Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.

California Proposition 33, Prohibit State Limitations on Local Rent Control Initiative (2024)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Ballotpedia Election Coverage Badge-smaller use.png
U.S. Senate • U.S. House • Congressional special elections • State Senate • State Assembly • State ballot measures • Local ballot measures • School boards • Municipal • Recalls • All other local • How to run for office
Flag of California.png


California Proposition 33
Flag of California.png
Election date
November 5, 2024
Topic
Housing
Status
Defeatedd Defeated
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: 

  • repealing the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act (1995), thereby allowing cities and counties to limit rent on any housing and limit the rent for first-time tenants and 
  • adding language to state law to prohibit the state from limiting "the right of any city, county, or city and county to maintain, enact or expand residential rent control."

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%

Defeated No

8,975,542 60.02%
Results are officially certified.
Source

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The initiative would have repealed the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, enacted in 1995.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

Justice for Renters.jpeg

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

Former Officials

Political Parties

Government Entities

  • Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors

Unions

  • California Nurses Association
  • UNITE HERE Local 11

Organizations

Arguments

  • Michael Weinstein, president of AIDS Healthcare Foundation: "Billionaire landlords only are interested in one thing – maximum profit. When you see their blizzard of ads telling you that rent control will make things worse, please remember that they told you that before. They’ve spent hundreds of millions of dollars to convince voters to reject expanding rent control. So, what has been the result? Less affordable housing. A million people leaving the state. And more homelessness. We are in a hole, and we need to stop digging. The market alone has not solved the housing affordability crisis, and it never will. Just like public utilities are regulated, rent must be too if we are going to maintain enough truly affordable housing for everyone. Or we can dig a deeper hole by letting the billionaire landlords control our fate. Support rent control. Vote Yes on 33."


Opposition

No on 33.jpg
CAA Logo.png

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

Former Officials

Political Parties

Government Entities

  • Placer County Board of Supervisors

Unions

  • Norcal Carpenters Union
  • United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America

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

  • Louis Mirante, vice president of public policy at the Bay Area Council: "On paper, it would be legal to build new homes. But it would be illegal, largely speaking, to make money doing so."
  • Californians for Responsbile Housing: "It will not increase funding for affordable housing. It will not force local governments to build more affordable housing. It will not provide any immediate relief to people facing homelessness."
  • Mike Nemeth, Marketing and Communications Director for the California Apartment Association: "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."
  • Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association: "Proposition 33 is a rent control measure that would lead to a reduction in the supply of rental housing. It repeals a sensible 1995 law, the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, which put limits on rent control laws to ensure that housing providers could make a fair return on their investment and stay in business. Repealing Costa-Hawkins would mean cities could enact radical rent control, even on single-family homes and condos, and prevent property owners from resetting the rent to the market rate after a tenant voluntarily moves out."


Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for California ballot measures
The campaign finance information on this page reflects the most recent scheduled reports that Ballotpedia has processed, which covered through December 31, 2024.


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:

  • Bay Area Reporter Editorial Board: "According to the voter guide, Costa-Hawkins 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 is the third time AHF has taken this measure to the ballot — it lost in 2018 and 2020. We think local government should be able to determine if rent control is right for a jurisdiction, and to work out details so that mom-and-pop landlords aren't adversely affected. Vote YES on Prop 33."


Opposition

The following media editorial boards published an editorial opposing the ballot measure:

  • Mercury News & East Bay Times Editorial Board: "To address California’s housing crisis and hold down rents, the state needs to add supply by incentivizing more construction. But rent control discourages investment in new housing, constraining supply and driving up overall housing costs. Which is why voters should reject Proposition 33 on the Nov. 5 statewide ballot."
  • Los Angeles Times Editorial Board: "Proposition 33 on the Nov. 5 ballot would repeal Costa-Hawkins, allowing cities and counties to enact or expand local rent control laws — or not. We support rent control, and endorsed two previous initiatives that would have repealed or amended Costa-Hawkins. Both of those measures and this one were put on the ballot by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, a Los Angeles-based nonprofit. But Proposition 33 goes too far. It includes sweeping language that could make California’s housing shortage even worse by prohibiting the state from imposing any limits on rent controls set by cities and counties in the future. Voters should reject Proposition 33."


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)
Poll
Dates
Sample size
Margin of error
Support
Oppose
Undecided
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)

See also: 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.

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in California

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.

How to vote in California

See also

External links

Footnotes

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 California Attorney General's Office, "Full text," accessed December 23, 2022
  2. ↑ Legislative Analyst's Office, "Local rent control laws." accessed May 15, 2023
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Californians for Responsible Housing, "Home," accessed January 22, 2024
  4. ↑ California Apartment Association, "CAA takes dual approach to fight Weinstein’s crusade for radical rent control," September 1, 2023
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 National Apartment Association, "Rent Control: Policy Issue," accessed August 21, 2023
  6. ↑ 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. ↑ 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.
  8. ↑ Cal-Access, "Justice for Renters sponsored by AIDS Healthcare Foundation," accessed April 24, 2023
  9. ↑ Renters and Homeowners for Rent Control, "Homepage," accessed October 24, 2024
  10. ↑ No on 33, "Home," accessed March 12, 2024
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 Cal-Access, "Proposition 33," accessed May 2, 2023
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 California Legislative Analyst's Office, "Local rent control laws," February 10, 2023
  13. ↑ Court of Appeal of California, First District, City of Berkeley v. City of Berkeley Rent Stabilization Bd., decided August 12, 1994
  14. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Legislature Deals Blow to Rent Control," July 25, 1995
  15. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named chrha
  16. ↑ California Attorney General, "Initiative 19-0001," accessed April 22, 2019
  17. ↑ Cal-Access, "Campaign Finance," accessed December 9, 2019
  18. ↑ California Attorney General, "Initiative #17-0041," accessed October 24, 2017
  19. ↑ California State Legislature, "AB 1482," accessed December 5, 2019
  20. ↑ U.S. Census Bureau, "Quick facts," accessed January 4, 2024
  21. ↑ California Secretary of State, "Random Sample Count," accessed July 27, 2023
  22. ↑ California Secretary of State, "Section 3: Polling Place Hours," accessed August 12, 2024
  23. ↑ California Secretary of State, "Voter Registration," accessed August 13, 2024
  24. ↑ 24.0 24.1 California Secretary of State, "Registering to Vote," accessed August 13, 2024
  25. ↑ California Secretary of State, "Same Day Voter Registration (Conditional Voter Registration)," accessed August 13, 2024
  26. ↑ SF.gov, "Non-citizen voting rights in local Board of Education elections," accessed November 14, 2024
  27. ↑ 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."
  28. ↑ California Secretary of State, "What to Bring to Your Polling Place," accessed August 12, 2024
  29. ↑ BARCLAYS OFFICIAL CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, "Section 20107," accessed August 12, 2024
  30. ↑ Democracy Docket, "California Governor Signs Law to Ban Local Voter ID Requirements," September 30, 2024
v • e
2024 ballot measures
I&R States
 • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Florida • Idaho • Illinois • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Mexico • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • South Dakota • Utah • Washington • Wyoming
Non I&R States
Other
Flag of California
v • e
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

Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=California_Proposition_33,_Prohibit_State_Limitations_on_Local_Rent_Control_Initiative_(2024)&oldid=10263991"