A California ballot measure labeled by opponents as a "dangerous threat to California homeowners" for its ability to empower local governments to supersede limits on issuing municipal debt and raising property taxes in the process, appears poised for defeat.
As many votes continue to be counted across the state, Proposition 5 has run against strong opposition among ballots counted to date. According to unofficial and incomplete returns as of early Thursday afternoon, 56.3% of California voters have voted "No" on the measure.
That represents only a partial count of votes, as California continues to collect and count mail-in ballots and other kinds of votes. Results will be final only on Dec. 13.
Ballot measures require more than 50% "Yes" votes to be considered successful.
Under Prop 5, the California state constitution would be rewritten to allow local governmnets to issue bonds for "local infrastructure and housing for low- and middle-income Californians" after securing permission from only 55% of voters within their jurisdictions. Currently, the state constitution would require such bonds to be approved by at least two-thirds of voters.
The new vote threshold would apply to bonds issued by nearly all local taxpayer-funded bodies, including cities, transit districts and government associations. Infrastructure bonds could be used to pay for improvements to roads, transit, parks, ports and more. Housing bonds could be used to give certain homebuyers down payment assistance or to promote so-called affordable housing or homelessness assistance programs.
All bonds issued by local governments would be debt issued by the local government, and would result in higher property taxes to repay it.
Opponents of the measure, notably including the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, have sounded an alarm on the measure's potential consequences for homeowners and taxpayers since the Democratic state lawmakers who dominate Sacramento voted to place the measure on the ballot.
The HJTA called Prop 5 "a turbo engine to try and raise property taxes whenever government agencies want."
After Prop 5 was introduced, the HJTA sued the state over allegedly misleading language placed on the ballot to explain the ballot question to voters. The HJTA said the description was deceptively written to disguise the measure's true intent and potential steep impact on tax bills.
While the so-called ballot label tells voters Prop 5 would give local governments the power to issue debt with approval from 55% of taxpayers, the HJTA asserted the language should have also been required to mention that this marks a significant decrease in the threshold for voter approval from the two-thirds approval that is now required.
A Sacramento County Superior Court judge agreed with the HJTA and ordered California Attorney General Rob Bonta to rewrite the ballot label to more accurately reflect the actual changes.
Bonta, however, overturned that order on appeal to the California Third District Appellate Court.
The appeals court said it believed the ballot label was "factually accurate." And they noted the title and summary also accompanying the ballot measure included the information the HJTA said should also be included in the label.
The HJTA vowed to still defeat Prop 5 at the ballot box.
As of Nov. 7, it appeared the measure was headed for defeat.
Jon Coupal, president of the HJTA, hailed the preliminary election results.
In a statement posted to X.com on Nov. 6, Coupal said: "Prop. 5, the most dangerous threat to California homeowners, appears headed for defeat with 55.8% no votes. But tons of ballots still to be counted so stay tuned."
Since that posting, the percentage of voters saying "No" to Prop 5 increased to 56.3%.