California Proposition 1, Behavioral Health Services Program and Bond Measure (March 2024)

California Proposition 1, Behavioral Health Services Program and Bond Measure
Election date March 5, 2024
Topic Healthcare and Bond issues
Status a Approved
Type State statute	Origin State legislature

California Proposition 1, the Behavioral Health Services Program and Bond Measure, was on the ballot in California as a legislatively referred state statute on March 5, 2024. The ballot measure was approved.

A "yes" vote supported: renaming the Mental Health Services Act (2004) to the Behavioral Health Services Act and expanding its purpose to include substance use disorders, including for persons without a mental illness; changing how revenue from the 1% tax on income above $1 million is spent under the law, including requiring 30% of the Behavioral Health Services Fund be allocated to housing intervention programs;  increasing the size of the oversight commission from 16 to 27 voting members; and issuing $6.38 billion in bonds to fund housing for homeless individuals and veterans, including up to $4.4 billion for mental health care and drug or alcohol treatment facilities and $2.0 billion for housing for homeless persons.

A "no" vote opposed changing the Mental Health Services Act and issuing $6.38 billion in bonds for homeless individuals and veterans.

Election results

California Proposition 1
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		3,636,678	50.18%
No		3,610,436	49.82%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

How did Proposition 1 change mental health services in California?

See also: Measure design

Proposition 1 amended the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA), which was adopted with the approval of Proposition 63 in 2004. Proposition 63 enacted an additional 1% tax on income above $1 million and dedicated the revenue to counties to fund mental health services and programs. Proposition 1 renamed the MHSA to the Behavioral Health Services Act (BHSA). Proposition 1 also expanded the act to include treatment for substance use disorders. It changed how county mental health plans are required to spend revenue from the 1% tax and increase the number of members on the oversight commission of the act.

What did the bond measure proceeds fund?

See also: Measure design

Proposition 1 issued $6.38 billion in general obligation bonds alongside the statutory changes to the Mental Health Services Act. The proceeds from the bond issue were allocated as follows:

• $1.05 billion for permanent supportive housing for homeless veterans who have mental health or substance abuse disorders,
• $922 million to fund permanent supportive housing for people experiencing or at risk of homelessness and have behavioral health needs; and
• $4.393 billion for grants for behavioral health treatment and housing eligible under the Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program.

Who supported and opposed Proposition 1?

See also: Support and Opposition

Yes on Prop 1 led the campaign in support of Proposition 1. The campaign received endorsements from Blue Shield of California, Sutter Health, California Professional Firefighters, California Business Roundtable, California Chamber of Commerce, California Hospital Association, and Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission. Four committees registered in support of Proposition 1, including Governor Gavin Newsom's (D) Ballot Measure Committee. Together they reported over $18.16 million in contributions.

Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), said, "These reforms will help California make good on promises made decades ago. We see the signs of our broken system every day – too many Californians suffering from mental health needs or substance use disorders and unable to get support or care they need. This will prioritize getting people off the streets, out of tents and into treatment."

Californians Against Proposition 1 led the campaign in opposition of Proposition 1. The campaign's endorsements included Cal Voices, Disability Rights California, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, League of Women Voters of California, and Mental Health America of California.

Carl DeMaio, chairman of Reform California and a leader of the NO on Prop 1 campaign: "At a time when we face a growing mental health crisis with homelessness, Prop 1 actually diverts existing funds from mental health treatment programs so the money can be diverted to government-financed housing projects. In doing so, Prop 1 raids and diverts funding from the very mental health treatment programs that currently serve homeless people! That’s why a bipartisan coalition of mental health treatment advocates oppose Prop 1 and warn of devastating cuts to mental health treatment programs if it passes."

How did Proposition 1 get on the ballot?

See also: Path to the ballot

Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) proposed Proposition 1 in partnership with Senator Susan Talamantes Eggman (D-5) and Asm. Jacqui Irwin (D-42). Proposition 1 was the product of two laws passed during the 2023 legislative session—Senate Bill 326 and Assembly Bill 531. Both bills contained provisions requiring the bills to appear jointly on the March 5, 2024 ballot as Proposition 1. All Democrats and 15 of the 22 voting Republicans voted in favor of SB 326. AB 531 also received unanimous approval by voting Democrats, and eight of the 18 voting Republicans voted in favor of the bill.

Measure design

Proposition 1 was the product of two laws passed during the 2023 legislative session—Senate Bill 326 and Assembly Bill 531. Click on the arrows below to read about the details of both bills.

Behavioral Health Services Act and Fund: Renaming of the Mental Health Services Act and changes to the fund structure

Proposition 1 amended the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA), which was adopted with the approval of Proposition 63 in 2004. Proposition 63 enacted an additional 1% tax on income above $1 million and dedicated the revenue to counties to fund mental health services and programs. For fiscal year 2022-2023, the tax generated $3.3 billion according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office. The law can only be amended to further the act's purpose by a two-thirds vote of the state legislature since it was adopted via an initiative.

Proposition 1 renamed the MHSA to the Behavioral Health Services Act (BHSA). It also expanded the act to include treatment for substance use disorders. It also renamed the Mental Health Services Fund (MHSF) to the Behavioral Health Services Fund and make changes to how the funding is allocated. At the time of the election, the MHSF allocated 20% of the tax revenue to county mental health plans for prevention and early intervention programs and 80% to fund the adult and the children’s systems of care. Under Proposition 1, 30% of the BHSF was allocated to counties for housing intervention programs, with 50% of that portion dedicated to housing interventions for chronically homeless individuals; 35% to fund full-service partnership programs; 35% to fund behavioral health services and supports, with 51% of that portion dedicated to programs serving individuals 25 years of age or younger; 20% for a prudent reserve for county behavioral health plans; 3% to fund a statewide behavioral health workforce initiative under the Department of Health Care Access and Information (HCAI); and 4% to fund the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) for population-based mental health and substance use disorder prevention programs.

Behavioral Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission: Renaming and expanding the Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission

Proposition 1 renamed the Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission to the Behavioral Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission and expaned its membership from 16 voting members to 27 adding the following governor-appointed members:

• two individuals who have or have had a substance use disorder;
• an individual who is 25 years or younger and has or has had a mental health disorder, substance use disorder, or co-occurring disorder;
• a family member of an adult or older adult who has or has had a substance use disorder;
• a current or former behavioral health director;
• a family member of a child or youth who has or has had a substance use disorder;
• a professional with expertise in housing and homelessness;
• a representative of an aging or disability organization;
• a person with knowledge and experience in community-defined evidence practices and reducing behavioral health disparities;
• a representative of a children and youth organization; and,
• a veteran or a representative of a veteran organization.

Housing interventions, early intervention programs, and full service partnership programs: Requiring county behavioral health plans to include the following programs

Proposition 1 required county behavioral health plans to include housing interventions, early intervention programs, and full service partnership programs. Housing interventions included rental subsidies, operating subsidies, shared housing, family housing for eligible children and youth. Early intervention programs are aimed at reducing suicide, self-harm, incarcerations, school suspension or expulsion, failure to complete school, homelessness, overdose, and mental illness in children and youth. A full service partnership program included mental health services, supportive services, and substance use disorder treatment services; community treatment models as specified by the State Department of Health Care Services; and housing interventions.

California State Auditor Reports: Auditing and report requirements

Proposition 1 required the California State Auditor to issue a report to the governor, the legislature, the Senate and Assembly Committees on Health, the Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development, and the Senate Committee on Housing on the implementation of the Behavioral Health Services Act with recommendations no later than December 31, 2029. It required such an audit to be conducted every three years with the final audit due December 31, 2035.

Proposition 1 established a Behavioral Health Services Act Revenue Stability Workgroup to assess revenue fluctuations year over year.

Behavioral Health Infrastructure Bond Act: $6.380 billion in bonds

Proposition 1 issued $6.380 billion in bonds alongside the statutory changes to the Mental Health Services Act. The proceeds from the bond issue were allocated as follows:

• $1.05 billion for permanent supportive housing for homeless veterans who have mental health or substance use disorders,
• $922 million to fund permanent supportive housing for people experiencing or at risk of homelessness and have behavioral health needs; and
• $4.393 billion for grants for behavioral health treatment and housing eligible under the Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title was as follows:

“

Authorizes $6.38 billion in bonds to build mental health treatment facilities for those with mental health and substance use challenges; provides housing for the homeless. Legislative statute.

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary was as follows:

“

Amends Mental Health Services Act to provide additional behavioral health services.

”

Fiscal impact

The fiscal impact statement was as follows:

“

Shift roughly $140 million annually of existing tax revenue for mental health, drug, and alcohol treatment from counties to the state. Increased state bond repayment costs of $310 million annually for 30 years.

”

Official supporters and opponents

The official supporters listed in the ballot language were as follows:

“

California Professional Firefighters; CA Assoc. of Veteran Service Agencies; National Alliance on Mental Illness–CA

”

The official opponents listed in the ballot language were as follows:

“

Mental Health America of California; Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association; CalVoices

”

Full text

The full text of Proposition 1 is below:

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 9, and the FRE is 45. The word count for the ballot title is 26.

The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 16, and the FRE is 3. The word count for the ballot summary is 11.

Support

Yes on Prop 1 led the campaign in support of Proposition 1. Governor Newsom's Ballot Measure Committee sponsored the campaign. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), said, "These reforms will help California make good on promises made decades ago. We see the signs of our broken system every day – too many Californians suffering from mental health needs or substance use disorders and unable to get support or care they need. This will prioritize getting people off the streets, out of tents and into treatment."

Supporters

Officials

• Gov. Gavin Newsom (D)
• State Sen. Susan Talamantes Eggman (D)
• Santa Monica City Council
• Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis (D)

American Indian Tribes

• Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria

Corporations

• Blue Shield of California
• Kaiser Permanente
• Sutter Health

Unions

• California Correctional Peace Officers Association
• California Professional Firefighters

Organizations

• California Business Roundtable
• California Chamber of Commerce
• California Hospital Association
• California Statewide Law Enforcement Association
• California Veterans Assistance Foundation
• League of California Cities
• Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission
• National Alliance on Mental Illness California

Arguments

• Sen. Susan Talamantes Eggman (D-5), who co-authored the bills: "Together they will build out voluntary housing, reprioritize resources to those with the greatest needs, and provide a true safety net to prevent the many people falling through the cracks that we see today."
• Matt Lege, government relations advocate for SEIU California: "SEIU supports SB 326 because we believe in a holistic, compassionate approach to care, with a focus on equity, and we believe this proposal makes a good start."
• Gov. Gavin Newsom (D): "We're reforming the Mental Health Services Act of 2004 to reconcile the fact that in 2004, it never envisioned housing. And it never envisioned substance abuse as an eligible use for the Mental Health Services Act money."

Official arguments

The following is the argument in support of Proposition 1 found in the Official Voter Information Guide:

Vote YES on Proposition 1: Treatment, Not Tents. Why does California face a humanitarian crisis of homelessness, mental illness and substance abuse? Our mental health system is broken. It goes back to the closure of the state’s mental health hospitals in the 1960’s and 70’s when politicians dumped tens of thousands of patients into our communities and failed to provide alternative services to fill the gap. Mental health treatment has been underfunded for decades, and the COVID pandemic only made things worse. Proposition 1 will finally change that. Proposition 1 combines compassion and common sense. Proposition 1 authorizes $6.4 billion in bonds and directs billions more annually to finally fix our broken mental health system and move people permanently of the streets, out of tents and into treatment. EXPANDS COMMUNITY-BASED SERVICES: Prop. 1 will expand community-based mental health and addiction services across the state and serve tens of thousands of Californians each year. BUILDS SUPPORTIVE HOUSING: The initiative will create supportive housing settings where over 11,000 Californians with the severest mental health needs can live, recover, stabilize and thrive. PROVIDES TREATMENT OVER INCARCERATION: One in three California prisoners has a diagnosed mental illness. Today, we spend over $100,000 per incarcerated person. Research shows it’s costly and counterproductive. Prop. 1 will prioritize treatment not punishment for the mentally ill. HELPS HOMELESS VETERANS: It is disgraceful that over 10,000 California veterans, many sufering from PTSD, are homeless and on the streets. Prop. 1 will provide $1 billion to serve veterans experiencing homelessness, mental health and substance abuse issues. ADDRESSES SHORTAGE OF MENTAL HEALTH WORKERS: Currently, those with serious mental health issues can wait six months or longer just for an introductory appointment. Prop. 1 will help fund additional professionals so that people with mental health needs can get help in real time. REQUIRES STRICT ACCOUNTABILITY: Democrats and Republicans support Prop. 1 because it addresses mental health and homelessness without raising taxes. And Prop. 1 has strict accountability measures, including mandatory audits, to ensure that funds are spent as promised. California has the most acute homelessness epidemic in the nation. Meanwhile, nearly 1 in 7 California adults experiences a mental illness. This is a crisis only Californians can solve. Join first responders, mental health professionals, California veterans, and organizations supporting veterans like the California Association of Veteran Service Agencies. By voting YES on Proposition 1, we can finally establish a modernized mental health system that will serve the needs of all our residents, get our most vulnerable of the streets and ofer every Californian a genuine shot at a brighter future. Choose compassion and common sense. Choose treatment over tents. Vote YES on Proposition 1. Learn more at: treatmentnottents.com Brian K. Rice, President California Professional Firefighters James Espinoza, MS, President The Veteran Mentor Project Jessica Cruz, MPA/HS, Chief Executive Ofcer National Alliance on Mental Illness—California

Opposition

Californians Against Proposition 1 led the campaign in opposition of Proposition 1. The campaign states on its website, "Proposition 1 is huge, expensive and destructive. It would cost taxpayers more than $9 billion. It also redirects the spending of at least $30 billion in mental health services money in its first 10 years, cutting existing mental health services that are working. Prop. 1 builds very little housing, despite being offered as a solution to homelessness. There are better solutions that do not require excessive borrowing or cutting local programs that work. Please get the facts and vote no!"

Opponents

Officials

• State Sen. Brian Jones (R)
• State Rep. Diane Dixon (R)

Government Entities

• Placer County Board of Supervisors

Organizations

• Cal Voices
• Disability Rights California
• Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
• League of Women Voters of California
• Mental Health America of California

Arguments

• The Davis Vanguard: "Financial support for a wide array of effective, voluntary, evidence-based, community-based, accessible, service options will be dramatically cut. Also on the chopping block is one of the only funding sources for peer support and culturally responsive mental health services for racial and ethnic minority communities. In their place, Proposition 1 would massively expand involuntary treatment options. There is no evidence base of effectiveness for these forced treatment proposals, and a multitude of reports show how these attempts at care primarily result in further distress and harm to the service user."
• Carl DeMaio, chairman of Reform California and a leader of the NO on Prop 1 campaign: "At a time when we face a growing mental health crisis with homelessness, Prop 1 actually diverts existing funds from mental health treatment programs so the money can be diverted to government-financed housing projects. In doing so, Prop 1 raids and diverts funding from the very mental health treatment programs that currently serve homeless people! That’s why a bipartisan coalition of mental health treatment advocates oppose Prop 1 and warn of devastating cuts to mental health treatment programs if it passes."
• Paul Simmons, a director of Californians Against Proposition 1: "Proposition 1 doubles the state’s administrative costs for the Mental Health Services Act from 5% to 10%, sucking $140 million per year away from county-level services. Then Prop. 1 diverts another 30% of mental health program funding to other programs. You cannot take away 35% of county-level funding for mental health without cutting community-based programs. The simple fact is that Prop. 1 orders counties to do more with less money.”

Official arguments

The following is the argument in opposition to Proposition 1 found in the Official Voter Information Guide:

Governor Newsom’s Proposition 1 is a nightmare for taxpayers, cities and counties, and people with mental illness. Prop. 1 is so huge, expensive, and destructive, it’s already attracted a BIPARTISAN coalition of opponents. Vote NO because: PROP. 1 WILL COST TAXPAYERS MORE THAN $10 BILLION. Prop. 1 puts taxpayers on the hook for DECADES to pay back new bonds. This isn’t 'free money!' It’s credit card borrowing from Wall Street. According to Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, bonds are the most expensive and inefficient way to pay for a government program. And with interest rates today, it’s a VERY BAD TIME to be taking on new bond debt, adding at least 60% IN INTEREST COSTS, costing taxpayers an estimated $10.58– $12.45 billion. This will take decades to pay back. The State should have prioritized spending through the budget process when we had a $100 billion state budget surplus. Our children will be paying our debts, and their streets won’t be any cleaner for it. PROP. 1 ISN’T A SOLUTION TO HOMELESSNESS. The State has failed at reducing California’s homelessness problem. Sacramento has already thrown $20 billion at the crisis in the last five years without making significant progress. The number of unhoused people increased 6% last year. The State Auditor’s Office is still trying to find where the billions went. We will indeed have more tents in our neighborhoods and fewer people in treatment if Prop. 1 passes. If the state wants a grand solution for homelessness, it should attack the heart of the problem through the regular budget process—not expensive bond measures that RAISE TAXPAYER COSTS LONG-TERM. Californians are already some of the most over-taxed people in the country. PROP. 1 CUTS SERVICES FOR THE MENTALLY ILL. In 2004, the voters passed Proposition 63, the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA), which dedicated funds for community-based mental health services. Prop. 1 STEALS AWAY almost 1/3 of that guaranteed annual funding from the “millionaire’s tax” leaving already underfunded programs to fight for the remaining money. That’s why CalVoices, California’s oldest mental health advocacy agency, opposes it. PROP. 1 MANDATES STATE CONTROL OVER LOCAL CONTROL, WITH REDUCED OVERSIGHT. California’s 58 urban and rural counties all have different needs. Prop. 1 brings a one-size-fits-all program and puts a huge, unaccountable state agency in charge. The voter-approved MHSA was locally based, allowing counties to set their own priorities, with mandatory, independent oversight and accountability. Under Prop. 1, oversight and accountability are watered down, instead giving authority to the governor and his bureaucrats. This threatens effective programs that counties already offer. Leave it to Sacramento to find a way to INCREASE COSTS, CUT VITAL PROGRAMS, and offer only UNPROVEN IDEAS! Far from being a magic solution, Prop. 1 is a multibillion-dollar disaster that will hurt the very people it claims to help. And who’s left holding the bag when Prop. 1 fails? The taxpayers, once again. THIS IS THE WRONG APPROACH. VOTE NO ON PROP. 1. Senate Minority Leader Brian W. Jones Assemblymember Diane B. Dixon Heidi Strunk, CEO, Mental Health America of California

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for California ballot measures

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

Ballotpedia identified four committees registered in support of Proposition 1—Newsom's Ballot Measure Committee; Yes on Prop 1, Irwin's Committee to Support Veterans and the Mental Health Services Act, Yes on Proposition 1-Expanding Access to Mental Health Services and Veterans' Care, and Statewide California Coalition Solutions Committee in support of Prop 1. One committee—Californians Against Proposition 1—was registered in opposition to Proposition 1.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$18,190,779.23	$719,751.01	$18,910,530.24	$19,184,702.94	$19,904,453.95
Oppose	$5,299.04	$0.00	$5,299.04	$4,426.59	$4,426.59
Total	$18,196,078.27	$719,751.01	$18,915,829.28	$19,189,129.53	$19,908,880.54

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in support of Proposition 1.

Committees in support of Proposition 1
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Newsom's Ballot Measure Committee; Yes on Prop 1	$16,323,779.23	$426,001.01	$16,749,780.24	$17,314,303.74	$17,740,304.75
Yes on Proposition 1-Expanding Access to Mental Health Services and Veterans' Care	$985,000.00	$293,200.00	$1,278,200.00	$984,999.50	$1,278,199.50
Statewide California Coalition Solutions Committee	$752,500.00	$0.00	$752,500.00	$755,899.70	$755,899.70
Irwin's Committee to Support Veterans and the Mental Health Services Act	$129,500.00	$550.00	$130,050.00	$129,500.00	$130,050.00
Total	$18,190,779.23	$719,751.01	$18,910,530.24	$19,184,702.94	$19,904,453.95

Donors

The following table shows the top donors to the committees registered in support of Proposition 1.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria	$1,500,000.00	$0.00	$1,500,000.00
Sutter Health	$1,175,000.00	$0.00	$1,175,000.00
California Hospital Committee on Issues	$1,025,000.00	$0.00	$1,025,000.00
California Correctional Peace Officers Association Truth in American Government Fund	$1,000,000.00	$0.00	$1,000,000.00
Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. and Hospitals	$1,000,000.00	$0.00	$1,000,000.00
Members' Voice of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California	$1,000,000.00	$0.00	$1,000,000.00

Opposition

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in opposition to Proposition 1.

Committees in opposition to Proposition 1
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Californians Against Proposition 1	$5,299.04	$0.00	$5,299.04	$4,426.59	$4,426.59
Total	$5,299.04	$0.00	$5,299.04	$4,426.59	$4,426.59

Donors

The following table shows the top donors to the committee registered in opposition to Proposition 1.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Jon Li	$1,000.00	$0.00	$1,000.00
Protect Prop. 13, a Project of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association	$1,000.00	$0.00	$1,000.00

Methodology

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

Media editorials

See also: 2023 ballot measure media endorsements

Ballotpedia identified the following media editorial boards as taking positions on the proposition.

Ballotpedia lists the positions of media editorial boards that support or oppose ballot measures. This does not include opinion pieces from individuals or groups that do not represent the official position of a newspaper or media outlet. Ballotpedia includes editorials from newspapers and outlets based on circulation and readership, political coverage within a state, and length of publication. You can share media editorial board endorsements with us at editor@ballotpedia.org.

Support

• San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Board: "California is short thousands of mental health beds at all levels of care, according to a 2021 study from the nonprofit think tank Rand Corp. Furthermore, even when beds are available, many facilities are unwilling or unable to accept patients with complex co-occurring conditions, criminal records and a history of violence. Other times, beds sit empty because there aren’t enough workers to staff them. As of late last year, some behavioral health nonprofits that contract with San Francisco had vacancy rates reaching 40%. Enter Proposition 1, a state ballot measure that Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration describes as the 'linchpin' of its strategy to overhaul California’s behavioral health system. ... The status quo is not an option — and that means voting 'yes' for Prop. 1 on March 5."
• The Bakersfield Californian Editorial Board: "This tug of war over California’s mental health dollars will not solve California’s mental health crisis. Proposition 1 promises real solutions."
• Los Angeles Times Editorial Board: "When compared with the cost of doing nothing, Proposition 1 is an important step forward in meeting California’s responsibility to the most vulnerable homeless people and those housed Californians with behavioral health problems most at risk of ending up on the street. It is a worthy addition to other state, local and private investments, and it warrants support. The Times urges voters to approve Proposition 1."
• The Mercury News Editorial Board: "The state has limited resources, the current distribution of money is not getting the job done and the problem requires a statewide approach. To provide a clearer picture of federal, state and county efforts in California to address mental health issues, Prop. 1 would also require counties to report how they spend all the money from those sources. Newsom wants to try something new. Voters should give him that chance. But they should also hold him accountable to ensure that Proposition 1 delivers promised improvements."

Opposition

• The Orange County Register Editorial Board: "In addition to adding $6.38 billion to the state’s $80 billion bond debt, Proposition 1 permanently raids the funding for mental health services that voters approved in 2004 with Proposition 63, the Mental Health Services Act. That measure put a 1% tax on incomes over $1 million, and it typically generates between $2 billion and $3.5 billion per year. By law, 95% of the money goes to the counties for mental health services and the state takes 5% for mental health programs. ... Vote no on Proposition 1. It’s no solution."

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 1, Behavioral Health Services Program and Bond Measure (March 2024)
Poll	Dates	Sample size	Margin of error	Support	Oppose	Undecided

Public Policy Institute of California	2/6/2024-2/13/2024	1,075 LV	± 3.9%	59%	38%	2%
	Question: "Proposition 1 is called the “Authorizes $6.38 Billion in Bonds to Build Mental Health Treatment Facilities for Those With Mental Health and Substance Use Challenges; Provides Housing for the Homeless. Legislative Statute.” It amends the Health Services Act to provide additional behavioral health services. The fiscal impacts are to shift roughly $140 million annually of existing tax revenue for mental health, drug, and alcohol treatment from counties to the state and increase state bond repayment costs of $310 million annually for 30 years. Supporters include California Professional Firefighters; CA Assoc. of Veteran Service Agencies; National Alliance on Mental Illness—CA Opponents include Mental Health America of California; Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association; CalVoices. If the election were today, would you vote yes or no on Proposition 1?"

University of Southern California Dornsife/Price, Center for Urban Politics and Policy, CSU Long Beach, and Cal Poly Pomona	1/21/2024-1/29/2024	1,416 LV	± 2.6%	66%	21%	14%
	Question: "Proposition 1 is the Behavioral Health Services Program and Bond Measure. This ballot proposition authorizes $6.4 billion in bonds to build mental health treatment facilities for those with mental health and substance use challenges; and provides housing for the homeless by changing how existing spending is allocated. Would you support or oppose Proposition 1?"

Morning Consult + Politico	12/15/2023-12/19/2023	1,005 RV	± 3.0%	72%	28%	0%
	Question: "As you may know, the March 5, 2024 primary ballot will include a vote on Proposition 1, which would authorize $6.38 billion in bonds to build mental health treatment facilities for those with mental health and substance use challenges, and would create housing for homeless people who have mental health or addiction challenges. Proposition 1 would shift roughly $140 million annually of existing tax revenue for mental health, drug, and alcohol treatment from counties to the state. Increased state bond repayment would cost $310 million annually for 30 years. A YES vote on this measure means: Counties would need to change some of the mental health care and drug or alcohol treatment services provided currently to focus more on housing and personalized support services. The state could borrow up to $6.4 billion to build (1) more places where people could get mental health care and drug or alcohol treatment and (2) more housing for people with mental health, drug, or alcohol challenges. A NO vote on this measure means: Counties would not need to change the mental health care and drug or alcohol treatment services provided currently. The state could not borrow up to $6.4 billion to build more places where people could get mental health care and drug or alcohol treatment and more housing for people with mental health, drug, or alcohol challenges. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on Proposition 1?"

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

Background

California Proposition 63, Tax Increase on Income Above $1 Million for Mental Health Services Initiative (2004)

See also: California Proposition 63, Tax Increase on Income Above $1 Million for Mental Health Services Initiative (2004)

California Proposition 63 was approved in 2004 by 53.71% of voters. The initiated state statute enacted an additional 1% tax on income above $1 million and dedicated the revenue to mental health services and programs.

Proposition 63 dedicated expenditures from the tax as follows:

• 45% of funds for local capital facilities, including existing planning for a new management and clinical information systems;
• 45% for education and training, including a local needs assessment identifying staff shortages in each professional occupational category;
• 5% for county planning in developing both first stage plans and subsequent three year plans;
• 5% of total available funds for the California Department of Mental Health, California Mental Health Planning Council, and Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission

The ballot measure created a 16-member commission called the Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission, which was to include:

• California Attorney General or designee
• Superintendent of Public Instruction or designee
• Chairperson of the Senate Health and Human Services Committee or another member of the Senate selected by the President pro Tempore of the Senate
• Chairperson of the Assembly Health Committee or another member of the Assembly selected by the Speaker of the Assembly
• Twelve appointees of the Governor, including:
  • two persons with a severe mental illness
  • a family member of an adult or senior with a severe mental illness
  • a family member of a child who has or has had a severe mental illness
  • a physician specializing in alcohol and drug treatment
  • a mental health professional
  • a county sheriff
  • a Superintendent of a school district
  • a representative of a labor organization
  • a representative of an employer with less than 500 employees
  • a representative of an employer with more than 500 employees
  • a representative of a health care services plan or insurer

County mental health plans

Under the Mental Health Services Act, each county must submit a three-year program and expenditure plan adopted by the county board of supervisors to the Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission and the State Department of Health Care Services within 30 days after adoption. The three-year program and expenditure plan must be based on funds not spent under the previous plans and estimated state funding from mental health tax revenue. The plans must include programs for prevention and early intervention, programs to service children, programs to service adults and seniors, a program for innovation in mental health services, and a program for technological needs and capital facilities needed to provide services. The plans are required to be posted online by the State Department of Health Care Services.

California bond measures for veteran housing

Since 2000, Californians have voted on and approved four bond measures for veteran housing programs and homeless veterans. The table below lists the four measures, the bond amount, and the primary purpose.

Year	Measure	Amount	Primary purpose	Outcome
2018	California Proposition 1	$4 billion	Veteran housing programs	a
2014	California Proposition 41	$600 million	Veteran housing and homeless prevention	a
2008	California Proposition 12	$900 million	CalVet Home Loan Program	a
2000	California Proposition 16	$500 million	Veteran housing programs	a

Path to the ballot

See also: Legislatively referred state statutes in California

A simple majority vote is required during one legislative session for the California State Legislature to place a legislatively referred state statute on the ballot. That amounts to a minimum of 41 votes in the California State Assembly and 21 votes in the California State Senate, assuming no vacancies. State statutes do require the governor's signature.

Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) proposed Proposition 1 in partnership with Senator Susan Talamantes Eggman (D-5) and Asm. Jacqui Irwin (D-42) as two separate bills—Senate Bill 326 and Assembly Bill 531.

Senate Bill 326

The Senate introduced Senate Bill 326 (SB 326) on February 7, 2023. It passed the Senate on May 24, 2023, by a vote of 39-0 with one absent. An amended version of SB 326 passed the state Assembly on September 12, 2023, by a vote of 68-7. The Senate concurred with the amendments by a vote of 40-0 on September 14, 2023. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed the bill on October 12, 2023.

Vote in the California House of Representatives September 12, 2023
Requirement: Simple majority vote of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 41  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	68	7	5
Total percent	85.0%	8.8%	6.2%
Democrat	61	0	1
Republican	7	7	4

Vote in the California State Senate May 24, 2023
Requirement: Simple majority vote of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 21  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	41	0	0
Total percent	100.0%	0.0%	0.0%
Democrat	32	0	0
Republican	8	0	0

Assembly Bill 531

This bond measure was introduced as Assembly Bill 531 (AB 531) on February 8, 2023. It passed the Assembly on May 30, 2023, by a vote of 80-0. An amended version was passed in the state Senate on September 14, 2023, by a vote of 35-2. The Assembly concurred with the amendments on the same day and passed the amended version by a vote of 66-8. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed the bill on October 12, 2023.

Vote in the California State Senate September 14, 2023
Requirement: Simple majority vote of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 21  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	35	2	3
Total percent	87.5%	5.0%	7.5%
Democrat	32	0	0
Republican	3	2	3

Vote in the California House of Representatives September 14, 2023
Requirement: Simple majority vote of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 41  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	66	8	6
Total percent	82.5%	10.0%	7.5%
Democrat	61	0	1
Republican	5	8	5

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. As of January 2025, six states — Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, and New Hampshire — had passed laws requiring verification of citizenship at the time of voter registration. However, only two of those states' laws were in effect, in Arizona and New Hampshire. In three states — California, Maryland, and Vermont — at least one local jurisdiction allowed noncitizens to vote in some local elections as of November 2024. 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
• Healthcare on the ballot
• Bond issues on the ballot
• Housing 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

• California Assembly Bill 531
• California Senate Bill 326