California Proposition 5, Property Tax Transfer Initiative (2018)

Elections in California, 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.

---

On the ballot: U.S. Senate • U.S. House • Governor • Lt. Gov • Attorney General • Secretary of State • State executive offices • State Senate • State Assembly • Special state legislative • Supreme court • Appellate courts • Local judges • State ballot measures • Local ballot measures • School boards • Municipal • Recalls • Primaries in California, 2018

California Proposition 5
Election date November 6, 2018
Topic Taxes and Property
Status d Defeated
Type Amendment & Statute	Origin Citizens
List of California measuresCalifornia Proposition 68 - JuneCalifornia Proposition 69 - JuneCalifornia Proposition 70 - JuneCalifornia Proposition 71 - JuneCalifornia Proposition 72 - JuneCalifornia Proposition 1California Proposition 2California Proposition 3California Proposition 4California Proposition 5California Proposition 6California Proposition 7California Proposition 8California Proposition 10California Proposition 11California Proposition 12Submit

California Proposition 5, the Property Tax Transfer Initiative, was on the ballot in California as a combined initiated constitutional amendment and state statute on November 6, 2018. The measure was defeated.

A "yes" vote supported amending Proposition 13 (1978) to allow homebuyers who are age 55 or older or severely disabled to transfer their tax assessments, with a possible adjustment, from their prior home to their new home, no matter (a) the new home's market value; (b) the new home's location in the state; or (c) the buyer's number of moves.

A "no" vote opposed amending Proposition 13 (1978) to change how tax assessments are transferred between properties for homebuyers who are age 55 or older or severely disabled.

Election results

California Proposition 5
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		4,813,251	40.22%
No		7,152,993	59.78%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

What changes would this ballot initiative have made to state law?

Beginning on January 1, 2019, Proposition 5 would have allowed homebuyers who are age 55 or older or severely disabled to transfer the tax-assessed value from their prior home to their new home, no matter (a) the new home's market value; (b) the new home's location in the state; or (c) the number of moves. As of 2018, homebuyers over 55 years of age were eligible to transfer their tax assessments from their prior home to their new home if the new home's market value is equal to or less than the prior home's value and once in their lifetimes. Furthermore, counties, not the state, decided whether tax assessments can be transferred across county lines.

If the new home is a different value than the prior home, the initiative would have allowed for an adjusted value between the old and new values. If the new home has a higher market value then the prior home, the assessed value would have been adjusted upward. If the new home has a lower market value then the prior home, the assessed value would have been adjusted downward. The formulas for the adjustments would have been as follows:

Upward adjustment: (assessed value of their prior home) + [(the new home’s market value) - (the prior home's market value)]

Example: An individual sold her house for $500,000. The house had a tax-assessed value of $75,000. She bought a new house for $800,000. The tax-assessed value of the new house would be ($75,000) + [($800,000)-($500,000)] = $375,000.

Downward adjustment: (assessed value of their prior home) × [(the new home’s market value) ÷ (the prior home's market value)]

Example: An individual sold his house for $500,000. The house had a tax-assessed value of $75,000. He bought a new house for $300,000. The tax-assessed value of the new house would be ($75,000) × [($300,000) ÷ ($500,000)] = $45,000.

What did Proposition 13 have to do with this ballot initiative?

California Proposition 13, the Tax Limitations Initiative, was on the ballot for the election on June 6, 1978. Voters approved Proposition 13. Proposition 13 required that properties be taxed at no more than 1 percent of their full cash value shown on the 1975-1976 assessment rolls and limited annual increases of assessed (taxable) value to the inflation rate or 2 percent, whichever was less. When a property was sold or transferred to new owners, however, the property is reassessed at 1 percent of its full cash value and the limit on increases to assessed value resets.

In 1986, voters approved Proposition 60, which amended Proposition 13 to allow homeowners over the age of 55 to transfer the taxable value of their present home to a replacement home, assuming the replacement home was of equal or lesser value, located within the same county, and purchased within two years of selling the original home. Proposition 13 was again amended in 1988 when voters approved Proposition 90, which allowed qualified homeowners age 55 or older to transfer the current taxable value of their original home to a replacement home in another county, but only if the county in which the replacement home is located agrees to participate in the program.

Who contributed to the campaigns surrounding this initiative?

There was one ballot measure committee registered in support of the measure—Homeownership for Families and Tax Savings for Seniors. The campaign had raised $13.22 million, with 77 percent from the California Association of Realtors Issues Mobilization PAC and 23 percent from the National Associaton of Realtors. No on Prop 5, an opposition PAC, and allied committees raised $3.32 million, including $1.00 million from the SEIU California State Council Political Committee.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The official ballot title was as follows:

“

Changes Requirements for Certain Property Owners to Transfer Their Property Tax Base to Replacement Property. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

”

Ballot summary

The official ballot summary was as follows:

“

Removes the following current requirements for homeowners who are over 55 years old or severely disabled to transfer their property tax base to a replacement residence: that replacement property be of equal or lesser value, replacement residence be in specific county, and the transfer occur only once. Removes similar replacement-value and location requirements on transfers for contaminated or disaster-destroyed property. Requires adjustments to the replacement property’s tax base, based on the new property’s value.

”

Fiscal impact statement

The fiscal impact statement was as follows:

“

Annual property tax losses for cities, counties, and special districts of around $150 million in the near term, growing over time to $1 billion or more per year (in today’s dollars). Annual property tax losses for schools of around $150 million per year in the near term, growing over time to $1 billion or more per year (in today’s dollars). Increase in state costs for schools of an equivalent amount in most years.

”

Constitutional changes

See also: Article XIII A, California Constitution

The ballot initiative would have amended Section 2 of Article XIII A of the California Constitution. The following underlined text would have been added and struck-through text would have been deleted:

Note: Hover over the text and scroll to see the full text.

(a) (1) The "full cash value" means the county assessor's valuation of real property as shown on the 1975-76 tax bill under "full cash value" or, thereafter, the appraised value of real property when purchased, newly constructed, or a change in ownership has occurred after the 1975 assessment. All real property not already assessed up to the 1975-76 full cash value may be reassessed to reflect that valuation. For purposes of this section, "newly constructed" does not include real property that is reconstructed after a disaster, as declared by the Governor, where the fair market value of the real property, as reconstructed, is comparable to its fair market value prior to the disaster. For purposes of this section, the term "newly constructed" does not include that portion of an existing structure that consists of the construction or reconstruction of seismic retrofitting components, as defined by the Legislature. However, the

(2) On and after November 5, 1986, and until January 1, 2019, the Legislature may provide that, under appropriate circumstances and pursuant to definitions and procedures established by the Legislature, any person over the age of 55 years who resides in property that is eligible for the homeowner's exemption under subdivision (k) of Section 3 of Article XIII and any implementing legislation may transfer the base year value of the property entitled to exemption, with the adjustments authorized by subdivision (b), to any replacement dwelling of equal or lesser value located within the same county and purchased or newly constructed by that person as his or her principal residence within two years of the sale of the original property.

(3) (A) For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:

(i) "Any person over the age of 55 years" includes a married couple one member of which is over the age of 55 years.

(ii) "Replacement dwelling" means a building, structure, or other shelter constituting a place of abode, whether real property or personal property, and any land on which it may be situated. For purposes of this section, a two-dwelling unit shall be considered as two separate single-family dwellings.

(B) This paragraph shall apply to any replacement dwelling that was purchased or newly constructed on or after November 5, 1986.

(4) In addition, the On and after November 9, 1988, and until January 1, 2019, the Legislature may authorize each county board of supervisors, after consultation with the local affected agencies within the county's boundaries, to adopt an ordinance making the provisions of this subdivision relating to transfer of base year value also applicable to situations in which the replacement dwellings are located in that county and the original properties are located in another county within this State. For purposes of this paragraph, "local affected agency" means any city, special district, school district, or community college district that receives an annual property tax revenue allocation. This paragraph applies to any replacement dwelling that was purchased or newly constructed on or after the date the county adopted the provisions of this subdivision relating to transfer of base year value, but does not apply to any replacement dwelling that was purchased or newly constructed before November 9, 1988.

(5) On and after June 6, 1990, and until January 1, 2019, the Legislature may extend the provisions of this subdivision relating to the transfer of base year values from original properties to replacement dwellings of homeowners over the age of 55 years to severely disabled homeowners, but only with respect to those replacement dwellings purchased or newly constructed on or after the effective date of this paragraph.

(6) (A) On and after January 1, 2019, subject to applicable procedures and definitions as provided by statute, the base year value of property that is eligible for the homeowner’s exemption under subdivision (k) of Section 3 of Article XIII of any person over 55 years of age or any severely disabled homeowner shall be transferred to any replacement dwelling, regardless of the number of prior transfers, the value of the replacement dwelling or whether the replacement dwelling is located within the same county, that is purchased or newly constructed by that person as his or her principal residence within two years of the sale of the original property.

(B) For purposes of this paragraph, the following shall apply:

(i) For any replacement dwelling of greater value and purchased or newly constructed by a person eligible to transfer the base year value of his or her original property, the base year value of the replacement dwelling shall be calculated by adding the difference between the full cash value of the original property and the full cash value of the replacement dwelling to the base year value of the original property.

(ii) For any replacement dwelling of equal or lesser value purchased or newly constructed by a person eligible to transfer the base year value of his or her original property, the base year value of the replacement dwelling shall be calculated by dividing the base year value of the original property by the full cash value of the original property, and multiplying the result by the full cash value of the replacement dwelling.

(b) The full cash value base may reflect from year to year the inflationary rate not to exceed 2 percent for any given year or reduction as shown in the consumer price index or comparable data for the area under taxing jurisdiction, or may be reduced to reflect substantial damage, destruction, or other factors causing a decline in value.

(c) For purposes of subdivision (a), the Legislature may provide that the term "newly constructed" does not include any of the following:

(1) The construction or addition of any active solar energy system.

(2) The construction or installation of any fire sprinkler system, other fire extinguishing system, fire detection system, or fire-related egress improvement, as defined by the Legislature, that is constructed or installed after the effective date of this paragraph.

(3) The construction, installation, or modification on or after the effective date of this paragraph of any portion or structural component of a single- or multiple-family dwelling that is eligible for the homeowner's exemption if the construction, installation, or modification is for the purpose of making the dwelling more accessible to a severely disabled person.

(4) The construction, installation, removal, or modification on or after the effective date of this paragraph of any portion or structural component of an existing building or structure if the construction, installation, removal, or modification is for the purpose of making the building more accessible to, or more usable by, a disabled person.

(d) For purposes of this section, the term "change in ownership" does not include the acquisition of real property as a replacement for comparable property if the person acquiring the real property has been displaced from the property replaced by eminent domain proceedings, by acquisition by a public entity, or governmental action that has resulted in a judgment of inverse condemnation. The real property acquired shall be deemed comparable to the property replaced if it is similar in size, utility, and function, or if it conforms to state regulations defined by the Legislature governing the relocation of persons displaced by governmental actions. This subdivision applies to any property acquired after March 1, 1975, but affects only those assessments of that property that occur after the provisions of this subdivision take effect.

(e) (1) (A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the Legislature shall provide that the base year value of property that is substantially damaged or destroyed by a disaster, as declared by the Governor, may be transferred to comparable property within the same county that is acquired or newly constructed as a replacement for the substantially damaged or destroyed property.

(2) (B) Except as provided in paragraph (3) (C), this subdivision applies to any comparable replacement property acquired or newly constructed on or after July 1, 1985, until January 1, 2019, and to the determination of base year values for the 1985-86 fiscal year and fiscal years thereafter until the 2018–19 fiscal year.

(3) (C) (i) In addition to the transfer of base year value of property within the same county that is permitted by paragraph (1) subparagraph (A), the Legislature may authorize each county board of supervisors to adopt, after consultation with affected local agencies within the county, an ordinance allowing the transfer of the base year value of property that is located within another county in the State and is substantially damaged or destroyed by a disaster, as declared by the Governor, to comparable replacement property of equal or lesser value that is located within the adopting county and is acquired or newly constructed within three years of the substantial damage or destruction of the original property as a replacement for that property. The scope and amount of the benefit provided to a property owner by the transfer of base year value of property pursuant to this paragraph shall not exceed the scope and amount of the benefit provided to a property owner by the transfer of base year value of property pursuant to subdivision (a). For purposes of this paragraph subparagraph, "affected local agency" means any city, special district, school district, or community college district that receives an annual allocation of ad valorem property tax revenues.

(ii) This subparagraph applies to any comparable replacement property that is acquired or newly constructed as a replacement for property substantially damaged or destroyed by a disaster, as declared by the Governor, occurring on or after October 20, 1991, and before January 1, 2019, and to the determination of base year values for the 1991-92 fiscal year and fiscal years thereafter until the 2018–19 fiscal year.

(2) (A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, on and after January 1, 2019, the base year value of property that is substantially damaged or destroyed by a disaster, as declared by the Governor, shall be transferred to any property that is acquired or newly constructed as a replacement for the substantially damaged or destroyed property, regardless of whether that replacement property is comparable, as specified in paragraph (2) of subdivision (f), or whether the replacement property is located within the same county.

(B) For purposes of this paragraph, the following shall apply:

(i) For any replacement property of greater value and purchased or newly constructed by a person eligible to transfer the base year value of his or her original property, the base year value of the replacement property shall be calculated by adding the difference between the full cash value of the original property and the full cash value of the replacement property to the base year value of the original property.

(ii) For any replacement property of equal or lesser value purchased or newly constructed by a person eligible to transfer the base year value of his or her original property, the base year value of the replacement property shall be calculated by dividing the base year value of the original property by the full cash value of the original property, and multiplying the result by the full cash value of the replacement property.

(f) For the purposes of subdivision (e):

(1) Property is substantially damaged or destroyed if it sustains physical damage amounting to more than 50 percent of its value immediately before the disaster. Damage includes a diminution in the value of property as a result of restricted access caused by the disaster.

(2) Replacement property is comparable to the property substantially damaged or destroyed if it is similar in size, utility, and function to the property that it replaces, and if the fair market value of the acquired property is comparable to the fair market value of the replaced property prior to the disaster.

(g) For purposes of subdivision (a), the terms "purchased" and "change in ownership" do not include the purchase or transfer of real property between spouses since March 1, 1975, including, but not limited to, all of the following:

(1) Transfers to a trustee for the beneficial use of a spouse, or the surviving spouse of a deceased transferor, or by a trustee of such a trust to the spouse of the trustor.

(2) Transfers to a spouse that take effect upon the death of a spouse.

(3) Transfers to a spouse or former spouse in connection with a property settlement agreement or decree of dissolution of a marriage or legal separation.

(4) The creation, transfer, or termination, solely between spouses, of any coowner's interest.

(5) The distribution of a legal entity's property to a spouse or former spouse in exchange for the interest of the spouse in the legal entity in connection with a property settlement agreement or a decree of dissolution of a marriage or legal separation.

(h) (1) For purposes of subdivision (a), the terms "purchased" and "change in ownership" do not include the purchase or transfer of the principal residence of the transferor in the case of a purchase or transfer between parents and their children, as defined by the Legislature, and the purchase or transfer of the first one million dollars ($1,000,000) of the full cash value of all other real property between parents and their children, as defined by the Legislature. This subdivision applies to both voluntary transfers and transfers resulting from a court order or judicial decree.

(2) (A) Subject to subparagraph (B), commencing with purchases or transfers that occur on or after the date upon which the measure adding this paragraph becomes effective, the exclusion established by paragraph (1) also applies to a purchase or transfer of real property between grandparents and their grandchild or grandchildren, as defined by the Legislature, that otherwise qualifies under paragraph (1), if all of the parents of that grandchild or those grandchildren, who qualify as the children of the grandparents, are deceased as of the date of the purchase or transfer.

(B) A purchase or transfer of a principal residence shall not be excluded pursuant to subparagraph (A) if the transferee grandchild or grandchildren also received a principal residence, or interest therein, through another purchase or transfer that was excludable pursuant to paragraph (1). The full cash value of any real property, other than a principal residence, that was transferred to the grandchild or grandchildren pursuant to a purchase or transfer that was excludable pursuant to paragraph (1), and the full cash value of a principal residence that fails to qualify for exclusion as a result of the preceding sentence, shall be included in applying, for purposes of subparagraph (A), the one-million-dollar ($1,000,000) full cash value limit specified in paragraph (1).

(i) (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, except as otherwise provided in paragraph (5), the Legislature shall provide with respect to a qualified contaminated property, as defined in paragraph (2), that either, but not both, of the following shall apply:

(A) (i) Subject to the limitation of clause (ii), on and after November 4, 1998, and until January 1, 2019, the base year value of the qualified contaminated property, as adjusted as authorized by subdivision (b), may be transferred to a replacement property that is acquired or newly constructed as a replacement for the qualified contaminated property, if the replacement real property has a fair market value that is equal to or less than the fair market value of the qualified contaminated property if that property were not contaminated and, except as otherwise provided by this clause, is located within the same county. The base year value of the qualified contaminated property may be transferred to a replacement real property located within another county if the board of supervisors of that other county has, after consultation with the affected local agencies within that county, adopted a resolution authorizing an intercounty transfer of base year value as so described.

(ii) This subparagraph applies only to replacement property that is acquired or newly constructed within five years after ownership in the qualified contaminated property is sold or otherwise transferred.

(B) In the case in which the remediation of the environmental problems on the qualified contaminated property requires the destruction of, or results in substantial damage to, a structure located on that property, the term "new construction" does not include the repair of a substantially damaged structure, or the construction of a structure replacing a destroyed structure on the qualified contaminated property, performed after the remediation of the environmental problems on that property, provided that the repaired or replacement structure is similar in size, utility, and function to the original structure.

(2) For purposes of this subdivision, "qualified contaminated property" means residential or nonresidential real property that is all of the following:

(A) In the case of residential real property, rendered uninhabitable, and in the case of nonresidential real property, rendered unusable, as the result of either environmental problems, in the nature of and including, but not limited to, the presence of toxic or hazardous materials, or the remediation of those environmental problems, except where the existence of the environmental problems was known to the owner, or to a related individual or entity as described in paragraph (3), at the time the real property was acquired or constructed. For purposes of this subparagraph, residential real property is "uninhabitable" if that property, as a result of health hazards caused by or associated with the environmental problems, is unfit for human habitation, and nonresidential real property is "unusable" if that property, as a result of health hazards caused by or associated with the environmental problems, is unhealthy and unsuitable for occupancy.

(B) Located on a site that has been designated as a toxic or environmental hazard or as an environmental cleanup site by an agency of the State of California or the federal government.

(C) Real property that contains a structure or structures thereon prior to the completion of environmental cleanup activities, and that structure or structures are substantially damaged or destroyed as a result of those environmental cleanup activities.

(D) Stipulated by the lead governmental agency, with respect to the environmental problems or environmental cleanup of the real property, not to have been rendered uninhabitable or unusable, as applicable, as described in subparagraph (A), by any act or omission in which an owner of that real property participated or acquiesced.

(3) It shall be rebuttably presumed that an owner of the real property participated or acquiesced in any act or omission that rendered the real property uninhabitable or unusable, as applicable, if that owner is related to any individual or entity that committed that act or omission in any of the following ways:

(A) Is a spouse, parent, child, grandparent, grandchild, or sibling of that individual.

(B) Is a corporate parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of that entity.

(C) Is an owner of, or has control of, that entity.

(D) Is owned or controlled by that entity. If this presumption is not overcome, the owner shall not receive the relief provided for in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1). The presumption may be overcome by presentation of satisfactory evidence to the assessor, who shall not be bound by the findings of the lead governmental agency in determining whether the presumption has been overcome.

(4) This subdivision applies only to replacement property that is acquired or constructed on or after January 1, 1995, and to property repairs performed on or after that date.

(5) (A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, on and after January 1, 2019, and subject to the limitation of clause (ii) of subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1), the base year value of the qualified contaminated property shall be transferred to a replacement property that is acquired or newly constructed as a replacement for the qualified contaminated property, regardless of whether the replacement real property has a fair market value that is equal to or less than the fair market value of the qualified contaminated property if that property were not contaminated or whether the replacement property is located within the same county.

(B) For purposes of this paragraph, the following shall apply:

(i) For any replacement property of greater value and purchased or newly constructed by a person eligible to transfer the base year value of his or her original property pursuant to this clause, the base year value of the replacement property shall be calculated by adding the difference between the full cash value of the original property and the full cash value of the replacement property to the base year value of the original property.

(ii) For any replacement property of equal or lesser value purchased or newly constructed by a person eligible to transfer the base year value of his or her original property pursuant to this clause, the base year value of the replacement property shall be calculated by dividing the base year value of the original property by the full cash value of the original property, and multiplying the result by the full cash value of the replacement property.

(j) Unless specifically provided otherwise, amendments to this section adopted prior to November 1, 1988, shall be effective for changes in ownership that occur, and new construction that is completed, after the effective date of the amendment. Unless specifically provided otherwise, amendments to this section adopted after November 1, 1988, are effective for changes in ownership that occur, and new construction that is completed, on or after the effective date of the amendment.

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. The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 14, and the FRE is 11. The word count for the ballot title is 20, and the estimated reading time is 5 seconds. The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 17, and the FRE is 19. The word count for the ballot summary is 75, and the estimated reading time is 20 seconds. 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

The Yes on 5 Committee led the campaign in support of Proposition 5.

The California Association of Realtors (CAR) developed the ballot initiative. Alex Creel, senior VP of governmental affairs for CAR, filed the initiative. CAR, in a statement about the initiative, said, "It's important because seniors, who are often on a fixed income, fear they will not be able to afford a big property tax increase if they sell their existing home and buy another one, discouraging them from ever moving. As a result of this 'moving penalty' almost three-quarters of homeowners 55 and older haven't moved since 2000."

Arguments

Steve White, president of the California Association of Realtors, said:

“

Many seniors live in homes that no longer fit their needs because their homes are now too big or too far away from their families. If they want to downsize or move closer to their children, they could face property tax increases of 100 percent, 200 percent or even 300 percent.

”

The California Chamber of Commerce endorsed the ballot initiative, stating:

“

California is facing a massive housing shortage and needs at least 100,000 additional new units a year to meet demand. The CalChamber Board voted to support this measure because it could help ease the shortage by freeing up modest-priced and move-up housing for young families. The change is important because seniors, who often are on a fixed income, fear they will not be able to afford a big property tax increase if they sell their existing home and buy another one, discouraging them from ever moving. As a result of this “moving penalty,” almost three-quarters of homeowners 55 and older haven’t moved since 2000. In addition, a recent estimate from the Legislative Analyst’s Office found that this initiative would increase home sales in the tens of thousands per year.

”

Official arguments

Penny Lilburn, executive director of Highland Senior Center, Kyle Miles, commander of AMVETS Department of California, and Susan Chandler, president of Californians for Disability Rights, wrote the official argument found in the state voter information guide in support of Proposition 5:

“ PROP. 5 GIVES ALL SENIORS (55+) AND SEVERELY DISABLED THE RIGHT TO MOVE WITHOUT PENALTY PROP. 5, the Property Tax Fairness Initiative, eliminates the “moving penalty” that exists today in order to protect seniors (55+) and severely disabled people who want to move to safer, more practical homes or closer to their families. PROP. 5 limits the property tax penalties they could face if they purchase another home in any county of the state. PROP. 5 ELIMINATES MOVING CHALLENGES FOR SENIORS (55+) Millions of California seniors live in homes that are inadequate for their needs—whether too big, too many stairs, or simply too far away from their family and loved ones. Under PROP. 5, senior homeowners (age 55+) would be able to transfer their home’s current taxable value, no matter where in the state they might choose to move. PROP. 5 EMPOWERS RETIREES LIVING ON FIXED INCOMES Most retirees live on a fixed income, often from a pension and/or Social Security. PROP. 5 eliminates the possibility of a 100%, 200%, or even 300% increase in property taxes that retired teachers, firefighters, police, and other retirees often have to pay if they want to sell their current home to buy another one somewhere else in California. PROP. 5 PROTECTS AGAINST PROPERTY TAX BASE “MOVING PENALTY” Under current California law, property taxes are capped at a small percentage of the value of the property when purchased. This becomes known as the property’s “tax base.” In addition, there is a limit on how much property taxes can increase annually. Seniors and the severely disabled are often on fixed incomes and can’t afford large property tax increases. But if they choose to move to a new home, their “tax base” will often increase dramatically due to the rise in home prices over the past several decades. PROP. 5 protects these Californians from this “moving penalty” by allowing them to keep a lower, fairer tax base. PROP. 5 EXTENDS THE BENEFITS OF PROP. 13, BRINGS TAX STABILITY AND PEACE OF MIND PROP. 5 eliminates the “moving penalty” that exists today that is contributing to the housing shortage in California. Just as Prop. 13 (1978) prevented millions of seniors from being taxed out of their homes, PROP. 5 will help millions more today. PROP. 5 will help alleviate the housing shortage and will bring tax stability and peace of mind for millions of middle-class and working-class families throughout California. PROP. 5 EMPOWERS SEVERELY DISABLED PEOPLE TRAPPED IN INADEQUATE HOMES Many severely disabled people in California live in homes that are no longer safe or practical for them, but they cannot afford to move because their property taxes could skyrocket if they buy a new home elsewhere in California. This could happen even if they move to a less expensive home. Under PROP. 5, severely disabled homeowners would be able to move to more suitable homes without being subjected to the “moving penalty.” ”

Opposition

No on Prop 5 led the campaign in opposition to Proposition 5.

Opponents

• California Teachers Association

Arguments

Asm. David Chiu (D-17) said he opposed the initiative:

“

It doesn’t add housing, and it is going to make it harder for cities and counties to pay for schools, infrastructure and public safety to the tune of $2 billion per year. We’re in the midst of the most intense housing crisis our state has ever experienced, and this proposal does nothing to address it.

”

Laura Clark, executive director of YIMBY Action, criticized the measure, saying:

“

We’re talking about, once again, another tax giveaway to people who are wealthy.

”

Official arguments

Gerald G. Wilson, board member of the Middle Class Taxpayers Association, Shamus Roller, executive director of the National Housing Law Project, and Gary Passmore, president of the Congress of California Seniors, wrote the official argument found in the state voter information guide in opposition to Proposition 5:

“ VOTE NO ON PROP. 5 We urge a NO on Prop. 5 for one simple reason. We have a terrible affordable-housing crisis in California, and Prop. 5 will do NOTHING to make this crisis better. What Prop. 5 will do: Prop. 5 will further raise the cost of housing. Prop. 5 will lead to hundreds of millions of dollars and potentially $1 billion in local revenue losses to our public schools. Prop. 5 will cost local services, including fire, police, and health care, up to $1 billion in revenue losses. Prop. 5 gives a huge tax break to wealthy Californians. Prop. 5 gives a huge windfall to the real estate industry, the ONLY sponsor of the initiative. We urge a No on Prop. 5 because of what it does NOT do: It does NOT build any new housing. It does NOT help first-time homebuyers. It does NOT bring down the cost of rent. It does NOT address homelessness. Housing advocates are clear: “Prop. 5 does nothing for affordable housing, and will even make the current situation worse,” says Shamus Roller of the National Housing Law Project, a champion for affordable housing. For the last 30 years, older homeowners who move to a smaller and less expensive house have been able to bring their current property tax with them, an encouragement to leave a larger and more expensive home to a younger family. These homeowners can do this once in their lifetime. This was an extension of Prop. 13. But Prop. 5 changes this equation. If it’s passed, a homeowner over 55 can use their tax break to keep buying more expensive houses, over and over, anywhere in California. Meanwhile, younger, first-time home buyers with less income will face higher housing prices, and renters will have an even harder time becoming homeowners. The nonpartisan California Legislative Analyst says Prop. 5 will cause massive revenue losses at the local level. That’s why firefighters, teachers, and nurses all say No on Prop. 5. This initiative will result in reductions to critical public services including fire protection, police protection, and health care. Public school funding comes primarily from local property taxes. Prop. 5 means less local revenue for our public schools. “Fighting the wildfires that have plagued our communities in the past few years requires more—not less—local resources. We just can’t afford Prop. 5,” says Brian Rice, President of California Professional Firefighters. The real estate interests who cynically paid to put Prop. 5 on the ballot have decided to pit some homeowners against others. Why? You’ll have to ask them. But we think it must have something to do with their profits. We can’t afford Prop. 5. Please join us in voting No. ”

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for California ballot measures

Total campaign contributions:
Support:	$13,224,875.08
Opposition:	$3,324,418.89

There was one ballot measure committee registered in support of the measure—Homeownership for Families and Tax Savings for Seniors, Sponsored by the California Association of Realtors. The committee had received $13.22 million, with 77 percent from the California Association of Realtors Issues Mobilization PAC and 23 percent from the National Associaton of Realtors. The committee had spent $7.66 million.

There were three ballot measure committees registered in opposition to the measure—No on Prop 5, Sponsored by Educators, Public Safety and Health Care Organizations, Million Voter Project Action Fund, No on 5 Yes on 10, and Million Voter Project Action Fund, No on 5. Together, the committees had received $3.32 million, including $1.00 million from the SEIU California State Council Political Committee. The committees had spent $3.39 million.

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in support of the initiative:

Committees in support of Proposition 5 Supporting committees Cash contributions In-kind services Cash expenditures Homeownership for Families and Tax Savings for Seniors, Sponsored by the California Association of Realtors $12,720,050.00 $504,825.08 $7,154,102.39 Total $12,720,050.00 $504,825.08 $7,154,102.39

Totals in support Total raised: $13,224,875.08 Total spent: $7,658,927.47

Donors

The following were the donors who contributed to the support committee:

Donor	Cash	In-kind	Total
California Association of Realtors Issues Mobilization PAC	$9,700,000.00	$504,825.08	$10,204,825.08
National Associaton of Realtors	$3,000,000.00	$0.00	$3,000,000.00
California Apartment Association Issues Committee	$20,000.00	$0.00	$20,000.00

Opposition

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in opposition to the initiative:

Committees in opposition to Proposition 5 Opposing committees Cash contributions In-kind services Cash expenditures No on Prop 5, Sponsored by Educators, Public Safety and Health Care Organizations $2,636,000.00 $29,896.75 $2,612,194.30 Million Voter Project Action Fund, No on 5 Yes on 10, Sponsored by Social Justice Organizations $447,500.00 $11,022.14 $538,736.79 Million Voter Project Action Fund, No on 5, Sponsored by Social Justice Organizations $200,000.00 $0.00 $196,780.39 Total $3,283,500.00 $40,918.89 $3,347,711.48

Totals in opposition Total raised: $3,324,418.89 Total spent: $3,388,630.37

Donors

The following were the top five donors who contributed to the opposition committee:

Donor	Cash	In-kind	Total
SEIU California State Council Political Committee	$1,000,000.00	$0.00	$1,000,000.00
California Teachers Association Issues PAC	$750,000.00	$0.00	$750,000.00
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO	$362,500.00	$0.00	$362,500.00
California Professional Firefighters Ballot Issues Committee	$240,000.00	$2,750.00	$242,750.00
California Federation of Teachers COPE Prop/Ballot Committee	$212,500.00	$0.00	$212,500.00

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:

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.

Background

Proposition 13 (1978)

See also: California Proposition 13, Tax Limitations Initiative (June 1978)

California Proposition 13, the Tax Limitations Initiative, was on the ballot for the election on June 6, 1978. Voters approved Proposition 13, with 64.79 percent voting for passage. Howard Jarvis, who founded the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, developed Proposition 13. He worked with Paul Gann on writing the ballot initiative.

Proposition 13 required that properties be taxed at no more than 1 percent of their full cash value shown on the 1975-1976 assessment rolls and limited annual increases of assessed (taxable) value to the inflation rate or 2 percent, whichever was less. When a property is sold or transferred to new owners, however, the property is reassessed at 1 percent of its full cash value and the limit on increases to assessed value resets.

Amendments to Proposition 13

The following ballot measures amended Proposition 13 to change who can transfer their home's taxable value and how the transfers work:

• Proposition 58 (1986): Voters approved Proposition 58, which allowed the transfer of a principal residence between spouses or between parents and children without a reset on the home's taxable value.

• Proposition 60 (1986): Voters approved Proposition 60, which permitted homeowners over the age of 55 to transfer the taxable value of their present home to a replacement home, assuming the replacement home was of equal or lesser value, located within the same county, and purchased within two years of selling the original home.

• Proposition 90 (1988): The voter-approved Proposition 60 allowed qualified homeowners age 55 or older to transfer the current taxable value of their original home to a replacement home in another county, but only if the county in which the replacement home is located agrees to participate in the program.

Proposition 90 tax transfers between counties

In 1988, voters approved Proposition 90, which allowed qualified homeowners age 55 or older to transfer the current taxable value of their original home to a replacement home in another county, but only if the county in which the replacement home is located agrees to participate in the program.

As of 2018, 11 counties in California had adopted ordinances to accept the tax transfers of qualified homeowners age 55 or older from the other counties allowing tax transfers between counties. For example, a person age 55 or older who sold a house in Los Angeles County would be allowed to transfer their original home's taxable value to their new home in San Diego County, assuming the new home was of equal or lesser value than the original home.

Proposition 5 would have allowed homebuyers who were age 55 or older or severely disabled to transfer their tax assessments between any counties, not just the counties adopting ordinances for the transfers.

The following map illustrates which counties allow for tax transfers between each other, as of 2018:

Media editorials

Support

• Bakersfield Californian: "Seniors in some counties who wish to move or downsize may be able to apply the lower tax rate to the new home they buy. But they can use this tax break only once. Proposition 5, which voters should support, will allow the rate to be applied to multiple future transactions in all California counties. This is a smart, compassionate way to help California’s growing senior population and to make existing affordable homes available to new buyers."
• Los Angeles Daily News/The Orange County Register/The Press-Enterprise/The San Bernardino Sun: "While it’s true this reform will benefit many wealthier Californians, the tens of thousands of moves estimated by the legislative analyst to result from Prop. 5 is sure to free up critically needed housing stock. Vote for Prop. 5."
• The San Diego Union-Tribune: "The sponsors of Proposition 5 — real estate agents — came up with the measure to pad their pockets. But it’s actually a smart idea that will both give older people more flexibility with their lives and introduce liquidity to a housing market that could badly use it. The revenue it would cost local government is relatively small. Vote yes on Proposition 5."

Opposition

• East Bay Express: "This tax break for people over 55 will cost us billions a year in revenues needed for education and social programs."
• Los Angeles Times: "Everyone wants to help the elderly and the disabled. But Proposition 5 is a bad, costly way of doing so that expands the favorable tax treatment of people — including wealthy people — who are already treated very favorably under Proposition 13. California is in the midst of a serious housing crisis, and the California Assn. of Realtors would like voters to believe Proposition 5 is part of the solution. But in fact it would create not a single new unit of housing. It is a false promise; it should be rejected."
• Marin Independent Journal: "This tax break will benefit the real estate industry and seniors who want to move. But Prop. 5’s promise to create more affordable housing is a political reach. It just widens the Prop. 13 tax gap."
• San Diego Free Press: "A giveaway to people who don’t need it at the expense of those who do. Funded by real estate interests looking for more commissions on sales."
• San Francisco Bay Guardian opposed Proposition 5, saying the initiative was an expansion of Proposition 13.
• San Francisco Chronicle: "What makes this proposition all the more galling is the fact that this is the group of Californians who least deserve another tax break. They’re already reaping the benefit of rock-bottom property taxes and they’ve had the opportunity to build up equity in their homes. Meanwhile, their younger counterparts in California, who would bear the brunt of service cuts under Prop. 5, increasingly find homeownership out of reach. There’s nothing in Prop. 5 that would alter this calculus, and it should go down in flames."
• Santa Cruz Sentinel: "Worse, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, Prop. 5 would eventually cost the state an extra $1 billion in tax revenue while handing a massive tax break to some of the wealthiest people in the state. The revenue shortfall would hit local governments and school districts the hardest, losing an estimated $100 million a year. And when that happens, voters are usually asked to raise taxes to make up the difference."
• The Desert Sun: "The bottom line: Those who’ve benefited from years of market-driven equity enhancement will be allowed even greater opportunities to leverage that wealth while those who struggle to keep a roof over their head won’t see any new housing stock from this move, but instead will see vital services in their areas hurt as funds dry up. This won’t help solve California’s housing crisis. Vote no on Proposition 5."
• The Fresno Bee/The Sacramento Bee: "If more older homeowners moved, it might make more houses available for younger families and ease California’s housing crunch. Proposition 5, however, is not how to make that happen. Instead, the Nov. 6 ballot measure would make property taxes in California even less fair while devastating the budgets of local schools and governments. Voters should reject it. ... Proposition 5 is a reminder that California’s property tax system does need to be made more equitable. But this measure would only make it worse. That is the wrong direction for California."
• The Mercury News: "California voters should reject Proposition 5, a regressive measure that would provide additional property tax breaks to long-term homeowners — especially those with pricier houses — who already pay significantly lower tax bills. ... What’s clear is that many of those who do downsize would add to the competition for a short supply of more-affordable smaller homes, squeezing out first-time buyers. This isn’t a solution to our housing crisis. In fact, it might make it worse."
• The Modesto Bee opposed Proposition 5, but did not write an article explaining the editorial board's endorsement.
• The Press-Democrat: "There is a public value in ensuring that homes are available for families. That was the main selling point for Proposition 60. The legislative analyst says about 85,000 homeowners older than 55 move to new houses each year. More might be better, but solving California’s housing crisis requires more housing, not special treatment for a small slice of the population that already qualifies for a tax break on home sales — and frequently is exempted from paying school parcel taxes."
• The San Luis Obispo Tribune: "Proposition 13 already is tough on young homebuyers, who can wind up paying thousands of dollars more in property taxes than their older neighbors living in comparable homes purchased many years ago. Giving older Californians an even bigger tax break will only exacerbate that inequity."

Neutral

• Ventura County Star said the editorial board was undecided on Proposition 5: "On the one hand, we appreciate the effort by Realtors and other supporters to juice up the state’s housing market while giving homeowners 55 or older some additional property tax relief and incentive to stay in California. On the other, the concept seems to us like a private, exclusive club in which the older members fortunate enough to be long vested in property enhance their riches at the expense of younger ones. Prop. 5 essentially calls for a significant expansion of Proposition 13 — and of all the tax disparities and government funding problems the latter has brought. ... Prop. 13 created two classes of Californians — an older gentry of longtime property owners with low tax rates, and younger generations that may be paying twice as much tax for the same house next door. It’s hard to imagine Prop. 5 not widening that gap."

Path to the ballot

See also: California signature requirements and Laws governing the initiative process in California

Process in California

In California, the number of signatures required for an initiated constitutional amendment is equal to 8 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 constitutional amendments certified for the 2018 ballot:

• Signatures: 585,407 valid signatures were required.
• Deadline: The deadline for signature verification was June 28, 2018. However, the suggested deadlines for turning in signatures was 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 #17-0013

Proponents filed three versions of the initiative: Initiative #17-0011, Initiative #17-0012, and Initiative #17-0013. Initiatives #17-0011 and #17-0012 would have allowed homebuyers of all ages to blend the tax amount due on their old property and the tax amount due on their new property.

Alex Creel, senior VP of governmental affairs for the California Association of Realtors, said the group would begin polling the three proposals and select one to collect signatures for at the group's meeting in San Diego in mid-October 2017. The association selected Initiative #17-0013, rather than #17-0011A1 or #17-0012A1, to collect signatures for. Creel said the group would aim to collect around 1 million signatures and was willing to spend $20 million to $50 million on a campaign.

Alexander Creel submitted a letter requesting a title and summary on July 20, 2017. A title and summary were issued by the California attorney general's office on September 25, 2017, allowing petitions to begin collecting signatures. By January 5, 2018, supporters of the initiative had collected 25 percent of the required signatures. On March 26, 2018, the support committee reported filing 960,361 signatures for the ballot initiative. Counties had until May 17, 2018, to conduct a random sample of signatures.

On May 17, 2018, the secretary of state's office announced that the random sample of signatures indicated that 731,019 signatures were valid—145,612 more than was required. As 960,361 signatures were filed, the validation rate was 78.92 percent.

Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired AAP Holding Company, Inc. and The Monaco Group to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $5,140,990.49 was spent to collect the 585,407 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $8.78.

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.

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.

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.

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

See also: Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States

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.

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.

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. 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. 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.

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.

“

Current and valid photo identification provided by a third party in the ordinary course of business that includes the name and photograph of the individual presenting it. Examples of photo identification include, but are not limited to, the following documents: driver's license or identification card of any state; passport; employee identification card; identification card provided by a commercial establishment; credit or debit card; military identification card; student identification card; health club identification card; insurance plan identification card; or public housing identification card. Any of the following documents, provided that the document includes the name and address of the individual presenting it, and is dated since the date of the last general election…: utility bill; bank statement; government check; government paycheck; document issued by a governmental agency; sample ballot or other official elections document issued by a governmental, agency dated for the election in which the individual is providing it as proof, of residency or identity; voter notification card issued by a governmental agency; public housing identification card issued by a governmental agency; lease or rental statement or agreement issued by a governmental agency; student identification card issued by a governmental agency; tuition statement or bill issued by a governmental agency; insurance plan card or drug discount card issued by a governmental agency; discharge certificates, pardons, or other official documents issued to the individual by a governmental agency in connection with the resolution of a criminal case, indictment, sentence, or other matter; public transportation authority senior citizen and disabled discount cards issued by a governmental agency; identification documents issued by governmental disability agencies; identification documents issued by government homeless shelters and other government temporary or transitional facilities; drug prescription issued by a government doctor or other governmental health care provider; (R) property tax statement issued by a governmental agency; vehicle registration issued by a governmental agency; or vehicle certificate of ownership issued by a governmental agency.

”

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

2018 measures

• 2018 ballot measures
• Taxes on the ballot
• Property on the ballot

California

• California ballot measures
• California ballot measure laws
• California Proposition 13 (1978)

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

Information

• Initiative #17-0013

Support

• Yes on 5 Committee

Opposition

• No on Prop 5