California Proposition 5, Lower Supermajority Requirement to 55% for Local Bond Measures to Fund Housing and Public Infrastructure Amendment (2024)

California Proposition 5
Election date November 5, 2024
Topic Supermajority requirements and Taxes
Status d Defeated
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin State legislature

California Proposition 5, the Lower Supermajority Requirement to 55% for Local Bond Measures to Fund Housing and Public Infrastructure Amendment, was on the ballot in California as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 5, 2024. The ballot measure was defeated.

A "yes" vote supported lowering the vote threshold from two-thirds (66.67%) to 55% for local bond measures to fund housing projects and public infrastructure.

A "no" vote opposed lowering the vote threshold from two-thirds (66.67%) to 55% for local bond measures to fund housing projects and public infrastructure.

Election results

California Proposition 5
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		6,738,890	44.99%
No		8,239,337	55.01%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

What changes would Proposition 5 have made to vote requirements for certain local measures?

See also: Measure design

Proposition 5 would have lowered the supermajority vote requirement from two-thirds (66.67%) vote to 55% for local jurisdictions to issue bonds for affordable housing and public infrastructure projects. Click here to learn how the amendment would have defined affordable housing.

This would have applied to any relevant local bond measures on the ballot on November 5, 2024. The amendment would also have required the local jurisdiction (city, county, or special district) to conduct an annual audit to ensure that the funds were used according to their intended purposes until all the proceeds were expended.

Who supported and opposed Proposition 5?

See also: Support and Opposition

The amendment received endorsements from the California Democratic Party, State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, AIDS Healthcare Foundation, and California State Association of Counties. Asm. Cecilia Aguiar-Curry (D-4), the sponsor of the amendment said, "ACA 1 will level the playing field and create parity between school districts and cities, counties, and special districts, so that all local governments have a variable financing tool to address community needs. It also contains various transparency and accountability measures, including an expenditure plan of projects and programs proposed, audits, and monitoring by a citizens' commission to assure resources are being spent as proposed."

The amendment was opposed by the California Association of Realtors, California Chamber of Commerce, California Taxpayer Association, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, and National Federation of Independent Businesses. Dr. Gary Galles, economics professor at Pepperdine University, said, "ACA 1 would sharply lower Proposition 13’s two-thirds voter threshold to 55% for local special taxes to fund 'infrastructure' so vaguely defined that virtually anything could qualify. It would open the door to massive new tax hikes to give Sacramento politicians what they want from property tax-payers without giving them their money’s worth in return."

What local ballot measures would have been affected?

Ballotpedia identified 15 local measures on the ballot for November 5, 2024, that Proposition 5 would have decreased the vote threshold for. These measures are listed below:

Ballot Measure	Status	Yes Votes	No Votes
Los Angeles Measure BC	Defeated	29,945 (47%)	33,102 (53%)
Pasadena Measure PL	Approved	44,835 (72%)	17,074 (28%)
Redondo Beach Measure FP	Approved	25,589 (71%)	10,243 (29%)
San Francisco Proposition B	Approved	274,187 (73%)	102,450 (27%)
Fairfax Measure J	Defeated	2,966 (62%)	1,815 (38%)
Sacramento Measure L	Defeated	10,815 (63%)	6,402 (37%)
Sacramento Measure Q	Approved	7,250 (74%)	2,557 (26%)
Marina Measure U	Defeated	5,450 (60%)	3,634 (40%)
Pleasant Hill Measure S	Defeated	13,857 (65%)	7,524 (35%)
Santa Cruz Measure R	Defeated	23,903 (57%)	17,669 (43%)
Scotts Valley Measure S	Defeated	7,606 (62%)	4,699 (38%)
San Bruno Measure Q	Approved	12,703 (73%)	4,677 (27%)
Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District Measure O	Approved	192,312 (69%)	85,944 (31%)
Sunnyvale Measure E	Defeated	29,503 (59%)	20,260 (41%)
Santa Clara Measure I	Approved	28,133 (69%)	12,399 (31%)

Measure design

See also: Text of measure

Lowering supermajority vote for local bond issues

Proposition 5 would have lowered the supermajority vote requirement from two-thirds (66.67%) vote to 55% for local jurisdictions to issue bonds for affordable housing and public infrastructure projects.

The amendment would have defined affordable housing as "housing developments, or portions of housing developments, that are affordable to individuals, families, seniors, people with disabilities, veterans, or first-time homebuyers, who are lower-income households or middle-income households earning up to 150 percent of countywide median income, as those terms are defined in state law." Affordable housing would also have included downpayment assistance programs, first-time homebuyer programs, permanent supportive housing, and facilities used to serve residents of affordable housing.

The amendment would have defined public infrastructure projects to include the following:

• Infrastructure or facilities for delivering public services, including "education, police, fire protection, parks, recreation, open space, emergency medical, public health, libraries, flood protection, streets or highways, public transit, railroad, airports, and seaports;"
• Utility, common carrier, or similar projects, including those related to energy, communications, water, and wastewater facilities or infrastructure
• Projects identified by the state or local government for natural disaster recovery;
• Equipment used for fire suppression, emergency response, police, or sheriff personnel;
• Projects that protect property from sea level rise;
• Projects that expand public broadband internet access in underserved areas;
• Incidental or necessary private uses related to the public infrastructure; and
• Grants to homeowners for structure hardening homes, as defined by state law.

Proposition 5 would have exempted local property taxes above 1% of the real cash value of the property if the revenue was used to pay:

• bonded debt approved by the voters before July 1, 1978,
• bonded debt approved by a two-thirds (66.67%) vote on or after July 1, 1978, or
• bonded debt issued by a school or college district and approved by at least 55% of voters on or after November 8, 2000.

As of 2024, the state constitution limited local property taxes to 1% of the full cash value of the property regardless of how the tax revenue is used.

Auditing requirements

The amendment would have required the local jurisdiction (city, county, or special district) to conduct an annual audit to ensure that the funds were used according to their intended purposes until all the proceeds were expended. It would also have required that audits be publicly released and submitted to the California State Auditor.

Other restrictions

The amendment would have prohibited the revenue from local bonds authorized under the 55% threshold from being used for local government salaries or operating expenses. It would also have capped the administrative costs of the bond sale at 5% of the proceeds. The amendment would have prohibited any entity owned or led by a member of the local governing board that voted to place the bond on the local ballot from bidding on any funded work.

The amendment would also have authorized the California State Legislature to enact, by a two-thirds vote, additional laws to establish accountability for local governments consistent with the amendment.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title was as follows:

“

Allows local bonds for affordable housing and public infrastructure with 55% voter approval. Legislative constitutional amendment.

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary was as follows:

“

Allows approval of local infrastructure and housing bonds for low- and middle-income Californians with 55% vote. Accountability requirements.

”

Fiscal impact

The fiscal impact was as follows:

“

Increased local borrowing to fund affordable housing, supportive housing, and public infrastructure. The amount would depend on decisions by local governments and voters. Borrowing would be repaid with higher property taxes.

”

Constitutional changes

See also: California Constitution

The measure would have repealed and replaced section 1 of Article XIII A and section 18 of Article XVI of the state constitution. The following underlined text would have been added, and struck-through text would have been deleted:

Article XIII A

Note: Hover over the text and scroll to see the full text.

Section 1 of Article XIII A
(a) The maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property shall not exceed One percent (1%) of the full cash value of such property. The one percent (1%) tax to be collected by the counties and apportioned according to law to the districts within the counties.

(b) The limitation provided for in subdivision (a) shall not apply to ad valorem taxes or special assessments to pay the interest and redemption charges on any of the following:

(1) Indebtedness approved by the voters prior to July 1, 1978.

(2) Bonded indebtedness for the acquisition or improvement of real property approved on or after July 1, 1978, by two-thirds of thevotes cast by the voters voting on the proposition.

(3) Bonded indebtedness incurred by a school district, community college district, or county office of education for the construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of school facilities, including the furnishing and equipping of school facilities, or the acquisition or lease of real property for school facilities, approved by 55 percent of the voters of the district or county, as appropriate, voting on the proposition on or after the effective date of the measure adding this paragraph. This paragraph shall apply only if the proposition approved by the voters and resulting in the bonded indebtedness includes all of the following accountability requirements:

(A) A requirement that the proceeds from the sale of the bonds be used only for the purposes specified in Article XIIIA, Section 1(b) (3), and not for any other purpose, including teacher and administrator salaries and other school operating expenses.

(B) A list of the specific school facilities projects to be funded and certification that the school district board, community college board, or county office of education has evaluated safety, class size reduction, and information technology needs in developing that list.

(C) A requirement that the school district board, community college board, or county office of education conduct an annual, independent performance audit to ensure that the funds have been expended only on the specific projects listed.

(D) A requirement that the school district board, community college board, or county office of education conduct an annual, independent financial audit of the proceeds from the sale of the bonds until all of those proceeds have been expended for the school facilities projects.

(c) Notwithstanding any other provisions of law or of this Constitution, school districts, community college districts, and county offices of education may levy a 55 percent vote ad valorem tax pursuant to subdivision (b).

SECTION 1. (a) The maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property shall not exceed 1 percent of the full cash value of that property. The 1 percent tax shall be collected by the counties and apportioned according to law to the districts within the counties. (b) The limitation provided for in subdivision (a) shall not apply to ad valorem taxes or special assessments to pay the interest and redemption charges on any of the following:

(1) Indebtedness approved by the voters before July 1, 1978.

(2) Bonded indebtedness to fund the acquisition or improvement of real property approved on or after July 1, 1978, by two-thirds of the votes cast by the voters voting on the proposition.

(3) Bonded indebtedness incurred by a school district, community college district, or county office of education for the construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of school facilities, including the furnishing and equipping of school facilities, or the acquisition or lease of real property for school facilities, approved by 55 percent of the voters of the district or county, as appropriate, voting on the proposition on or after November 8, 2000. This paragraph shall apply only if the proposition approved by the voters and resulting in the bonded indebtedness includes all of the following accountability requirements:

(A) A requirement that the proceeds from the sale of the bonds be used only for the purposes specified in this paragraph and not for any other purpose, including teacher and administrator salaries and other school operating expenses.

(B) A list of the specific school facilities projects to be funded and certification that the school district board, community college board, or county office of education has evaluated safety, class size reduction, and information technology needs in developing that list.

(C) A requirement that the school district board, community college board, or county office of education conduct an annual, independent performance audit to ensure that the funds have been expended only on the specific projects listed.

(D) A requirement that the school district board, community college board, or county office of education conduct an annual, independent financial audit of the proceeds from the sale of the bonds until all of those proceeds have been expended for the school facilities projects.

(4) (A) Bonded indebtedness incurred by a city, county, city and county, or special district for the construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of public infrastructure or affordable housing, or the acquisition or lease of real property for public infrastructure or affordable housing, approved by 55 percent of the voters of the city, county, city and county, or special district, as appropriate, voting on the proposition submitted at the same election as the measure adding this paragraph or at a later election held after the effective date of the measure adding this paragraph. This paragraph shall apply only if the proposition approved by the voters and resulting in the bonded indebtedness includes all of the following accountability requirements:

(i) A requirement that the proceeds from the sale of the bonds be used only for the purposes specified in this paragraph, and not for any other purpose, including city, county, city and county, or special district employee salaries and other operating expenses. The administrative cost of the city, county, city and county, or special district executing the projects and programs of the proposition shall not exceed 5 percent of the proceeds from the sale of the bonds.

(ii) A requirement that the proceeds from the sale of the bonds only be spent on projects and programs that serve the jurisdiction of the city, county, city and county, or special district.

(iii) The specific local program or ordinance through which projects will be funded and a certification that the city, county, city and county, or special district has evaluated alternative funding sources.

(iv) A requirement that the city, county, city and county, or special district conduct an annual, independent performance audit to ensure that the funds have been expended pursuant to the local program or ordinance specified in clause (iii).

(v) A requirement that the city, county, city and county, or special district conduct an annual, independent financial audit of the proceeds from the sale of the bonds until all of those proceeds have been expended for the public infrastructure or affordable housing projects, as applicable.

(vi) A requirement that the city, county, city and county, or special district post the audits required by clauses (iv) and (v) in a manner that is easily accessible to the public.

(vii) A requirement that the audits required by clauses (iv) and (v) will be submitted to the California State Auditor for review.

(viii) (I) A requirement that the city, county, city and county, or special district appoint a citizens’ oversight committee to ensure that bond proceeds are expended only for the purposes described in the measure approved by the voters.

(II) (II) Members appointed to an oversight committee established pursuant to subclause (I) shall receive educational training about bonds and fiscal oversight.

(ix) A requirement that an entity owned or controlled by a local official that votes on whether to put a proposition on the ballot pursuant to this paragraph will be prohibited from bidding on any work funded by the proposition.

(B) Notwithstanding any other law, if the voters of the city, county, city and county, or special district have previously approved a proposition pursuant to this paragraph, the city, county, city and county, or special district shall not place a proposition on the ballot pursuant to this paragraph until all funds from the previous proposition are committed to programs and projects listed in the proposition’s specific local program or ordinance described in clause (iii) of subparagraph (A).

(C) (i) The Legislature may, by two-thirds vote, enact laws establishing accountability measures in addition to those listed in subparagraph (A), provided such laws are consistent with the purposes and intent of this paragraph.

(ii) The Legislature may, by two-thirds vote, enact laws imposing additional conditions or restrictions on the acquisition or lease of real property for the purposes described in this paragraph. Any repeal of conditions or restrictions on the acquisition or lease of real property for the purposes described in this paragraph shall require a two-thirds vote.

(D) The Legislature may, by majority vote, enact laws for the downpayment assistance programs established pursuant to this paragraph, provided that those laws further the purposes of this paragraph.

(E) For purposes of this paragraph:

(i) (I) “Affordable housing” shall include housing developments, or portions of housing developments, that are affordable to individuals, families, seniors, people with disabilities, veterans, or first-time homebuyers, who are lower income households or middle-income households earning up to 150 percent of countywide median income, as those terms are defined in state law. Affordable housing shall include capitalized operating reserves, as the term is defined in state law.

(II) “Affordable housing” shall also include any of the following:

(ia) Downpayment assistance programs.

(ib) First-time homebuyer programs.

(ic) Permanent supportive housing, including, but not limited to, housing for persons at risk of chronic homelessness, including, but not limited to, persons with mental illness.

(id) Associated facilities, if used to serve residents of affordable housing.

(ii) “At risk of chronic homelessness” includes, but is not limited to, persons who are at high risk of long-term or intermittent homelessness, including persons with mental illness exiting institutionalized settings, including, but not limited to, jail and mental health facilities, who were homeless prior to admission, transition age youth experiencing homelessness or with significant barriers to housing stability, and others, as defined in program guidelines.

(iii) “Permanent supportive housing” means housing with no limit on length of stay, that is occupied by the target population, and that is linked to onsite or offsite services that assist residents in retaining the housing, improving their health status, and maximizing their ability to live and, when possible, work in the community.

(iv) “Public infrastructure” shall include any of the following:

(I) Facilities or infrastructure for the delivery of public services, including education, police, fire protection, parks, recreation, open space, emergency medical, public health, libraries, flood protection, streets or highways, public transit, railroad, airports, and seaports.

(II) Utility, common carrier or other similar projects, including energy-related, communication-related, water-related, and wastewater-related facilities or infrastructure.

(III) Projects identified by the State or local government for recovery from natural disasters.

(IV) Equipment related to fire suppression, emergency response equipment, or interoperable communications equipment for direct and exclusive use by fire, emergency response, police, or sheriff personnel.

(V) Projects that provide protection of property from sea level rise.

(VI) Projects that provide public broadband internet access service expansion in underserved areas.

(VII) Private uses incidental to, or necessary for, the public infrastructure.

(VIII) Grants to homeowners for the purposes of structure hardening of homes and structures, as defined in state law.

(v) “Special district” has the same meaning as provided in subdivision (c) of Section 1 of Article XIII C and specifically includes a transit district, a regional transportation commission, and an association of governments, except that “special district” does not include a school district, redevelopment agency, or successor agency to a dissolved redevelopment agency.

(F) This paragraph shall apply to any city, county, city and county, or special district measure imposing an ad valorem tax to pay the interest and redemption charges on bonded indebtedness for those purposes described in this paragraph that is submitted at the same election as the measure adding this paragraph or at a later election held after the effective date of the measure adding this paragraph.

(c) (1) Notwithstanding any other provisions of law or of this Constitution, a school district, community college district, or county office of education may levy a 55-percent vote ad valorem tax pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (b).

(2) Notwithstanding any other provisions of law or this Constitution, a city, county, city and county, or special district may levy a 55-percent vote ad valorem tax pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (b).

Article XVI

Note: Hover over the text and scroll to see the full text.

Section 18 of Article XVI
(a) No county, city, town, township, board of education, or school district, shall incur any indebtedness or liability in any manner or for any purpose exceeding in any year the income and revenue provided for such year, without the assent of two-thirds of the voters of the public entity voting at an election to be held for that purpose, except that with respect to any such public entity which is authorized to incur indebtedness for public school purposes, any proposition for the incurrence of indebtedness in the form of general obligation bonds for the purpose of repairing, reconstructing or replacing public school buildings determined, in the manner prescribed by law, to be structurally unsafe for school use, shall be adopted upon the approval of a majority of the voters of the public entity voting on the proposition at such election; nor unless before or at the time of incurring such indebtedness provision shall be made for the collection of an annual tax sufficient to pay the interest on such indebtedness as it falls due, and to provide for a sinking fund for the payment of the principal thereof, on or before maturity, which shall not exceed forty years from the time of contracting the indebtedness.
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), on or after the effective date of the measure adding this subdivision, in the case of any school district, community college district, or county office of education, any proposition for the incurrence of indebtedness in the form of general obligation bonds for the construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of school facilities, including the furnishing and equipping of school facilities, or the acquisition or lease of real property for school facilities, shall be adopted upon the approval of 55 percent of the voters of the district or county, as appropriate, voting on the proposition at an election. This subdivision shall apply only to a proposition for the incurrence of indebtedness in the form of general obligation bonds for the purposes specified in this subdivision if the proposition meets all of the accountability requirements of paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Section 1 of Article XIIIA.

(c) When two or more propositions for incurring any indebtedness or liability are submitted at the same election, the votes cast for and against each proposition shall be counted separately, and when two-thirds or a majority or 55 percent of the voters, as the case may be, voting on any one of those propositions, vote in favor thereof, the proposition shall be deemed adopted.
(a) A county, city, town, township, board of education, or school district, shall not incur any indebtedness or liability in any manner or for any purpose exceeding in any year the income and revenue provided for that year, without the assent of two-thirds of the voters of the public entity voting at an election to be held for that purpose, except that with respect to any such public entity that is authorized to incur indebtedness for public school purposes, any proposition for the incurrence of indebtedness in the form of general obligation bonds for the purpose of repairing, reconstructing, or replacing public school buildings determined, in the manner prescribed by law, to be structurally unsafe for school use, shall be adopted upon the approval of a majority of the voters of the public entity voting on the proposition at the election; nor unless before or at the time of incurring such indebtedness provision shall be made for the collection of an annual tax sufficient to pay the interest on such indebtedness as it falls due, and to provide for a sinking fund for the payment of the principal thereof, on or before maturity, which shall not exceed 40 years from the time of contracting the indebtedness. A special district, other than a board of education or school district, shall not incur any indebtedness or liability exceeding any applicable statutory limit, as prescribed by the statutes governing the special district as they currently read or may thereafter be amended by the Legislature.
(b) (1) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), any proposition for the incurrence of indebtedness in the form of general obligation bonds for the purposes described in paragraph (3) or (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 1 of Article XIII A shall be adopted upon the approval of 55 percent of the voters of the school district, community college district, county office of education, city, county, city and county, or other special district, as appropriate, voting on the proposition at an election. This subdivision shall apply to a proposition for the incurrence of indebtedness in the form of general obligation bonds for the purposes specified in this subdivision only if the proposition meets all of the accountability requirements of paragraph (3) or (4) of subdivision (b), as appropriate, of Section 1 of Article XIII A.

(2) The amendments made to this subdivision by the measure adding this paragraph shall apply to any proposition for the incurrence of indebtedness in the form of general obligation bonds pursuant to this subdivision for the purposes described in paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) of Section 1 of Article XIII A that is submitted at the same election as the measure adding this paragraph or at a later election held after the effective date of the measure adding this paragraph.

(c) When two or more propositions for incurring any indebtedness or liability are submitted at the same election, the votes cast for and against each proposition shall be counted separately, and if two-thirds or a majority or 55 percent of the voters, as the case may be, voting on any one of those propositions, vote in favor thereof, the proposition shall be deemed adopted.

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2024

Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The attorney general wrote the ballot language for this measure.

The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 16, and the FRE is -9. The word count for the ballot title is 15.

The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 14, and the FRE is 14. The word count for the ballot summary is 18.

Support

Yes on 5, Californians for Safe Affordable Communities led the campaign in support of Proposition 5.

Supporters

Officials

• U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee (D)
• State Asm. Cecilia Aguiar-Curry (D)
• State Asm. Tina McKinnor (D)

Political Parties

• California Democratic Party

Government Entities

• Monterey County Board of Supervisors

Unions

• AFSCME California
• California Faculty Association
• California Federation of Teachers
• California Labor Federation
• California Nurses Association
• California Professional Firefighters
• California School Employees Association
• California Teachers Association
• SEIU California State Council
• State Building and Construction Trades Council of California
• UFCW Western States Council

Organizations

• AARP California
• ACLU of Northern California
• ACLU of Southern California
• AIDS Healthcare Foundation
• Association of Bay Area Governments
• Association of California Healthcare Districts
• California Alliance for Retired Americans
• California Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies
• California Coalition for Rural Housing
• California Environmental Justice Alliance
• California Housing Consortium
• California Special Districts Association
• California State Association of Counties
• California YIMBY
• Equality California
• Habitat for Humanity California
• League of California Cities
• League of Women Voters of California
• PICO California
• United Ways of California

Arguments

• Asm. Cecilia Aguiar-Curry (D): "ACA 1 will level the playing field and create parity between school districts and cities, counties, and special districts, so that all local governments have a variable financing tool to address community needs. It also contains various transparency and accountability measures, including an expenditure plan of projects and programs proposed, audits, and monitoring by a citizens' commission to assure resources are being spent as proposed."
• California Professional Firefighters: "Over the last several years, various public safety-specific tax and bond measures have appeared on local ballots up and down our state and received more than 55% majority vote in support but failed to attain the existing two-thirds voter approval. For example, a parcel tax to fund fire and EMS services for Higgins Fire District in Nevada County a few years ago received 61.2% of the vote and failed. The failure of this measure forced the district to lay off six full-time positions, keep only two of the three fire stations open at a time and, as a result, response times doubled to over 12 times."
• Jesse Arreguin, the mayor of Berkeley and vice president of the Association of Bay Area Governments: "As Californians, it is our right to tell the government how it should spend our taxpayer funds. If a majority of people believe that general obligation bonds should be issued for critical housing and infrastructure needs, then it should not be blocked by a minority. People may not always agree on everything, but our democratic system allows us to debate the best path forward and collectively implement the will of the people. Prop. 5 will give more control to the voters in how our money is spent, while making it easier to address some of the most critical issues of our time."

Opposition

Opponents

Political Parties

• Republican Party of California

Government Entities

• Placer County Board of Supervisors

Organizations

• California Chamber of Commerce
• California Taxpayers Association
• Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
• National Federation of Independent Business

Arguments

• California Taxpayer Association: "More than four decades ago, prompted by years of rising taxes, Californians resoundingly approved Proposition 13 to provide a check on local governments' taxing authority, and to ensure a greater representative voice for those who would be taxed. Proposition 13 also limits taxes on property to 1 percent of the property's assessed value. Reducing the vote threshold would diminish the people's voice on tax increases and would erode property tax safeguards."
• Dr. Gary Galles, economics professor at Pepperdine University: "ACA 1 would sharply lower Proposition 13’s two-thirds voter threshold to 55% for local special taxes to fund 'infrastructure' so vaguely defined that virtually anything could qualify. It would open the door to massive new tax hikes to give Sacramento politicians what they want from property tax-payers without giving them their money’s worth in return."
• Susan Shelley, vice president of communications for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association: "Ultimately, Prop. 5 creates a perverse incentive for local governments to misallocate public funds. When it’s easier to borrow money, some elected officials are likely to spend existing tax revenues on everything except high-priority needs. In future years, municipal budgets could become increasingly strained as more and more revenue gets diverted to repay investors for old debt."

Campaign finance

The campaign finance information on this page reflects the most recent scheduled reports that Ballotpedia has processed, which covered through December 31, 2024.

See also: Campaign finance requirements for California ballot measures

Three committees registered to support Proposition 5.

Two committees registered to oppose the ballot measure.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$14,268,047.63	$675,973.38	$14,944,021.01	$14,219,334.36	$14,895,307.74
Oppose	$3,291,041.61	$1,850.00	$3,292,891.61	$6,607,625.32	$6,609,475.32
Total	$17,559,089.24	$677,823.38	$18,181,762.62	$20,826,959.68	$21,504,783.06

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in support of the ballot measure.

Committees in support of Proposition 5
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Yes on 5, Californians for Safe Affordable Communities	$14,201,827.45	$675,973.38	$14,877,800.83	$14,181,814.29	$14,857,787.67
Thriving Communities for All San Francisco Supporting Prop 5 and Opposing Prop 36	$55,150.00	$0.00	$55,150.00	$8,761.53	$8,761.53
Silicon Valley Rising Action Issues Committee - Yes on Prop. 5	$11,070.18	$0.00	$11,070.18	$28,758.54	$28,758.54
Total	$14,268,047.63	$675,973.38	$14,944,021.01	$14,219,334.36	$14,895,307.74

Donors

The following table shows the top donors to the committee registered in support of the ballot measure.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California Action Fund	$4,740,000.00	$42,402.51	$4,782,402.51
Chan Zuckerberg Initiative Advocacy	$4,700,000.00	$0.00	$4,700,000.00
California Professional Firefighters Ballot Issue Committee	$100,000.00	$96,000.00	$196,000.00
The Related Companies/William Witte	$150,000.00	$0.00	$150,000.00
California Alliance for Jobs - Rebuild California Committee	$100,000.00	$0.00	$100,000.00
Northern California Carpenters Regional Council Power PAC	$100,000.00	$0.00	$100,000.00
Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters Issues Committee	$100,000.00	$0.00	$100,000.00
Working for Working Americans (United Brotherhood of Carpenters)	$100,000.00	$0.00	$100,000.00

Opposition

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in opposition to the ballot measure.

Committees in opposition to Proposition 5
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
No on Proposition 5 - Protect Local Taxpayers, Sponsored by California Homeowners, Businesses, and Taxpayers	$1,952,323.56	$1,850.00	$1,954,173.56	$2,012,469.94	$2,014,319.94
Protect Prop. 13, No on Prop 5	$1,338,718.05	$0.00	$1,338,718.05	$4,595,155.38	$4,595,155.38
Total	$3,291,041.61	$1,850.00	$3,292,891.61	$6,607,625.32	$6,609,475.32

Donors

The following table shows the top donors to the committees registered in opposition to the ballot measure.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
California Business Roundtable Issues PAC	$1,530,000.00	$0.00	$1,530,000.00
California Business Properties Association Issues PAC	$120,000.00	$0.00	$120,000.00
Gerald J. Marcil	$100,000.00	$0.00	$100,000.00
R.W. Selby & Company, Inc.	$53,480.00	$0.00	$53,480.00
Protect Prop. 13, a Project of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association	$21,500.00	$0.00	$21,500.00

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Media editorials

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

The following media editorial boards published an editorial supporting the ballot measure:

• Los Angeles Times Editorial Board: "In California, most elections are decided by a simple majority, including governor, mayor and statewide ballot measures. But the state Constitution requires a supermajority—two-thirds of the vote—to pass a local tax or bond to fund a specific program, such as building a water treatment plant or homeless housing, if that tax was put on the ballot by a city council or other elected body. That gives too much power to a minority of voters, who are able to block what a majority, or more, of their fellow voters support. It’s undemocratic."
• Bay Area Reporter Editorial Board: "Recent local election results suggest that an additional 20% to 50% of local bond measures would have passed under Prop 5's lower voter requirement. Given the state's massive shortage of affordable housing for low- and middle-income Californians, Prop 5 is one way to help alleviate that. Prop 5 does not raise taxes. Vote YES on Prop 5."

Opposition

The following media editorial boards published an editorial opposing the ballot measure:

• Mercury News & East Bay Times Editorial Board: "But local bonds require property tax increases to cover the debt. So, when voters approve local bond measures, they are also approving property tax increases. Which is why there’s logic behind a higher threshold for approval. But, as we’ve seen repeatedly in the Bay Area, the carveout for school bonds has been an electoral disaster. Proposition 5 would magnify the abuse. We have witnessed local school officials, sometimes with questionable relationships with companies that stand to benefit, engage in deceitful political tactics and campaigns at taxpayer expense to pass their measures."

Polls

See also: 2024 ballot measure polls

Are you aware of a poll on this ballot measure that should be included below? You can share ballot measure polls, along with source links, with us at editor@ballotpedia.org.

California Proposition 5, Lower Supermajority Requirement to 55% for Local Bond Measures to Fund Housing and Public Infrastructure Amendment (2024)
Poll	Dates	Sample size	Margin of error	Support	Oppose	Undecided

Public Policy Institute of California	10/07/2024 - 10/15/2024	1,137 LV	± 3.1%	48.0%	50.0%	3.0%
	Question: "Proposition 5 is called “Allows Local Bonds for Affordable Housing and Public Infrastructure With 55% Voter Approval.” Legislative Constitutional Amendment. Allows approval of local infrastructure and housing bonds for low- and middle-income Californians with 55% vote. Accountability requirements. Fiscal Impact: Increased local borrowing to fund affordable housing, supportive housing, and public infrastructure. The amount would depend on decisions by local governments and voters. Borrowing would be repaid with higher property taxes. Supporters include California Professional Firefighters; League of Women Voters in California; Habitat for Humanity California. Opponents include the California Taxpayers Association; California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce; Women Veterans Alliance. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no?"

Public Policy Institute of California	8/29/2024 - 09/11/2024	1,071 LV	± 3.7%	49.0%	50.0%	1.0%
	Question: "Proposition 5 is called “Allows Local Bonds for Affordable Housing and Public Infrastructure With 55% Voter Approval”. Legislative Constitutional Amendment. Allows approval of local infrastructure and housing bonds for low- and middle-income Californians with 55% vote. Accountability requirements. Fiscal Impact: Increased local borrowing to fund affordable housing, supportive housing, and public infrastructure. The amount would depend on decisions by local governments and voters. Borrowing would be repaid with higher property taxes. The fiscal impact is increased local borrowing to fund affordable housing, supportive housing, and public infrastructure. The amount would depend on decisions by local governments and voters. Borrowing would be repaid with higher property taxes. Supporters include California Professional Firefighters; League of Women Voters in California; Habitat for Humanity California. Opponents include the California Taxpayers Association; California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce; Women Veterans Alliance. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no?"

Note: LV is likely voters, RV is registered voters, and EV is eligible voters.

Background

California Proposition 13 (1978)

See also: California Proposition 13, Tax Limitations Initiative (June 1978)

In 1978, California voters adopted Proposition 13 with 64.8% of voters voting in favor of the amendment. Proposition 13 enacted the following changes:

• require that properties be taxed at no more than 1 percent of their full cash value shown on the 1975-1976 assessment rolls and limit annual increases of assessed (taxable) value to the inflation rate or 2 percent, whichever was less;
• upon the transfer of properties, allow them to be reassessed at one percent of their sale price and reset the limit on annual increases of assessed value;
• prohibit the state legislature from enacting new taxes on the value or sale of properties;
• require a two-thirds vote of the state legislature to increase non-property taxes;
• require local governments to refer special taxes to the ballot and require a two-thirds vote of electors; and
• make the state government responsible for distributing property tax revenue among local governments.

Constitutional vote requirement for local bond measures

Section 18 of Article XVI of the state constitution required that all local bond measures, except those issued by local school districts or community college districts, must be approved by two-thirds of voters. In 2000, California voters adopted Proposition 39, which lowered the vote threshold for local school districts and community college districts to issue bonds from 66.67% to 55%.

Local tax or bond measures for housing, 2020-2023

Ballotpedia tracked three local ballot measures in three jurisdictions between 2020 and 2023 that authorized taxes or bonds to fund housing projects. All three measures were defeated because they did not meet the two-thirds supermajority requirement.

Year	Jurisdiction	Title	Yes vote	No vote	Outcome
2022	Berkeley	Measure L	59.42%	40.58%	d
2020	San Diego	Measure A	57.55%	42.45%	d
2020	East Palo Alto	Measure V	64.66%	35.34%	d

Path to the ballot

See also: Amending the California Constitution

A two-thirds (66.67%) vote is required during one legislative session for the California State Legislature to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot. That amounts to a minimum of 54 votes in the California State Assembly and 27 votes in the California State Senate, assuming no vacancies. Amendments do not require the governor's signature to be referred to the ballot.

This amendment was introduced as Assembly Constitutional Amendment 1 on December 5, 2022. On September 6, 2023, the state Assembly passed ACA 1 in a vote of 55-12, with 13 absent. On September 14, 2023, the state Senate passed ACA 1 by 29-10. ACA 1 was amended on June 27, 2024, by the passage of ACA 10. ACA 10 was approved in the Assembly by a vote of 54-8 and in the Senate by a vote of 31-8. The vote breakdown for both amendments is below:

ACA 1

Vote in the California House of Representatives September 6, 2023
Requirement: Two-thirds (66.67 percent) vote of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 54  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	55	12	13
Total percent	68.75%	15.00%	16.25%
Democrat	55	0	7
Republican	0	12	6

Vote in the California State Senate September 14, 2023
Requirement: Two-thirds (66.67 percent) vote of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 27  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	29	10	1
Total percent	72.5%	25.0%	2.5%
Democrat	29	2	1
Republican	0	8	0

ACA 10

Vote in the California House of Representatives June 24, 2024
Requirement: Two-thirds (66.67 percent) vote of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 53  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	54	8	17
Total percent	68.4%	10.1%	21.5%
Democrat	54	0	8
Republican	0	8	9

Vote in the California State Senate June 27, 2024
Requirement: Two-thirds (66.67 percent) vote of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 27  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	31	8	1
Total percent	77.5%	20.0%	2.5%
Democrat	31	0	1
Republican	0	8	0

Lawsuit

  

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Whether the ballot label accurately describes what the amendment would do
Court: Superior Court of Sacramento County, California
Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, without any changes to the ballot language.
Plaintiff(s): Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association	Defendant(s): California Secretary of State Shirley Weber (D)
Plaintiff argument: The ballot label does not state that the amendment would lower the existing vote threshold from 66.67% to 55%.	Defendant argument: The vote threshold information is described in the ballot title and summary.

  Source: Courthouse News Service

On August 1, 2024, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association filed a lawsuit arguing that the ballot label was misleading because it did not describe how the measure would reduce the vote threshold from 66.67% to 55% for local bond measures to fund housing and public infrastructure.

On August 8, Superior Court Judge Shelleyanne W.L. Chang ruled that the ballot title needed to be rewritten to include the 66.67% threshold.

On August 13, a three-judge panel from California's Third District Court of Appeals overturned the Superior Court's ruling arguing that voters would be informed from the ballot title and summary about the 66.67% threshold and therefore does not need to be included in the ballot label.

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in California

See below to learn more about current voter registration rules, identification requirements, and poll times in California.

How to vote in California

Poll times

All polls in California are open from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Pacific Time. An individual who is in line at the time polls close must be allowed to vote.

Registration

Check your voter registration status here.

To vote in California, an individual must be a U.S. citizen and California resident. A voter must be at least 18 years of age on Election Day. Pre-registration is available at 16 years of age. Pre-registered voters are automatically registered to vote when they turn 18.

Automatic registration

California automatically registers eligible individuals to vote when they complete a driver's license, identification (ID) card, or change of address transaction through the Department of Motor Vehicles. Learn more by visiting this website.

Online registration

See also: Online voter registration

California has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website.

Same-day registration

California allows same-day voter registration.

Californians must be registered to vote at least 15 days before Election Day. If the registration deadline has passed for an upcoming election, voters may visit a location designated by their county elections official during the 14 days prior to, and including Election Day to conditionally register to vote and vote a provisional ballot, which are counted once county election officials have completed the voter registration verification process. The state refers to this process as Same Day Voter Registration.

Residency requirements

To register to vote in California, you must be a resident of the state. State law does not specify a length of time for which you must have been a resident to be eligible.

Verification of citizenship

See also: Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States

California's constitution requires that voters be U.S. citizens. When registering to vote, proof of citizenship is not required. Individuals who become U.S. citizens less than 15 days before an election must bring proof of citizenship to their county elections office to register to vote in that election. An individual applying to register to vote must attest that they are a U.S. citizen under penalty of perjury.

As of November 2024, two jurisdictions in California had authorized noncitizen residents to vote for local board of education positions through local ballot measures. Only one of those jurisdictions, San Francisco, had implemented that law. Noncitizens voting for board of education positions must register to vote using a separate application from the state voter registration application.

All 49 states with voter registration systems require applicants to declare that they are U.S. citizens in order to register to vote in state and federal elections, under penalty of perjury or other punishment. Seven states — Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, New Hampshire, and Wyoming — have laws requiring verification of citizenship at the time of voter registration, whether in effect or not. In three states — California, Maryland, and Vermont — at least one local jurisdiction allows noncitizens to vote in some local elections. Noncitizens registering to vote in those elections must complete a voter registration application provided by the local jurisdiction and are not eligible to register as state or federal voters.

Verifying your registration

The secretary of state's My Voter Status website allows residents to check their voter registration status online.

Voter ID requirements

California does not require voters to present identification before casting a ballot in most cases. However, some voters may be asked to show a form of identification when voting if they are voting for the first time after registering to vote by mail and did not provide a driver license number, California identification number, or the last four digits of their social security number. On September 29, 2024, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed SB 1174 into law prohibiting any jurisdiction in the state from adopting a local law that requires voters to present ID before voting.

The following list of accepted ID was current as of October 2024. Click here for the California Secretary of State page to ensure you have the most current information.

“

Current and valid photo identification provided by a third party in the ordinary course of business that includes the name and photograph of the individual presenting it. Examples of photo identification include, but are not limited to, the following documents: driver's license or identification card of any state; passport; employee identification card; identification card provided by a commercial establishment; credit or debit card; military identification card; student identification card; health club identification card; insurance plan identification card; or public housing identification card. Any of the following documents, provided that the document includes the name and address of the individual presenting it, and is dated since the date of the last general election…: utility bill; bank statement; government check; government paycheck; document issued by a governmental agency; sample ballot or other official elections document issued by a governmental, agency dated for the election in which the individual is providing it as proof, of residency or identity; voter notification card issued by a governmental agency; public housing identification card issued by a governmental agency; lease or rental statement or agreement issued by a governmental agency; student identification card issued by a governmental agency; tuition statement or bill issued by a governmental agency; insurance plan card or drug discount card issued by a governmental agency; discharge certificates, pardons, or other official documents issued to the individual by a governmental agency in connection with the resolution of a criminal case, indictment, sentence, or other matter; public transportation authority senior citizen and disabled discount cards issued by a governmental agency; identification documents issued by governmental disability agencies; identification documents issued by government homeless shelters and other government temporary or transitional facilities; drug prescription issued by a government doctor or other governmental health care provider; (R) property tax statement issued by a governmental agency; vehicle registration issued by a governmental agency; or vehicle certificate of ownership issued by a governmental agency.

”

See also

2024 measures

• 2024 ballot measures
• Supermajority requirements on the ballot
• Taxes on the ballot

California

• California ballot measures
• California ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

• Full text