This page provides an overview of resources addressing the laws and procedures that govern statewide and local ballot measures in California, including the initiative and referendum process, constitutional amendments, signature requirements, recall procedures, and campaign finance regulations.
Explore the links below for more information:
Laws governing ballot measures in California
Signature requirements for ballot measures in California
- In California, the number of signatures required for ballot initiatives is tied to the number of votes cast in the preceding gubernatorial election.
- Campaigns have 180 days to collect signatures for initiated laws and 90 days for veto referendums.
Changes to laws governing ballot measures in California
- See also: Changes to laws governing ballot measures
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
- See also: Changes in 2024 to laws governing ballot measures
- Eliminate Successor Election at a State Officer Recall Election Amendment: The amendment, which requires voter approval in 2026 to take effect, was designed to eliminate the successor election when a state officer is recalled, thereby changing current law which requires that a simultaneous election to fill the statewide office vacancy be held at the time of the recall election; and repeal the prohibition against the recalled state officer from being a candidate to fill the office at a special election.[1][2]
| SCA 1 Vote
|
Senate
|
House
|
| Yes
|
No
|
NV
|
Yes
|
No
|
NV
|
| Total |
32 |
8 |
0 |
59 |
17 |
3
|
| Democratic (D) |
21 |
1 |
0 |
59 |
0 |
3
|
| Republican (R) |
1 |
7 |
0 |
0 |
17 |
0
|
- California AB 3197: The bill authorized county elections officials to create a standardized petition form for distribution within and submission to the county on petitions for county, city, school district, or special district initiative petitions.[3]
| AB 3197 Vote
|
Senate
|
House
|
| Yes
|
No
|
NV
|
Yes
|
No
|
NV
|
| Total |
39 |
8 |
1 |
75 |
0 |
4
|
| Democratic (D) |
31 |
8 |
1 |
59 |
0 |
3
|
| Republican (R) |
8 |
0 |
0 |
16 |
0 |
1
|
- California SB 1441: In the case that proponents of an initiative request an examination of signatures submitted for an initiative (due to disqualified signatures, for example), the bill provided a process and timeline for such such examination and requires the examination to be completed within five business days; and requires proponents to reimburse counties for examination beyond five business days.[4]
| SB 1441 Vote
|
Senate
|
House
|
| Yes
|
No
|
NV
|
Yes
|
No
|
NV
|
| Total |
31 |
8 |
1 |
60 |
17 |
2
|
| Democratic (D) |
31 |
0 |
1 |
60 |
0 |
2
|
| Republican (R) |
0 |
8 |
0 |
0 |
17 |
0
|
- California SB 1337 (Vetoed): The bill would have required proponents to list the top five campaign contributors on petition sheets and would have required the petitions to be reprinted within five days if there was a change in top contributors. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) wrote in his veto message that, "While I share the author's goal of increasing transparency in our elections system, these changes are overly burdensome and may have the unintended consequence of making our state referendum process less accessible."[5]
| SB 1337 Vote
|
Senate
|
House
|
| Yes
|
No
|
NV
|
Yes
|
No
|
NV
|
| Total |
28 |
11 |
1 |
55 |
17 |
7
|
| Democratic (D) |
28 |
3 |
1 |
55 |
0 |
7
|
| Republican (R) |
0 |
8 |
0 |
0 |
17 |
0
|
- See also: Changes in 2023 to laws governing ballot measures
- Assembly Bill 421: The legislation made changes to the veto referendum process in California, including:[6]
- replacing "Yes" and "No" with “Keep the law” and “Overturn the law,” respectively. Before AB 421, when a veto referendum appeared on the ballot, voters could select “Yes” or “No”. A “Yes” vote had the effect of upholding a bill, and a “No” vote had the effect of repealing the bill.
- requiring the ballot title for veto referendums to be formatted as a question, rather than a statement. The question shall be formatted as follows: “Should California keep or overturn a law passed in [year statute was enacted] [no more than 15 words stating the general subject or nature of the law]?”
- presenting the top three funders of the petition drive to repeal the law in the voter information guide.
- allowing veto referendum proponents to withdraw their qualified referendum within a certain number of days before the election.
| AB 421 Vote
|
Senate
|
House
|
| Yes
|
No
|
NV
|
Yes
|
No
|
NV
|
| Total |
30 |
9 |
1 |
55 |
17 |
8
|
| Democratic (D) |
30 |
1 |
1 |
55 |
0 |
7
|
| Republican (R) |
0 |
8 |
0 |
0 |
17 |
1
|
- The League of Women Voters of California, which supported AB 421, wrote, “The League’s experience has been that there is enormous voter confusion generated by a ‘yes’ vote being against the referendum but for the statute subject to it, and a ‘no’ vote being for the referendum but against the statute subject to it. Voters are often uncertain as to whether they are voting to reverse or preserve a law. AB 421 cuts through the confusion by replacing ‘yes’ and ‘no’ with a simple ‘keep the law’ and ‘overturn the law,’ helping voters better understand the ballot and make informed decisions.”[6]
- The California Chamber of Commerce, which opposed AB 421, wrote, “Currently, a referendum that qualifies for the ballot asks voters to step in the shoes of the Legislature to consider the proposed statute. As such, voters vote for (‘yes’ on) the measure to approve the proposal, and against (‘no’) to reject it. AB 421 makes a major change in the role of the voters. Instead of ‘standing in the shoes’ of the Legislature, they would be asked instead to second-guess the Legislature (‘Keep the law’ v. ‘Overturn the law’), which is a very different question. AB 421 makes the vote about the Legislature’s action, not about the proposed statute itself. This is a profound difference from the historic intent and function of the referendum. Any such change, which we believe would be ill-advised, could likely only be made with a constitutional amendment.”[6]
- Assembly Bill 773: The legislation required that ballot measure arguments submitted for a special district or school district that encompasses multiple counties must be submitted to the lead county. The term lead county was defined for special districts as the "county with the most voters within the district bounds." The term lead county was defined for school districts as the "county whose superintendent of schools covers the district." [7]
| AB 773 Vote
|
Senate
|
House
|
| Yes
|
No
|
NV
|
Yes
|
No
|
NV
|
| Total |
39 |
0 |
1 |
76 |
0 |
4
|
| Democratic (D) |
31 |
0 |
1 |
62 |
0 |
0
|
| Republican (R) |
8 |
0 |
0 |
14 |
0 |
4
|
- Assembly Constitutional Amendment 1: As of 2023, a two-thirds (66.67%) vote of the electorate was required to approve a local special tax ballot measure or general obligation bond, except for school district bond measures. ACA 1 was designed to reduce the vote threshold from two-thirds to 55% for local special tax and bond ballot measures that fund public infrastructure, affordable housing, or supportive housing for persons at risk of chronic homelessness. The constitutional amendment required voter approval on November 5, 2024.[8]
| ACA 1 Vote
|
Senate
|
House
|
| Yes
|
No
|
NV
|
Yes
|
No
|
NV
|
| Total |
29 |
10 |
1 |
55 |
12 |
13
|
| Democratic (D) |
29 |
2 |
1 |
55 |
0 |
7
|
| Republican (R) |
0 |
8 |
0 |
0 |
12 |
6
|
- The Urban Counties of California, which supported ACA 1, stated, "Questions of taxation and public indebtedness are of the greatest importance to the voters of this state. That is why the California Constitution requires that these questions be taken directly to the voters instead of decided solely by their elected representatives. A 55 percent threshold is enough to indicate whether the bulk of a community is willing to incur that indebtedness or pay a tax for such important services."[8]
- The California Taxpayers Association, which opposed ACA 1, stated, "Reducing the vote threshold would diminish the people’s voice on tax increases and would erode property tax safeguards. ... these taxes are both regressive and distortionary, often disregarding a taxpayer’s ability to pay. Parcel taxes, which can reach thousands of dollars annually in some parts of California, are extremely costly for seniors on fixed incomes and households struggling to make ends meet."[8]
| ACA 13 Vote
|
Senate
|
House
|
| Yes
|
No
|
NV
|
Yes
|
No
|
NV
|
| Total |
28 |
9 |
3 |
55 |
19 |
6
|
| Democratic (D) |
28 |
1 |
3 |
55 |
1 |
6
|
| Republican (R) |
0 |
8 |
0 |
0 |
18 |
0
|
- The California State Council of Service Employees International Union, which supported ACA 13, stated, "Anti-Democratic efforts are seeking to establish and enshrine the right of a privileged and powerful minority to veto the will of the people. [ACA 13] would retain and protect the majority vote, require any initiative that increases voter approval requirements to also be approved at the higher level, and would ensure local governments can always ask voters for their opinion on issues. ACA 13 protects the democratic principle of 'one person, one vote.'"[9]
- The California Business Roundtable, which opposed ACA 13, stated, "The initiative process is a vital tool for Californians to voice their concerns, propose changes, and stand up for their values. It allows citizens to bypass the usual legislative channels and bring about changes that matter deeply to them. However, ACA 13 risks diminishing these voices, shifting power away from the people and towards the Legislature in a drastic and unprecedented way."[9]
- Senate Bill 297: The legislation made changes to the withdrawal process for qualified ballot initiatives in California. SB 297 allowed proponents of a statewide initiative or referendum to file a written notice of withdrawal that is contingent on a piece of legislation being passed and signed. The bill also allowed a majority of proponents, instead of all proponents, to sign off on removing an initiative from the ballot. SB 297 specified that initiatives or referendums must be withdrawn no later than 5 p.m. 131 days before the election.[10]
| SB 297 Vote
|
Senate
|
House
|
| Yes
|
No
|
NV
|
Yes
|
No
|
NV
|
| Total |
31 |
8 |
1 |
62 |
18 |
0
|
| Democratic (D) |
31 |
0 |
1 |
62 |
0 |
0
|
| Republican (R) |
0 |
8 |
0 |
0 |
18 |
0
|
- Senate Bill 386: In California, the signature verification process for state ballot initiatives involved a random sample. When the random sample found that between 95% and 110% of signatures were valid, a check of each signature was required within 30 days, excluding weekends and holidays. SB 386 provided election officials with 60 days to provide a full check of signatures when required. [11]
| SB 386 Vote
|
Senate
|
House
|
| Yes
|
No
|
NV
|
Yes
|
No
|
NV
|
| Total |
32 |
8 |
0 |
62 |
17 |
1
|
| Democratic (D) |
32 |
0 |
0 |
62 |
0 |
0
|
| Republican (R) |
0 |
8 |
0 |
0 |
17 |
1
|
- Senate Bill 798: The legislation required the tax rate statement included with local bond measures to include a tax rate per $100,000 of assessed valuation. Previously, the tax rate statement needed to provide a tax rate per $100 of assessed valuation.[12]
| SB 798 Vote
|
Senate
|
House
|
| Yes
|
No
|
NV
|
Yes
|
No
|
NV
|
| Total |
37 |
0 |
3 |
79 |
0 |
1
|
| Democratic (D) |
30 |
0 |
2 |
61 |
0 |
1
|
| Republican (R) |
7 |
0 |
1 |
18 |
0 |
0
|
- See also: Changes in 2022 to laws governing ballot measures
- Assembly Bill 1416: The legislation required ballot measure labels, which is the language that voters see on the ballot, to include a list of supporters and opponents of the ballot measure. Under AB 1416, the lists of supporters and opponents are those found in the voter information guide, and the two lists are each limited to 125 characters in length.[13]
- Assembly Bill 2582: The bill changed how local recall elections work in California. Previously, local recall elections involved two questions: "First, should the targeted elected official be recalled? Second, which candidate should replace the recalled official?" Under AB 2582, only the first question is part of a recall election — 'Should the targeted elected official be recalled?' If an official is recalled, then the vacancy is filled, typically by appointment or special election.[14]
- Assembly Bill 2584: The bill increased the number of proponents needed to initiate a recall petition depending on a jurisdiction's number of registered voters. The bill also created a review period of 10 days for local recall petitions, in which a voter can challenge the reasons listed on the recall petition as false, misleading, or inconsistent with legal requirements.[15]
- Senate Bill 1360: The legislation made changes to statements required on initiative, referendum, and recall petitions, including adding "You have the right to see an 'official top funders' sheet;" "This petition may be circulated by a paid signature gatherer or a volunteer. You have the right to ask;" and other statements.[16]
- See also: Changes in 2019 to laws governing ballot measures
- Assembly Bill 116: The legislation removed the voter approval requirement for enhanced infrastructure financing districts to issue bonds.[19]
- Assembly Bill 698: The legislation provided that a signature on a ballot initiative petition cannot be deemed invalid because the person signing the petition used initials instead of their full first or middle name, or both.[20]
- require that a minimum of 10% of the signatures needed for an initiative or referendum petition be collected by unpaid volunteer circulators;
- prohibit paying circulators based on the number of signatures they collected and making this practice a misdemeanor;
- require petitions to include information indicating whether the circulator collecting the signatures was a paid worker or volunteer; and
- increase the number of days that elections officials have to verify signatures, among other changes.
- Senate Bill 47: The legislation required ballot measure committees to create an Official Top Funders sheet to provide when requested from potential petition signers. Under SB 47, the sheet must list the three largest contributors to the committee. The bill also allowed committees to list three endorsers on their petitions.[22]
- Senate Bill 151: The legislation allowed an elected official subject to a recall election to display a party preference on the ballot.[23]
- Senate Bill 268 (Vetoed): Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) vetoed the bill on October 13, 2019. The legislation would have allowed sponsors of a local ballot measure to decide how to show the information about taxes or bonds on the ballot label. They would have had two options: (1) include the estimated amount of money to be raised each year, along with the tax rate and how long the tax will last, or (2) add the phrase "See voter guide for tax rate information."[24]
- Senate Bill 359: The legislation allowed a municipal veto referendum petition to include a summary of the referendum instead of having to include the entire text of the ordinance or the specific part of the ordinance that is being petitioned. Under SB 359, the city attorney is responsible for writing summaries, which must be less than 5,000 words and true and impartial.[25]
- Senate Bill 681: The legislation allowed proponents of local initiatives to withdraw their measures up to 88 days before the election.[26]
- See also: Changes in 2018 to laws governing ballot measures
- Senate Bill 1153: The legislation allowed proponents of a local ballot initiative to withdraw the initiative up to 88 days prior to an election.[27]
- Assembly Bill 890 (Vetoed): Gov. Jerry Brown (D) vetoed AB 890 on October 15, 2018. The legislation would have prohibited citizen-initiated ballot measures to change a municipal general plan or amend zoning ordinances for the purposes of covering a land use approval for a project, changing the land use designation on parcels to more intensive land use, or allowing more intensive land uses within an existing land use designation.
- Assembly Bill 1947 (Vetoed): Gov. Jerry Brown (D) vetoed AB 1947 on September 18, 2018. The legislation would have banned paying signature gatherers based on the number of signatures collected.[28]
See also
- ↑ California State Legislature, "SCA 1 Overview," accessed February 2, 2024
- ↑ California State Legislature, "SCA 1 Text," accessed February 2, 2024
- ↑ California State Legislature, "AB 3197," accessed September 5, 2024
- ↑ California State Legislature, "SB 1441," accessed October 2, 2024
- ↑ California State Legislature, "SB 1441," accessed October 2, 2024
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 California State Legislature, "Assembly Bill 421," accessed September 9, 2023
- ↑ California State Legislature, "Assembly Bill 773," accessed September 12, 2023
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 California State Legislature, "Assembly Constitutional Amendment 1," accessed 18, 2023
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 California State Legislature, "Assembly Constitutional Amendment 13," accessed September 18, 2023
- ↑ California State Legislature, "Senate Bill 297," accessed October 8, 2023
- ↑ California State Legislature, "Senate Bill 386," accessed October 8, 2023
- ↑ California State Legislature, "Senate Bill 798," accessed October 8, 2023
- ↑ California State Legislature, "Assembly Bill 1416," accessed June 14, 2023
- ↑ California State Legislature, "Assembly Bill 2582," accessed June 14, 2023
- ↑ California State Legislature, "Assembly Bill 2584," accessed June 14, 2023
- ↑ California State Legislature, "Senate Bill 1360," accessed June 14, 2023
- ↑ California State Legislature, "Senate Bill 152," accessed June 19, 2023
- ↑ California State Legislature, "Senate Bill 660," accessed June 19, 2023
- ↑ California State Legislature, "Assembly Bill 116," accessed June 25, 2023
- ↑ California State Legislature, "Assembly Bill 698," accessed June 25, 2023
- ↑ California State Legislature, "Assembly Bill 1451," accessed June 25, 2023
- ↑ California State Legislature, "Senate Bill 47," accessed June 25, 2023
- ↑ California State Legislature, "Senate Bill 151," accessed June 25, 2023
- ↑ California State Legislature, "Senate Bill 268," accessed June 25, 2023
- ↑ California State Legislature, "Senate Bill 359," accessed June 25, 2023
- ↑ California State Legislature, "Senate Bill 681," accessed June 25, 2023
- ↑ California State Legislature, "Senate Bill 1153," accessed June 28, 2023
- ↑ California State Legislature, "Assembly Bill 1947," accessed June 28, 2023
