Ballot Measure Breakdown: Another Milestone Ahead of the November Election
June 27, 2024
In California, voters are given a unique right to participate directly in shaping the laws that govern their lives. Every election season, many citizen-led initiatives, referendums and recalls vie for a place on the official ballot. Today marks the deadline for eligible statewide initiatives to qualify to be on the November general election ballot. For an initiative to become eligible for the ballot, a certain threshold of voter’s signatures must be collected in a prescribed time frame. The number of required signatures for statewide initiatives is based on the number of votes cast in the most recent gubernatorial election and whether the initiative amends statute or the constitution. Eligible initiatives that have collected the required number of signatures will automatically qualify to be on the ballot 131 days before the next statewide election, unless withdrawn by the proponents prior to qualification. The 131-day qualification deadline ahead of the November election allows sufficient time for the Secretary of State to finalize the ballot, assign proposition numbers, and draft the voter information guide that accompanies the ballot.
As reported last week, in a win for California counties, the California Supreme Court ruled on June 20, that the deceptively titled “Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act” ballot measure is an unconstitutional revision of the California Constitution and is therefore not eligible to appear on the statewide ballot. This measure would have tied the hands of county officials to raise revenues to provide essential services for the almost 40 million Californians counties serve.
Voters will be tasked with deciding the fate of nine measures on the upcoming November 5 ballot. A downloadable table of the qualified ballot measures is available here.
*Update: late in the evening on June 27, amendments to AB 440 were published that would, if enacted, place ACA 13 on the November 2026 ballot. The bill is set for a hearing on Monday, July 1.
CSAC Position: The CSAC Board of Directors voted to support this measure on April 19, 2024, but will need to reconsider its position due to recent amendments.
Summary: ACA 1, as amended via ACA 10, would reduce vote requirements for general obligation bonds financing affordable housing, permanent supportive housing, or public infrastructure, as defined, and any associated ad valorem taxes needed to pay the interest and redemption charges on bonded indebtedness. The previous version of ACA 1 would have reduced vote requirements for special taxes to raise revenue for those same categories.
Fiscal Analysis from Senate Appropriations Committee: This measure is estimated to result in minimal and absorbable one-time costs for the SOS for printing and mailing expenses associated with placing the measure on the ballot. There are no immediate anticipated fiscal impacts to local governments as a result of this measure.
Assembly Constitutional Amendment (ACA) 13: Voting Thresholds
CSAC Position: The CSAC Board of Directors voted to support this measure on April 19, 2024. (CSAC Support Letter)
Summary: The California Constitution requires a voter-led initiative or constitutional amendment to be approved by a majority of the voters. This measure would require any proposed initiative that amends the constitution to change would increase the required voter approval threshold to pass initiatives, pass at the to be passed by the same proposed voting threshold. For example, if ACA 13 were in place, an initiative that would raise vote requirements from a simple majority to two-thirds of the vote would require approval by two-thirds of voters.
Fiscal Analysis from Assembly Appropriations Committee: This measure is estimated to result in minimal and absorbable one-time costs for the SOS for printing and mailing expenses associated with placing the measure on the ballot. There are no immediate anticipated fiscal impacts to local governments as a result of this measure.
Assembly Constitutional Amendment (ACA) 5: Marriage Equality
CSAC Position: No position.
Summary: Currently, the California Constitution only recognizes marriages between a man and a woman. This measure would revise this provision to instead provide that marriage is a fundamental right. The original provision has not been enforceable since the United States’ Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015 that requires all states to recognize and grant same-sex marriages.
Fiscal Analysis from Senate Appropriations Committee: This measure is estimated to result in minimal and absorbable one-time costs for the SOS for printing and mailing expenses associated with placing the measure on the ballot. There are no immediate anticipated fiscal impacts to local governments as a result of this measure.
Assembly Constitutional Amendment (ACA) 8: Slavery
CSAC Position: No position.
Summary: Slavery and involuntary servitude are currently prohibited under the California Constitution, except unless used as a punishment for a crime. If approved by voters, ACA 8 would prohibit slavery and involuntary servitude beginning January 1, 2025. This measure also ensures that the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) shall not discipline an incarcerated person for refusing a work assignment but would allow CDCR to continue to award credits to those who voluntarily accept a work assignment. AB 628 (Wilson), a companion bill to ACA 8, would ensure that compensation levels for work conducted in state prison are set by regulations promulgated by the Secretary of CDCR, and for work conducted in county jails, set by local ordinance. AB 628 only becomes operative should ACA 8 be approved by the voters in November.
Fiscal Analysis from Senate Appropriations Committee: This measure has unknown, but potentially significant ongoing state costs (General Fund) to CDCR as a result of prohibiting involuntary servitude in state prisons. This measure also has unknown, but potentially significant non-reimbursable ongoing local costs (local funds) for local correctional facilities as a result of prohibiting involuntary servitude in local jails.
21-0043: Raises Minimum Wage (also called the “Living Wage Act of 2022”)
Proponents: Joe Sanberg, Blue Apron Founding Investor
Summary: If passed, this measure will make changes to the annual scheduled minimum wage increases. These increases would be extended until the minimum wage reaches $18.00 per hour.
Fiscal Analysis from the LAO: It is unclear what the change in annual state and local tax revenues would be, 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.
Proponents: AIDS Healthcare Foundation, UNITE Here Local 11
Summary: The Costa-Hawkin Rental Housing Act of 1995 limits cities and counties from enacting initial rental rate limits for new tenants in all types of housing. This measure would repeal this law, granting cities and counties the right to establish, maintain, enact or expand residential rent control ordinances.
Fiscal Analysis from the LAO: 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 vary.
Proponents: California District Attorneys Association, Target, and Home Depot USA
Summary: This measure attempts to make targeted reforms to Proposition 47 of 2014 which made possession of certain drugs and thefts under $950 chargeable only as misdemeanors. For those with two prior drug or two prior theft convictions, this would make those drug possessions and theft crimes eligible for felony classification.
Fiscal Analysis from the LAO: This measure will result in 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.
Proponent: California Apartment Association
Summary: This measure will mandate certain health care providers spend 98% of revenues from federal discount prescription drug on direct patient care. Those not in compliance with the law will be penalized by revoking their license and tax-exempt status.
Fiscal Analysis from the LAO: This measure will result in increased costs to state, 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 covered 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.
Proponents: Coalition to Protect Access to Care, which includes but is not limited to California Medical Association, California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems, Global Medical Response, California Hospital Association, and Planned Parenthood
Summary: The Managed Care Organization (MCO) tax is a tax on managed care organizations based on health insurance enrollment in the Medi Cal program and in the commercial sector. The 2023 Budget Act, in addition to federal approval, authorized the MCO tax from April 2023 to December 2026. The MCO tax revenues offset General Fund spending in the existing Medi-Cal program and support program augmentations. This initiative would make the MCO tax permanent, subject to federal approval, and would limit the structure of the tax, and would establish specific uses for the tax revenue.
Fiscal Analysis from the LAO: This measure will have 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.
