In 2022, nearly 60% of Berkeley voters approved a $650 million bond to build affordable housing and repair streets, sidewalks and other aging infrastructure.

That same year, more than 61% of voters in Lompoc, California, supported a special 1% tax increase on hotels, motels, short-term rentals and other lodging to pay for police and fire departments.

And in Sonoma County, a 2020 sales tax that would have raised an estimated $51 million annually for wildfire prevention earned nearly 65% ​​of the vote.

All three ballot measures still failed.

That’s because California requires the approval of two-thirds of voters for certain special tax increases and bond measures, a threshold set in the 1879 state Constitution and through ballot measures such as 1978’s Proposition 13.

Democrats in the state Legislature are trying to revise that requirement. They introduced Assembly Constitutional Amendment 1 this year to ask voters whether the threshold for approving new special taxes and bonds for affordable housing and public infrastructure projects should be lowered to 55%.

The constitutional amendment required a two-thirds majority vote in both houses of the legislature. The General Assembly narrowly approved the bill on September 6 on a 55-10 vote, with Republicans in opposition and some moderate Democrats in the 80-member chamber retaining their votes.

The 40-member Senate finalized the bill on Thursday by a vote of 29-10.

Voters will now have the final say on the November 2024 ballot.

Here’s what you need to know:

What would ACA 1 help build?

The ballot measure itself would not authorize special taxes and bonds or lead to the construction of new housing or public projects.

Instead, voters are being asked whether the threshold to pass taxes and bonds that cities use to pay for local services and affordable housing should be lowered from two-thirds to 55%, the same bar required to approve bonds for the renovation of schools.

The proposal adds certain accountability requirements, including annual and independent audits of how money is used, and the creation of citizen oversight committees to track spending.

“Our state and local governments are under enormous pressure to address an ongoing housing and homelessness crisis,” Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, a Democrat from Winters who authored the proposal, said during a committee hearing on Monday. “You can’t have housing without roads, sewers and public safety facilities. And passing ACA 1 will provide the most accountable, transparent method in our state to do this.”

Why do supporters think this is a good idea?

Supporters of ACA 1 say requiring approval from two-thirds of voters has hampered affordable housing development in recent decades and blocked necessary funding for public safety services and upgrades to parks, libraries, water or streets.

The initiative is sponsored by influential unions representing civil servants and construction workers. Affordable residential groups, together with dozens of cities

and counties across the state also support ACA 1.

Jason Rhine, a lobbyist for the League of California Cities, said when the measures fall short

a

The supermajority vote leaves local governments without money to modernize their infrastructure or build much-needed affordable housing to address the growing homelessness and mental health crisis.

“If a measure fails, there really aren’t enough resources to address all these very difficult challenges,” Rhine said.

Other proponents of ACA 1 see it as correcting the effects of Proposition 13, which they say is one of the reasons why housing in California is scarce and homeownership unaffordable.

“The voters of that era were a different cohort of voters,” said Matt Lewis, a spokesman for the pro-housing group California YIMBY. “We are now living in the 21st century, with a series of tax measures passed by Californians nearly fifty years ago.

“The fundamental nature of ACA 1 is: Shall we try to be a little more democratic in the way we fund the things we care about in California?”

What are the arguments against ACA 1?

Opponents of the measure argue that California, already one of the most expensive states to live in, will become even more inaccessible for middle- and low-income residents.

Taxpayers argue that ACA 1 rolls back longstanding protections that maintain lower property and sales taxes. They say new taxes will drive companies out of California, hurt workers and create barriers to homeownership.

Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn., called ACA 1 a “direct attack on Proposition 13” that “opens the floodgates to higher taxes.”

“The loss of those important protections in Prop. 13 means that struggling taxpayers will face higher local taxes again and again after every election,” Coupal said.

Peter Blocker, vice president of policy at the California Taxpayers Assn., said ACA 1 could lead to more than $250 million in increased taxes

,

every election cycle. Blocker said the two-thirds threshold established in Proposition 13 protects Californians from “excessive taxes.”

“It should come as no surprise that one of the biggest concerns we hear from taxpayers is the rising cost of living in California,” Blocker said. “We believe ACA 1 will worsen this problem and make the state less affordable.”

Aguiar-Curry accelerated the proposal in the final weeks of this year’s legislative session, but pledged to work on new legislation in 2024 to clarify remaining questions and reduce opposition to the measure.