 | ||||||||||
| ALLOWS LOCAL BONDS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE WITH 55% VOTER APPROVAL. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. | ||||||||||
| Results | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
Yes
No
Proposition 5 is a California ballot proposition that was voted on as part of the 2024 California elections on November 5. It failed, with 55.0% of voters voting "no." If passed, the proposition would have amended the California Constitution to reduce the supermajority requirement from two-thirds of the vote to 55% for local bond measures to fund affordable housing and some types of public infrastructure.
Background
Most city and county bonds require voter approval in California, needing the support of at least two-thirds of voters to pass. This requirement was put in place by Proposition 13 which was passed in 1978 and reduced property taxes.
In 2000, Proposition 39 reduced the supermajority to 55% to approve taxes for local school bonds. According to the California Policy Center, a conservative think tank, since Proposition 39 was passed, voters in California have decided on almost 1,150 school bond measures and have approved 911 of them.
Proposition
Proposition 5 was placed on the ballot via legislative referral. The legislation, called ACA 1, was authored by Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, Marc Berman, Matt Haney, Alex Lee, and Buffy Wicks. It passed the California State Assembly on September 6, 2023 by 55 votes to 12, with 13 members not voting. It passed the California State Senate on September 14, 2023 by 29 votes to 10, with one senator (Josh Newman) not voting.
Proposition 5 would have allowed a city, county or special district in California to issue bonds with 55% voter approval, so long as the bonds were to fund affordable housing, permanent supportive housing, or public infrastructure. The proposition would have gone into effect immediately if it had passed, meaning local bonds voted on at the November elections would only have needed 55% approval to pass.
Politico suggested that a lower supermajority would mean more bond measures would pass, but also that more local governments would put them on the ballot to begin with.
Campaign
The proposition's ballot label was challenged by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association who argued that it lacked important information that the proposition would reduce the supermajority rather than raising it. Sacramento County Superior Court judge Shelleyanne W. L. Chang agreed and ordered the state government to rewrite the label. The Third District Court of Appeal reversed Chang's ruling, finding that the ballot label was "factually accurate" and would not mislead voters.
Support
Supporters of the proposition said that it gave local voters the power to address challenges facing their communities. They suggested that Proposition 5 would make it easier for cities to fund their projects, such as affordable housing, safer streets initiatives, or additional fire stations.
Supporters also argued that allowing just a third of voters to block measures is undemocratic.
Endorsements
'Yes'US Representatives
- Barbara Lee, US representative for California's 12th congressional district (2023-present)
Newspapers
Organisations
- AIDS Healthcare Foundation
- Association of Bay Area Governments
- California Democratic Party
- California State Association of Counties
- California Teachers Association
- Equality California
- League of California Cities
- League of Women Voters of California
Opposition
Those opposing the proposition argued that the proposition would make it easier for bond debt to increase, leading to higher property taxes. It was also argued that Proposition 5 was an attempt by Democrats to dodge property tax restrictions under Proposition 13.
They additionally highlighted that the proposition's wording, which they argued allowed a wide interpretation of what is an infrastructure project.
Endorsements
"No"Organisations
- California Chamber of Commerce
- California Republican Party
- Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
- National Federation of Independent Businesses
Neutral/no endorsement
Neutral/no endorsementOrganisations
Polling
| Poll source | Date(s) administered |
Sample size |
Margin of error |
Yes | No | Undecided |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Policy Institute of California | October 7–15, 2024 | 1137 (LV) | ± 3.7% | 48% | 50% | 3% |
| Public Policy Institute of California | August 29–September 9, 2024 | 1071 (LV) | ± 3.7% | 49% | 50% | 1% |
Results
The proposition failed, with 8,129,819 voters (55.0%) voting "no" and 6,640,122 voters (44.0%) voting "yes". The Associated Press projected that Proposition 5 had failed on 8 November.
Notes
- ^ Politico recorded this organisation as "not saying" on Proposition 5
- Key:
A – all adults
RV – registered voters
LV – likely voters
V – unclear
References
- ^ "Proposition 5: Bonds for Affordable Housing and Infrastructure". California Secretary of State: Unofficial Results. November 6, 2024. Retrieved November 7, 2024.
- ^ Will McCarthy; Emily Schultheis (October 16, 2024). "Your Guide to California's 2024 Ballot Measures". Politico. Retrieved November 6, 2024.
- ^ "Make it easier for local governments to fund affordable housing, infrastructure projects". CalMatters. Retrieved November 6, 2024.
- ^ Bob Egelko (August 13, 2024). "Prop 5 ballot label doesn't have to mention 2/3 voter approval rule". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved November 6, 2024.
- Adhiti Bandlamudi (November 5, 2024). "Voters Turn Down Proposition 5, but Some Local Bond Measures May Pass Anyway". KQED. Retrieved November 6, 2024.
- "ACA-1 Local government financing: affordable housing and public infrastructure: voter approval.(2023-2024) - Status". California State Legislature. Retrieved November 6, 2024.
- ^ "ACA 1: Local government financing: affordable housing and public infrastructure: voter approval". Digital Democracy CalMatters. Retrieved November 6, 2024.
- ^ Dave Pehling (November 5, 2024). "California Proposition 5 would lower the votes required to pass local bond measures. Here's what to know". CBS News. Retrieved November 6, 2024.
- Alan Riquelmy (August 1, 2024). "Taxpayer group sues California claiming ballot language misleads". Courthouse News Service. Retrieved November 6, 2024.
- Catherine Allen; Will McCarthy; Emily Schultheis (August 12, 2024). "The ballot measures racking up small-dollar donations". Politico. Retrieved November 6, 2024.
- Alan Riquelmy (August 8, 2024). "California judge rules that ballot label for November referendum needs rewrite". Courthouse News Service. Retrieved November 6, 2024.
- ^ "Prop 5 - ALLOWS LOCAL BONDS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE WITH 55% VOTER APPROVAL. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT". California Secretary of State. Retrieved November 6, 2024.
- ^ "Endorsement: Yes on Prop. 5. It's too hard to pass local bond measures". Los Angeles Times. September 20, 2024. Retrieved November 6, 2024.
- ^ "Our Coalition". Yes on Prop 5. Retrieved November 6, 2024.
- ^ Emily Schultheis; Will McCarthy (October 16, 2024). "The shifting shapes of this year's California ballot-measure coalitions". Politico. Retrieved November 6, 2024.
- "Election Center - Current Endorsements". Equality California. Retrieved October 17, 2024.
- "Recommendation on Prop 5 (2024)". League of Women Voters of California. Retrieved November 6, 2024.
- Christopher, Ben (July 24, 2024). "California Proposition 5: Lower Voting Threshold". CalMatters. Retrieved November 7, 2024.
- Daniel Macht (November 8, 2024). "California Prop 5: Voting change for affordable housing, infrastructure projects fails, AP projects". KCRA. Archived from the original on November 9, 2024. Retrieved November 12, 2024.
| (2023 ←) 2024 United States elections (→ 2025) | |
|---|---|
| U.S. President |
|
| U.S. Senate |
|
| U.S. House (election ratings) |
|
| Governors | |
| Attorneys general | |
| Secretaries of state | |
| State treasurers | |
| Judicial | |
| Other statewide elections |
|
| State legislative |
|
| Mayors |
|
| Local | |
| States and territories |
|
| Ballot measures |
|