Ballot Measures
November 5, 2024

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

Summary of the Question

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

The Question: 

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

Fiscal Impact: 

• Not yet available

Full Text

  California Marriage Equality Amendment

The Question: 

Fiscal Impact:

• not yet available

Full Text

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

The Question: 

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

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

The Question: 

• 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
    

Fiscal Impact: 

• Not yet available

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

Revise the Definition of Slavery in the CA Constitution

The Question: 

Fiscal Impact:

• Not yet available

Fill Text

• 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.
  

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.
  

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
   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.

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

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.
    

• 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.

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

Summary of the Question

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;
  and 
• 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

• 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?

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