CFRW Proposition Endorsements

Prop 2 **OPPOSE** AB 247 - K-12 Schools and Local Colleges Modernization, Repairs and Safety Bond Act   

Prop 3 **OPPOSE** ACA 5 - Marriage Equality   

Prop 4 **OPPOSE** SB 867 - Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, Drought Preparation, and Clean Air Bond Act of 2024   

Prop 5 **OPPOSE** ACA 1 & ACA 10 - Local Govt financing with 55% voter approval instead of 2/3: affordable housing and public infrastructure 2023 and 2024   

Prop 6 **OPPOSE** ACA 8 - Slavery 

Prop 32 **OPPOSE** 1936 - Raises Minimum Wage 

Prop 33 **OPPOSE** 1942 - Expands Local Governments’ Authority to enact Rent Control on Residential Property 

Prop 34 **NEUTRAL**1963 - Restricts Spending by Health Care Providers meeting specified criteria ** Did not meet 2/3 vote requirement 

Prop 35 **NEUTRAL** 1966 - Provides Permanent Funding for Medi-Cal Health Care Services ** Did not meet 2/3 vote requirement 

Prop 36 **SUPPORT** 1959 - Allows Felony Charges and Increases Sentences for Certain Drug and Theft

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association Proposition Endorsements

Quick guide to the Statewide Propositions: NO on 2, 4, 5, 6, 32, & 33 and YES on 34 & 36; No position on 3 & 35

Additional ballot measure information and recommendations from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

CFRW in depth information, below, has been provided from our very own member, Jeanne Solnordal, the CFRW Legislative Analyst.

Prop. 2: OPPOSE : AB 247 - Muratsuchi. Education finance: School facilities: Kindergarten Through Grade 12 Schools and Local Community College Public Education Facilities Modernization, Repair, and Safety Bond Act of 2024.

(1) The California Constitution prohibits the Legislature from creating a debt or liability that singly or in the aggregate with any previous debts or liabilities exceeds the sum of $300,000, except by an act that (1) authorizes the debt for a single object or work specified in the act, (2) has been passed by a 2/3 vote of all the Members elected to each house of the Legislature, (3) has been submitted to the people at a statewide general or primary election, and (4) has received a majority of all the votes cast for and against it at that election.

This bill would set forth the Kindergarten Through Grade 12 Schools and Local Community College Public Education Facilities Modernization, Repair, and Safety Bond Act of 2024 as a state general obligation bond act that would provide $10,000,000,000 to construct and modernize education facilities, including $8,500,000,000 for elementary and secondary educational facilities and $1,500,000,000 for community college facilities, as specified. This bond act would become operative only if approved by the voters.

(2) The Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998 provides for the adoption of rules, regulations, and procedures, under the administration of the Director of General Services, for the allocation of state funds by the State Allocation Board for the construction and modernization of public school facilities.

This bill would require a school district to submit to the Department of General Services a 5-year school facilities master plan as a condition of participating in the school facilities program under the act. The bill would amend the methodology for calculating the local contribution a school district is required to make in order to be eligible to receive state funding under the act, as specified. The bill would require a school district that seeks new construction or modernization funding under the act after November 5, 2024, to submit an updated report of the school district’s existing school building capacity to the State Allocation Board.

The bill would authorize the allocation of state funds under the act for the replacement of school buildings that are at least 75 years old, for specified assistance to school districts with a school facility located on a military installation, as specified, and small school districts, as defined, and for the testing and remediation of lead levels in water fountains and faucets used for drinking or preparing food on school sites, as provided. The bill would authorize new construction and modernization grants to be used for seismic mitigation purposes, certain health and safety projects, and, among other things, to establish school site-based infrastructure to provide broadband internet access. The bill would also authorize modernization grants to be used for the control, management, or abatement of lead.

The bill would increase the maximum level of total bonding capacity, as defined, that a school district could have and still be eligible for financial hardship assistance under the act from $5,000,000 to $15,000,000. The bill, commencing with the 2026–27 fiscal year, would increase that $15,000,000 maximum by a specified inflation adjustment each fiscal year. The bill would authorize the State Allocation Board to provide assistance for purposes of procuring interim housing to school districts and county offices of education impacted by a natural disaster for which the Governor has declared a state of emergency. The bill would also make conforming changes.

The bill would make these provisions effective upon the adoption by the voters of the Kindergarten Through Grade 12 Schools and Local Community College Public Education Facilities Modernization, Repair, and Safety Bond Act of 2024.

(3) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

DIGEST KEY
Vote: 2/3   Appropriation: no   Fiscal Committee: yes   Local Program: no  


Prop. 3: OPPOSE : ACA 5 – Marriage Equality

This constitutional amendment repeals the void and unconstitutional provision of the California Constitution that limits marriage to a “man and woman,” and replaced it with a provision that expressly affirms that the right to marry is a fundamental right.  This is currently the law of the United States; however, it is not impossible that this law will always remain.

Prop. 4: OPPOSE :  SB 867 - Allen, Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, Drought Preparedness, and Clean Air Bond Act of 2024.

The California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access For All Act of 2018, approved by the voters as Proposition 68 at the June 5, 2018, statewide primary election, authorizes the issuance of bonds in the amount of $4,100,000,000 pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law to finance a drought, water, parks, climate, coastal protection, and outdoor access for all program. Article XVI of the California Constitution requires measures authorizing general obligation bonds to specify the single object or work to be funded by the bonds and further requires a bond act to be approved by a 2/3 vote of each house of the Legislature and a majority of the voters.

This bill would enact the Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, Drought Preparedness, and Clean Air Bond Act of 2024, which, if approved by the voters, would authorize the issuance of bonds in the amount of $10,000,000,000 pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law to finance projects for safe drinking water, drought, flood, and water resilience, wildfire and forest resilience, coastal resilience, extreme heat mitigation, biodiversity and nature-based climate solutions, climate-smart, sustainable, and resilient farms, ranches, and working lands, park creation and outdoor access, and clean air programs.

This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

DIGEST KEY
Vote: 2/3   Appropriation: no   Fiscal Committee: yes   Local Program: no  


Prop. 5: OPPOSE : ACA 1 – Voter Approval Thresholds - SRVRWF Info - Changes threshold from 2/3 to 55%

ACA 1, Aguiar-Curry. Local government financing: affordable housing and public infrastructure: voter approval.

(1) The California Constitution prohibits the ad valorem tax rate on real property from exceeding 1% of the full cash value of the property, subject to certain exceptions.

This measure would create an additional exception to the 1% limit that would authorize a city, county, city and county, or special district to levy an ad valorem tax to service bonded indebtedness incurred to fund the construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of public infrastructure, affordable housing, including downpayment assistance, or permanent supportive housing, or the acquisition or lease of real property for those purposes, if the proposition proposing that tax is approved by 55% of the voters of the city, county, city and county, or special district, as applicable, and the proposition includes specified accountability requirements. The measure would prohibit a city, county, city and county, or special district from placing a proposition on the ballot pursuant to these provisions if the voters have previously approved a proposition pursuant to these provisions or the below special tax provisions until all funds from the previous proposition are committed to programs and projects listed in the specific local program or ordinance, as described. The measure, subject to certain vote thresholds, would authorize the Legislature to enact laws establishing additional accountability measures and laws for the downpayment assistance programs authorized by the measure, as specified. The measure would specify that these provisions 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 these purposes that is submitted at the same election as this measure.

(2) The California Constitution conditions the imposition of a special tax by a local government upon the approval of 2/3 of the voters of the local government voting on that tax.

This measure would authorize a local government to impose, extend, or increase a sales and use tax or transactions and use tax imposed in accordance with specified law or a parcel tax for the purposes of funding the construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of public infrastructure, affordable housing, including downpayment assistance, or permanent supportive housing, or the acquisition or lease of real property for those purposes, if the proposition proposing that tax is approved by a majority vote of the membership of the governing board of the local government and by 55% of its voters voting on the proposition and the proposition includes specified accountability requirements. The measure would prohibit a local government from placing a proposition on the ballot pursuant to these provisions if the voters have previously approved a proposition pursuant to these provisions or the above ad valorem tax provisions until all funds from the previous proposition are committed to programs and projects listed in the specific local program or ordinance, as described. The measure, subject to certain vote thresholds, would authorize the Legislature to enact laws establishing additional accountability measures and laws for the downpayment assistance programs authorized by the measure, as specified. This measure would also make conforming changes to related provisions. The measure would specify that these provisions apply to any local measure imposing, extending, or increasing a sales and use tax, transactions and use tax, or parcel tax for these purposes that is submitted at the same election as this measure.

(3) The California Constitution prohibits specified local government agencies from incurring any indebtedness exceeding in any year the income and revenue provided in that year, without the assent of 2/3 of the voters and subject to other conditions. In the case of a school district, community college district, or county office of education, the California Constitution permits a 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, to be adopted upon the approval of 55% of the voters of the district or county, as appropriate, voting on the proposition at an election.

This measure would expressly prohibit a special district, other than a board of education or school district, from incurring any indebtedness or liability exceeding any applicable statutory limit, as prescribed by the statutes governing the special district. The measure would also similarly require the approval of 55% of the voters of the city, county, city and county, or special district, as applicable, to incur bonded indebtedness, exceeding in any year the income and revenue provided in that year, that is in the form of general obligation bonds issued to fund the construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or replacement of public infrastructure, affordable housing, or permanent supportive housing projects, if the proposition proposing that bond includes specified accountability requirements. The measure would specify that this 55% threshold applies to any proposition for the incurrence of indebtedness by a city, county, city and county, or special district for these purposes that is submitted at the same election as this measure.

(4) This measure would deem another measure on the same statewide election ballot relating to state or local requirements for the imposition, adoption, creation, or establishment of taxes, charges, and other revenue measures in conflict with it and would make the other measure null and void if this measure receives more affirmative votes.


Prop. 6: OPPOSE : ACA 8 - Wilson. Slavery.

The California Constitution prohibits slavery and prohibits involuntary servitude, except as punishment to a crime.

This measure would instead prohibit slavery in any form. This measure would prohibit the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation from disciplining any incarcerated person for refusing a work assignment. The measure would also clarify that its provisions do not prohibit the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation from awarding credits to an incarcerated person who voluntarily accepts a work assignment.

DIGEST KEY
Vote: 2/3   Appropriation: no   Fiscal Committee: yes   Local Program: no 

Prop. 32: OPPOSE : Raises Minimum Wage

1936. (21-0043A1)
RAISES MINIMUM WAGE. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Existing law requires annual increases to California’s minimum wage until it has reached $15.00 per hour for all businesses on January 1, 2023. This measure extends these annual increases ($1.00 per year) until minimum wage—currently, $15.00 per hour for businesses with 26 or more employees, and $14.00 per hour for smaller businesses—reaches $18.00 per hour. Thereafter, as existing law requires, the minimum wage will annually adjust for inflation. In periods of decreased economic activity, or General Fund deficit, the Governor may suspend annual increase up to two times, thereby extending timeline for reaching $18.00 per hour. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Unclear change in annual state and local tax revenues, likely between a loss of a couple billion dollars and a gain of a few hundred million dollars. Increase in annual state and local government costs likely between half a billion dollars and a few billion dollars. (21-0043A1)


Prop. 33: OPPOSE: Rent Control, reverses Costa Hawkins
 
1942. (22-0008)
EXPANDS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS’ AUTHORITY TO ENACT RENT CONTROL ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Current state law (the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995) generally prevents cities and counties from limiting the initial rental rate that landlords may charge to new tenants in all types of housing, and from limiting rent increases for existing tenants in (1) residential properties that were first occupied after February 1, 1995; (2) single-family homes; and (3) condominiums. This measure would repeal that state law and would prohibit the state from limiting the right of cities and counties to maintain, enact, or expand residential rent-control ordinances. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on the state and local governments: Overall, a potential reduction in state and local revenues in the high tens of millions of dollars per year over time. Depending on actions by local communities, revenue losses could be less or more. (22-0008)


Prop.  34: NEUTRAL : Health Care Providers Spending
 
1963. (23-0021A1)
RESTRICTS SPENDING BY HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS MEETING SPECIFIED CRITERIA. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
Requires certain health care providers to spend 98% of revenues from federal discount prescription drug program on direct patient care. Applies only to health care providers that: spent over $100,000,000 in any ten-year period on anything other than direct patient care; and operated multifamily housing with over 500 high-severity health and safety violations. Penalizes noncompliance by revoking health care licenses and tax-exempt status. Permanently authorizes state to negotiate Medi-Cal drug prices on statewide basis. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Increased costs to state government, potentially up to the millions of dollars annually, to review entities’ compliance with the measure and enforce the measure’s provisions. These costs would be paid for by fees created under the measure. Uncertain fiscal impacts to state and local government health programs, depending on how the affected entities respond to the measure’s requirements. (23-0021A1)


 Prop. 35: NEUTRAL : Medi-Cal Health Funding
 
1966. (23-0024A1)
PROVIDES PERMANENT FUNDING FOR MEDI-CAL HEALTH CARE SERVICES. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Makes permanent the existing tax on managed health care insurance plans, currently set to expire in 2026, which the state uses to pay for health care services for low-income families with children, seniors, people with disabilities, and other groups covered by the Medi-Cal program. Requires revenues to be used only for specified Medi-Cal services, including primary and specialty care, emergency care, family planning, mental health, and prescription drugs. Prohibits revenues from being used to replace other existing Medi-Cal funding. Caps administrative expenses and requires independent audits of programs receiving funding. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Uncertain overall impact on state revenues and spending, including reduced legislative flexibility over the use of MCO tax funds. The extent of this impact depends on whether the measure would result in different state decisions around imposing, structuring, and spending proceeds from the managed care organization tax than in the absence of the measure. (23-0024A1)


Prop. 36: SUPPORT : Reverses some of the effects of Prop. 47
 
1959. (23-0017A1)
ALLOWS FELONY CHARGES AND INCREASES SENTENCES FOR CERTAIN DRUG AND THEFT CRIMES. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

• Allows felony charges for possessing certain drugs, including fentanyl, and for thefts under $950—both currently chargeable only as misdemeanors—with two prior drug or two prior theft convictions, as applicable. Defendants who plead guilty to felony drug possession and complete treatment can have charges dismissed.

• Increases sentences for other specified drug and theft crimes.

• Increased prison sentences may reduce savings that currently fund mental health and drug treatment programs, K-12 schools, and crime victims; any remaining savings may be used for new felony treatment program.

• https://voteyesprop36.com/ (Added by SRVRWF)

Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Increased state criminal justice system costs potentially in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually, primarily due to an increase in the state prison population. Some of these costs could be offset by reductions in state spending on local mental health and substance use services, truancy and dropout prevention, and victim services due to requirements in current law. Increased local criminal justice system costs potentially in the tens of millions of dollars annually, primarily due to increased court-related workload and a net increase in the number of people in county jail and under county community supervision. (23-0017A1)
 
1 SCA 2, ACA 1, and ACA 5 were originally scheduled to appear on the March 5, 2024, Presidential Primary Election ballot. However, Senate Bill 789, Chapter 787, Statutes of 2023, provides that each will appear on the November 5, 2024, General Election ballot instead. 
 
2 Senate Concurrent Resolution 157 (Ch. 132, 2024) removed SCA 2 from the November 5, 2024, General Election ballot.