Blog Viewer

By @Kyle Packham

The last day for propositions to qualify to appear on the November 5, 2024 Statewide General Election Ballot is June 27, 2024. Below is an overview of the state-of-play and an executive summary of the most significant measures affecting special districts and the communities they serve.

• Four measures have formally qualified for the November General Election, having been placed on the ballot as Constitutional Amendments through a two-thirds vote of each house of the State Legislature.
• Six measures are eligible for the ballot as statewide initiative measures with elections officials having verified the required number of signatures. These initiatives will formally qualify if they are not withdrawn by proponents prior to June 27.
• 34 initiatives are in circulation, four of which the proponents claim to have gathered at least 25 percent of the requisite signatures.

Here is a breakdown of the November ballot measures that matter most to special districts:

Qualified Statewide Ballot Measures

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

Long-supported by CSDA, ACA 1 gives voters the opportunity to allow special districts, cities, and counties to approve general obligation bonds and special taxes for public infrastructure and affordable housing with the same 55 percent vote threshold now authorized for school bonds.

ACA 13 (Ward) Voting thresholds.

The second-most important measure on the ballot (more to come later on the most important measure), ACA 13 requires any initiative measure that would increase voter approval requirements in the State Constitution to pass by the same approval requirement it seeks to impose on others. CSDA strongly supported passage of this measure in the State Legislature to place it before voters, with dozens of special districts joining CSDA’s statewide call-to-action.

Eligible Statewide Ballot Measures

1921. (21-0027A1) Eliminates employees’ ability to file lawsuits for monetary penalties for state labor-law violations. Initiative Statute.

Repeals 2004 law allowing employees to file lawsuits on behalf of themselves and other employees against employers to recover monetary penalties for certain state labor-law violations. Labor Commissioner retains authority to enforce labor laws and impose penalties. Eliminates Labor Commissioner’s authority to contract with private organizations or attorneys to assist with enforcement. 

1935. (21-0042A1) Limits ability of voters and state and local governments to raise revenues for government services. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

Sponsored by the California Business Roundtable (“CBRT”), this initiative would revise the Constitution in a manner that would threaten the essential functions of government by promulgating a drastic rise in litigation and severely restricting the ability of voters and state and local governments to fund essential services and infrastructure needs. CSDA is in strong opposition and has called for all special districts to formally approve an oppose resolution. Governor Gavin Newsom, along with the State Legislature and former Senate President Pro Tem John Burton, with support from CSDA and other amicus curiae, petitioned the California Supreme Court to remove the initiative from the ballot arguing it is Constitutionally invalid. The Court issued an order to show cause on November 29, 2023 and ordered briefing in December and January with amicus briefs due February 14. The matter will likely be set for argument in March or April and a decision is anticipated by June.

1936. (21-0043A1) Raises minimum wage. Initiative Statute.

Existing law requires annual increases to California’s minimum wage until it 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.

Circulating Initiatives with 25 Percent of Signatures Reached

1947. (23-0005) Repeals voter-enacted changes to property tax rules for transfers between family members. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

Reinstates property tax reassessment rules for certain real property transfers between family members (including by inheritance), which voters eliminated through Proposition 19 in 2020. Reduces local property tax revenues and eliminates funding source for Proposition 19’s California Fire Response Fund. Allows transfers to children (or grandchildren if parents are deceased) without property tax reassessment of: (1) principal residence, regardless of current value or continued use as principal residence; and (2) $1 million in other real property.

Initiatives and Referenda Cleared for Circulation

1957. (23-0015A1) Increases requirements on government agencies and Legislature when responding to records request. Initiative Statute.

Sponsored by California Watchdog, this initiative would likely cost public agencies in excess of $1 billion according the Legislative Analyst’s Office. It would place excessive records retention requirements on public agencies— all of which remain ineligible for reimbursement pursuant to the state mandate process. Furthermore, the initiative would dramatically increase a public agency’s exposure to litigation and could stimulate a cottage industry dedicated to pursuing California Public Records Act litigation. CSDA is formally opposed and its analysis of the measure is available here.

1967. (23-0025A1) Limits environmental lawsuits challenging new housing construction. Caps development fees on housing. Initiative Statute.

As determined by the Legislative Analyst’s Office, “[t]he 2 percent cap on local government development fees [imposed by this initiative] would reduce local government revenue likely by at least hundreds of millions of dollars per year, potentially exceeding $1 billion per year.” CSDA’s own analysis concluded that the initiative will have major impacts on local agency finances, placing an onerous two percent cap on development impact fees. Special districts that collect impact fees would face significant budget shortfalls resulting from slashed impact fee receipts, or would be forced to seek significant tax and fee increases on current residents that may be unwilling or unable to pay. Moreover, shifting the cost-burden from developers and new homeowners to current residents could lead to litigation under Proposition 218 by taxpayers claiming it is unconstitutional for current residents to subsidize services provided to developers and new residents. CSDA is formally opposed and its analysis of the measure is available here. 

#AdvocacyNews