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.
Proposition 5 on the Nov. 5 ballot would get California closer to majority rule by lowering the threshold to pass local bond measures to 55% instead of 66.7%. We think it’s a fairer way to make spending and taxing decisions. The Times’ editorial board recommends a yes on this constitutional amendment. Thankfully, it doesn’t require a supermajority to pass.
Proposition 5 would apply to bond measures put on the ballot by a city, county or special district to fund affordable housing or public infrastructure. The definition of infrastructure is broad, including projects that address water quality, sea level rise, broadband expansion, street improvements, park facilities and recovery from natural disasters. State lawmakers, who voted to place this on the ballot, considered also lowering the threshold to pass certain special taxes, but kept the amendment narrowly focused on local bond measures.
With local bonds, the public borrows money upfront and pays down the debt over time with higher property taxes. That’s why anti-tax and business groups are the leading opponents of Proposition 5. They argue that it should be really hard to raise local taxes.
The 55% requirement in Proposition 5 is still a high threshold for local governments to meet in order to sell bonds and raise taxes. In 2000, voters passed Proposition 39 to lower the supermajority requirement to 55% to pass school construction and renovation bonds. But it did not make passing school bonds a slam dunk — in the March primary, voters rejected 40% of the school bonds on their local ballots.
Still, 55% is a more realistic representation of public opinion than 66.7%. Requiring supermajority support to pass a bond measure gives disproportionate power to the naysayers to decide the appropriate level of taxation and spending. Why should one-third of voters get to set priorities for an entire community?
Some cities have been able to reach the two-thirds threshold. Voters in the city of Los Angeles passed a $1.2-billion homeless housing bond measure in 2016 and San Francisco voters backed a $300-million affordable housing bond in March. But often the hurdle is too high. Housing bonds failed in Berkeley in 2022 and in San Diego in 2020. In recent elections as many as 50% more local bond measures would have passed if the threshold was 55% instead of 66.7%, according to the Legislative Analyst’s office.
Many localities don’t even try to put bond measures on the ballot, knowing they are unlikely to reach supermajority support. The result is a lack of investment in public facilities or community needs. Fire and police stations don’t get modernized. Water recycling plants don’t get expanded. There is little to no investment in affordable or senior housing. State and federal grants often require local governments to chip in or provide matching funding. Without a local revenue stream, these communities often miss out on grants.
Proposition 5 would require that local governments tell voters what projects would be funded by the bond measure. Local agencies would also have to appoint a citizens’ oversight committee to ensure the money is spent as promised, with annual financial and performance audits. Those are commonsense requirements to maintain public trust. Indeed, even if Proposition 5 passes and it becomes easier to pass local bond measures, public trust is still going to be essential to garner support from 55% of the electorate.
It’s time to make taxing and spending decisions more reflective of majority will. Vote yes on Proposition 5.
