California — Proposition 225 (1998)

Overview

California voters adopted Proposition 225 (1998), establishing a system of voter instruction directing Members of Congress to support a constitutional amendment establishing congressional term limits.

The measure authorized informational ballot statements identifying candidates who declined to support the voter instruction.

Unlike most ballot-instruction initiatives adopted in 1996, Proposition 225 was enacted as a statutory initiative rather than a constitutional amendment.

The measure formed part of the ballot-instruction phase of congressional term-limits reform that followed U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995).

Measure Identification

Measure name: Proposition 225
Year: 1998
Adoption method: Citizen initiative statute
Election date: June 2, 1998
Result: Approved

Ballot Language

Proposition 225 instructed California’s Members of Congress to support a constitutional amendment establishing congressional term limits.

The proposed amendment specified limits of:

  • three terms for Members of the House of Representatives

  • two terms for Members of the Senate

Institutional Architecture

Voter Instruction Mechanism

The initiative instructed California’s congressional delegation to support a constitutional amendment establishing congressional term limits.

The instruction expressed the position of California voters regarding the proposed amendment.

Ballot Information Architecture

Proposition 225 authorized informational ballot statements to appear on election ballots identifying candidates who did not support the voter instruction concerning congressional term limits.

These statements were intended to communicate candidate positions regarding the proposed amendment.

Candidate Declaration / Pledge Mechanism

Candidates could declare whether they supported the proposed constitutional amendment establishing congressional term limits.

Candidates declining to support the instruction could be identified through informational ballot statements.

Election Administration

Ballot Implementation

Following adoption of Proposition 225, California election officials were authorized to implement informational ballot statements identifying candidates who declined to support the voter instruction.

Administrative History

The informational statement system created by Proposition 225 was challenged in court before it was implemented in congressional elections.

Litigation History

California’s Proposition 225 became the subject of federal litigation.

Bramberg v. Jones (1997) challenged the ballot informational statements authorized by the initiative.

A federal district court held that the ballot statements were unconstitutional because they attempted to favor or disfavor candidates in federal elections based on their position regarding term limits.

Relationship to Cook v. Gralike (2001)

Litigation surrounding California’s Proposition 225 formed part of the broader legal environment concerning ballot informational statements in federal elections.

Two years later, the Supreme Court addressed similar ballot-label systems in Cook v. Gralike (2001).

Institutional Design Observations

California’s Proposition 225 illustrates the continued use of the instruction + ballot informational statement architecture after the initial 1996 wave of initiatives.

The measure combined voter instruction to Members of Congress with informational ballot statements identifying candidates who declined to support the instruction.

Sources

Explore related material
→ Ballot Instruction Phase (1996–2000)
→ Framework
→ FAQs
→ Case Library
→ Rotation Logic

Last updated — March 2026