Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey
California Proposition 3, Water Infrastructure and Watershed Conservation Bond Initiative (2018)
- General election: Nov. 6
- Voter registration deadline: Oct. 22
- Early voting: Oct. 8 - Nov. 5
- Absentee voting deadline: Postmark Nov. 6
- Online registration: Yes
- Same-day registration: Yes
- Voter ID: No
- Poll times: 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
| California Proposition 3 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 6, 2018 | |
| Topic Bond issues and Water | |
Status Defeated | |
| Type State statute | Origin Citizens |
California Proposition 3, the California Water Infrastructure and Watershed Conservation Bond Initiative, was on the ballot in California as an initiated state statute on November 6, 2018.[1] The measure was defeated.
| A "yes" vote supported this measure to authorize $8.877 billion in general obligation bonds for water infrastructure, groundwater supplies and storage, surface water storage and dam repairs, watershed and fisheries improvements, and habitat protection and restoration. |
| A "no" vote opposed this measure to authorize $8.877 billion in general obligation bonds for water infrastructure, groundwater supplies and storage, surface water storage and dam repairs, watershed and fisheries improvements, and habitat protection and restoration. |
Election results
|
California Proposition 3 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 5,879,836 | 49.35% | ||
|
|
6,034,991 | 50.65% | ||
Overview
How would the $8.877 billion bond measure have been spent?
Proposition 3 would have issued $8.877 billion in general obligation bonds for water-related infrastructure and environmental projects.[1] The state fiscal analyst said the bond would generate about $8.4 billion in interest over a 40-year period, meaning the bond would have cost the state a total of $17.3 billion.[2]
The largest amount of bond revenue—$2.355 billion—would have been dedicated to conservancies and state parks to restore and protect watershed lands and nonprofits and local agencies for river parkways. The measure would have also allocated $640 million to groundwater sustainability agencies to implement their plans and $500 million for public water system infrastructure improvements to meet safe drinking water standards, including the treatment of contaminants, or ensure affordable drinking water. The ballot initiative would have required that $1.398 billion be spent on projects benefitting what the state defines as disadvantaged communities and an additional $2.637 billion be prioritized for disadvantaged communities.[3] California defined disadvantaged communities as communities with an annual median household income less than 80 percent of the statewide annual median household income. With a median household income of $63,783 in 2017, according to the U.S. Census Burea, 80 percent was $51,026.[4] The measure would have distributed bond revenue as follows:[1]
Click show to expand the bond revenue table.
| Water Infrastructure and Watershed Conservation Bond (2018) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Amount | Dedication | ||
| $500,000,000 | Grants and loans for public water system infrastructure improvements to meet safe drinking water standards or ensure affordable drinking water, including treatment of contaminants | ||
| $250,000,000 | Grants and loans for wastewater treatment projects | ||
| $400,000,000 | Grants and loans for wastewater recycling projects | ||
| $400,000,000 | Grants for desalination of brackish water (removing salt and other contaminants from groundwater or inland sources of water) | ||
| $300,000,000 | Programs including residential turf removal, leak detection, toliet replacement, and water meters | ||
| $15,000,000 | Deployment of innovative water and energy saving technologies | ||
| $50,000,000 | Grants to local agencies for agricultural water conservation projects | ||
| $200,000,000 | Central Valley Flood Protection Board for enlargement and environmental enhancement of existing floodways and improvement of flood control facilities, including $50 million for existing dams in the Sacramento Valley | ||
| $100,000,000 | Grants to local agencies to repair or reoperate reservoirs that provide flood control | ||
| $200,000,000 | San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority for flood management and wetlands restoration | ||
| $20,000,000 | Development and installation of water measuring equipment to improve estimates of water budgets, water allocations, drough management, groundwater management, and water rights | ||
| $10,000,000 | Development of information systems, technologies, and data to improve the management of water rights | ||
| $10,000,000 | Making water information interoperable | ||
| $20,000,000 | Institutions of higher education for water resources and supplies development and research | ||
| $400,000,000 | Grants to counties and cities to capture and use urban dry weather runoff and stormwater runoff | ||
| $30,000,000 | California Tahoe Conservancy to capture and use urban dry weather runoff and stormwater runoff | ||
| $40,000,000 | Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy to capture and use urban dry weather runoff and stormwater runoff | ||
| $40,000,000 | San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy to capture and use urban dry weather runoff and stormwater runoff | ||
| $40,000,000 | State Coastal Conservancy to capture and use urban dry weather runoff and stormwater runoff | ||
| $5,000,000 | Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) regional water management groups | ||
| $200,000,000 | Sierra Nevada Conservancy for watershed conservation projects and research | ||
| $60,000,000 | California Tahoe Conservancy for watershed conservation projects | ||
| $100,000,000 | San Francisco Bay Area Conservancy Program for watershed conservation projects | ||
| $180,000,000 | Conservancies in Los Angeles, Ventura, and Orange counties for watershed conservation projects | ||
| $40,000,000 | San Diego River Conservancy for watershed conservation projects | ||
| $135,000,000 | State Coastal Conservancy for coastal watershed conservation projects | ||
| $150,000,000 | Conservancies in watersheds of Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers for watershed conservation projects | ||
| $170,000,000 | Grants to nonprofits and local agencies for river parkways that provide habitat restoration, recreation, and water quality improvements | ||
| $150,000,000 | Conservancies for projects to restore and protect the Los Angeles river and its tributaries | ||
| $300,000,000 | "Restoration and protection of watersheds of the Sacramento, Smith, Eel, and Klamath rivers and other rivers of Marin, Sonoma, Mendocino, Humboldt, and Del Norte counties, and the Carrizo Plain; protection of oak woodlands and rangelands; restoration of riparian habitat and fisheries; and assistance to farmers in integrating agricultural activites with watershed projects" | ||
| $25,000,000 | Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy for restoration and protection of Coachella Valley watershed | ||
| $150,000,000 | Restoration and protection of watersheds within state parks | ||
| $60,000,000 | Restoration of watersheds and other conservation projects on agricultural lands, rangelands, managed wetlands, and forested lands | ||
| $100,000,000 | California Ocean Protection Council for projects to (a) reduce amount of pollutants that flow to beaches, bays, coastal estuaries, and near-shore ecosystems, and (b) protect coastal and near-shore resources from impact of rising sea levels and ocean acidification | ||
| $200,000,000 | Salton Sea ecosystem restoration, air quality improvement, and economic development for severely disadvantaged communities | ||
| $5,000,000 | Delta Science Program | ||
| $50,000,000 | Urban Streams Restoration Program, with 65 percent of funds to disadvantaged communities | ||
| $20,000,000 | Urban forestry projects to capture stormwater, recharge local groundwater supplies, and manage erosion and water sediments | ||
| $15,000,000 | Grants and loans for improving waterwater treatment in Delta legacy communities and at recreational facilities in the Delta | ||
| $20,000,000 | Construction of Pacific Flyway Center near the Suisun Marsh | ||
| $20,000,000 | Projects to provide river access for non-motarized recreation | ||
| $80,000,000 | Removal of Matilija Dam and related projects along the Ventura River | ||
| $25,000,000 | University of California for the Natural Reserve System to acquire land for research and training in acquatic ecosystems and conservation of wildlife resources | ||
| $50,000,000 | Sierra Nevada Conservancy for grants to reduce threat of wildfires which would negatively impact watersheds | ||
| $50,000,000 | Department of Forestry and Fire Protection for grants to reduce threat of wildfires which would negatively impact watersheds | ||
| $100,000,000 | Grants to improve quality of rangelands, wildlands, meadows, wetlands, riparian areas, and acquatic areas to increase groundwater recharge | ||
| $40,000,000 | Conservation Corps. to restore and protect watershed lands | ||
| $400,000,000 | Restoration of Central Valley population of native fish, including salmon, and fish habitat | ||
| $10,000,000 | Office of Sustainable Water Solutions to provide technical assistance to disadvantaged communities in developing groundwater sustainability plans | ||
| $640,000,000 | Groundwater sustainability agencies to implement plans | ||
| $35,000,000 | Borrego Water District to acquire land for groundwater | ||
| $300,000,000 | Wildlife Conservation Board to acquire water from willing sellers and to acquire storage and delivery rights to improve stream, river, wetland, estuary, and wildlife refuge habitats | ||
| $50,000,000 | Improving water quality conditions on private lands for fish and wildlife | ||
| $300,000,000 | Wildlife Conservation Board for coastal and Central Valley salmon and steelhead fisheries restoration projects | ||
| $280,000,000 | Wildlife Conservation Board for projects to protect migratory birds | ||
| $10,000,000 | Grants for American River basin projects to improve flow and temperature conditions, increase water use efficiency, and improve surface water and groundwater supplies | ||
| $250,000,000 | Bay Area Regional Reliability Partnership for new facilities to provide surface water storage | ||
| $750,000,000 | Grant to Friant Water Authority for water conveyance improvements, including the Madera and Friant-Kern canals and water conservation | ||
| $100,000,000 | Projects in the San Joaquin River settlement agreement | ||
| $5,000,000 | Develop a plan for the diversion of water from the Sacramento River to the North Bay Aqueduct | ||
| $200,000,000 | Repair and reconstruction of Oroville Dam | ||
| $15,000,000 | Removing sediment from the Feather River between Live Oak and Verona | ||
| $6,000,000 | Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency for projects at Oroville Wildlife Area to provide downstream flood control and ecosystem restoration | ||
| $1,000,000 | Butte County for emergency preparedness equipment | ||
When did California last vote on a water bond measure?
Gerald Meral, who developed the ballot initiative, was deputy secretary of the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA), overseeing the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, from 2011 to 2013. Gov. Jerry Brown (D) appointed Meral to the CNRA.[5] Gov. Brown organized a PAC to lead a campaign for the last water bond measure on the ballot—Proposition 1—in 2014. Proposition 1 authorized $7.12 billion in bonds for water infrastructure and watershed protection. Meral described his ballot initiative as a follow-up to Proposition 1. He said, “We pretty much modeled this on Prop. 1. It’s very heavy on groundwater (restoration), wastewater recycling and water for fish and wildlife.”[6] The California State Legislature had appropriated 86 percent of Proposition 1 to various projects as of the 2017-2018 fiscal year.[7][8]
Who was contributing to the campaigns surrounding this ballot measure?
The committees in support of Proposition 3 had raised $4.94 million. The largest contributions to the support committees were the California Waterfowl Association ($495,000), Ducks Unlimited ($415,000), and Western Growers ($275,000). There were no committees registered to oppose Proposition 3.[9]
Text of measure
Ballot title
The official ballot title was as follows:[2]
| “ | Authorizes Bonds to Fund Projects for Water Supply and Quality, Watershed, Fish, Wildlife, Water Conveyance, and Groundwater Sustainability and Storage. Initiative Statute.[10] | ” |
Ballot summary
The official ballot summary was as follows:[11]
| “ |
|
” |
Fiscal impact
- Note: The fiscal impact statement for a California ballot initiative authorized for circulation is prepared by the state's legislative analyst and director of finance.
The fiscal impact statement was as follows:[2]
| “ | State costs of $17.3 billion to pay off principal ($8.9 billion) and interest ($8.4 billion) on bonds over a 40-year period. Annual payments would average $433 million. Annual payments would be lower than this average in the initial and final few years, and somewhat higher in the intervening years. Varying fiscal effects on individual local governments depending on specific projects undertaken, amount of grants and loans received, and amount of local cost-share required.[10] | ” |
Full text
The full text of the measure is available here.
Readability score
- See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2018
| 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.
In 2018, for the 167 statewide measures on the ballot, the average ballot title or question was written at a level appropriate for those with between 19 and 20 years of U.S. formal education (graduate school-level of education), according to the FKGL formula. Read Ballotpedia's entire 2018 ballot language readability report here. |
Support
Californians for Safe Drinking Water and a Clean and Reliable Water Supply led the campaign in support of Proposition 3.[3]
Supporters
Officials
- U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D)[12]
- U.S. Rep. Jim Costa (D-16)[12]
- U.S. Rep. John Garamendi (D-3)[12]
- Sen. Toni Atkins (D-39)[12]
- Asm. Tony Thurmond (D-15), 2018 superintendent candidate[12]
- John Cox (R), 2018 gubernatorial candidate[12]
- Fiona Ma (D), 2018 treasurer candidate[12]
Former officials
- Treasurer Phil Angelides (D)[12]
Unions
- California Labor Federation[12]
- Contra Costa Building and Construction Trades Council[12]
- Professional Engineers in California Government[12]
Organizations
The following organization were listed on the campaign's website as supporters:[12]
Agricultural
Civic
Environmental
Water agencies and organizations
|
Arguments
Official arguments
Dyan Whyte, a water quality scientist, Janet Santos Cobb, executive director of the California Wildlife Foundation, and Roberto Ramirez, a water resources engineer, wrote the official argument found in the state voter information guide in support of Proposition 3:[11]
|
Opposition
Opponents
Officials
- Asm. Anthony Rendon (D-63)[13]
Organizations
- Sierra Club, California[13]
- Friends of the River[13]
- League of Women Voters of California[13]
- Save The American River Association[13]
- Southern California Watershed Alliance[13]
Arguments
Official arguments
Janet Roberts, president of the Central Solano Citizen/Taxpayer Group (CSCTG), Robert Jarvis, vice president of CSCTG, and Murray Bass, a member of CSCTG, wrote the official argument found in the state voter information guide in opposition to Proposition 3:[11]
|
Campaign finance
| Total campaign contributions: | |
| Support: | $4,936,583.46 |
| Opposition: | $0.00 |
There were three ballot measure committees registered in support of Proposition 3. The committee Californians for Safe Drinking Water and a Clean and Reliable Water Supply in Support of Proposition 3 received most of the funds. Together, the three support committees received $4.94 million and spent $4.94 million.[9]
The top contributor to the support committees was the California Waterfowl Association, which donated $495,000. The second largest contributor, Ducks Unlimited, donated $415,000.[9]
There were no committees registered in opposition to Proposition 3.[9]
Support
The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in support of the initiative:[9]
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Donors
The following were the donors who contributed $200,000 or more to the support committees:[9]
| Donor | Cash | In-kind | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| California Waterfowl Association | $495,000.00 | $0.00 | $495,000.00 |
| Ducks Unlimited | $415,000.00 | $0.00 | $415,000.00 |
| Western Growers | $275,000.00 | $0.00 | $275,000.00 |
| California Rice Industry Association | $240,000.00 | $0.00 | $240,000.00 |
| California Wildlife Foundation Vesta Fund | $230,000.00 | $0.00 | $230,000.00 |
| California Fresh Fruit Association | $225,000.00 | $0.00 | $225,000.00 |
Reporting dates
In California, ballot measure committees filed a total of five campaign finance reports in 2018. The filing dates for reports were as follows:[14]
| Campaign finance reporting dates for November 2018 ballot | ||
|---|---|---|
| Date | Report | Period |
| 1/31/2018 | Annual Report for 2017 | 1/01/2017 - 12/31/2017 |
| 4/30/2018 | Report #1 | 1/01/2018 - 3/31/2018 |
| 7/31/2018 | Report #2 | 4/01/2018 - 6/30/2018 |
| 9/27/2018 | Report #3 | 7/01/2018 - 9/22/2018 |
| 10/25/2018 | Report #4 | 9/23/2018 - 10/20/2018 |
| 1/31/2019 | Annual Report for 2018 | 10/21/2018 - 12/31/2018 |
Methodology
To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.
Media editorials
Support
- Bakersfield Californian: "Proposition 3 is a citizen’s initiative bond to continue the investments in the state’s water supply and water quality. Remarkably, in this partisan environment, valley support for this $8.9 billion bond initiative is crossing party lines. Money from the sale of the bonds will be spent on many critical valley water projects and to provide clean drinking water in communities that now have unsafe water."[15]
- The Fresno Bee: "The Bee strongly recommends approval because of how Proposition 3 would directly benefit the Valley. Fixing the Friant-Kern Canal, improving Sierra watersheds and getting clean water to Valley communities in a broad sweep, as this measure would do, is a once-in-a-lifetime chance."[16]
Opposition
- Los Angeles Times: "Especially when money is flowing and water isn’t, it’s easy to be seduced into spending on the wrong water projects at the wrong time and for the wrong benefits and beneficiaries. Proposition 3 would lead us into exactly that kind of trap. Vote no."[17]
- Marin Independent Journal: "The proposition is largely funded by organizations — nonprofit and corporate and large and small — that want taxpayers’ dollars to pay for their projects. These are priorities that should be culled by lawmakers, not by those paying to get the signatures needed to get the bond measure on the ballot and then running a multi-million-dollar campaign for it. This measure has strong local support, but we don’t think this is the right way to further their plans."[18]
- San Francisco Chronicle: "This scheme was devised as an initiative that is being funded, in part, by individuals and entities that are going to be receiving a share of the bond money. The pay-to-play aspect in itself should give voters ample reason to reject Prop. 3."[19]
- Santa Cruz Sentinel: "Instead, this initiative was in part funded by the very people and organizations that will receive a portion of the bond money – reason enough for voters to reject Proposition 3. ... Voters in 2002 defeated a similarly constructed pay-to-play scheme by the main framer of Prop. 3. They should reject this one as well. Vote “no” on Proposition 3."[20]
- The Mercury News: "Proposition 3 is a classic “pay-to-play” initiative that California voters should soundly defeat on Nov. 6. The $8.9 billion water bond package points to some serious water issues that demand the Legislature’s attention. But loading up an initiative with giveaways to special interests and local public agencies is no way for the state to conduct its business. Voters should reject this end run around the legislative process."[21]
- The Orange County Register: "In contrast, Prop. 3 is a product of special interests, seeking to take advantage of Californians’ apparent willingness to consistently vote for water bonds. As the Sierra Club noted, and editorial boards across the state have echoed, this measure reeks of “pay-to-play.”[22]
- The Sacramento Bee: "But this is not how water spending should be done in California. While the state’s water politics and finances are immensely complicated, they come down to who pays and who benefits. On Proposition 3, all taxpayers would have to repay the bonds. But the list of beneficiaries is far smaller – not enough to deserve voters’ support."[23]
- The San Diego Union-Tribune: "Passing a third water bond in just four years feels like throwing money at a problem. Given the poor condition of water infrastructure in California, it might be justifiable. But that only holds for a bond that was crafted in an impartial way by lawmakers or citizen committees — not by groups that would benefit from it. Vote no on Proposition 3."[24]
- The San Luis Obispo Tribune: "This would be the largest water bond in state history, and while it would be a boon for the Central Valley and other pockets of California, there’s not that much in it for the rest of us."[25]
Polls
- See also: Ballotpedia's approach to covering polls
| California Proposition 3 (2018) | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poll | Support | Oppose | Undecided | Margin of error | Sample size | ||||||||||||||
| Public Policy Institute of California 7/8/2018 - 7/17/2018 | 58.0% | 25.0% | 17.0% | +/-3.4 | 1,711 | ||||||||||||||
| Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org. | |||||||||||||||||||
Background
California Proposition 1 (2014)
In 2014, voters in California approved Proposition 1—a $7.12 billion water bond measure. The California State Legislature referred the measure to the ballot through a 77-2 vote in the state Assembly and a 37-0 vote in the state Senate. Both the state Democratic Party and state Republican Party endorsed Proposition 1. Gov. Jerry Brown (D) organized a PAC to support Proposition 1. Committees in support of Proposition 1 raised a combined $21.82 million, while opponents received $101,149.
Bond issues on the ballot in California
- See also: Bond issues on the ballot
Voters of California cast ballots on 39 bond issues, totaling $154.829 billion in value, from January 1, 1993, through January 1, 2018. Voters approved 31 (79.49 percent) of the bond measures—a total of $143.409 billion. Six of the measures were citizen's initiatives; four of six were approved. Thirty-three of the measures were legislative referrals; 25 of 33 were approved. The most common purposes of bond measures during the 25 years between 1993 and 2018 were water infrastructure and public education, for which there were seven bond measures each. All seven of the bond measures related to water infrastructure between 1993 and 2018 were approved.
Click show to expand the bond revenue table.
| Year | Measure | Amount | Primary purpose | Origin | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1993 | Proposition 173 | $185 million | Housing | Legislature | |
| 1994 | Proposition 180 | $2,000 million | Parks | Initiative | |
| 1994 | Proposition 181 | $1,000 million | Transportation | Legislature | |
| 1994 | Proposition 1A | $2,000 million | Disasters | Legislature | |
| 1994 | Proposition 1B | $1,000 million | K-12 Education | Legislature | |
| 1994 | Proposition 1C | $900 million | Higher Education | Legislature | |
| 1996 | Proposition 192 | $2,000 million | Disasters | Legislature |  |
| 1996 | Proposition 203 | $3,000 million | K-12 Education | Legislature | |
| 1996 | Proposition 204 | $995 million | Environment; Water Infrastructure | Legislature | |
| 1996 | Proposition 205 | $700 million | Jails | Legislature | |
| 1996 | Proposition 206 | $400 million | Veterans; Housing | Legislature | |
| 1998 | Proposition 1A | $9,200 million | K-12 Education; Higher Education | Legislature | |
| 2000 | Proposition 12 | $2,100 million | Environment; Water Infrastructure | Legislature | |
| 2000 | Proposition 13 | $1,970 million | Water Infrastructure | Legislature | |
| 2000 | Proposition 14 | $350 million | Libraries | Legislature | |
| 2000 | Proposition 15 | $220 million | Crime Labs | Legislature | |
| 2000 | Proposition 16 | $50 million | Veterans; Housing | Legislature | |
| 2000 | Proposition 32 | $500 million | Veterans; Housing | Legislature | |
| 2002 | Proposition 40 | $2,600 million | Parks; Environment | Legislature | |
| 2002 | Proposition 41 | $200 million | Voting Systems | Legislature | |
| 2002 | Proposition 46 | $2,100 million | Housing | Legislature | |
| 2002 | Proposition 47 | $13,050 million | K-12 Education | Legislature | |
| 2002 | Proposition 50 | $3,440 million | Water Infrastructure | Initiative | |
| 2004 | Proposition 55 | $12,300 million | K-12 Education; Higher Education | Legislature | |
| 2004 | Proposition 57 | $15,000 million | Deficit | Legislature | |
| 2004 | Proposition 61 | $750 million | Hospitals | Initiative | |
| 2006 | Proposition 1B | $19,925 million | Transportation | Legislature | |
| 2006 | Proposition 1C | $2,850 million | Housing | Legislature | |
| 2006 | Proposition 1D | $10,416 million | K-12 Education; Higher Education | Legislature | |
| 2006 | Proposition 1E | $4,090 million | Water Infrastructure | Legislature | |
| 2006 | Proposition 81 | $600 million | Libraries | Legislature | |
| 2006 | Proposition 84 | $5,388 million | Water Infrastructure | Legislature | |
| 2008 | Proposition 10 | $5,000 million | Energy | Initiative | |
| 2008 | Proposition 12 | $900 million | Veterans; Housing | Legislature | |
| 2008 | Proposition 1A | $9,950 million | Transportation | Legislature | |
| 2008 | Proposition 32 | $980 million | Hospitals | Initiative | |
| 2014 | Proposition 1 | $7,120 million | Water Infrastructure | Legislature | |
| 2014 | Proposition 41 | $600 million | Veterans; Housing | Legislature | |
| 2016 | Proposition 51 | $9,000 million | K-12 Education; Higher Education | Initiative | |
Bond debt in California
As of December 1, 2017, California had $73.33 billion in debt from general obligation bonds. The state had $31.09 billion in unissued bonds, including $2.19 billion for natural resources and environment-related bonds.[26]
Path to the ballot
Process in California
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 2018 ballot:
- Signatures: 365,880 valid signatures were required.
- Deadline: The deadline for signature verification was June 28, 2018. However, the secretary of state suggested deadlines for turning in signatures of March 7, 2018, for initiatives needing a full check of signatures and April 24, 2018, for initiatives needing a random sample of signatures verified.
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.
Initiative #17-0010
On July 14, 2017, Gerald H. Meral submitted a letter requesting a title and summary for the initiative. The California attorney general issued a title and summary on September 20, 2017, allowing proponents to begin collecting signatures. Proponents of the initiative needed to submit 365,880 valid signatures by March 19, 2018, in order for it to make the 2018 ballot.[27]
On March 13, 2018, the secretary of state announced that signatures had been filed for the ballot initiative. A total of 604,805 signatures had been filed. At least 365,880 of those signatures—about 60.5 percent—needed to be valid. Counties had until April 24, 2018, to conduct a random sample of signatures.[28]
The committee hired Masterton & Wright, a political consulting firm, to organize the signature drive.[9] Compared to the 15 ballot initiatives certified for the ballot in California in 2016, a 60.5 percent validation requirement was near average for an initiative to make the ballot. The 15 ballot initiatives from 2016 had an average validation requirement of 61.9 percent, with a range between 58.1 and 67.4 percent.
On April 25, 2018, the secretary of state's office declared that the initiative had qualified to appear on the ballot. Of the 604,805 signatures filed, an estimated 463,896 were valid (76.7 percent).[28]
Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired Masterton & Wright to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $1,883,203.00 was spent to collect the 365,880 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $5.15.
How to cast a vote
- See also: Voting in California
Poll times
All polls in California are open from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Pacific Time. An individual who is in line at the time polls close must be allowed to vote.[29]
Registration requirements
- Check your voter registration status here.
To vote in California, an individual must be a U.S. citizen and California resident. A voter must be at least 18 years of age on Election Day. Pre-registration is available at 16 years of age. Pre-registered voters are automatically registered to vote when they turn 18.[30]
Automatic registration
California automatically registers eligible individuals to vote when they complete a driver's license, identification (ID) card, or change of address transaction through the Department of Motor Vehicles. Learn more by visiting this website.
Online registration
- See also: Online voter registration
California has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website.
Same-day registration
California allows same-day voter registration.
Californians must be registered to vote at least 15 days before Election Day. If the registration deadline has passed for an upcoming election, voters may visit a location designated by their county elections official during the 14 days prior to, and including Election Day to conditionally register to vote and vote a provisional ballot, which are counted once county election officials have completed the voter registration verification process. The state refers to this process as Same Day Voter Registration.[31][32]
Residency requirements
To register to vote in California, you must be a resident of the state. State law does not specify a length of time for which you must have been a resident to be eligible.
Verification of citizenship
California's constitution requires that voters be U.S. citizens. When registering to vote, proof of citizenship is not required. Individuals who become U.S. citizens less than 15 days before an election must bring proof of citizenship to their county elections office to register to vote in that election. An individual applying to register to vote must attest that they are a U.S. citizen under penalty of perjury.[31]
As of November 2024, two jurisdictions in California had authorized noncitizen residents to vote for local board of education positions through local ballot measures. Only one of those jurisdictions, San Francisco, had implemented that law. Noncitizens voting for board of education positions must register to vote using a separate application from the state voter registration application.[33]
All 49 states with voter registration systems require applicants to declare that they are U.S. citizens in order to register to vote in state and federal elections, under penalty of perjury or other punishment.[34] Seven states — Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, New Hampshire, and Wyoming — have laws requiring verification of citizenship at the time of voter registration, whether in effect or not. In three states — California, Maryland, and Vermont — at least one local jurisdiction allows noncitizens to vote in some local elections. Noncitizens registering to vote in those elections must complete a voter registration application provided by the local jurisdiction and are not eligible to register as state or federal voters.
Verifying your registration
The secretary of state's My Voter Status website allows residents to check their voter registration status online.
Voter ID requirements
California does not require voters to present identification before casting a ballot in most cases. However, some voters may be asked to show a form of identification when voting if they are voting for the first time after registering to vote by mail and did not provide a driver license number, California identification number, or the last four digits of their social security number.[35][36] On September 29, 2024, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed SB 1174 into law prohibiting any jurisdiction in the state from adopting a local law that requires voters to present ID before voting.[37]
The following list of accepted ID was current as of October 2024. Click here for the California Secretary of State page to ensure you have the most current information.
| “ |
|
” |
State profile
| Demographic data for California | ||
|---|---|---|
| California | U.S. | |
| Total population: | 38,993,940 | 316,515,021 |
| Land area (sq mi): | 155,779 | 3,531,905 |
| Race and ethnicity** | ||
| White: | 61.8% | 73.6% |
| Black/African American: | 5.9% | 12.6% |
| Asian: | 13.7% | 5.1% |
| Native American: | 0.7% | 0.8% |
| Pacific Islander: | 0.4% | 0.2% |
| Two or more: | 4.5% | 3% |
| Hispanic/Latino: | 38.4% | 17.1% |
| Education | ||
| High school graduation rate: | 81.8% | 86.7% |
| College graduation rate: | 31.4% | 29.8% |
| Income | ||
| Median household income: | $61,818 | $53,889 |
| Persons below poverty level: | 18.2% | 11.3% |
| Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in California. **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here. | ||
Presidential voting pattern
- See also: Presidential voting trends in California
California voted for the Democratic candidate in all seven presidential elections between 2000 and 2024.
More California coverage on Ballotpedia
- Elections in California
- United States congressional delegations from California
- Public policy in California
- Endorsers in California
- California fact checks
- More...
See also
External links
Information
Support
- Californians for Safe Drinking Water and a Clean and Reliable Water Supply
- Californians for Safe Drinking Water and a Clean and Reliable Water Supply Facebook
- Californians for Safe Drinking Water and a Clean and Reliable Water Supply Twitter
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 California Attorney General, "Initiative 17-0010," August 11, 2017
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 California Secretary of State, "Initiatives and Referenda Cleared for Circulation," accessed March 6, 2017
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Californians for Safe Drinking Water and a Clean and Reliable Water Supply, "Homepage," accessed March 7, 2018
- ↑ U.S. Census Bureau, "Quick Facts: California," accessed March 7, 2018
- ↑ The Sacramento Bee, "Top water official linked to tunnel plans to retire," December 15, 2013
- ↑ Capital Press, “More water bonds may be put before California voters in 2018,” September 19, 2017
- ↑ California Natural Resources Agency, "Proposition 1 Overview," accessed May 9, 2018
- ↑ Public Policy Institute of California, "How California’s Water Bond Is Being Spent," December 13, 2017
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 Cal-Access, "Campaign Finance," accessed March 7, 2018
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 California Secretary of State, "Official Voter Information Guide November 2018," accessed August 21, 2018
- ↑ 12.00 12.01 12.02 12.03 12.04 12.05 12.06 12.07 12.08 12.09 12.10 12.11 Californians for Safe Drinking Water and a Clean and Reliable Water Supply, "Endorsements," accessed October 2, 2018
- ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 13.5 Sierra Club, "2018 Endorsements," accessed October 2, 2018
- ↑ California Fair Political Practices Commission, "When to File Campaign Statements: State & Local Filing Schedules," accessed December 6, 2017
- ↑ Bakersfield Californian, "Our View: We recommend: Fix our roads, deliver clean, abundant water," September 30, 2018
- ↑ The Fresno Bee, "This time, a state water bond has real money intended to benefit the Valley," August 24, 2018
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Proposition 3 is the wrong water bond for California. Vote no," October 12, 2018
- ↑ Marin Independent Journal, "Editorial: IJ’s recommendations on state propositions," October 17, 2018
- ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "Chronicle recommendations for Califonia’s ballot propositions," October 5, 2018
- ↑ Santa Cruz Sentinel, "Editorial: Vote ‘no’ on water-bond Prop. 3; ‘Yes’ on Prop. 4, children’s hospitals," September 18, 2018
- ↑ The Mercury News, "Editorial: Reject Prop. 3 $8.9 billion pay-to-play water bond," September 19, 2018
- ↑ The Orange County Register, "No on Proposition 3, another water bond," September 28, 2018
- ↑ The Sacramento Bee, "Prop. 3 promises more California water projects. Too bad so many are the wrong projects," September 24, 2018
- ↑ The San Diego Union-Tribune, "Proposition 3: Two biggest reasons to oppose water bond in November election," September 11, 2018
- ↑ The San Luis Obispo Tribune, "From gas tax to rent control, here are The Tribune’s recommendations on 11 statewide props," October 26, 2018
- ↑ California Treasurer, "Authorized and Outstanding General Obligation Bonds," December 1, 2017
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Ballot Measures," accessed May 30, 2017
- ↑ 28.0 28.1 California Secretary of State, "Signatures for Initiative #17-0010," March 13, 2018
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Section 3: Polling Place Hours," accessed August 12, 2024
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Voter Registration," accessed August 13, 2024
- ↑ 31.0 31.1 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 |
