Background
Most city and county bonds require voter approval in California, needing the support of at least two-thirds of voters to pass. [3] This requirement was put in place by Proposition 13 which was passed in 1978 and reduced property taxes. [4]
In 2000, Proposition 39 reduced the supermajority to 55% to approve taxes for local school bonds. [4] According to the California Policy Center, a conservative think tank, since Proposition 39 was passed, voters in California have decided on almost 1,150 school bond measures and have approved 911 of them. [5]
Proposition
Proposition 5 was placed on the ballot via legislative referral. [4] The legislation, called ACA 1, was authored by Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, Marc Berman, Matt Haney, Alex Lee, and Buffy Wicks. [6] It passed the California State Assembly on September 6, 2023 by 55 votes to 12, with 13 members not voting. [7] It passed the California State Senate on September 14, 2023 by 29 votes to 10, with one senator (Josh Newman) not voting. [7]
Proposition 5 would have allowed a city, county or special district in California to issue bonds with 55% voter approval, so long as the bonds were to fund affordable housing, permanent supportive housing, or public infrastructure. [7] The proposition would have gone into effect immediately if it had passed, meaning local bonds voted on at the November elections would only have needed 55% approval to pass. [8]
Politico suggested that a lower supermajority would mean more bond measures would pass, but also that more local governments would put them on the ballot to begin with. [2]
Campaign
The proposition's ballot label was challenged by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association who argued that it lacked important information that the proposition would reduce the supermajority rather than raising it. [9] [10] Sacramento County Superior Court judge Shelleyanne W. L. Chang agreed and ordered the state government to rewrite the label. [11] The Third District Court of Appeal reversed Chang's ruling, finding that the ballot label was "factually accurate" and would not mislead voters. [4]
Support
Supporters of the proposition said that it gave local voters the power to address challenges facing their communities. [12] They suggested that Proposition 5 would make it easier for cities to fund their projects, such as affordable housing, safer streets initiatives, or additional fire stations. [8]
Supporters also argued that allowing just a third of voters to block measures is undemocratic. [3] [13]
Endorsements
'Yes'
US Representatives
Newspapers
Organisations
Opposition
Those opposing the proposition argued that the proposition would make it easier for bond debt to increase, leading to higher property taxes. [12] It was also argued that Proposition 5 was an attempt by Democrats to dodge property tax restrictions under Proposition 13. [3]
They additionally highlighted that the proposition's wording, which they argued allowed a wide interpretation of what is an infrastructure project. [8]
This page is based on this
Wikipedia article Text is available under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
