Elections in California |
---|
Proposition 5 is a California ballot proposition that was voted on as part of the 2024 California elections on November 5. It failed, with 55.5% of voters voting "no." [1] If passed, the proposition would have amended the California Constitution to reduce the supermajority requirement from two-thirds of the vote to 55% for local bond measures to fund affordable housing and some types of public infrastructure. [2]
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 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]
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]
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]
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]
Poll source | Date(s) administered | Sample size [note 2] | Margin of error | Yes | No | Undecided |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Public Policy Institute of California | October 7–15, 2024 | 1137 (LV) | ± 3.7% | 48% | 50% | 3% |
Public Policy Institute of California | August 29–September 9, 2024 | 1071 (LV) | ± 3.7% | 49% | 50% | 1% |
The proposition failed, with 7,176,197 voters (55.5%) voting "no" and 5,755,518 voters (44.5%) voting "yes". [1] [18] The Associated Press projected that Proposition 5 had failed on 8 November. [19]
Proposition 13 is an amendment of the Constitution of California enacted during 1978, by means of the initiative process, to cap property taxes and limit property reassessments to when the property changes ownership, and to require a 2/3 majority for tax increases in the state legislature. The initiative was approved by California voters in a primary election on June 6, 1978, by a nearly two to one margin. It was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1992 in Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1 (1992). Proposition 13 is embodied in Article XIII A of the Constitution of the State of California.
The California state elections, 2006 took place on November 7, 2006. Necessary primary elections were held on June 6. Among the elections that took place were all the seats of the California's State Assembly, 20 seats of the State Senate, seven constitutional officers, and all the seats of the Board of Equalization. Votes on retention of two Supreme Court justices and various Courts of Appeal judges were also held. Five propositions were also up for approval.
California's state elections were held November 7, 2000. Necessary primary elections were held on March 7. Up for election were all the seats of the State Assembly, 20 seats of the State Senate, and eight ballot measures.
Proposition 1A is a law that was approved by California voters in the November 2008 state elections. It was a ballot proposition and bond measure that allocated funds for the California High-Speed Rail Authority. It is now contained within Chapter 20 of Division 3 of the California Streets and Highways Code.
Proposition 3, the Children's Hospital Bond Act of 2008, is a law that was enacted by California voters by means of the initiative process. It is a bond issue that authorizes $980 million in bonds, to be repaid from state's General Fund, to fund the construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation, furnishing and equipping of children's hospitals. The annual payment on the debt authorized by the initiative is approximately $64 million a year. Altogether, the measure would cost about $1.9 billion over 30 years out of California's general fund.
Proposition 12 appeared on the November 4, 2008 ballot in California. It is also known as the Veterans' Bond Act of 2008. The measure was legislatively referred to the ballot in Senate Bill 1572. The primary sponsor of SB 1572 was Senator Mark Wyland, R-Carlsbad. The vote to place the measure on the ballot was passed unanimously in both the California state senate (39-0) and assembly (75-0).
Proposition 39 was an initiative state constitutional amendment and statute which appeared on the November 7, 2000, California general election ballot. Proposition 39 passed with 5,431,152 Yes votes, representing 53.4 percent of the total votes cast. Proposition 39 was essentially a milder version of Proposition 26, which would have ended the Proposition 13 supermajority vote requirement altogether, but was defeated with 3,521,327 "Yes" votes, representing 48.7 percent of the total votes cast, in the March 7, 2000, California primary election. The measure was funded by Ann and John Doerr, John T. Walton and Reed Hastings; it was opposed by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.
In California state elections, 2014 was the first year in which the top statewide offices were elected under the nonpartisan blanket primary, pursuant to Proposition 14, which passed with 53% voter approval in June 2010. Under this system, which first went into effect during the 2012 election year, all candidates appear on the same ballot, regardless of party. In the primary, voters may vote for any candidate, regardless of their party affiliation. The top two finishers, regardless of party, then advance to face each other in the general election in November.
Proposition 51 is a California ballot proposition that passed on the November 8, 2016 ballot, regarding $9 billion in bonds to fund construction and improvement of K-12 and community college facilities. The measure designates $7 billion for K-12 projects falling under four types of projects, and $2 billion for any facility project for community colleges. No other bond measures related to education have been on the California ballot since 2006.
The California state elections in 2020 were held on Tuesday, November 3, 2020. Unlike previous election cycles, the primary elections were held on Super Tuesday, March 3, 2020.
California state elections in 2018 were held on Tuesday, November 6, 2018, with the primary elections being held on June 5, 2018. Voters elected one member to the United States Senate, 53 members to the United States House of Representatives, all eight state constitutional offices, all four members to the Board of Equalization, 20 members to the California State Senate, and all 80 members to the California State Assembly, among other elected offices.
Proposition 13 was a failed California ballot proposition on the March 3, 2020, ballot that would have authorized the issuance of $15 billion in bonds to finance capital improvements for public and charter schools statewide. The proposition would have also raised the borrowing limit for some school districts and eliminated school impact fees for multifamily housing near transit stations.
California Proposition 68 was a legislatively referred constitutional amendment that appeared on ballots in California in the June primary election in 2018. It was a $4.1bn bond measure to fund parks, environmental projects, water infrastructure projects and flood protection measures throughout California.
California Proposition 14 is a citizen-initiated ballot measure that appeared on the ballot in the 2020 California elections, for November 3, 2020. It authorizes state bonds to be issued worth $5.5 billion, which will fund the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), which serves as the state's center for stem cell research, and enable it to continue its operations. This measure passed with 51% of the vote.
California Proposition 19 (2020), also referred to as Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 11, is an amendment of the Constitution of California that was narrowly approved by voters in the general election on November 3, 2020, with just over 51% of the vote. The legislation increases the property tax burden on owners of inherited property to provide expanded property tax benefits to homeowners ages 55 years and older, disabled homeowners, and victims of natural disasters, and fund wildfire response. According to the California Legislative Analyst, Proposition 19 is a large net tax increase "of hundreds of millions of dollars per year."
The 2024 California elections took place on November 5, 2024. The statewide direct primary election was held on March 5, 2024.
The following is a list of ballot measures which were on the ballot for the 2022 United States elections. Some were held prior to the federal elections on November 8. Many were initiated by state legislatures, while others were initiated by public petitions. In all, there were 141 ballot measures on ballots across most U.S. states and the District of Columbia at any point throughout the year.
Proposition 1, titled Bonds for Mental Health Treatment Facilities, was a California ballot proposition and state bond measure that was voted on in the 2024 primary election on March 5. Passing with just 50.18 percent of the vote, the proposition will provide additional behavioral health services and issue up to $6.38 billion in bonds to fund housing for veterans and homeless individuals. It will also move about $140 million of annual existing tax revenue for mental health care and addiction care to the state from the counties.
Proposition 33, titled Expands Local Governments’ Authority to Enact Rent Control on Residential Property, and also marketed as the "Justice for Renters Act", was a California ballot proposition and initiative statute in the 2024 general election that would have repealed the Costa–Hawkins Rental Housing Act and allowed localities to enact rent control on single-family homes, apartments built after 1995, and to control rent increases between tenancies, all currently banned by Costa-Hawkins. It would also have prohibited the state from limiting local rent control.
Proposition 32 is a California ballot proposition that was voted on as part of the 2024 California elections on November 5. As of 13 November 2024, around 51% of tallied votes had voted "no" but the race remained too close to call. If passed, the proposition would enact the Living Wage Act of 2022 which would increased the state's minimum wage to $18 per hour by 2025 and adjust it every year to reduce the impact of inflation.