Proposition 5 is aCalifornia ballot proposition that was voted on as part of the2024 California elections on November 5. It failed, with 55.0% of voters voting "no."[1] If passed, the proposition would have amended theCalifornia Constitution to reduce the supermajority requirement from two-thirds of the vote to 55% forlocal bond measures to fund affordable housing and some types of public infrastructure.[2]
Most city and county bonds require voter approval in California, needing the support of at least two-thirds of voters to pass.[3] This requirement was put in place byProposition 13 which was passed in 1978 and reducedproperty taxes.[4]
In 2000,Proposition 39 reduced the supermajority to 55% to approve taxes for local school bonds.[4] According to theCalifornia 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.[5]
Proposition 5 would have allowed a city, county orspecial district in California to issuebonds with 55% voter approval, so long as the bonds were to fundaffordable housing, permanentsupportive housing, or public infrastructure.[7] 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.[8]
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.[2]
The proposition's ballot label was challenged by theHoward Jarvis Taxpayers Association who argued that it lacked important information that the proposition would reduce the supermajority rather than raising it.[9][10]Sacramento County Superior Court judge Shelleyanne W. L. Chang agreed and ordered the state government to rewrite the label.[11] TheThird District Court of Appeal reversed Chang's ruling, finding that the ballot label was "factually accurate" and would not mislead voters.[4]
Supporters of the proposition said that it gave local voters the power to address challenges facing their communities.[12] They suggested that Proposition 5 would make it easier for cities to fund their projects, such as affordable housing, safer streets initiatives, or additionalfire stations.[8]
Supporters also argued that allowing just a third of voters to block measures is undemocratic.[3][13]
Those opposing the proposition argued that the proposition would make it easier for bond debt to increase, leading to higherproperty taxes.[12] It was also argued that Proposition 5 was an attempt by Democrats to dodge property tax restrictions underProposition 13.[3]
They additionally highlighted that the proposition's wording, which they argued allowed a wide interpretation of what is an infrastructure project.[8]
The proposition failed, with 8,129,819 voters (55.0%) voting "no" and 6,640,122 voters (44.0%) voting "yes".[1][22] TheAssociated Press projected that Proposition 5 had failed on 8 November.[23]
County results
Congressional district results
