California Proposition 33, Prohibit State Limitations on Local Rent Control Initiative (2024)
California Proposition 33 | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Election date November 5, 2024 | |
Topic Housing | |
Status![]() | |
Type State statute | Origin Citizens |
California Proposition 33, the Prohibit State Limitations on Local Rent Control Initiative, was on the ballot in California as an initiated state statute on November 5, 2024.[1] The ballot measure was defeated.
A "yes" vote supported:
|
A "no" vote opposed repealing Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, which prohibits rent control on single-family homes and houses completed after February 1, 1995. |
Election results
California Proposition 33 |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
Yes | 5,979,880 | 39.98% | ||
8,975,542 | 60.02% |
Overview
How would the initiative have changed state power over local rent control?
- See also: Text of measure
The initiative would have repealed the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, enacted in 1995. The act prohibits rent control on single-family homes and housing completed after February 1, 1995. It also restricts rent control laws from regulating what a landlord can charge a tenant when they first move in. By repealing the act, the initiative would have allowed cities and counties to limit rent on any housing and to regulate the rent for a first-time tenant. Any local laws previously inoperative under the Costa-Hawkins Act would have taken effect upon its repeal.[1] The initiative would have added language to California's Civil Code prohibiting the state from limiting "the right of any city, county, or city and county to maintain, enact or expand residential rent control." This would not have prohibited laws related to renters, such as the existing statewide limit on rent increases.[1][2]
Who supported and opposed the initiative?
- See also: Support and Opposition
Justice for Renters, which was sponsored by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, led the campaign in support of the ballot initiative. The campaign and allied committees reported $49.93 million in contributions. The campaign received endorsements from the California Nurses Association, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Housing is a Human Right, and Veterans' Voices. The AIDS Healthcare Foundation sponsored two similar initiatives in 2018 and 2020 that were defeated. AIDS Healthcare Foundation contributed $63.1 million in support of both initiatives.
Six committees registered to oppose Proposition 33. Together, the committees reported over $121.70 million in contributions. Mike Nemeth, Marketing and Communications Director for the California Apartment Association said, "By repealing Costa-Hawkins, Weinstein’s so-called 'Justice for Renters Act' not only would empower cities and counties to impose strict rent control on all apartments and single-family homes, but it would abolish the state’s existing ban on vacancy control. Vacancy control prohibits rental housing providers from adjusting rents to market rates when a tenant moves out. Such a policy leads to property deterioration and stifled investment in housing."[3][4]
Which states authorized local rent control?
- See also: State policies on rent control
As of 2023, seven states and D.C. enacted rent control policies at the state or local level. Thirty-one (31) states enacted laws preempting local governments from adopting rent control policies. In 12 states, no cities enacted rent control but rent control was not preempted. To see a map of state policies on rent control, click here.[5]
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title was as follows:[6]
“ | Expands local governments' authority to enact rent control on residential property. Initiative statute.[7] | ” |
Ballot summary
The summary provided for inclusion on signature petition sheets was as follows:[6]
“ | Current state law (the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995) generally prevents cities and counties from limiting the initial rental rate that landlords may charge to new tenants in all types of housing, and from limiting rent increases for existing tenants in (1) residential properties that were first occupied after February 1, 1995; (2) single-family homes; and (3) condominiums. This measure would repeal that state law and would prohibit the state from limiting the right of cities and counties to maintain, enact, or expand residential rent-control ordinances.[7] | ” |
Fiscal impact
The fiscal impact statement was as follows:[6]
“ | Overall, 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.[7] | ” |
Full text
The full text of the ballot measure is below:[1]
Readability score
- See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2024
Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The attorney general wrote the ballot language for this measure.
The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 15, and the FRE is -2. The word count for the ballot title is 13.
The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 16, and the FRE is 31. The word count for the ballot summary is 84.
Support
Renters and Homeowners for Rent Control, also known as Yes on 33, led the campaign in support of the ballot initiative.[8] The AIDS Healthcare Foundation sponsored the campaign.[9]
Supporters
Officials
- U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (Independent)
- State Asm. Tina McKinnor (D)
- San Francisco Supervisor Dean Preston (Nonpartisan)
Former Officials
- Former State Controller Betty Yee (D)
Political Parties
Government Entities
Unions
Organizations
- ACLU of Southern California
- AIDS Healthcare Foundation
- Americans for Democratic Action - Southern California
- Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights
- Democratic Socialists of America
- Housing is a Human Right
- Our Revolution
- Pomona United Stable Housing Coalition
- Social Security Works - California
- Veterans' Voices
Arguments
Opposition
Californians for Responsible Housing, which was sponsored by the California Apartment Association, and No on 33 led the campaign in opposition to the initiative.[3][10]
Opponents
Officials
- State Sen. Toni Atkins (D)
- State Asm. Buffy Wicks (D)
- Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis (D)
Former Officials
- Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa (D)
Political Parties
Government Entities
Unions
Organizations
- Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles
- California Apartment Association
- California Business Roundtable
- California Chamber of Commerce
- California Mortgage Bankers Association
- California YIMBY
- Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
- Multi-County Property Rights PAC
- San Francisco Apartment Association
Arguments
Campaign finance
Ballotpedia identified two committees registered to support the initiative and six opposed.[11]
Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Support | $49,567,304.09 | $1,145,741.43 | $50,713,045.52 | $53,935,183.30 | $55,080,924.73 |
Oppose | $125,062,418.88 | $977.04 | $125,063,395.92 | $109,048,659.36 | $109,049,636.40 |
Total | $174,629,722.97 | $1,146,718.47 | $175,776,441.44 | $162,983,842.66 | $164,130,561.13 |
Support
The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in support of the measure.[11]
Committees in support of Proposition 33 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Committee | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures |
Renters and Homeowners for Rent Control Yes on 33 | $48,712,828.99 | $1,145,741.43 | $49,858,570.42 | $53,106,700.26 | $54,252,441.69 |
Kevin De Leon Believing in a Better California Ballot Measure Committee - Yes on Propositions 3, 32, and 33 | $854,475.10 | $0.00 | $854,475.10 | $828,483.04 | $828,483.04 |
Total | $49,567,304.09 | $1,145,741.43 | $50,713,045.52 | $53,935,183.30 | $55,080,924.73 |
Donors
The following were the top donors who contributed to the support committees.[11]
Donor | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions |
---|---|---|---|
AIDS Healthcare Foundation | $48,755,000.00 | $1,118,932.01 | $49,873,932.01 |
Kevin de Leon for Lieutenant Governor 2026 | $750,000.00 | $0.00 | $750,000.00 |
Unite Here, Local 11 | $50,000.00 | $0.00 | $50,000.00 |
Democratic Socialists of America, Inc. | $0.00 | $5,000.00 | $5,000.00 |
Youth Power PAC | $0.00 | $4,466.41 | $4,466.41 |
Opposition
The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in opposition to the measure.[11]
Committees in opposition to Proposition 33 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Committee | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures |
No on 33, Californians for Responsible Housing: A Bi-Partisan Coalition of Affordable Housing Advocates, Taxpayers, Veterans, and Small Businesses | $89,577,720.93 | $0.00 | $89,577,720.93 | $89,231,918.41 | $89,231,918.41 |
Homeownership for Families sponsored by California Association of Realtors - No on 33 | $27,000,000.00 | $0.00 | $27,000,000.00 | $11,483,543.09 | $11,483,543.09 |
No on Prop 33, Californians to Protect Affordable Housing a Coalition of Housing Advocates, Renters, Businesses, Taxpayers, and Veterans | $7,881,264.87 | $0.00 | $7,881,264.87 | $8,037,104.69 | $8,037,104.69 |
Californians for Affordable Housing, sponsored by the California Rental Housing Association | $391,740.35 | $0.00 | $391,740.35 | $92,788.34 | $92,788.34 |
Issues PAC of Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles - No on 33 | $211,692.73 | $977.04 | $212,669.77 | $203,304.83 | $204,281.87 |
California Affordable Rental Housing Coalition, No on Proposition | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 |
Total | $125,062,418.88 | $977.04 | $125,063,395.92 | $109,048,659.36 | $109,049,636.40 |
Donors
The following table shows the top donors to the committees registered in opposition to the ballot measure.[11]
Donor | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions |
---|---|---|---|
California Apartment Association | $88,790,000.00 | $0.00 | $88,790,000.00 |
California Association of Realtors | $22,000,000.00 | $0.00 | $22,000,000.00 |
National Association of Realtors | $5,000,000.00 | $0.00 | $5,000,000.00 |
Michael K. Hayde (Western National Group & Affiliated Entities) | $2,856,000.00 | $0.00 | $2,856,000.00 |
California Business Roundtable Issues PAC | $1,680,000.00 | $181,339.53 | $1,861,339.53 |
Methodology
To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.
Media editorials
- See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements
Support
The following media editorial boards published an editorial supporting the ballot measure:
Opposition
The following media editorial boards published an editorial opposing the ballot measure:
Polls
- See also: 2024 ballot measure polls
- Are you aware of a poll on this ballot measure that should be included below? You can share ballot measure polls, along with source links, with us at editor@ballotpedia.org.
California Proposition 33, Prohibit State Limitations on Local Rent Control Initiative (2024) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Public Policy Institute of California | 10/07/2024 - 10/15/2024 | 1,137 LV | ± 3.1% | 42.0% | 54.0% | 4.0% |
Question: "Proposition 33 is called “Expands Local Governments’ Authority to Enact Rent Control on Residential Property.” Initiative Statute. Repeals Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995, which currently prohibits local ordinances limiting initial residential rental rates for new tenants or rent increases for existing tenants in certain residential properties. The fiscal impact is reduction in local property tax revenues of at least tens of millions of dollars annually due to likely expansion of rent control in some communities. Supporters include CA Nurses Assoc.; CA Alliance for Retired Americans; Mental Health Advocacy; Coalition for Economic Survival; Tenants Together. Opponents include the California Council for Affordable Housing; Women Veterans Alliance; California Chamber of Commerce. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no?" | ||||||
University of California, Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies | 9/25/2024 - 10/01/2024 | 3,045 LV | ± 2.5% | 37% | 36% | 27.0% |
Question: "PROPOSITION 33. EXPANDS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS’ AUTHORITY TO ENACT RENT CONTROL ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. INITIATIVE STATUTE: Current state law generally prevents cities and counties from limiting the initial rental rate that landlords may charge to new tenants in all types of housing, and from limiting rent increases for existing tenants in (1) residential properties that were first occupied after February 1, 1995; (2) single-family homes; and (3) condominiums. This measure would repeal that state law and would prohibit the state from limiting the right of cities and counties to maintain, enact or expand residential rent-control ordinances. Fiscal impact: Overall, a potential reduction in state and local revenues in the high tens of millions of dollars per year over time. If the election were held today, how would you vote on Proposition 33?" | ||||||
Public Policy Institute of California | 8/29/2024 - 09/11/2024 | 1,071 LV | ± 3.7% | 51.0% | 46.0% | 3.0% |
Question: "Proposition 33 is called “Expands Local Governments’ Authority to Enact Rent Control on Residential Property”. Initiative Statute. Repeals Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995, which currently prohibits local ordinances limiting initial residential rental rates for new tenants or rent increases for existing tenants in certain residential properties. The fiscal impact is reduction in local property tax revenues of at least tens of millions of dollars annually due to likely expansion of rent control in some communities. Supporters include CA Nurses Assoc.; CA Alliance for Retired Americans; Mental Health Advocacy; Coalition for Economic Survival; TenantsTogether. Opponents include the California Council for Affordable Housing; Women Veterans Alliance; California Chamber of Commerce. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no?" | ||||||
University of California, Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies | 07/31/2024 - 08/11/2024 | 3,765 LV | ± 2.0% | 40.0% | 34.0% | 26.0% |
Question: "PROPOSITION 33. EXPANDS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS’ AUTHORITY TO ENACT RENT CONTROL ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. INITIATIVE STATUTE: Current state law generally prevents cities and counties from limiting the initial rental rate that landlords may charge to new tenants in all types of housing, and from limiting rent increases for existing tenants in (1) residential properties that were first occupied after February 1, 1995; (2) single-family homes; and (3) condominiums. This measure would repeal that state law and would prohibit the state from limiting the right of cities and counties to maintain, enact or expand residential rent-control ordinances. Fiscal impact: Overall, a potential reduction in state and local revenues in the high tens of millions of dollars per year over time. If the election were held today, how would you vote on Proposition 33?" | ||||||
University of Southern California Dornsife/Price, Center for Urban Politics and Policy, CSU Long Beach, and Cal Poly Pomona | 1/21/2023-1/29/2024 | 1,416 LV | ± 2.6% | 39% | 41% | 20% |
Question: "In 2024, California voters will vote on a ballot initiative asking for the repeal of a bill called Costa-Hawkins. The current Costa-Hawkins law only allows rent control in certain apartments, and it does not apply to single-family homes that are rented. Repeal of the Costa-Hawkins law would allow rent control to be put in place for both apartment rentals and single-family home rentals, instead of only for apartment rentals. Would you support or oppose repeal of this law? Supporting repeal favors adding single-family homes to rent control regulations, and opposing repeal favors keeping rent control for apartments only and not expanding to single-family homes." | ||||||
Note: LV is likely voters, RV is registered voters, and EV is eligible voters.
Background
Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act (1995)
The Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act (Costa-Hawkins) is a state statute that limits the use of rent control in California. The act provides that:[12]
- Cities cannot enact rent control on housing first occupied after February 1, 1995, and housing units where the title is separate from connected units (such as free-standing houses, condominiums, and townhouses).
- Housing exempted from a local rent control ordinance before February 1, 1995, must remain exempt.
- Landlords have a right to increase rent prices to market rates when a tenant moves out (a policy known as vacancy decontrol).
Prior to the enactment of Costa-Hawkins, local governments were permitted to enact rent control, provided that landlords would receive "a just and reasonable return" on their rental properties according to case law.[12][13]
The California State Legislature passed Costa-Hawkins in 1995. Costa-Hawkins was named after Sen. Jim Costa (D) and Asm. Phil Hawkins (R), who led the effort to pass the bill. Approved as AB 1164, the state Assembly passed the statute 45-18, and the state Senate passed the statute 24-11.[14] Gov. Pete Wilson (R) signed the bill into law.[15]
California Proposition 21 (2020) and California Proposition 10 (2018)
The AIDS Healthcare Foundation, the largest donor to the support campaign for the 2024 initiative, also sponsored two similar rent control initiatives in 2018 and 2020 that were both defeated.
In 2020, Californians defeated Proposition 21 with nearly 60% of voters against it. The initiative would have repealed Costa-Hawkins and enacted a law to allow local governments to adopt rent control on housing units, except on (a) housing that was first occupied within the last 15 years and (b) units owned by natural persons who own no more than two housing units with separate titles, such as single-family homes, condos, and some duplexes, or subdivided interests, such as stock cooperatives and community apartment projects.[16]
The campaigns surrounding Proposition 21 raised a combined $124.42 million. The Homeowners and Tenants United PAC was registered to support the ballot initiative. The committee raised $40.85 million, with $40.64 million from the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. Five PACs registered to oppose Proposition 21. The committees raised $83.57 million.[17]
In 2018, Californians voted on Proposition 10—an initiated state statute that would have repealed Costa-Hawkins, thus allowing counties and cities to adopt rent control ordinances that regulate how much landlords can charge tenants for any type of rental housing. The ballot initiative was defeated with 59% voting against the measure. Proposition 10 would have also stated that a local government's rent control ordinance shall not abridge a fair rate of return for landlords.[18]
The campaigns surrounding Proposition 10 raised a combined $96.66 million. Opponents of Proposition 10 had out-raised the support campaign by about 3:1. The Coalition for Affordable Housing led the campaign in support of the initiative. The AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) and Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE) Action organized the campaign. The coalition and allied committees had raised $25.30 million, with AHF providing $22.52 million.
AB 1482 (2019)
In 2019, the California State Legislature passed legislation, titled AB 1482, to cap annual rent increases at 5 percent plus inflation for tenants. AB 1482 also required that a landlord have a just cause, as defined in the law, to evict tenants that had occupied the rental for at least one year. AB 1482 included exemptions for housing built in the past 15 years and some single-family homes and duplexes. The legislation was designed to sunset after 10 years. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed AB 1482 on October 8, 2019.[19]
Median rents in California's counties
In 2022, the U.S. Census Bureau reported that California's median rent was $1,856, the second highest figure in the U.S. Hawaii had the highest median rent at $1,868 per month. In California, the median rent varied based on location, with the highest median rents located in the San Francisco Bay Area and coastal Southern California and the lowest median rents located in rural Northern California. San Mateo County, located in the San Francisco Bay Area and with a population of 729,181, had the highest median rent in California at $2,690 per month. Trinity County, located in the northwest part of the state and with a population of 15,781, had the lowest median rent at $776 per month.[20]
State policies on rent control
As of 2023, seven states and D.C. enacted rent control policies at the state or local level. Thirty-one (31) states enacted laws preempting local governments from adopting rent control policies. In 12 states, no cities enacted rent control but rent control was not preempted.[5]
Local rent control ballot measures, 2016–2023
From 2016 to 2023, there were 25 local ballot measures to expand or increase rent control in 18 jurisdictions in California. Thirteen of the proposals were approved, and 12 of the proposals were defeated. Measures varied in the proposed base rents, maximum allowed annual increase in rents, and causes for tenant termination.
The following table provides a list of local ballot measures related to rent control in California:
Note: Click "show" to expand the table.
Local rent control on the ballot in California, 2016–2023 | |||
---|---|---|---|
Year | Measure | Provisions | Outcome |
2022 | Richmond Measure P | • Allow the maximum rent increase on rent-controlled units to be the lower of 60% of the CPI or 3%. | ![]() |
2022 | Pasadena Measure H | • Allow for a rental housing board that would limit evictions and rent adjustments. | ![]() |
2022 | Santa Monica Measure EM | • Authorize the rent control board to disallow or modify annual rent adjustments during a state of emergency declared by the President, Governor, LA Public Health Officer, or city council. | ![]() |
2022 | Santa Monica Measure RC | • Require land owners to intend occupancy for at least two years in order to evict a tenant and move in within 60 days of vacancy, and also reduce the rent increase cap to 3% of the Consumer Price Index or $70 per month. | ![]() |
2020 | Berkeley Measure MM | • Prohibit evictions during state or local emergencies, authorize the rent stabilization board to set fees for partially exempt units and limit the accessory dwelling unit exemption. | ![]() |
2020 | Berkeley Measure MM | • Prohibit evictions during state or local emergencies, authorize the rent stabilization board to set fees for partially exempt units and limit the accessory dwelling unit exemption. | ![]() |
2020 | Culver City Measure B | • Require voter approval for ordinances to establish rent control, including ordinances establishing rent control after January 1, 2019. | ![]() |
2020 | Burbank Measure RC | • Establish rent regulations on units built before February 1, 1995; limit on rent increases of 0% - 7%; and update the Landlord Tenant Commission to budget, assess fees, hire staff and initiate lawsuits. | ![]() |
2019 | St. Helena Measure F | • Prohibit landlords from increasing rents for spaces in mobile home parks by more than the annual change in the Bay Area Consumer Price Index or 3 percent, whichever is lower. | ![]() |
2018 | Alameda Measure K | • Remove the December 31, 2019, sunset provision on the city's rent control law, which was approved in 2016, and require voter approval of future changes. | ![]() |
2018 | Berkeley Measure Q | • Contingent on the approval of California Proposition 10. • Expand rent control beyond apartments occupied before February 1, 1995, to other types of housing units. • Exempt housing from rent control for the first 20 years after the housing was constructed. • Exempt accessory dwelling units from rent control. • Preserve rent increases that were lawfully made while Costa-Hawkins was in effect. |
![]() |
2018 | National City Measure W | • Prohibit landlords from charging rents that exceed rents in effect at the time of the ordinance’s publication, plus annual changes in the Consumer Price Index. • Prohibit landlords from terminating tenancies unless certain causes exist. • Due to Costa-Hawkins, applicable to apartments first occupied before February 1, 1995. |
![]() |
2018 | Santa Cruz Measure M | • Prohibit landlords from charging rents that exceed rents in effect on October 19, 2017, plus annual changes in the Consumer Price Index. • Prohibit landlords from terminating tenancies unless certain causes exist. • Due to Costa-Hawkins, applicable to apartments first occupied before February 1, 1995. |
![]() |
2017 | Pacifica Measure C | • Prohibit landlords from charging rents that exceed rents in effect on February 13, 2017, plus annual changes in the Consumer Price Index. • Prohibit landlords from terminating tenancies unless certain causes exist. • Due to Costa-Hawkins, applicable to apartments first occupied before February 1, 1995. |
![]() |
2017 | Santa Rosa Measure C | • Prohibit landlords from charging rents that exceed rents in effect on January 1, 2016, plus 3 percent annual increases. • Prohibit landlords from terminating tenancies unless certain causes exist. • Due to Costa-Hawkins, applicable to apartments first occupied before February 1, 1995. |
![]() |
2016 | Alameda Measure M1 | • Prohibit landlords from charging rents that exceed rents in effect on May 5, 2015, plus 65 percent of the annual changes in the Consumer Price Index. • Prohibit landlords from terminating tenancies unless certain causes exist. • Application to apartments before or after a specific date not specified. |
![]() |
2016 | Alameda Measure L1 | • Require the city's rent review committee to be notified of annual rent increases above 5 percent. • Disagreements with the review committee regarding the rent increase, whether from landlords or tenants of apartments first occupied before February 1, 1995, can receive a binding decision. • Prohibit landlords from terminating tenancies for no fault or no cause, unless landlords provide relocation benefits. |
![]() |
2016 | Burlingame Measure R | • Prohibit landlords from charging rents that exceed rents in effect on March 30, 2016 (with exceptions), plus annual changes in the Consumer Price Index not to exceed 4 percent. • Prohibit landlords from terminating tenancies unless certain causes exist. • Due to Costa-Hawkins, applicable to apartments first occupied before February 1, 1995. |
![]() |
2016 | East Palo Alto Measure J | • Changes to existing rent control ordinance, including capping rent increase at 10 percent per year and allowing nuisance-based tenant termination. | ![]() |
2016 | Humboldt County Measure V | • Prohibit landlords from increasing rents for spaces in mobile home parks by more than the annual change in the Consumer Price Index. | ![]() |
2016 | Mountain View Measure V | • Prohibit landlords from increasing rents by more than the annual change in the Consumer Price Index not to exceed 5 percent. • Prohibit landlords from terminating tenancies unless certain causes exist. • Due to Costa-Hawkins, applicable to apartments first occupied before February 1, 1995. |
![]() |
2016 | Mountain View Measure W | • Prohibit landlords from increasing rents by more than 5 percent per year. • Prohibit landlords from terminating tenancies unless certain causes exist. •Due to Costa-Hawkins, applicable to apartments first occupied before February 1, 1995. |
![]() |
2016 | Oakland Measure JJ | • Extend just-cause eviction requirements from units approved occupied before October 14, 1980, to units occupied before December 31, 1995. • Require landlords to request approval for rent increases above the maximum allowed adjustment. |
![]() |
2016 | Richmond Measure L | • Prohibit landlords from charging rents that exceed rents in effect on July 21, 2015, plus annual changes in the Consumer Price Index. • Prohibits landlords from terminating tenancies unless certain causes exist. • Due to Costa-Hawkins, applicable to apartments first occupied before February 1, 1995. |
![]() |
2016 | San Mateo Measure Q | • Prohibit landlords from charging rents that exceed rents in effect on initial occupation, plus annual changes in the Consumer Price Index not to exceed 4 percent. • Prohibit landlords from terminating tenancies unless certain causes exist. • Due to Costa-Hawkins, applicable to apartments first occupied before February 1, 1995. |
![]() |
Path to the ballot
The state process
In California, the number of signatures required for an initiated state statute is equal to 5 percent of the votes cast in the preceding gubernatorial election. Petitions are allowed to circulate for 180 days from the date the attorney general prepares the petition language. Signatures need to be certified at least 131 days before the general election. As the verification process can take multiple months, the secretary of state provides suggested deadlines for ballot initiatives.
The requirements to get initiated state statutes certified for the 2024 ballot:
- Signatures: 546,651 were required.
- Deadline: The deadline for signature verification was 131 days before the general election, which was around June 27, 2024. However, the process of verifying signatures can take multiple months and proponents are recommended to file signatures at least two months before the verification deadline.
Signatures are first filed with local election officials, who determine the total number of signatures submitted. If the total number is equal to at least 100 percent of the required signatures, then local election officials perform a random check of signatures submitted in their counties. If the random sample estimates that more than 110 percent of the required number of signatures are valid, the initiative is eligible for the ballot. If the random sample estimates that between 95 and 110 percent of the required number of signatures are valid, a full check of signatures is done to determine the total number of valid signatures. If less than 95 percent are estimated to be valid, the initiative does not make the ballot.
Details about this initiative
- Proponents filed the initiative on December 22, 2022.[6]
- On February 27, 2023, the initiative was cleared for signature gathering.[6]
- On April 21, 2023, sponsors of the initiative reported collecting at least 25% of the signatures required.[6]
- On June 20, 2023, sponsors of the initiative submitted 559,216 signatures for verification.[6]
- On July 26, 2023, the secretary of state announced that the initiative had qualified for the ballot. The final random sample count concluded that 616,823 of the 813,112 signatures filed were valid.[21]
Sponsors of the measure hired The Monaco Group, PCI Consultants and Inc. to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $9,944,484.65 was spent to collect the 546,651 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $18.19.
How to cast a vote
- See also: Voting in California
See below to learn more about current voter registration rules, identification requirements, and poll times in California.
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 California Attorney General's Office, "Full text," accessed December 23, 2022
- ↑ Legislative Analyst's Office, "Local rent control laws." accessed May 15, 2023
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Californians for Responsible Housing, "Home," accessed January 22, 2024
- ↑ California Apartment Association, "CAA takes dual approach to fight Weinstein’s crusade for radical rent control," September 1, 2023
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 National Apartment Association, "Rent Control: Policy Issue," accessed August 21, 2023
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 California Secretary of State, "Initiatives and Referenda Cleared for Circulation," accessed October 20, 2021
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Cal-Access, "Justice for Renters sponsored by AIDS Healthcare Foundation," accessed April 24, 2023
- ↑ Renters and Homeowners for Rent Control, "Homepage," accessed October 24, 2024
- ↑ No on 33, "Home," accessed March 12, 2024
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 Cal-Access, "Proposition 33," accessed May 2, 2023
- ↑ 12.0 12.1 California Legislative Analyst's Office, "Local rent control laws," February 10, 2023
- ↑ Court of Appeal of California, First District, City of Berkeley v. City of Berkeley Rent Stabilization Bd., decided August 12, 1994
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Legislature Deals Blow to Rent Control," July 25, 1995
- ↑ Cite error: Invalid
<ref>
tag; no text was provided for refs namedchrha
- ↑ California Attorney General, "Initiative 19-0001," accessed April 22, 2019
- ↑ Cal-Access, "Campaign Finance," accessed December 9, 2019
- ↑ California Attorney General, "Initiative #17-0041," accessed October 24, 2017
- ↑ California State Legislature, "AB 1482," accessed December 5, 2019
- ↑ U.S. Census Bureau, "Quick facts," accessed January 4, 2024
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Random Sample Count," accessed July 27, 2023
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Section 3: Polling Place Hours," accessed August 12, 2024
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Voter Registration," accessed August 13, 2024
- ↑ 24.0 24.1 California Secretary of State, "Registering to Vote," accessed August 13, 2024
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Same Day Voter Registration (Conditional Voter Registration)," accessed August 13, 2024
- ↑ SF.gov, "Non-citizen voting rights in local Board of Education elections," accessed November 14, 2024
- ↑ Under federal law, the national mail voter registration application (a version of which is in use in all states with voter registration systems) requires applicants to indicate that they are U.S. citizens in order to complete an application to vote in state or federal elections, but does not require voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the application "may require only the minimum amount of information necessary to prevent duplicate voter registrations and permit State officials both to determine the eligibility of the applicant to vote and to administer the voting process."
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "What to Bring to Your Polling Place," accessed August 12, 2024
- ↑ BARCLAYS OFFICIAL CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, "Section 20107," accessed August 12, 2024
- ↑ Democracy Docket, "California Governor Signs Law to Ban Local Voter ID Requirements," September 30, 2024
![]() |
State of California Sacramento (capital) |
---|---|
Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |