- Legalization of gaming and drugs continued to expand, with seven states approving new or additional taxing power from nontraditional revenue sources.
- Results from income tax increases were mixed, with the three major initiatives resulting in three different outcomes.
- Only two states had bond referendums on the ballot this year, but they all passed.
- Highlights from local government elections include some changes in property tax exemptions and police reforms in light of recent demonstrations across the country.
Voters weighed in on statewide ballot measures in 22 states on Nov. 3. Many of these were approved, with a clear preference for increasing "sin tax" revenues from gaming and legalized drugs. At S&P Global Ratings, our primary focus on ballot results is how credit quality could be affected; this generally stems from revenue increases and decreases, or a notable rise in expenditures. As more states turn to nontraditional revenue sources to support operations, we are also watching the long-term trend and stability of the new revenues.
Widespread Support Of Nontraditional Revenue Sources Including Gaming/Sports Betting, Marijuana
In recent years, various states have looked to legalization--and subsequently taxation--of retail marijuana. This seemed to continue with overwhelming support from voters, as all such measures on the ballots across the country passed. Arizona, Montana, New Jersey, and South Dakota approved the legalization of recreational marijuana, while voters in Mississippi and South Dakota approved medical marijuana programs. Colorado legalized marijuana some years ago, but this November asked voters for an increase in the nicotine tax, and Oregon increased taxes on tobacco products. We expect that more states will pass measures like this but expect their overall effect on state finances to be marginal. Additionally, as more states legislate these kinds of revenues, we expect that as legalization of marijuana becomes more widespread, the growth of revenues from these taxes will slow over time as marijuana becomes more readily accessible. (See our report, "Is Marijuana Legalization The Answer To States' Budget Pressures?," published Feb. 21. 2019, on RatingsDirect)
Measures to expand gaming and betting also received support, with Nebraska approving three measures including enacting taxes on racetrack activities. Maryland and South Dakota also expanded gaming activities within the states. While not a statewide measure, Louisiana's voters approved sports betting in a majority of its parishes. All states that permit commercial casino gaming levy some form of wagering tax on adjusted gross receipts or gross gaming receipts less any payout for prizes.
Although none of these nontraditional sources make up significant components of a state's revenue, we do view the diversity of revenue sources as a net positive.
Mixed Results For Income Tax Changes
Three states had income tax changes on the ballot (Arizona, Colorado, and Illinois). While a voter initiative to reduce income tax rates passed in Colorado (to 4.55% from 4.63%), in Arizona voters approved an initiative to increase income tax on residents with incomes above $250,000. The measure sets up a separate tax bracket for residents that would increase the top rate to 8% from 4.5% on incomes above $250,000 (or $500,000 for joint filers). The additional revenue derived from the increased tax rate will be used solely to fund education.
Additional revenues at the state level can bode well for state revenue sharing for schools and local governments, and results for state-level tax increases varied. When revenue increases at the state level either enhance—or stave off cuts—to locals, the credit impact can be net positive.
Illinois voters did not approve a legislative measure to replace the state's flat income tax rate with a graduated income tax, which would have been significant in addressing the state's current budget challenges. (For additional information, see our summary report for Illinois published Oct. 7, 2020.) Limited support for increased income taxes is not surprising, particularly during an economic contraction. However, if this trend continues, states will have to look to other options to balance budgets as the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on state revenues contribute to varying degrees of budget and liquidity stress across states.
There is no immediate credit impact for local governments in Arizona, Illinois, or Colorado as a result of the electorates' vote on income tax, but we are watching how it could affect local operations over the long term.
Few Requests For State Bond Issuances During A Tepid Economic Recovery
Two states, California and New Mexico, included new bond authorization questions this year, unlike in 2018 when six states had bond authorizations on the ballot. New Mexico was successful, as was California. Such authorizations can provide funding for various programs, taking advantage of favorable market conditions. In our view the decline of bond authorization measures could reflect the uncertainty of the recovery from the recent COVID-19 induced recession. S&P Global Ratings has noted that in the decade following the Great Recession state governments generally reduced their overall debt burden. (See "Infrastructure After COVID-19: Risk Of Another Lost Decade Of U.S. State Government Capital Investment," Oct. 2, 2020.)
Local Government: Some Shifts In Who Bears The Property Tax Burden
Across the U.S., voters approved multiple statewide measures that resonate down to the local government level. This includes some indication of an incremental shift in property taxpayers from residents to business, such as more homestead exemptions for segments of society such as veterans and senior citizens. Measures supporting these changes passed in Florida, Virginia, Louisiana, and New Jersey. These changes also represent a shift to more support for the social 'S' in ESG. Exceptions to this include votes in California and Colorado where voters decided not to shift the property tax burden more heavily to businesses:
- California's property tax regime under Proposition 13 remains intact: A proposed seismic shift that would have changed the manner in which assessed valuations are determined for business properties (Proposition 15) was narrowly defeated, while amendments to Proposition 13 at the margins, such as those that benefit seniors, continue to be approved (Proposition 19).
- Repeal of the Gallagher Amendment in Colorado (Amendment B) resulted in stopping residents' property tax rollbacks which had ultimately shifted more burden to businesses
Local Law Enforcement Reforms
Following a summer marked by police protests in the wake of the May killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, 14 cities and counties had elections addressing policing policies and procedures. Questions were on the ballot in seven states, from California to Ohio. Initiatives designed to change police duties, limit general funds spent on police operations, establish oversight boards and improve transparency found broad support in jurisdictions across the U.S., with 15 of 20 passing. For the most part, the changes are not expected to affect credit quality. However, should they result in notable revenue or expenditure changes that affect a jurisdiction's financial position, there could be an impact.
This report does not constitute a rating action.
|Primary Credit Analysts:||Ladunni M Okolo, Farmers Branch + 1 (212) 438 1208;|
|Jane H Ridley, Centennial (1) 303-721-4487;|
|Geoffrey E Buswick, Boston (1) 617-530-8311;|
No content (including ratings, credit-related analyses and data, valuations, model, software or other application or output therefrom) or any part thereof (Content) may be modified, reverse engineered, reproduced or distributed in any form by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC or its affiliates (collectively, S&P). The Content shall not be used for any unlawful or unauthorized purposes. S&P and any third-party providers, as well as their directors, officers, shareholders, employees or agents (collectively S&P Parties) do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness or availability of the Content. S&P Parties are not responsible for any errors or omissions (negligent or otherwise), regardless of the cause, for the results obtained from the use of the Content, or for the security or maintenance of any data input by the user. The Content is provided on an “as is” basis. S&P PARTIES DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE, FREEDOM FROM BUGS, SOFTWARE ERRORS OR DEFECTS, THAT THE CONTENT’S FUNCTIONING WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR THAT THE CONTENT WILL OPERATE WITH ANY SOFTWARE OR HARDWARE CONFIGURATION. In no event shall S&P Parties be liable to any party for any direct, indirect, incidental, exemplary, compensatory, punitive, special or consequential damages, costs, expenses, legal fees, or losses (including, without limitation, lost income or lost profits and opportunity costs or losses caused by negligence) in connection with any use of the Content even if advised of the possibility of such damages.
Credit-related and other analyses, including ratings, and statements in the Content are statements of opinion as of the date they are expressed and not statements of fact. S&P’s opinions, analyses and rating acknowledgment decisions (described below) are not recommendations to purchase, hold, or sell any securities or to make any investment decisions, and do not address the suitability of any security. S&P assumes no obligation to update the Content following publication in any form or format. The Content should not be relied on and is not a substitute for the skill, judgment and experience of the user, its management, employees, advisors and/or clients when making investment and other business decisions. S&P does not act as a fiduciary or an investment advisor except where registered as such. While S&P has obtained information from sources it believes to be reliable, S&P does not perform an audit and undertakes no duty of due diligence or independent verification of any information it receives. Rating-related publications may be published for a variety of reasons that are not necessarily dependent on action by rating committees, including, but not limited to, the publication of a periodic update on a credit rating and related analyses.
To the extent that regulatory authorities allow a rating agency to acknowledge in one jurisdiction a rating issued in another jurisdiction for certain regulatory purposes, S&P reserves the right to assign, withdraw or suspend such acknowledgment at any time and in its sole discretion. S&P Parties disclaim any duty whatsoever arising out of the assignment, withdrawal or suspension of an acknowledgment as well as any liability for any damage alleged to have been suffered on account thereof.
S&P keeps certain activities of its business units separate from each other in order to preserve the independence and objectivity of their respective activities. As a result, certain business units of S&P may have information that is not available to other S&P business units. S&P has established policies and procedures to maintain the confidentiality of certain non-public information received in connection with each analytical process.
S&P may receive compensation for its ratings and certain analyses, normally from issuers or underwriters of securities or from obligors. S&P reserves the right to disseminate its opinions and analyses. S&P's public ratings and analyses are made available on its Web sites, www.standardandpoors.com (free of charge), and www.ratingsdirect.com and www.globalcreditportal.com (subscription), and may be distributed through other means, including via S&P publications and third-party redistributors. Additional information about our ratings fees is available at www.standardandpoors.com/usratingsfees.
Any Passwords/user IDs issued by S&P to users are single user-dedicated and may ONLY be used by the individual to whom they have been assigned. No sharing of passwords/user IDs and no simultaneous access via the same password/user ID is permitted. To reprint, translate, or use the data or information other than as provided herein, contact S&P Global Ratings, Client Services, 55 Water Street, New York, NY 10041; (1) 212-438-7280 or by e-mail to: firstname.lastname@example.org.