California voters to decide on bonds, special-taxes passage

July 18, 2024

Keith Goble

|

Voters throughout California will decide this fall whether to amend the state constitution to ease the threshold for passage of certain local ballot questions.

The California Constitution states that the taxes local governments levy are either general taxes or special taxes, which local agencies use for specified purposes. A two-thirds vote is required at the local level for general obligation bonds and special taxes. The state defines a special tax as any tax imposed for specific purposes.

On the other hand, general tax votes require a simple majority for passage. In California, a general tax is defined as any tax imposed for general governmental purposes.

Additionally, the state requires a two-thirds vote of each legislative chamber for state tax increases.

Proposition 5

Proposition 5 is a legislatively referred constitutional amendment that will be on the Nov. 5 statewide ballot.

The question will ask voters whether to lower the supermajority requirement for passage of local bond measures to fund projects that include infrastructure, such as streets, highways and transit. Specifically, voters will decide whether to lower the vote threshold for passage of local general obligation bonds and special taxes from 66.67% to 55%.

Local jurisdictions would be required to conduct annual audits to ensure funds are being used for their intended purposes. The requirement would end once all proceeds have been expended. Additionally, all audits must be publicly released.

Local jurisdictions cover cities, counties and special districts.

Majority vote failures

Assemblymember Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, D-Winters, wrote in a fact sheet a year ago that over a recent 13-year period, just half of all local revenue ballot measures that required a two-thirds vote were successful.

In 2016, votes in Placer, Sacramento, San Francisco and San Luis Obispo counties each exceeded 64% approval but fell shy of the 66.67% threshold for passage.

The San Luis Obispo County question asked voters whether to approve a nine-year, half-percent sales tax to fix potholes; repave local streets; relieve traffic congestion; improve street, highway and bridge safety; and make bike and transit improvements. The failed question received 66.31% voter approval.

In 2022, 58% of voters in Fresno County were in favor of renewing the county’s half-cent transportation tax for 30 years. The plan largely focused on addressing road and bridge work.

Aguiar-Curry said the success rate for these measures and other special taxes and bonds would jump to nearly 80% with a 55% approval threshold.

Critics have said reducing the two-thirds vote threshold for approval of affected questions would diminish the people’s voice on tax increases and would erode property tax safeguards.

Separate initiative turned back

A citizen initiative that qualified for the statewide ballot called for asking voters whether to amend the California Constitution to define state and local levies, charges and fees as taxes.

The California Secretary of State announced in early 2023 the initiative qualified for the statewide ballot, with more than 1 million valid signatures.

The initiative called for new state taxes proposed by state lawmakers to require a two-thirds legislative vote and approval by a simple majority of voters. Additionally, it called for local taxes to be enacted by a two-thirds vote of the public.

Currently, state tax increases require a two-thirds legislative vote for passage. Local tax increases by citizen initiatives require a simple majority of public voters.

In September, the state filed an emergency petition with the California Supreme Court. Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom and state legislative leaders said the effort attempts to revise rather than amend the state constitution.

The California Supreme Court recently agreed that the initiative would amount to a revision to the state constitution. Therefore, the court unanimously decided the initiative is unconstitutional and removed it from the November ballot.

“[The initiative] would substantially alter our basic plan of government; the proposal cannot be enacted by initiative,” Justice Goodwin Liu wrote in the court’s opinion.

Advocates for the initiative said it was intended to help guard against continued increases in sales and fuel taxes that are among the highest in the nation. LL

More Land Line coverage of California news is available.