2024 California Proposition 5

Last updated

Proposition 5
Flag of California.svg
ALLOWS LOCAL BONDS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE WITH 55% VOTER APPROVAL. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Results
Choice
Votes %
Check-71-128-204-brightblue.svg Yes5,755,51844.51%
Light brown x.svg No7,176,19755.49%

2024 California Proposition 5 results map by county.svg

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]

Contents

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

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]

Endorsements

Neutral/No endorsement

Polling

Poll sourceDate(s)
administered
Sample
size [note 2]
Margin
of error
YesNoUndecided
Public Policy Institute of California October 7–15, 20241137 (LV)± 3.7%48%50%3%
Public Policy Institute of California August 29–September 9, 20241071 (LV)± 3.7%49%50%1%

Results

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]

Notes

  1. 1 2 3 Politico recorded this organisation as "not saying" on Proposition 5 [15]
  2. Key:
    A – all adults
    RV – registered voters
    LV – likely voters
    V – unclear

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1978 California Proposition 13</span> Ballot initiative which capped property tax at 1% and yearly increases at 2%

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2006 California elections</span>

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2000 California elections</span>

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 California Proposition 1A</span>

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 California Proposition 3</span>

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 California Proposition 12</span> Passed ballot proposition to assist veterans

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).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2000 California Proposition 39</span>

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2014 California elections</span>

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2016 California Proposition 51</span>

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 California elections</span>

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2018 California elections</span>

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 California Proposition 13</span> $15 billion bond initiative for educational facility maintenance

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2018 California Proposition 68</span>

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 California Proposition 14</span> Authorizes bonds for funding stem cell research

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 California Proposition 19</span> Successful property tax ballot initiative

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."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2024 California elections</span>

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2024 California Proposition 1</span>

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2024 California Proposition 33</span> 2024 California referendum

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2024 California Proposition 32</span>

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.

References

  1. 1 2 "Proposition 5: Bonds for Affordable Housing and Infrastructure". California Secretary of State: Unofficial Results. November 6, 2024. Retrieved November 7, 2024.
  2. 1 2 Will McCarthy; Emily Schultheis (October 16, 2024). "Your Guide to California's 2024 Ballot Measures". Politico . Retrieved November 6, 2024.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 "Make it easier for local governments to fund affordable housing, infrastructure projects". CalMatters . Retrieved November 6, 2024.
  4. 1 2 3 4 Bob Egelko (August 13, 2024). "Prop 5 ballot label doesn't have to mention 2/3 voter approval rule". San Francisco Chronicle . Retrieved November 6, 2024.
  5. Adhiti Bandlamudi (November 5, 2024). "Voters Turn Down Proposition 5, but Some Local Bond Measures May Pass Anyway". KQED . Retrieved November 6, 2024.
  6. "ACA-1 Local government financing: affordable housing and public infrastructure: voter approval.(2023-2024) - Status". California State Legislature . Retrieved November 6, 2024.
  7. 1 2 3 "ACA 1: Local government financing: affordable housing and public infrastructure: voter approval". Digital Democracy CalMatters . Retrieved November 6, 2024.
  8. 1 2 3 Dave Pehling (November 5, 2024). "California Proposition 5 would lower the votes required to pass local bond measures. Here's what to know". CBS News . Retrieved November 6, 2024.
  9. Alan Riquelmy (August 1, 2024). "Taxpayer group sues California claiming ballot language misleads". Courthouse News Service . Retrieved November 6, 2024.
  10. Catherine Allen; Will McCarthy; Emily Schultheis (August 12, 2024). "The ballot measures racking up small-dollar donations". Politico . Retrieved November 6, 2024.
  11. Alan Riquelmy (August 8, 2024). "California judge rules that ballot label for November referendum needs rewrite". Courthouse News Service . Retrieved November 6, 2024.
  12. 1 2 "Prop 5 - ALLOWS LOCAL BONDS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE WITH 55% VOTER APPROVAL. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT". California Secretary of State . Retrieved November 6, 2024.
  13. 1 2 "Endorsement: Yes on Prop. 5. It's too hard to pass local bond measures". Los Angeles Times . September 20, 2024. Retrieved November 6, 2024.
  14. 1 2 3 4 5 6 "Our Coalition". Yes on Prop 5. Retrieved November 6, 2024.
  15. 1 2 Emily Schultheis; Will McCarthy (October 16, 2024). "The shifting shapes of this year's California ballot-measure coalitions". Politico . Retrieved November 6, 2024.
  16. "Election Center - Current Endorsements". Equality California . Retrieved October 17, 2024.
  17. "Recommendation on Prop 5 (2024)". League of Women Voters of California . Retrieved November 6, 2024.
  18. Christopher, Ben (July 24, 2024). "California Proposition 5: Lower Voting Threshold". CalMatters. Retrieved November 7, 2024.
  19. Daniel Macht (November 8, 2024). "California Prop 5: Voting change for affordable housing, infrastructure projects fails, AP projects". KCRA . Archived from the original on November 9, 2024. Retrieved November 12, 2024.