Skip to main content
HomeBallot Measures

Ballot Measures & Propositions
November 5, 2024

 Measures & Propositions :   We have some considered Positions on the Issues 

  • Yes, we in the League are totally nonpartisan. That means we never make recommendations
         regarding political parties or candidates.
  • But, we sometimes take positions on issues. That includes Measures and Propositions.
  • Once we have thoroughly studied an issue, we will decide whether to take a position.
  • Once we have taken a position, we take action and advocate to support or oppose particular
       policies, laws, or constitutional amendments related to that issue. 

    You can find  League Positions on Propositions & Measures (and why) HERE.

           If you'd like to know about ALL our Positions, they're at:  League Positions.


Local Measures Affecting Cupertino and/or Sunnyvale


Most local Measures are either about Bonds or Parcel Taxes related to either the city or a school district. 
Below is a table summarizing this election's local Measures relating to residents of Cupertino and Sunnyvale.

Measure #



Type

Affects

(Who's Ballot it's on)



Topic

Proposition's Title     (with Link to the Full Proposal)



Summary of the Question


Measure E


Sunnyvale Main Library General Obligation Bonds
2/3rds Vote Required



Residents of

Sunnyvale




Funding for

Sunnyvale Library

renovation and modernization

Sunnyvale Library Facilities Bonds

The Question:
To provide residents
  • an accessible modern, sustainable, earthquake-safe library;
  • expand spaces for: collections, events, educational programs for children, teens and seniors;
  • replace deteriorating plumbing, electrical, roofing;

shall the measure of the City of Sunnyvale to issue $290,000,000 in General Obligation (GO) bonds at legal interest rates with a maximum levy of $27.47 per $100,000 of assessed value while bonds are outstanding, generating approximately $18,600,000 annually, with audits, citizen's oversight, all funds used locally,  be adopted?

NOTE: Requires over a 2/3 (66%) Majority vote to pass,
      except
       if CA Proposition 5 passes, in which case the requirement will be 55%.


Background:  Sunnyvale's library was built in 1960. The current facility is too small for Sunnyvale's larger population and inadequate to support all the electronic services expected of a modern library.

General Obligation (GO) bonds are commonly used to fund public facility improvement projects, such as new construction. Like home loans, money from GO bonds is used for the project and is repaid over time.

To repay the bonds every taxable property within the City of Sunnyvale, including  commercial, industrial, residential,  and agricultural, will annually pay a fee based on the assessed value of their property for the period of time it takes to pay off the bond.


Measure F

City of Sunnyvale
City Charter Amendments



Residents of

Sunnyvale



Approve Amendments 

to the

Sunnyvale City Charter

Approve Three Changes to the Sunnyvale City Charter

The Question:
Shall the Sunnyvale City Charter be amended to:


(1) eliminate the voter registration/citizenship requirement for members of all boards and commissions to remove barriers to volunteering;

(2) change the required City Council meeting frequency from 2 meetings per month to at least 24 meetings per year, with no more than 6 weeks between meetings, to provide more scheduling flexibility;

and

(3) replace gendered references throughout the charter with gender-neutral language



Measure Y


Sunnyvale Elementary School District
(SESD)
Special Tax for
Educational Purposes


Residents of

SESD

(Sunnyvale Elementary

School District)


Look Up Your School District



Approval of a

Special Tax

for Educational Purposes


Special Tax for Educational Purposes
on residents of Sunnyvale Elementary School District

The Question:
To renew annual funding for elementary and middle schools within the SESD, without raising tax rates,
  • to support academic programs including math, English, science and technology;
  • attract and retain quality teachers;  
  • and keep class sizes small,

shall the measure be adopted,
extending Sunnyvale School District's existing $59 per parcel tax,
providing $1 million annually for 8 years,
with senior exemptions and all expenditures audited and reviewed by a community oversight committee with no funds for administrators and all funds staying local? 

NOTE: Requires over a 2/3 (66%) Majority vote to pass, except
       if CA Proposition 5 passes, in which case the requirement will be 55%.


Measure Z


Cupertino Union School District
(CUSD)
School Bond
Measure 


Residents of

CUSD

(Cupertino Union

School District)


Look Up Your School District



Approval of a

School Bond

School Bond Approval
for maintenance of Schools in Cupertino Union School District 

The Question:
With funds the State cannot take,
  and no projected increase in current tax rates,
   shall Cupertino Union School District's measure to:
  • replace leaky roofs/ plumbing
  • and expand CUSD's Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math classrooms in:
    • Cupertino,
    • Los Altos,
    • San Jose,
    • Santa Clara,
    • Saratoga
    • and Sunnyvale

be adopted,  authorizing $347 million of General Obligation (GO) bonds ,with average levies below $21 per $100,000 of assessed valuation, (generating $23,300,000 annually) while outstanding, audits, legal rates, independent oversight, State matching funds eligibility, and full disclosure of spending? 

NOTE: Requires a 55% Majority vote to pass.

Background:  Regular school taxes are required to go towards ongoing operations. (General Obligation (GO) bonds are commonly used by California school districts to fund school improvement projects, such as new construction and major renovations.
Like home loans, money from GO bonds is used for the projects and is repaid over time.

To repay the bonds, every taxable property within the Cupertino Union School District (CUSD), including  commercial, industrial, residential,  and agricultural, will annually pay a fee  (in this case under $21 per $100K of assessment) for the period of time it takes to pay off the bond, 2050.

The fees for this new bond will not raise the amount that property owners in the CUSD pay over what they pay today. That's because Measure Z will extend but not increase the current total tax rate because several older GO bonds will be paid off as this bond is phased in.

Because this fee affects properties in CUSD boundaries, the question will be on the ballot of voters with addresses within CUSD, even if they are not within the City of Cupertino or do not have children in CUSD schools. 

The list of communities that are wholly or partially within CUSD boundaries is above. Click the "Look Up Your District" button to check what school districts you are in.




California State Propositions


A statewide ballot measure can be approved by a simple majority vote (over 50%) of the people voting. Certain local ballot measures require approval by a 55% or a two-thirds vote of those casting ballots.


The table below lists the Propositions currently approved for the November 5, 2024 ballot, with a link to the full text of the proposed law, constitutional amendment, or bond offering.

A California ballot proposition is a form of direct democracy. The voters make the decision on a law, issuing of bonds, and/or changes to the state constitution.
There are three types of state propositions:

1. Initiative – voting on  a law and/or a change to the state constitution. 
These start as a petition and require a minimum number of valid signatures by registered voters to get on the ballot.

2. Optional Referendum voting on whether an already-passed law should be upheld or repealed.
The petition process to get on the ballot is like that of an Initiative,
Also known as a ‘Veto Referendums,’ 

3. Mandatory Referendum - voting on a bill that has:

   ~ already been passed by the state legislature, but
   ~ must be approved by the voters before it can go into effect.
These may be: state constitutional amendments, bond measures, or amendments to previously approved voter initiatives.

Proposition #



Type

Affects



Topic

Proposition's Title     (with Link to the Full Proposal)



Summary of the Question

NOTE: Full text for the laws that would result from passage of each of the statewide propositions can be found on the California Secretary of State's Website at

https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2024/general/pdf/text-proposed-laws.pdf


Proposition 2


Mandatory Referendum



Bond Measure
& Law

Bond Approval for
Facilities  Maintenance
for Local K-12 Schools
 & Community Colleges

  Kindergarten Through Grade 12 Schools and Local Community College Public Education Facilities Modernization, Repair, and Safety Bond Act of 2024 


This Proposition requests permission to issue State Bonds to finance assistance to local K-12 schools and Community Colleges for badly-needed maintenance.  

Why: The California Constitution prohibits the Legislature from creating a debt or liability that singly or combined with any previous debts or liabilities exceeds the sum of $300,000 without a statewide vote.



The Question: 

If approved by a simple majority of those voting, this bill would simultaneously:

A. Authorize the State of California to issue general obligation bonds in the amount of $10,000,000,000 ($10 Billion):

AND

B. Authorize the allocation of state funds to

  • $8,500,000,000 for elementary and secondary educational facilities 
  • $1,500,000,000 for community college facilities

for school facility projects such as:

  • seismic mitigation 
  • health and safety projects
  • lead abatement
  • testing and remediation of lead levels in water fountains and kitchen faucets 
  • school site broadband internet access 
  • replacement of school buildings at least 75 years old 
  • assistance for school facilities located on a military installation
  • assistance for small school districts
  • assistance for interim housing to school districts and county offices of education impacted by a natural disaster

 

Additional Information: 

 


Proposition 3


Mandatory Referendum



CA Constitution

Marriage
Equality

  California Marriage Equality Amendment


Currently, the California Constitution provides that only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California although  CA courts have recognized that same-sex couples and interracial couples have the right to marry, and and federal law permanently enjoins the state from enforcing this constitutional provision.


The Question: 

Should the CA Constitution be amended to: repeal this unenforceable constitutional provision and instead provide that the right to marry is a fundamental right.   

Additional Information : 

 



Proposition 4



Mandatory Referendum



Bond Measure
& Law

Bond Approval for
Wildfire Prevention, 
Drought Preparedness,
Safe Drinking Water, 
and Clean Air 

  Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, Drought Preparedness, and Clean Air  Bond Act of 2024 


This Proposition requests permission from the voters to issue State Bonds to finance projects for safe drinking water, drought, flood, and water resilience, wildfire and forest resilience, coastal resilience, extreme heat mitigation, biodiversity and nature-based climate solutions, climate-smart, sustainable, and resilient farms, ranches, and working lands, park creation and outdoor access, and clean air programs.



The Question: 

If approved by a simple majority of those voting, this bill would simultaneously:

A. Authorize the State of California to issue general obligation bonds in the amount of $10,000,000,000 ($10 Billion):
 AND

B. Authorize a law allocating those funds as programs for:

  • $ 3,800,000,000 for safe drinking water, drought, flood, and water resilience 
  • $ 1,500,000,000 for wildfire and forest resilience
  • $ 1,200,000,000 for coastal resilience  
  • $ 1,200,000,000 for biodiversity protection and nature-based climate solutions 
  • $    850,000,000 for clean air 
  • $    700,000,000 for park creation and outdoor access 
  • $    450,000,000 for extreme heat mitigation  
  • $    300,000,000 for climate-smart, sustainable, and resilient farms, ranches, and working lands 

 

Additional Information: 

 


Proposition 5


Mandatory Referendum



CA Constitution


Local Government Financing:
Affordable Housing
& Public Infrastructur
e
Supermajority Requirement
Reset to 55%

  Local government financing: affordable housing and public infrastructure: voter approval. 


The California Constitution prohibits the ad valorem tax rate on real property (for example: sales tax, use tax, or tax on acquisition or use of property)  from exceeding 1% of the full cash value of the property, subject to certain exceptions.


The Question: 

Should the CA Constitution be amended so that a new exemption to the 1% rule would be added, allowing a  a city, county, city & county, or special district,
upon approval by 55% of the voters,
to levy a  tax over
the current 1 % limit,  to service bond debt to fund: 
  • public infrastructure, including: 
    • construction,
    • reconstruction
    • rehabilitation, or
    • replacement
  • affordable housing, including:
    • down-payment assistance,
    • permanent supportive housing, 
    • the acquisition or lease of real property,
    • construction,
    • reconstruction,
    • rehabilitation, or
    • replacement

Background: 


Currently, the California State Constitution requires that local tax ballot measures that fund any of the items listed above must gain a 2/3 Super-Majority (66%) vote to be adopted. Many local bond measures have failed in recent elections because just 35% of voters voted No.

Passage of this amendment would reduce that minimum requirement to pass such a funding issue to a  55% super-majority.

Additional Information: 

 

Note: This Proposition is a combination of Assembly Bill ACA-1
AS AMENDED BY ACA-10

Full Text of ACA-1

Full Text of ACA-10





Proposition 6


Mandatory Referendum



CA Constitution


Redefinition of
Slavery

Revise the Definition of Slavery in the CA Constitution


Currently the California Constitution  prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude - except as punishment for a crime.

The Question: 

 Should the CA Constitution be amended to  prohibit slavery in any form, including prohibiting the Department of Corrections from disciplining incarcerated persons for refusing a work assignment.
 

Additional Information: 


Proposition32


Initiative
1936. (21-0043A1)


CA Law




Minimum Wage

Increase

Amendment to the Living Wage Act of 2022

 The existing law (Living Wage Act) required annual increases to California’s minimum wage until it  reached $15.00 per hour for all businesses on January 1, 2023.  Thereafter, the law requires annual minimum wage adjustments for inflation, not to exceed 3.5% per year.

The Question: 

 Should the  law, already in  effect be changed in the following ways:
  • Extend the 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.
  • In periods of decreased economic activity, or General Fund deficit, the Governor may suspend annual increase up to two times, thereby extending timeline for reaching $18.00 per hour. 

Background: 


The current law provides for annual minimum wage adjustments for inflation, not to exceed 3.5% per year, once the minimum wage reached its cap of $15.00 per hour. Although not clearly stated on the ballot, the amended law will continue the the same same inflation adjustment once the minimum wage has reached $18 per hour.

 

Additional Information: 

  • From the California Secretary of State
  •  


    Proposition 33


    Initiative
    1942. (22-0008)


    CA Law




    Prohibit State

    Limitations on

    Local Rent Control on

    Residential Property

    Repeal of the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995, Expanding Cities' Authority to Enact Rent Control

    Current state law (the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995) generally prevents cities and counties from limiting the initial rental rate that landlords may charge to new tenants in all types of housing, and from limiting rent increases for existing tenants in
    (1) residential properties that were first occupied after February 1, 1995;
    (2) single-family homes; and
    (3) condominiums.


    The Question: 

     Should the  Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995 be repealed and replaced with the statement:
    "The state may not limit the right of any city, county, or city and county to maintain, enact or expand residential rent control. "


    Background: 


    About one-quarter of Californians live in communities which already have rent control laws. These are laws that limit how much landlords can increase rents from one year to the next for existing renters. Examples of places with rent control are the cities of San Jose, San Francisco, and Los Angeles.

    Currently Costa-Hawkins, the state law that would be repealed by this proposition, limits local rent control laws in three main ways:

     

    1. Rent control laws cannot apply to single-family homes.
    2. Rent control  laws cannot apply to any housing built on or after February 1, 1995.
    3. Rent control laws can only limit how much landlords may increase rent for existing renters, it generally cannot tell landlords what they can charge a new renter when they first move in.

    In addition, another state law, the Tenant Protection Act.  prevents landlords of multifamily properties from increasing a tenant’s rent by more than 5 percent plus inflation (up to a total of 10 percent) in a year, and governs other items, like evictions. The Tenant Protection Act is not part of this proposition.

    Additional Information: 

     


    Proposition 34


    Initiative
    1963. (23-0021A1)

     

    CA Law

     

     

     

    Establish
    Spending Restrictions
    for Medi-Cal Rx
    Health Care Providers
    That Meet Certain
    Specified Criteria

    Protect Patients Now Act of 2024

    In 1992,the federal government established a program  giving safety-net health care providers access to discounted prescription drugs. The intent of the law was for such providers to use those discounted drugs to treat patients who are "medically uninsured, on marginal incomes, and have no other sources to turn to for preventive and primary care services."  

    Pharmacies, clinics, and nursing facilities provide these drugs, and earn revenues as a result of that program, though not directly from patients. These above-cost revenues come from external payors, such as Medicare, Medi-Cal, and private insurance. Huge profits have been generated by some entities charging vastly more to external providers than the discounted price they paid for the drug.


    The Question: 

     Should this Initiative be enacted into law?  This Initiative enacts two things :

     

    A.  Permanently authorizes the state of California  to negotiate Medi-Cal drug prices on statewide basis - making the current "Medi-Cal RX" program into law.

    B. Places a restriction and possible penalties  on a group of entities it names as  "Prescription Drug Price Manipulators." These are  organizations or individuals that meet all four of the following criteria:

    1. Either:
      - has ever owned at least one license to operate as a clinic, pharmacy, and/or health insurance plan 
      - or contracts with Med-Cal as a primary care case management organization 
      - or contracts with Medicare as a special needs plan
      AND
    2. has ever been the owner-operator of one or more multifamily dwellings that have received a combined total of at least 500 state or local high-severity health and safety violations
      AND
    3. obtains prescription drugs through the discount prescription drug program
      AND
    4. In any 10-year period has spent more than $100 million on purposes not related to direct patient care 

    The restriction requires these health care providers to spend 98% of revenues from the federal discount prescription drug program on direct patient care, and to report compliance to California state monitors. The state is allowed to charge processing fees for the annual review.
    If, after judicial hearings, the entity is found to be not in compliance with the 98% rule, penalties can include  loss of any California state tax-exempt status,  permanent revocation of any and all California pharmacy licenses, health care service plan licenses, or clinic licenses,  prohibition from applying for, or obtaining or possessing, a California pharmacy license, health care service plan license, or clinic license for a period of 10 years, among other penalties.



    Background: 


    According to the report of the California State Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO), Medi-Cal is a federal-state program that provides health coverage for low-income people. This coverage includes the cost of prescription drugs.  

    Before 2019, Medi-Cal paid for the cost of prescription drugs in different ways. In 2019, the state adopted a single approach called
    Medi-Cal Rx. Medi-Cal Rx likely saves the state money because Medi-Cal pays for drugs at more discounted prices. This administrative approach to paying for drugs in Medi-Cal is not a law.

    Providers tend to earn net revenue from the Federal drug discount program by charging payors of health care (such as private health plans and government programs) more than the cost to provide the drugs.   According to the Federal government, the intent of
    the Federal drug discount program is to allow eligible providers to increase services and serve more low-income patients. Providers can do so by spending their net revenue on services to patients. Federal and state law, however, does not directly restrict how providers spend their revenue from federal drug discounts.

    Note, however, that providers generally do not earn net revenue on these drugs in Medi-Cal. This is because state law bans providers from charging Medi-Cal more than the discounted price of the drug.

    Prop 34 would create new rules about how certain health-care providers can spend and must report on money earned specifically from the discount drug program. The rules will only apply to a targeted few organizations in California that meet a very tight set of criteria and  likely few entities would meet the conditions described. The exact number of affected entities, however, is not known.


    Additional Information: 

     


    Proposition 35


    Initiative
    1966. (23-0024A1)

     

    CA Law

     

     

     

    Permanent Funding 
    for Medi-Cal
    Health Care
    Services

    Creation of the Protect Access to Healthcare Fund

    The existing tax on managed health care insurance plans, which the state uses to pay for health care services for low-income families with children, seniors, people with disabilities, and other groups covered by the Medi-Cal program, is currently set to expire in 2026


    The Question: 

     Should a separate "Protect Access to Healthcare Fund" be established?
     This would set aside a special fund, permanently separate and apart from the General Fund or any other state fund or account, and require revenues to be used only for specified Medi-Cal services, including primary and specialty care, emergency care, family planning, mental health, and prescription drugs. It prohibits revenues from being used to replace other existing Medi-Cal funding, caps administrative expenses, and requires independent audits of programs receiving funding. 

     

    Additional Information: 



    Proposition 36


    Initiative
    1959. (23-0017A1)

     

    CA Law

     

     

     

    Increased Felony Charges
    and Sentences
    for Certain
    Drug Violations

    Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act

    Progressive states such as New Jersey, Maryland, Illinois, and Michigan have significantly stronger hard drug laws than California, and their homeless rate is 4 to 5 times lower than California's. 


    The Question: 

     Should California enact a new class of crime called a "treatment-mandated felony."
    If approved by voters, this law would:
    • Allow felony charges for possessing certain drugs, including fentanyl, and for thefts under $950—both currently chargeable only as misdemeanors—with two prior drug or two prior theft convictions, as applicable.
      • Defendants who plead guilty to felony drug possession and complete treatment can have charges dismissed.
    • Increase sentences for other specified drug and theft crimes.

    Additional Information: 




     Measures & Propositions :   We have some considered Positions on the Issues 

    • Yes, we in the League are totally nonpartisan. That means we never make recommendations
           regarding political parties or candidates.
    • But, we sometimes take positions on issues. That includes Measures and Propositions.
    • Once we have thoroughly studied an issue, we will decide whether to take a position.
    • Once we have taken a position, we take action and advocate to support or oppose particular
         policies, laws, or constitutional amendments related to that issue. 

      You can find  League Positions on Propositions & Measures (and why) HERE.

               If you'd like to know about ALL our Positions, they're at:  League Positions.



    Follow Us

    Support Us

     Donate Subscribe | Join   



    LWV Cupertino-Sunnyvale (LWVCS)
    PO Box 2923
    Sunnyvale, CA 94087
    Email: info@lwvcs.org


    As part of its Privacy Policy, 

    the League of Women Voters of Cupertino-Sunnyvale 

    does not buy or sell personal information to third parties.