Now that the deadline for measures to qualify for the November 2024 ballot has passed, and we know the proposition numbers for the qualified measures, we provide a look at those initiatives going before voters that could be of interest to school leaders, as well as a look at a few that were eligible but that did not ultimately make the ballot.
Measures Qualified for the November Ballot
Voter-led ballot measures officially qualify for a ballot 131 days before the next statewide election, which fell on June 27th this year. The same deadline typically applies to measures placed on the ballot by the Legislature as well. However, this year, to allow for more time to negotiate on various bonds, the Legislature waived this requirement and instead were up against a July 3rd deadline to qualify their efforts.
Proposition 2 – Kindergarten Through Grade 12 Schools and Local Community College Public Education Facilities Modernization, Repair, and Safety Bond Act of 2024. This measure would establish a $10 billion K-14 state school facilities bond. While there had been discussions about including the UCs and CSUs in the bond funding, this bond only includes K-12 schools and community colleges, with funding broken down as follows:
- Community Colleges - $1.5 billion
- K-12 New Construction - $3.3 billion
- K-12 Modernization - $4 billion (with $115 million set aside for lead in water testing and remediation)
- Career Technical Education - $600 million
- Charter Schools - $600 million
The bond also includes direct technical assistance for small and priority school districts, increases the maximum level of total bonding capacity that a school district could have and still be eligible for financial hardship from $5 million to $15 million, and includes a program for buildings older than 75 years old to receive higher new construction funds to demolish or replace the older buildings. More information can be found in our recent update on AB 247, available here. We also ask that if you have passed a local resolution in support of Prop 2, you send a copy to our friends at the Coalition for Adequate School Housing - you can find all the information you need here.
Proposition 4 – Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, Drought Preparedness, and Clean Air Bond Act of 2024. This measure would establish a $10 billion climate bond 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 clear air programs. Funding would include:
- Safe Drinking Water, Drought, Flood, and Water Resilience Programs - $3.8 billion
- Wildfire and Forest Resilience Programs - $1.5 billion
- Coastal Resilience Programs - $1.2 billion
- Clear Air Programs - $850 million
- Park Creation and Outdoor Access Programs - $700 million
- Extreme Heat Mitigation Programs - $450 million (with $100 million set aside for urban greening, like green schoolyards, and $60 million set aside for community resilience centers)
The full text of the Climate Bond can be found in SB 867.
Proposition 32 - Initiative to Raise Minimum Wage. This initiative would extend the current annual $1.00/year increase to the state minimum wage until the minimum wage reaches $18.00/hour. Under current law, annual increases to California’s minimum wage were required until it reached $15.00/hour for all businesses on January 1, 2023. (Link to initiative text)
Proposition 36 – Proposition 47 Reform. This initiative, which is backed by both prosecutors and retailers, would roll back parts of the criminal justice reforms put in place by Proposition 47 (2014). These changes would include (1) allowing 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 and (2) increasing sentences for other specified drug and theft crimes. According to the state’s analysis, “increased prison sentences may reduce savings that currently fund mental health and drug treatment programs, K-12 schools and crime victims…” (Link to initiative text)
The Administration and Legislature had briefly announced plans to place a competing measure on the ballot, after initial talks with the proponents had failed to lead to an agreement before the qualification deadline. However, just days after announcing the alternative measure, the details of which were contained in SB 1381, Governor Newsom informed Democrats the day before the deadline, that he would no longer be pursuing the alterative effort. According to the Governor, while he had enough votes to get the measure placed on the ballot, there was not enough time to pass the necessary amendments to the bill to ensure its passage in November. Bills must be in print for 72-hours before they can be voted on by the houses, a timeline that would have been impossible to meet with the Legislature working up against a July 3rd qualification deadline.
What Won’t Be on the Ballot in November?
Earlier in the year, the November ballot looked like it would feature a plethora of ballot measures that would impact schools. Many of these early measures simply failed to gather enough signatures to be eligible for the ballot, including a series of measures that looked to limit the rights of transgender students and a measure to establish school vouchers. However, this year, perhaps more than any other year, we also saw a lot of measures that were deemed eligible, only to be withdrawn from the ballot after the proponents had reached a legislative agreement.
Initiative to establish the “California Personal Finance Education Act.” This initiative would have amended the list of state graduation requirements to add, for pupils graduating in the 2029-30 school year, completion of a one-semester course in personal finance. The initiative would also require, beginning with the 2026-27 school year, an LEA, including a charter school, to offer at least a one-semester course in personal finance.
What Happened?: Following weeks of negotiations, proponents reached an agreement with the Legislature and Administration just days ahead of the June 27th deadline. Under the agreement, which is reflected in AB 2927 (McCarty), the graduation requirement and the requirement for LEAs to offer the one-semester course is pushed out an additional year, to the 2030-31 and 2027-28 school years, respectively. The agreement also clarifies that the course must be a separate, stand-alone course in personal finance that is not combined with any other course and includes added language that would allow a pupil who completes the required course, beginning with the 2023-31 school year, to elect to be exempt from the state requirement to complete a one-semester economics course. Upon a promise by the Governor to sign AB 2927 when it reached his desk, the proponents officially pulled the measure on June 27th. AB 2927 was signed on June 29th. More information about the deal can be found in our recent update on AB 2927, available here.
AB 2927 is a good example of how the looming pressure of a ballot measure has been used to incentivize the state to engage on an issue that had repeatedly stalled in the Legislature. There had been multiple legislative attempts in recent years to add financial literacy to the list of required courses in high school but none of them had been successful until this year.
Initiative to Limit Ability of Voters and State and Local Governments to Raise Revenues for Government Services. This constitutional amendment, which was initially deemed eligible for the ballot on February 1, 2023, would have, among other things (1) limited voters’ ability to pass voter-proposed local special taxes by raising the vote requirement to two-thirds and (2) required statewide voters to also approve, by a majority vote, any increased or new state taxes enacted by a two-thirds vote of the state Legislature. This measure was of particular interest to school leaders because voter-proposed parcel taxes, which only require a majority vote to pass, have become a more common alternative to school-placed parcel taxes.
What Happened?: Last September, Governor Newsom and the Legislature asked the California Supreme Court to remove the measure from contention for the ballot, arguing that if passed, the amendment would make “sweeping changes” to “California’s fundamental governmental structure.” On June 20, 2024, the Court ruled unanimously in favor of removing the measure, writing that the proposed changes “are within the electorate’s prerogative to enact but because those changes would substantially alter our basic plan of government, the proposal cannot be enacted by initiative. It is instead governed by the procedures for revising our Constitution.” Unlike constitutional amendments, constitutional revisions must be submitted to voters by a 2/3 vote of the Legislature or a constitutional convention.
Interestingly, along with challenging the measure in court, the Legislature also introduced ACA 13 (Ward), which would have required any constitutional amendment seeking to increase the vote threshold required to adopt any state or local measure to also at least be passed by voters by the same threshold to become law. ACA 13 was passed by the Legislature last September and was also set to appear on the November 2024 ballot. However, after the Court pulled the initiative, the Legislature passed AB 440, which pushed ACA 13 to the November 2026 ballot.
Initiative to Eliminate Employee’s Ability to File Lawsuits for Monetary Penalties for State Labor-Law Violations. This initiative would have repealed a 2004 law, known as the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), that allowed employees to file lawsuits on behalf of themselves and other employees against employers to recover monetary penalties for certain state labor law violations and would have established, instead, the Fair Pay and Employer Accountability Act of 2022. Under the Act, the Labor Commissioner would have retained its authority to enforce labor laws and impose penalties but would also have, among other things, required the Labor Commissioner to provide pre-enforcement advice and allowed employers to correct identified labor-law violations without penalties.
What Happened?: This ballot measure had been contentious since it became eligible for the ballot in July 2022. Proponents had argued that reform was needed because current-PAGA requirements lead to unnecessary and expensive lawsuits while opponents argued that PAGA is an important tool to ensure protection of workers’ rights. After weeks of behind-the-scenes negotiations, and motivated by a desire to avoid expensive ballot campaigns on either side, the Governor, Legislature, business groups, including the California Chamber of Commerce, and labor organizations, including the California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO, announced an agreement to pull the measure just nine days before the qualification deadline.
The agreement, which is contained in AB 2288 (Kalra) and SB 92 (Umberg), makes changes to (1) reform the PAGA penalty structure, including capping penalties on employers who quickly take steps to fix policies and practices and establishing higher penalties on employers who act maliciously or fraudulently, (2) reduce and streamline litigation, including expanding which Labor Code sections can be cured to reduce the need for litigation and make employees whole quickly, and (3) improve measures for injunctive relief and standing, including requiring an employee to personally experience the alleged violations brought in a claim. Following the agreement, the proponents of the initiative officially pulled the measure. The Governor signed AB 2288 and SB 92 on July 1st.
Referendum Challenging 2022 Law Prohibiting New Oil and Gas Wells Near Homes, Schools, and Hospitals. In 2022, Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 1137 (Chapter 365, Statutes of 2022), which, in part, would prohibit most new or modified oil and gas wells within 3,200 feet of certain locations, including schools and daycares, and requires existing wells in those specified areas to meet certain health, safety, and environmental requirements by January 1, 2025. As a referendum, this measure would have asked voters whether they wanted to “Keep the law” or “Overturn the law.”
What Happened?: Proponents pulled the referendum the day before it would have qualified but have declared their intention to challenge the law in court. In pulling the measure, the proponents stated, “Supporters of the energy shutdown can make unfounded claims in the press and in paid advertisements, but they can’t take those claims in court without evidence.” When the referendum first became eligible for the ballot, the implementation of SB 1137 was delayed until voters could decide the fate of the law. With the referendum having been pulled, the law will now go into effect.
Interestingly, prior to a bill that was signed last year (AB 421, Chapter 162, Statutes of 2023), referendums immediately qualified for the next general statewide election following a determination that it had a sufficient number of valid signatures and could not be pulled from the ballot after that point. However, AB 421 changed that and now, like other ballot initiatives, proponents have the ability to withdraw an eligible referendum up until the 131st day before the election.
Constitutional Amendment to Provide Funding for Pandemic Detection and Prevention. This initiative would have increased taxes on personal incomes over $5 million by 0.75% for 10 years and allocated the new tax revenues to address various pandemic-related issues, including designating 25% of funding for improvements to school facilities to limit disease transmission.
What Happened?: The proponents pulled the measure after the Administration agreed to expand the scope of the California Initiative to Advance Precision Medicine, a 2015 program, as part of this year’s budget. The budget (SB 164) included language related to the program and pandemic prevention but did not include any additional funding for this purpose. The Governor signed SB 164 on June 29th and it took effect immediately as a budget bill.
What’s Next?
Now that the deadline to qualify a measure on the November ballot has passed, the qualified measures can no longer be pulled off the ballot. While there might not be as many measures on the ballot that will impact schools as there was potential for earlier in the year, voters will still be asked to vote on 11 measures in November. This includes 5 initiatives, 4 constitutional amendments, and 2 bond measures. The LAO has started to release its impartial analysis of each statewide initiative, which includes an analysis of the measure, a bulleted fiscal summary, and a yes/no summary. Additionally, because there will be more than one bond measure on this year’s ballot, the LAO will also prepare an overview of state bond debt. These analyses are available here.
Please reach out to any of us here at Capitol Advisors if you have any questions.
Best,
Caitlin
Caitlin Jung, Legislative Counsel
Capitol Advisors Group