California ACA 1: What It Proposed and Why It Failed

California ACA 1 was a proposed state constitutional amendment that would have lowered the local voter approval threshold from two-thirds to 55% for special taxes and general obligation bonds funding affordable housing and public infrastructure. The Legislature passed it in September 2023, and it went to voters on the November 2024 ballot as Proposition 5. Voters rejected it, roughly 55% no to 45% yes.¹ The two-thirds rule remains in force.

What ACA 1 Would Have Changed

ACA 1 targeted the vote share a local funding measure needs to pass. Under current law, a city, county, or special district must win two-thirds voter approval to impose a special tax or issue a general obligation bond. ACA 1 would have dropped that to 55% for two narrow categories: bonds and taxes funding public infrastructure, and bonds and taxes funding affordable housing. The special taxes covered were sales and use taxes, transactions and use taxes, and parcel taxes. Any other local special tax would still have needed two-thirds. Each qualifying measure would also have required a majority vote of the local governing board before reaching the ballot.²

Qualifying Infrastructure Projects

The bill defined public infrastructure broadly. Qualifying projects included:²

Water supply, water quality protection, sanitary sewer, and wastewater treatment
Flood control and protection from sea level rise
Transit improvements, streets, and highways
Fire and police facilities, fire suppression equipment, emergency response equipment, and interoperable communications
Parks, recreation facilities, open space, public libraries, and local hospitals
Broadband expansion in underserved areas

Qualifying Housing Projects

On the housing side, the measure covered affordable housing and permanent supportive housing for people at risk of chronic homelessness, including those with mental illness. Bond proceeds could also have funded downpayment assistance and the acquisition or lease of property for housing.³

Accountability Requirements Attached to the Lower Threshold

The 55% path came with strings. Any local measure using it would have had to include all of the following:²

Bond proceeds or tax revenue restricted to the projects named in the ballot measure, not salaries or general operations, with administrative costs capped at 5% of total proceeds
Spending limited to projects serving the jurisdiction that passed the measure
An independent financial audit and an independent performance audit every year, submitted to the California State Auditor and posted publicly
A citizens’ oversight committee, with members trained in bond oversight and fiscal accountability
A ban on any entity owned or controlled by a local official who voted to place the measure on the ballot from bidding on funded work
Certification by the local government that it had evaluated other funding sources before turning to voters

Why the Two-Thirds Rule Exists

The threshold ACA 1 tried to lower dates to Proposition 13, the 1978 measure that capped the general property tax rate at 1% of assessed value and required two-thirds voter approval for any local special tax.⁴ Proposition 218, passed in 1996, wrote the supermajority requirement into the Constitution and closed a loophole that had exempted charter cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco.⁵ Because of those two measures, a local tax proposal can draw 65% support and still lose.

The School Bond Precedent

ACA 1 was modeled on Proposition 39, which voters passed in 2000. That measure lowered the threshold to 55% for local school construction bonds, provided they included annual audits and a citizens’ oversight committee.⁶ Supporters of ACA 1 argued that the same accountability framework could safely extend to housing and infrastructure. Opponents said broadening the exception beyond schools would erode the taxpayer protections Proposition 13 was built to guarantee.

How It Reached the Ballot and How Voters Responded

A legislatively initiated constitutional amendment needs two-thirds approval in both chambers to qualify for the ballot. ACA 1 cleared that bar in September 2023: the Assembly voted 55 to 12, and the Senate voted 29 to 10.⁷ It went to voters on November 5, 2024, as Proposition 5, needing a simple statewide majority to amend the Constitution. It received about 45% yes to 55% no.¹

Where Things Stand Now

With Proposition 5 defeated, the two-thirds supermajority requirement remains fully in place for local special taxes and general obligation bonds. Cities, counties, and special districts that want to raise dedicated local money for housing or infrastructure still face the same constitutional bar set in 1978. School construction bonds remain the only local funding category with a 55% threshold.⁴

Nothing stops the Legislature from sending a similar amendment back to voters. A revised version could appear on a future ballot if it again passes both chambers by two-thirds. As of early 2026, no successor measure has advanced.

1
Ballotpedia. California Proposition 5, Lower Supermajority Requirement to 55% for Local Bond Measures to Fund Housing and Public Infrastructure Amendment (2024)
2
California Legislative Information. ACA 1 – Local Government Financing: Affordable Housing and Public Infrastructure: Voter Approval
3
California Legislative Information. California Constitution Article XIII A Section 1 – Tax Limitation
4
Legislative Analyst’s Office. Common Claims About Proposition 13
5
Legislative Analyst’s Office. Understanding Proposition 218
6
California Secretary of State. Proposition 39 – School Facilities. 55% Local Vote. Bonds, Taxes. Accountability Requirements
7
California Legislative Information. Bill Votes – ACA 1 Local Government Financing: Affordable Housing and Public Infrastructure: Voter Approval