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
1940
1942
1944
1946
1948
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1970
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
2026
State Senate
1787
1824
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
State House
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2020
2022
2024
Governor's Council
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
2024
Ballot measures
1980: Proposition 2½
2002: English Language Education in Public Schools
2006: 2008
Greyhound Protection
Sensible Marijuana Policy
State Income Tax Repeal
2010: No Sales Tax for Alcohol
Sales Tax Relief
Comprehensive Permits and Regional Planning
2012: Right to Repair
Death with Dignity
Medical Marijuana
2014: Automatic Gas Tax Increase Repeal
Expansion of Bottle Deposits
Casino Repeal
Paid Sick Days
2016: Expand Slot Machine Gaming
Charter School Expansion
Farm Animal Confinement
Legalization, Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana
2018: Gender Identity Anti-Discrimination
2020: pending :
Boston
Mayor
1822
1823
1824
Apr 1825
Dec 1825
1826
1827
1828
1829
1830
1831
1832
1833
1834
1835
1836
1837
1838
1839
1840
1841
1842
1843
1844–45
Dec 1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
1850
1851
1852
1853–54
Dec 1854
1855
1856
1857
1858
1859
1860
1861
1862
1863
1864
1865
1866
1867
1868
1869
1871
1872
1873
1874
1875
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1886
1887
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895
1897
1899
1901
1903
1905
1907
1910
1914
1917
1921
1925
1929
1933
1937
1941
1945
1949
1951
1955
1959
1963
1967
1971
1975
1979
1983
1987
1991
1993
1997
2001
2005
2009
2013
2017
2021
2025
City council
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
2019
2021
2023 :
Springfield
Mayor
1953
1955
1957
1959
1961
1963
1965
1967
1969
1971
1973 (S)
1973
1975
1977
1979
1983
1981
1985
1987
1989 (S)
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2015
2019
2023 :
Worcester
Mayor
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
2019
2021
2023 :
Massachusetts portal :
vte :
Proposition 2½ (Mass. Gen. L. c. 59, § 21C) is a Massachusetts statute that limits property tax assessments and, secondarily, automobile excise tax levies by Massachusetts municipalities. The name of the initiative refers to the 2.5% ceiling on total property taxes annually as well as the 2.5% limit on property tax increases. It was passed by ballot measure, specifically called an initiative petition within Massachusetts state law for any form of referendum voting, in 1980 and went into effect in 1982. The effort to enact the proposition was led by the anti-tax group Citizens for Limited Taxation. It is similar to other "tax revolt" measures passed around the same time in other parts of the United States. This particular proposition followed the movements of states such as California.

## Voting

Proposition 2½ appeared with five other initiatives presented to Massachusetts voters on November 4, 1980. It was question 2 on the ballot, "Limiting local taxes (Proposition 2 1/2)".
| Response | Votes | % |
| Yes | 1,438,768 | 56% |
| No | 988,839 | 40% |
| blank | 129,060 | 5% |
Source:

## Real and personal property taxes

Under Proposition 2½, a municipality is subject to two property tax limits:
* Ceiling: The total annual property tax revenue raised by a municipality shall not exceed 2.5% of the assessed value of all taxable property contained in it.
* Increase limit: The annual increase of property tax cannot exceed 2.5%, plus the amount attributable to taxes that are from new real property.
These limits refer to the entire amount of the annual tax levy raised by a municipality. The property taxes are the sum of: (a) residential real property; (b) commercial real property; (c) industrial real property; and (d) business-owned personal property. In practice, it usually limits the tax bills of individual taxpayers, but only as an indirect result. The limits for each community are calculated by the Massachusetts Department of Revenue.
A side effect of Proposition 2½ is that municipality income will decline in real terms whenever inflation rises above 2.5%. Historically inflation has been above 2.5% for a significant majority of the years since 1980 (22 out of the 28 years to date), thus resulting in a real decline in local tax rates and local spending ability.
An exception allows the citizens of each municipality to override the 2½ restriction to address specific needs of the community thus giving the citizens direct control over their taxation.

## Vehicle excise tax

The excise tax for automobiles registered in Massachusetts was also lowered by Proposition 2½. Previously, this tax was levied at a rate of $66.00 per $1,000 of car valuation (6.6%). Proposition 2½ lowered this rate to $25.00 per $1,000 of car valuation, resulting in a 2½ per cent excise tax rate, but can still increase 264%, to the previous 6.6% tax rate if a Proposition 2½ operational override (see below) is approved by ballot in a community during a general (or special referendum) election.

## Exclusions

Proposition 2½ excludes four cases from the limitation on tax levy increases:
* "New growth": The Act allows for new growth. So, for example, when a new house is built, the tax levy may increase by the amount of taxes collected from that house.
And three types of exclusions granted by the majority of those voting in a municipal referendum:
* "Capital exclusion": Capital expenditure for the upcoming fiscal year;
* "Debt exclusion": For pre-1980 municipal debt or new debt issued for a designated purpose (e.g. bonds issued for a multi-year capital expense); or
* Water/sewer debt: For certain water and sewer system debt.

## Overrides and underrides

Municipalities may exceed or reduce the limits with the prior approval of the majority of those voting in a municipal referendum:
* "Operational override": Override the increase limit.
* "Underride": The levy limit is reduced. Such a vote can be started by the Massachusetts initiative petition procedure, or the municipal legislature.
The proposition originally required a two-thirds majority for passage of overrides, but the state legislature changed this to a simple majority in 1981.

## General consensus

A professional survey firm conducted half-hour phone interviews in 58 randomly selected cities in Massachusetts where 1,561 household heads answer questions about Proposition 2½. The results of the interview concluded that the people of Massachusetts thought that Proposition 2½ would lead to a more responsible government, more efficiency in local government, and more voter control over schools. The people also thought that public sector jobs would become riskier. Some feared for the loss of their jobs or the decline in quality of them. Another thing people expected were effects on clusters of services. The peoples' household services were feared to be changed greatly. The people of Massachusetts desired spending and taxing by state government, local government, and local public schools more than other places to spend tax dollars. Many people expected Proposition 2½ to lead to welfare reductions. Finally, analysis of the survey shows that voters who expected welfare to be cut back were more likely to support Proposition 2½.

## Results

Following the mandating of actual revenue reductions within the first couple of years, the effects and results of Proposition 2½ were limited. The lack of significant changes was due in part to the state government increasing general purpose aid to municipalities, which helped them to stay away from budget shortfalls. Effective property tax rates declining and an increase in community taxes were a result of various factors including a 64% increase in real estate aid to municipalities between 1981 and 1988, declining school expenses, and a region wide real estate boom. Reduced revenues in the 1980s caused the state to reduce local aid, which fell 12% in 1990, along with over 30% between 1989 and 1992. Over time, Proposition 2½ would have become more binding due to the fact that it is operated in nominal terms, meaning that the rules it follows do not change in response to prices, costs, or spending.

## Overrides and underrides

As of January 2009, municipalities had requested, via referendum, 4,449 overrides of Proposition 2½, of which 1,798 passed; 16 underrides were requested, of which nine passed.