In California, most elections are decided by a simple majority vote, including ballot measures for governor, mayor and statewide. But the state Constitution requires a majority (two-thirds of the vote) to approve a local tax or bond to fund a specific program, such as building a water facility or housing for homeless people, if the tax is put to a vote by the city council or other voting body.
This gives too much power to a minority of voters who can block what the majority or majority of their constituents support. This is undemocratic.
Proposition 5 on the Nov. 5 ballot moves California closer to majority rule by lowering the threshold for passing local bond measures to 55 percent instead of 66.7 percent. We believe this is a fairer way to make decisions about spending and taxes. The Times editorial board recommends yes to this constitutional amendment. Fortunately, it does not require a supermajority to pass.
Proposition 5 applies to bond measures placed on the ballot by a city, county, or special district to finance affordable housing or public infrastructure. Definition The infrastructure is extensiveincluding projects addressing water quality, sea level rise, broadband expansion, street improvements, park facilities and disaster recovery. State lawmakers who voted to put it on the ballot also considered lowering the transfer threshold for some special taxes but limited the amendment to local bond measures.
With local bonds, the public borrows money up front and pays off the debt over time with higher property taxes. This is why business and anti-tax groups are the main opponents of Proposition 5. They say that ought raising local taxes is really difficult.
Proposition 5’s 55% requirement remains a high threshold for local governments to approve bonds and raise taxes. Voters passed a 55% requirement in 2000. Proposition 39 Reduce the super reporting requirement to 55% for approval of school construction and repair bonds. But that didn’t make the school bond passage a failure: In March, Voters rejected 40% school vouchers in their local newsletters.
However, 55% is an accurate representation of public opinion versus 66.7%. Requiring majority support to pass a bond measure gives opponents disproportionate power to determine appropriate levels of taxes and spending. Why should one-third of voters determine priorities for the entire community?
Some cities have managed to get past the two-thirds threshold. Los Angeles voters approved a $1.2 billion homeless housing ordinance in 2016, and San Francisco voters approved a $300 million affordable housing bond in March. But the bar is often set too high. Housing bonds failed in Berkeley in 2022 and in San Diego in 2020. In recent elections, as a lot as 50% more According to the legislative analyst’s office, if the threshold is 55% instead of 66.7%, the local bond measures pass.
Many localities don’t even try to put bond measures on the ballot, knowing they are unlikely to get majority support. The result is a lack of investment in public facilities or community needs. Fire and police departments are out of date. Water treatment plants aren’t expanding. There is little to no investment in affordable or senior housing. State and federal grants often require local governments to include or provide matching funds. Without a local revenue stream, these communities often lose out on grants.
Proposition 5 would require local governments to tell voters what projects will be funded by the bonds. Local agencies will also be required to appoint a citizen oversight committee to ensure that funds are spent as promised and conduct annual financial and performance audits. These are healthy requirements to maintain public trust. Indeed, even if Proposition 5 passes and local bond measures become easier to pass, public trust will be critical to winning the support of 55% of voters.
It’s time to make tax and spending decisions more reflective of the will of the majority. Vote for 5 suggestions.
