Voters in California will decide on 10 statewide ballot propositions, including Proposition 5, on Nov. 5. Proposition 5 would lower the vote threshold requirement for local bond measures to fund affordable housing and public infrastructure projects, as defined in the text.

Heading into November, a two-thirds vote (or about 66.67%) is needed for voters to allow a local jurisdiction, except school districts, to issue general obligation bonds. Proposition 5 would decrease that requirement to 55%.

If approved, Proposition 5 would affect local bond measures on Nov. 5, 2024, not just those for future elections. Examples include Central Fire District of Santa Cruz County Measure R, Scotts Valley Fire Protection District Measure S, and Fairfax Measure J. In other words, the outcome of these local ballot measures may not be known until it’s clear whether Proposition 5 passes or fails. The Public Policy Institute of California has published two polls on Proposition 5 since September, both showing that support and opposition are within the margin of error.

Proposition 5 would define affordable housing as housing developments that are affordable to individuals earning up to 150% of the countywide median income. The definition would also include downpayment assistance programs, first-time homebuyer programs, permanent supportive housing, and facilities used to serve residents of affordable housing.

The term public infrastructure would be defined to include various projects, including fire protection infrastructure and fire suppression equipment, police facilities, park and recreation facilities, libraries, railroads, airports, seaports, natural disaster recovery, public broadband internet access, and those designed to protect property from sea level rise.

In California, certain local bond and tax ballot measures must receive more than a simple majority (50%+1) vote. School bonds once required a two-thirds vote but, in 2000, voters approved a constitutional amendment to lower that requirement to 55%.

County, city, or special district bonds or taxes may require a simple majority or two-thirds majority, depending on the type.

• A general tax requires a simple majority vote; this is a tax that funds general government activities and is deposited into the local government’s general fund.
• A special tax requires a two-thirds majority; this is a tax designated for a specific purpose. When the revenue from a tax is earmarked for services like education, transportation, fire or police departments, parks and recreation, and so on, it qualifies as a special tax. If a district or taxing authority is created for a specific purpose, such as a fire protection district, it cannot impose general taxes and may only propose special taxes to voters.

The Los Angeles Times Editorial Board endorsed Proposition 5, saying, “In California, most elections are decided by a simple majority, including governor, mayor and statewide ballot measures. But the state Constitution requires a supermajority — two-thirds of the vote — to pass a local tax or bond to fund a specific program, such as building a water treatment plant or homeless housing, if that tax was put on the ballot by a city council or other elected body. That gives too much power to a minority of voters, who are able to block what a majority, or more, of their fellow voters support. It’s undemocratic.”

The Orange County Register Editorial Board endorsed a ‘no’ vote for Prop 5, saying, “Under California’s state constitution, local governments may incur bond indebtedness or levy taxes for a specific purpose only with the approval of two-thirds of voters. The wisdom of this standard is straightforward. First, it’s a guardrail against excessive indebtedness across California’s hundreds of cities, dozens of counties and thousands of special districts. Second, it requires advocates of local bonds and taxes to truly build broad consensus that, yes, new bonds and taxes are worth the burden they impose on taxpayers.”

The California Democratic Party supports a ‘yes’ vote on Proposition 5, while the California Republican Party supports a ‘no’ vote.