Skip to main content
Logo-League of Women Voters Cupertino - Sunnyvale California

Member Website Help

HomeBallot Measures

Ballot Measures
November 5, 2024

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.

NOTE: Proposition numbers for approved statewide Measures and Initiatives will be assigned in late July or early August.

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 Optional Referendum voting on whether an already-passed law should be upheld or repealed.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 #




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

Summary of the Question

Proposition 2

Mandatory Referendum

Bond Measure
& Law

Bond Approval
for Facilities for Local Schools
K-12 & 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 from the voters to issue State Bonds to finance assistance to local K-12 schools and Community Colleges for badly-needed maintenance.  The California Constitution prohibits the Legislature from creating a debt or liability that singly or in the aggregate 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):


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


Fiscal Impact: 

  • Not yet available

Full Text

Proposition 3

Mandatory Referendum

CA Constitution


  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.   

Fiscal Impact:

  • not yet available

Full Text

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):

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 


Fiscal Impact: 

  • Not yet available

Full Text

Proposition 5

Mandatory Referendum

CA Constitution

Local Government Financing:
Affordable Housing
& Public Infrastructur

  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
Note: ACA-10 exempts school districts that use bonds to finance infrastructure, including  furnishing and equipping of school facilities.

Fiscal Impact: 

  • Not yet available

Note: This Proposition is a combination of Assembly Bill ACA-1

Full Text of ACA-1

Full Text of ACA-10

Proposition 6

Mandatory Referendum

CA Constitution

Redefinition of

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.

Fiscal Impact:

  • Not yet available


Fill Text


1936. (21-0043A1)

CA Law

Minimum Wage Increase

Amendment to the Living Wage Act of 2022

 The existing law requires annual increases to California’s minimum wage until it has reached $15.00 per hour for all businesses on January 1, 2023.  Thereafter, the minimum wage will annually adjust for inflation.

The Question:  Should the  law, already in  effect be changed in the following ways:
  • Extends 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. 

Fiscal Impact:

  • Unclear change in annual state and local tax revenues, likely between a loss of a couple billion dollars and a gain of a few hundred million dollars.
  • Increase in annual state and local government costs likely between half a billion dollars and a few billion dollars.


1942. (22-0008)

CA Law

Rent Control on

Residential Property

Repeal of the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995

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. "

Fiscal Impact:

  •  A potential reduction in state and local revenues in the high tens of millions of dollars per year over time.
  • Depending on actions by local communities, revenue losses could be less or more.

Proposition 34

1963. (23-0021A1)


CA Law




Spending Restrictions
Health Care Providers
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, although 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
  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
  3. obtains prescription drugs through the discount prescription drug program
  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.

Fiscal Impact:

The exact magnitude of this cost is uncertain.

  •  The measure would result in new administrative costs to the Department of Justice, the Department of Managed Health Care, the Board of Pharmacy, and the Department of Public Health to annually review each prescription drug price manipulator’s compliance with the requirements.
  • Uncertain fiscal impacts to state and local government health programs, depending on how the affected entities respond to the measure’s requirements.

Full Text

Proposition 35

1966. (23-0024A1)


CA Law




Permanent Funding 
for Medi-Cal
Health Care

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. 

Fiscal Impact:

  • Reduced legislative flexibility over the use of tax funds
    • The extent of this impact depends on whether the measure would result in different state decisions around imposing, structuring, and spending proceeds from the managed care organization tax than in the absence of the measure. Thus, uncertain overall impact on state revenues and spending.


Proposition 36

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.

Fiscal Impact:

  •  Increased state criminal justice system costs, potentially in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually, primarily due to an increase in the state prison population.
    • Some of these costs could be offset by reductions in state spending on local mental health and substance use services, truancy and dropout prevention, and victim services due to requirements in current law.
  • Increased local criminal justice system costs potentially in the tens of millions of dollars annually, primarily due to increased court-related workload and a net increase in the number of people in county jail and under county community supervision.


Local Measures Affecting Cupertino and 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.

NOTE: August 9, 2024 is the deadline for jurisdictions in Santa Clara County to file a Resolution with the Registrar of Voters to place a Measure on the November 5, 2024 General Election ballot.

After August 9th letters designations for the Measures will be assigned to the submitted Resolutions.

Measure #




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

Summary of the Question

Bay Area Regional Measure #3

Affordable Housing General Obligation Bond
2/3rds Vote Required

Residents of the SF Bay Area Counties of:

Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa,

San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara,

Solano & Sonoma

(incl. Cupertino & Sunnyvale)

Bonds to Fund

Affordable Housing

BAHFA  $20 Billion Affordable Housing Bond Issue

The Bay Area Housing Finance Authority (BAHFA) has proposed to address housing affordability and reduce homelessness by:

  •  Providing an estimated 70,000 affordable apartments/homes; 
  • Creating homes near transit, jobs, and stores; 
  • Converting vacant lots/blighted properties into affordable housing;
  • Providing first-time homebuyer assistance;

through the issuing of  $20,000,000,000 ($20 Billion) in bonds at legal rates,
which would levy an estimated $19 per $100,000 of assessed valuation on properties in nine counties around the San Francisco Bay Area,
generating $670,000,000 annually while bonds are outstanding,
and requiring public reporting, independent audits/citizen oversight.

The Question:
Shall this measure to issue $20,000,000,000 in bonds be approved?

For More Details

Measure #TBD

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

Residents of Sunnyvale

Funding for

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 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?

Measure #TBD

City of Sunnyvale
City Charter Amendments

Residents of Sunnyvale

Approve changes to

the 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;


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

Follow Us

Support Us

 Donate Subscribe | Join   

As part of its Privacy Policy the League of Women Voters of Cupertino-Sunnyvale California
 does not buy or sell personal information to third parties.

LWV Cupertino-Sunnyvale (LWVCS)
PO Box 2923
Sunnyvale, CA 94087