June 20, 2024

Amidst the flurry of budget negotiations and legislative deadlines, there has been a whirlwind of activity as deals are struck to determine the fate of key policies. Concurrently, the ballot initiative process is in full swing. Critical dates are approaching, with the final deadline to qualify measures for the ballot set for next Thursday, June 27. Shortly thereafter, the Secretary of State will finalize the ballot, assigning proposition numbers and drafting the voter information guide for the November 2024 ballot.

The CSAC Board of Directors has adopted formal positions on three ballot measures under the Government Finance and Administration policy area:

1. Opposition to Initiative #1935/21-0042A1, the “Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act”
2. Support of ACA 1
3. Support of ACA 13

As we enter the next phase of the ballot initiative process, we are providing an update on where these initiatives stand.

“Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act” (Initiative 1935)

(Note: This measure is also commonly referred to as “Initiative 21-0042A1,” the “Taxpayer Deception Act;” or “Limits Ability of Voters and State and Local Governments to Raise Revenues for Government Services,” the title assigned to the measure by the Attorney General.)

Just this morning, the California Supreme Court issued its ruling on whether Initiative 1935, titled the “Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act,” by its sponsors, would have been an unconstitutional revision of the California Constitution. The court determined that the measure would “…substantially alter our basic plan of government,” and, therefore, “…the proposal cannot be enacted by initiative.”

The court’s decision prevents the measure from moving onto the ballot for the November election. CSAC CEO Graham Knaus issued a statement on the court’s ruling, which took decisive action to protect Californians from unlawful changes to our state constitution.  

The CSAC Board of Directors voted to oppose the measure in March 2022 because it would have restricted the ability of the state, counties, other local agencies, and the electorate to approve or collect taxes, fees, and other revenues, and endanger local initiatives that have already been approved by voters. The measure is long, complex, and would have endangered more than 130 local initiatives already approved by voters and at least fifteen state laws passed since January 1, 2022. For a more thorough analysis of the measure, please see the memorandum drafted by CSAC staff.

ACA 1 – “The 55% Vote for Local Affordable Housing and Public Infrastructure Act”

The CSAC Board of Directors voted to support ACA 1 (Aguiar-Curry), the “55% Vote for Local Affordable Housing and Public Infrastructure Act,” at the April 19, 2024, meeting. Then, the measure would have reduced vote requirements from two-thirds to 55 percent for bonds and special taxes that support affordable housing, permanent supportive housing, and critical infrastructure.

Currently, ACA 10 (also authored by Aguiar-Curry), was “gutted and amended” to modify ACA 1 by removing special taxes from the reduced vote requirement. If ACA 10 is enacted, the 55% vote requirement in ACA 1 would apply only to bond measures.

According to PPIC polling, only 45% of likely voters would support the version of ACA 1 endorsed by the CSAC Board of Directors, while 53% are against it and 2% unsure. The polling on the revised version of ACA 1, which applies only to bonds, is not publicly available.

At the time of writing, ACA 10 was pending a vote on the Assembly floor.

ACA 13 – “The 55% Vote for Local Affordable Housing and Public Infrastructure Act”

ACA 13 (Ward) would require that any ballot measure seeking to raise vote requirements receive the same portion of vote requirements to be enacted by voters. In other words, a measure seeking to raise vote requirements from a majority to two-thirds would require approval by two-thirds of voters to enact. If enacted, the measure would have required Initiative 1935 to receive approval by two thirds of voters, because that measure included a provision to raise vote requirements for special taxes proposed by voter initiative. The CSAC Board of Directors voted to support the measure on April 19, 2024.

Following the California Supreme Court’s ruling on Initiative 1935, Assemblymember Ward, the author of ACA 13, released a statement affirming that ACA 13 would remain on the ballot.

According to the recent PPIC polling referenced earlier, 58% of likely voters would support the measures, with 37% against it.

CSAC will continue to provide updates on these measures as we approach the November election. For any questions on these measures, please reach out to Eric Lawyer, GFA Legislative Advocate at elawyer@counties.org.