California Proposition 21, Local Rent Control Initiative (2020)

California Proposition 21

Election date
November 3, 2020
Topic
Housing
Status
d Defeated
Type
State statute| Origin
Citizens

* * *

List of California measuresCalifornia Proposition 13 (March)California Proposition 14California Proposition 15California Proposition 16California Proposition 17California Proposition 18California Proposition 19California Proposition 20California Proposition 21California Proposition 22California Proposition 23California Proposition 24California Proposition 25Submit

* * *

California Proposition 21, the Local Rent Control Initiative, was on the ballot in California as an initiated state statute on November 3, 2020. Proposition 21 was defeated.

A "yes" vote supported this ballot initiative to allow local governments to enact rent control on housing that was first occupied over 15 years ago, with an exception for landlords who own no more than two homes with distinct titles or subdivided interests.

A "no" vote opposed this ballot initiative, thereby continuing to prohibit rent control on housing that was first occupied after February 1, 1995, and housing units with distinct titles, such as single-family homes.

## Contents

* 1 Election results
* 2 Overview
* 2.1 What would the ballot measure have changed about rent control in California?
* 2.2 How did this ballot measure relate to California Proposition 10 (2018)?
* 3 Text of measure
* 3.1 Ballot title
* 3.2 Ballot summary
* 3.3 Fiscal impact statement
* 3.4 Full text
* 3.5 Readability score
* 4 Support
* 4.1 Supporters
* 4.2 Arguments
* 4.2.1 Official arguments
* 5 Opposition
* 5.1 Opponents
* 5.2 Arguments
* 5.2.1 Official arguments
* 6 Campaign finance
* 6.1 Support
* 6.1.1 Donors
* 6.2 Opposition
* 6.2.1 Donors
* 7 Media editorials
* 7.1 Support
* 7.2 Opposition
* 8 Polls
* 9 Background
* 9.1 California Proposition 10
* 9.2 Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act
* 9.3 AB 1482 (2019)
* 9.4 State policies on rent control
* 9.5 Local rent control ballot measures, 2016–2019
* 9.6 Median rents in California's counties
* 9.7 Rents in California's largest cities
* 10 Path to the ballot
* 10.1 Stages of this initiative
* 10.2 Possible negotiations to withdraw initiative
* 11 How to cast a vote
* 11.1 Poll times
* 11.2 Registration
* 11.3 Automatic registration
* 11.4 Online registration
* 11.5 Same-day registration
* 11.6 Residency requirements
* 11.7 Verification of citizenship
* 11.8 Verifying your registration
* 11.9 Voter ID requirements
* 12 See also
* 13 External links
* 13.1 Information
* 13.2 Support
* 13.3 Opposition
* 14 Footnotes

## Election results[edit]

California Proposition 21

Result | Votes | Percentage
Yes | 6,771,298 | 40.15%

| 10,095,206 | 59.85%

Results are officially certified.
Source

## Overview[edit]

### What would the ballot measure have changed about rent control in California?[edit]

Proposition 21 would have replaced the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act (Costa-Hawkins), which was passed in 1995. Prior to the enactment of Costa-Hawkins, local governments were permitted to enact rent control, provided that landlords would receive just and reasonable returns on their rental properties. Costa-Hawkins continued to allow local governments to use rent control, except on (a) housing that was first occupied after February 1, 1995, and (b) housing units with distinct titles, such as condos, townhouses, and single-family homes.[1]

The ballot measure would have allowed local governments to adopt rent control on housing units, except on (a) housing that was first occupied within the last 15 years and (b) units owned by natural persons who own no more than two housing units with separate titles, such as single-family homes, condos, and some duplexes, or subdivided interests, such as stock cooperatives and community apartment projects.[2]

Under Costa-Hawkins, landlords were allowed to increase rent prices to market rates when a tenant moves out (a policy known as vacancy decontrol).[1] The ballot measure would have required local governments that adopt rent control to allow landlords to increase rental rates by 15 percent during the first three years following a vacancy.[2]

### How did this ballot measure relate to California Proposition 10 (2018)?[edit]

See also: California Proposition 10 (2018)

In 2018, 59 percent of voters rejected Proposition 10, which would have allowed local governments to adopt rent control on any type of rental housing. The AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) co-sponsored Proposition 10, and an AHF division called Housing Is A Human Right sponsored the campaign behind the 2020 ballot initiative.[3] Rand Martin, a lobbyist for AHF, said, "The one lesson we learned from Proposition 10 is that the voters were not interested in a wholesale repeal of Costa Hawkins. But the other message we got in polling and focus groups is that people believe there are excesses to Costa Hawkins and there needs to be reforms."[4] Tom Bannon, CEO of the California Apartment Association, opposed Proposition 10 in 2018. He said, "Voters overwhelming rejected the measure the last time it was on the ballot. Once we educate voters about Weinstein’s latest housing-freeze measure, it’s bound to fail just as miserably as Prop. 10."[5]

## Text of measure[edit]

### Ballot title[edit]

The ballot title was as follows:[6]

“  |

Expands Local Governments’ Authority to Enact Rent Control on Residential Property. Initiative Statute.[7]

| ”

|
|

### Ballot summary[edit]

The ballot summary was as follows:[6]

“  |

* Amends state law to allow local governments to establish rent control on residential properties over 15 years old. Allows local limits on annual rent increases to differ from current statewide limit.

* Allows rent increases in rent-controlled properties of up to 15 percent over three years at start of new tenancy (above any increase allowed by local ordinance).

* Exempts individuals who own no more than two homes from new rent-control policies.

* In accordance with California law, prohibits rent control from violating landlords’ right to fair financial return.[7]

| ”

|
|

### Fiscal impact statement[edit]

The fiscal impact statement was as follows:[6]

“  |

Overall, a potential reduction in state and local revenues in the high tens of millions of dollars per year over time. Depending on actions by local communities, revenue losses could be less or more.[7]

| ”

|
|

### Full text[edit]

The full text of the ballot initiative is below:[2]

### Readability score[edit]

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2020
Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The attorney general wrote the ballot language for this measure.

The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 15, and the FRE is -1.5. The word count for the ballot title is 13, and the estimated reading time is 3 seconds. The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 12, and the FRE is 38. The word count for the ballot summary is 86, and the estimated reading time is 22 seconds.

## Support[edit]

Renters and Homeowners United to Keep Families in Their Homes, also known as Yes on 21, led the campaign in support of the ballot initiative. The campaign was sponsored by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. Proponents named the initiative the Rental Affordability Act.[8]

### Supporters[edit]

The campaign provided a list of supporters, which is available here.

#### Officials

* Vermont U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Independent)
* U.S. Representative Karen Bass (D)
* U.S. Representative Jimmy Gomez (D)
* U.S. Representative Barbara Lee (D)
* U.S. Representative Maxine Waters (D)
* State Senator Ben Allen (D)
* State Senator Maria Elena Durazo (D)
* Assemblymember Rob Bonta (D)
* Assemblymember Wendy Carrillo (D)
* Assemblymember David Chiu (Nonpartisan)
* Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher (D)
* Assemblymember Ash Kalra (D)
* Assemblymember Miguel Santiago (D)
* Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf
* Los Angeles City Councilmember Kevin de León (Nonpartisan)
* State Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara (D)

#### Political Parties

* California Democratic Party

#### Government Entities

* San Francisco Board of Supervisors
* Monterey County Board of Supervisors

#### Unions

* AFSCME California
* California Nurses Association
* SEIU California State Council

#### Organizations

* ACCE Action
* ACLU of California
* ACLU of Northern California
* ACLU of Southern California
* AIDS Healthcare Foundation
* Black Lives Matter, Los Angeles
* California Alliance for Retired Americans
* California Environmental Justice Alliance
* California State National Action Network
* Consumer Watchdog
* Courage California
* Democratic Socialists of America, Los Angeles
* Eviction Defense Network
* Los Angeles Tenants Union
* National Lawyers Guild, Los Angeles
* National Organization of Black County Officials
* Our Revolution
* Sierra Club California
* UC Student Association

#### Individuals

* Dolores Huerta \- Co-Founder of the United Farm Workers
* Michael Weinstein \- President of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation

### Arguments[edit]

* David Huerta, president of the SEIU United Service Workers West: "Profound housing insecurity in our state is one significant reason the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in such disproportionate suffering and tragedy for workers in low-wage jobs, workers of color and immigrant workers. Because of systematic exclusion and racism, these families lived in crowded conditions or the constant fear of eviction even before this pandemic; now their living conditions are truly a matter of life and death."
* U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont): "This initiative will allow California cities to pass sensible limits on rent increases and protect families, seniors and veterans from skyrocketing rents. I was born and raised in a three-and-a-half room rent-controlled apartment in Brooklyn, New York. That most minimal form of economic security was crucial for our family, but today that type of economic security does not exist for millions of Americans. That has got to change."
* Michael Weinstein, president of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation: "Among the 17 million renters in California, the suffering is unabated. Not only do we see increased homelessness, but the affordability crisis has reached epic proportions with many people paying 50 percent or more of their income to keep a roof over their head."

#### Official arguments[edit]

The following is the argument in support of Proposition 21 found in the Official Voter Information Guide:[9]

* Official Voter Information Guide: VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 21! KEEP FAMILIES IN THEIR HOMES, PRESERVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, STOP HOMELESSNESS, AND SAVE TAXPAYERS MONEY. Where are people supposed to live in California? The housing crisis rages on as rising rents and stagnant wages leave many behind. The consequences are felt by everyone. Neighbors are forced from communities, renters face uncertainty, and the most vulnerable people end up on the streets. Small businesses are squeezed as renters spend less in their communities and workers face longer commutes. Living paycheck to paycheck makes it difficult for teachers, grocery clerks, and nurses to afford housing in the communities they serve, while still having enough money for basics like groceries, gas, and childcare. And skyrocketing rents have led to over 150,000 homeless people living on the streets. The crisis is only getting worse. The coronavirus pandemic has left millions of workers unemployed and at risk of losing their homes. According to a UCLA study, we are facing a surge in homelessness. By tackling one of the root causes of the crisis, Prop. 21:
* SAVES TAXPAYERS MONEY
A 2017 study found that just a 5 percent increase in rent pushes 2,000 Los Angeles residents into homelessness. The burden of rising homelessness in California is paid for by taxpayers. The cost of homelessness, estimated at $35,000 to $45,000 annually per homeless person, is unsustainable. Prop. 21 ensures that fewer people lose their homes, saving taxpayers money.
* KEEPS FAMILIES IN THEIR HOMES
Prop. 21 will help children, parents, seniors, and essential workers stay in their homes. Right now, children are pushed out of their schools, parents are forced into long commutes, and seniors are faced with unaffordable rents. More and more people are being pushed out onto the streets. Proposition 21 provides reasonable and predictable rent increases for members of our community.
* BRINGS STABILITY TO SENIORS AND VETERANS
Seniors and veterans are struggling with devastatingly high rents, leaving little for food, medical care, and other necessities. Prop. 21 allows local communities to limit their rent increases and preserve affordable housing. It helps seniors and veterans stay in their homes.
* PROTECTS SINGLE-FAMILY HOMEOWNERS
Prop. 21 exempts single-family homeowners. If you are not in the rental home business, you will NOT be affected by Prop. 21.
* KEEPS HOUSING COSTS DOWN
Families, teachers, and nurses are struggling to find housing due to skyrocketing rents. Prop. 21 allows our communities to preserve affordable housing and encourages the construction of new homes. This will make housing affordable for all.
* GUARANTEES LANDLORDS A PROFIT
Prop. 21 GUARANTEES landlords a profit. It is fair to mom-and-pop landlords and renters alike. YES on Prop. 21 is supported by a broad coalition of elected officials, labor unions, civic organizations, national social justice groups, local tenants unions, and legal aid organizations. Proposition 21 helps families, children, senior citizens, and veterans stay in their homes. Learn more at yeson21ca.org. DOLORES HUERTA, President The Dolores Huerta Foundation KEVIN DE LEÓN, President pro Tempore Emeritus California State Senate CYNTHIA DAVIS, Chair of the Board of Directors AIDS Healthcare Foundation

|

## Opposition[edit]

Californians for Responsible Housing, also known as No on Prop 21, led the campaign in opposition to the ballot initiative.[10]

### Opponents[edit]

Californians for Responsible Housing provided a list of opponents, which is available here.

#### Officials

* Governor Gavin Newsom (D)

#### Political Parties

* Republican Party of California

#### Corporations

* Avalonbay Communities, Inc.
* Equity Residential
* Essex Property Trust, Inc.
* Invitation Homes
* Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.

#### Unions

* California Conference of Carpenters
* California District of Iron Workers
* California Police Chiefs Association
* California State Association of Electrical Workers
* California State Pipe Trades Council
* State Building and Construction Trades Council of California

#### Organizations

* AMVETS, Department of California
* American Legion, Department of California
* California Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce
* California Builders Alliance
* California Building Industry Association
* California Chamber of Commerce
* California Council for Affordable Housing
* California Housing Consortium
* California NAACP State Conference
* California Senior Advocates League
* California Seniors Advocates League
* California Taxpayers Association
* Congress of California Seniors
* Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

### Arguments[edit]

* Gov. Gavin Newsom (D): "In the past year, California has passed a historic version of statewide rent control – the nation’s strongest rent caps and renter protections in the nation – as well as short-term eviction relief. But Proposition 21, like Proposition 10 before it, runs the all-too-real risk of discouraging availability of affordable housing in our state."
* Gary Passmore, president of the Congress of California Seniors: "Prop. 21 provides no protections for seniors and would hurt senior renters and homeowners alike. For those seniors relying on their single-family home for their retirement nest eggs or to help fund their care later in life, Prop. 21 pulls the rug out from under them. And for senior renters on fixed incomes, Prop 21 would result in less affordable rental housing options."
* Sid Lakireddy, president of the California Rental Housing Association: "It has been proven time and again that rent control does not work. Voters overwhelmingly rejected the 2018 rent control initiative and Michael Weinstein’s second attempt will also be rejected. We do not need more distractions and resources spent on failed policies but instead we need policies that encourage more affordable and accessible housing."
* Thomas Aiello, policy and government affairs manager for the National Taxpayers Union: "If approved, it will hurt renters by discouraging private sector builders from bringing more affordable housing units to market. The solution to lowering rental prices won’t come from more government mandates and rules, but instead from reasonable changes to strict zoning laws, high building costs, and lengthy permitting processes."

#### Official arguments[edit]

The following is the argument in opposition to Proposition 21 found in the Official Voter Information Guide:[11]

* Official Voter Information Guide: PROP. 21 IS A DEEPLY FLAWED SCHEME THAT WILL INCREASE HOUSING COSTS AND HURT CALIFORNIA'S ECONOMIC RECOVERY If Prop. 21 seems familiar, it’s because nearly 60% of California voters rejected the same flawed scheme in 2018. Seniors, veterans and affordable housing experts all oppose Prop. 21 because it will make housing less available and less affordable at a time when millions of Californians are struggling to get back to work and keep a roof over their heads. The California Council for Affordable Housing calls Prop. 21 a "flawed idea." Here's how Prop. 21 will make things worse: REPEALS HOUSING LAW WITH NO SOLUTION Prop. 21 does nothing to address California's housing shortage. Instead, it undermines the strongest statewide rent control law in the nation signed by Gov. Newsom and enacted just last year with no plan to build affordable and middle-class housing or deal with the increasing problem of homelessness on our streets. ELIMINATES HOMEOWNERS PROTECTIONS Prop. 21 takes away basic protections for homeowners and allows regulators to tell single-family homeowners how much they can charge to rent out a single room. Millions of homeowners will be treated just like corporate landlords and subject to regulations and price controls enacted by unelected boards. REDUCES HOME VALUES UP TO 20% Non-partisan researchers at MIT estimate extreme rent control measures like this result in an average reduction in home values up to 20%. That's up to $115,000 in lost value for the average homeowner. Californians can't afford to take another hit with the economic collapse threatening their home values and life savings. OFFERS NO PROTECTIONS FOR SENIORS, VETERANS OR THE DISABLED Prop 21 has no protections for seniors, veterans or the disabled, and it has no provision to reduce rents. Veterans, seniors, social justice organizations and the American Legion, Dept. of California, agree it's the last thing we need right now. ALLOWS EXTREME REGULATIONS Prop. 21 allows local governments to establish extreme and permanent regulations on nearly all aspects of housing. For example, even after a tenant moves out, property owners won't be able to establish rents at market rates or pay for investments in repairs or upgrades. It simply goes too far. MAKES THE HOUSING CRISIS WORSE Californians are experiencing a severe housing affordability crisis in the most devastating economic and public health emergency of our lifetimes. The last thing we should do is pass an initiative that will stop new housing from being built, cost jobs, and hurt the economic recovery. OPPOSED BY A BROAD BIPARTISAN COALITION Democrats and Republicans agree Prop. 21 will make the crisis worse. Opponents include: California Council for Affordable Housing • Disabled American Veterans, Dept. of California • California Housing Consortium • Vietnam Veterans of America, California State Council • California Chamber of Commerce DEMAND REAL SOLUTIONS We should vote "NO" on Prop. 21 and demand real solutions. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 21 Learn more at NoOnProp21.vote EDWARD J. GRIMSLEY, State Commander American Legion, Dept. of California LORRAINE J. PLASS, 3rd Vice Commander AMVETS, Dept. of California PATRICK SABELHAUS, Executive Director California Council for Affordable Housing

|

## Campaign finance[edit]

See also: Campaign finance requirements for California ballot measures

The Homeowners and Tenants United PAC was registered to support the ballot initiative. The committee raised $40.85 million, with $40.64 million from the AIDS Healthcare Foundation.[12]

Five PACs, including Californians for Responsible Housing, were registered to oppose the ballot initiative. The committees had raised $83.57 million, including $16.55 million from Essex Property Trust, Inc.[12]

| Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures

|
|
|
|
|

Support | $37,221,060.50 | $3,631,296.12 | $40,852,356.62 | $21,239,138.81 | $24,870,434.93
Oppose | $83,556,122.24 | $15,534.72 | $83,571,656.96 | $82,609,407.87 | $82,624,942.59

### Support[edit]

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in support of the ballot initiative.[12]

Committees in support of Proposition 21

Committee | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures
Yes on 21 - Renters and Homeowners United to Keep Families in Their Homes | $37,221,060.50 | $3,631,296.12 | $40,852,356.62 | $21,239,138.81 | $24,870,434.93
Total | $37,221,060.50 | $3,631,296.12 | $40,852,356.62 | $21,239,138.81 | $24,870,434.93

#### Donors[edit]

The following was the top donor to the support committee.[12]

Donor | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions

|
|
|

AIDS Healthcare Foundation | $37,087,918.00 | $3,552,501.35 | $40,640,419.35
California Nurses Association | $50,000.00 | $0.00 | $50,000.00
California Democratic Party | $0.00 | $27,557.87 | $27,557.87
National Union of Healthcare Workers Issues Committee for Quality | $5,000.00 | $0.00 | $5,000.00

### Opposition[edit]

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in opposition to the ballot initiative.[12]

Committees in opposition to Proposition 21

Committee | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures
No on Prop 21: Californians for Responsible Housing | $72,508,361.53 | $1,080.00 | $72,509,441.53 | $71,810,380.39 | $71,811,460.39
No on Prop 21 - Californians to Protect Affordable Housing | $10,623,619.40 | $12,009.97 | $10,635,629.37 | $10,529,380.56 | $10,541,390.53
No on 21 - Californians for Affordable Housing | $295,716.59 | $351.00 | $296,067.59 | $159,812.23 | $160,163.23
Issues PAC of Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles - No on 21 | $110,697.05 | $2,093.75 | $112,790.80 | $47,101.03 | $49,194.78
Multi-County Property Rights Pac, No on Proposition 21 | $17,727.67 | $0.00 | $17,727.67 | $62,733.66 | $62,733.66
Total | $83,556,122.24 | $15,534.72 | $83,571,656.96 | $82,609,407.87 | $82,624,942.59

#### Donors[edit]

The following were the top five donors who contributed to the opposition committees.[12]

Donor | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions

|
|
|

Essex Property Trust, Inc., and Affiliated Entities | $16,550,468.74 | $0.00 | $16,550,468.74
Equity Residential | $12,762,406.00 | $0.00 | $12,762,406.00
Avalonbay Communities, Inc. | $10,152,746.86 | $0.00 | $10,152,746.86
California Business Roundtable Issues PAC | $7,250,000.00 | $0.00 | $7,250,000.00
Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc. and Affiliated Entities | $3,700,710.00 | $0.00 | $3,700,710.00

## Media editorials[edit]

Ballotpedia identified the following media editorial boards as taking positions on the ballot initiative. If you are aware of a media editorial board position that is not listed below, please email the editorial link to editor@ballotpedia.org.

### Support[edit]

* Los Angeles Times Editorial Board: "Ultimately, the solution to California’s housing crisis is to build more housing, especially affordable housing. That will take reforming zoning codes and regulations that make it impossible to build apartments and townhomes in many communities across the state. It will require reducing onerous fees and bureaucratic hurdles that layer on costs and push up the price of new homes. This is vital work to make California more affordable, but it will take years to construct enough homes to bring down prices. Until then, rent control can be a helpful tool to provide housing stability."

### Opposition[edit]

* The Press Democrat Editorial Board: "California voters soundly rejected rent control in the November 2018 election for a good reason: It won’t alleviate the state’s housing problems. [...] The state’s 2019 law capping rent increases at inflation plus 5% for homes older than 15 years will remain in effect whether Proposition 21 passes or fails. There’s no need to pile on yet another disincentive for building badly needed rental housing. The Press Democrat recommends a no vote on Proposition 21."
* San Mateo Daily Journal Editorial Board: "Rent control was defeated at the polls and already established by the state Legislature. Any other changes should be done at the legislative level."
* The Desert Sun Editorial Board: "As was true in 2018, this measure would only make California’s real housing problem — the dearth of affordable housing development — more difficult. It will only add the uncertainty of local rent control boards to California’s already Byzantine and costly housing development process."
* The San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board: "In 2018, state voters decisively rejected Proposition 10, another rent control measure. Then in 2019 state lawmakers and Gov. Gavin Newsom enacted Assembly Bill 1482, a rent control bill. Apparently, Sacramento didn’t get the message. It’s time to send another one. Rent control is the wrong way to help Californians struggling with housing. Lawmakers who are juggling a lot during this pandemic need to not lose sight of that. The long-term solution is listening to experts and building new houses."
* The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board: "The state’s major need is for more housing. Prop. 21’s backers say their measure is not meant to address that shortage. But if approved, it would discourage builders from creating new rental housing."
* San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Board: "While researchers have found that rent control can confer substantial benefits on affected tenants, it does so at the expense not only of property owners but also of other tenants. And those benefits are not reliably distributed to those who need them most. The greatest cost, meanwhile, will be to a housing market that can ill afford it, further restricting supply and inflating prices. Californians should vote no on Prop. 21 or risk aggravating the crisis it purports to address."
* Mercury News & East Bay Times Editorial Board: "Throughout all this, however, the economic fundamentals remain the same: High rents in California are due to a shortage in the housing supply. We simply haven’t built homes fast enough to keep up with population growth. As a result, more people are competing for limited numbers of dwellings. But the tougher the rent restrictions in the state, the less likely developers will construct desperately needed units. Rent control will only make the housing shortage worse. Which is why voters should reject Proposition 21 on the Nov. 3 ballot."
* The Bakersfield Californian Editorial Board: "Proposition 21 is a watered-down version of a rent-control ballot measure Californians rejected in 2018 with a 59 percent vote. After conducting focus groups and making some modest changes to their proposal, advocates placed it on the ballot again, hoping voters would be enticed to support it. The problem is that the economics of California’s housing shortage hasn’t changed. And this seemingly “simple” solution will only aggravate it."
* The Orange County Register Editorial Board: "Preponderant majorities of economists across the political spectrum have repeatedly criticized rent control for reducing the quality and quantity of housing. California’s housing woes trace to our lawmakers and regulators, who over the years have imposed a licensing, permitting and construction regime that raises costs and makes home construction more difficult. Rent control would just add one more layer of complication to the process, and demoralize key market participants unnecessarily."

## Polls[edit]

See also: 2020 ballot measure polls
California Proposition 21, Local Rent Control Initiative (2020)

Poll | Support | Oppose| Undecided| Margin of error| Sample size
Berkeley IGS Poll (likely voters)
10/16/2020 - 10/21/2020 | 37.0%| 48.0%| 15.0%| +/-2.0| 5,352
SurveyUSA (likely voters)
9/26/2020 - 9/28/2020 | 46.0%| 27.0%| 27.0%| +/-5.4| 588
Berkeley IGS Poll (likely voters)
9/9/2020 - 9/15/2020 | 37.0%| 37.0%| 26.0%| +/-2.0| 5,942
AVERAGES|  40%|  37.33%|  22.67%|  +/-3.13|  3,960.67
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[edit]

### California Proposition 10[edit]

See also: California Proposition 10, Local Rent Control Initiative (2018)

In 2018, Californians voted on Proposition 10—an initiated state statute that would have repealed the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act (Costa-Hawkins), thus allowing counties and cities to adopt rent control ordinances that regulate how much landlords can charge tenants for any type of rental housing. The ballot initiative was defeated. Proposition 10 would have also stated that a local government's rent control ordinance shall not abridge a fair rate of return for landlords.[13]

The campaigns surrounding Proposition 10 had raised a combined $96.66 million. Opponents of Proposition 10 had out-raised the support campaign by about 3-to-1. The Coalition for Affordable Housing led the campaign in support of the initiative. The AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) and Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE) Action organized the campaign. The coalition and allied committees had raised $25.30 million, with AHF providing $22.52 million.[12]

The California Apartment Association (CAA) and the California Rental Housing Association (CalRHA) each organized a PAC to oppose Proposition 10. An additional three PACs formed to oppose the ballot initiative. Together, the five committees had raised a combined $71.37 million. The largest contributors included the California Association of Realtors Issues Mobilization PAC ($8.00 million), Blackstone Property Partners, L.P. and affiliated holdings ($5.81 million), and Essex Property Trust, Inc. ($5.62 million).[12]

### Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act[edit]

As of 2020, the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act (Costa-Hawkins) was a state statute that limited the use of rent control in California. Costa-Hawkins provided that:[1][14]

* Cities cannot enact rent control on housing first occupied after February 1, 1995, and housing units where the title is separate from connected units (such as free-standing houses, condominiums, and townhouses).
* Housing exempted from a local rent control ordinance before February 1, 1995, must remain exempt.
* Landlords have a right to increase rent prices to market rates when a tenant moves out (a policy known as vacancy decontrol).

Prior to the enactment of Costa-Hawkins, local governments were permitted to enact rent control, provided that landlords would receive just and reasonable returns on their rental properties.[1]

The California State Legislature passed Costa-Hawkins in 1995. Costa-Hawkins was named after Sen. Jim Costa (D) and Asm. Phil Hawkins (R), who led the effort to pass the bill. Approved as AB 1164, the state Assembly passed the statute 45-18 and the state Senate passed the statute 24-11.[15] Gov. Pete Wilson (R) signed the bill into law.[1]

### AB 1482 (2019)[edit]

In 2019, the California State Legislature passed legislation, titled AB 1482, to cap annual rent increases at 5 percent plus inflation for tenants. AB 1482 also required that a landlord have a just cause, as defined in the law, to evict tenants that had occupied the rental for at least one year. AB 1482 included exemptions for housing built in the past 15 years and some single-family homes and duplexes. The legislation was designed to sunset after 10 years. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed AB 1482 on October 8, 2019.[16]

### State policies on rent control[edit]

As of 2019, five states, including California, and D.C. allowed some form of rent control on specific properties. In 12 states, no cities had rent control but rent control was not preempted. In 33 states, state law preempted all forms of local rent control ordinances. The following map illustrates the distribution of rent control policies in the U.S. as of September 2019:[17]

### Local rent control ballot measures, 2016–2019[edit]

From 2016 to 2019, there were 17 local ballot measures to expand or increase rent control in 14 jurisdictions in California. Seven of the proposals were approved, and 10 of the proposals were defeated. Measures varied in the proposed base rents, maximum allowed annual increase in rents, and causes for tenant termination.

The following table provides a list of local ballot measures related to rent control in California:

Note: Click "show" to expand the table.

Local rent control on the ballot in California, 2016–2019

Year  | Measure  | Provisions  | Outcome
2019 | St. Helena Measure F | • Prohibit landlords from increasing rents for spaces in mobile home parks by more than the annual change in the Bay Area Consumer Price Index or 3 percent, whichever is lower. | d
2018 | Alameda Measure K | • Remove the December 31, 2019, sunset provision on the city's rent control law, which was approved in 2016, and require voter approval of future changes. | d
2018 | Berkeley Measure Q | • Contingent on the approval of California Proposition 10.
• Expand rent control beyond apartments occupied before February 1, 1995, to other types of housing units.
• Exempt housing from rent control for the first 20 years after the housing was constructed.
• Exempt accessory dwelling units from rent control.
• Preserve rent increases that were lawfully made while Costa-Hawkins was in effect. | a
2018 | National City Measure W | • Prohibit landlords from charging rents that exceed rents in effect at the time of the ordinance’s publication, plus annual changes in the Consumer Price Index.
• Prohibit landlords from terminating tenancies unless certain causes exist.
• Due to Costa-Hawkins, applicable to apartments first occupied before February 1, 1995. | d
2018 | Santa Cruz Measure M | • Prohibit landlords from charging rents that exceed rents in effect on October 19, 2017, plus annual changes in the Consumer Price Index.
• Prohibit landlords from terminating tenancies unless certain causes exist.
• Due to Costa-Hawkins, applicable to apartments first occupied before February 1, 1995. | d
2017 | Pacifica Measure C | • Prohibit landlords from charging rents that exceed rents in effect on February 13, 2017, plus annual changes in the Consumer Price Index.
• Prohibit landlords from terminating tenancies unless certain causes exist.
• Due to Costa-Hawkins, applicable to apartments first occupied before February 1, 1995. | d
2017 | Santa Rosa Measure C | • Prohibit landlords from charging rents that exceed rents in effect on January 1, 2016, plus 3 percent annual increases.
• Prohibit landlords from terminating tenancies unless certain causes exist.
• Due to Costa-Hawkins, applicable to apartments first occupied before February 1, 1995. | d
2016 | Alameda Measure M1 | • Prohibit landlords from charging rents that exceed rents in effect on May 5, 2015, plus 65 percent of the annual changes in the Consumer Price Index.
• Prohibit landlords from terminating tenancies unless certain causes exist.
• Application to apartments before or after a specific date not specified. | d
2016 | Alameda Measure L1 | • Require the city's rent review committee to be notified of annual rent increases above 5 percent.
• Disagreements with the review committee regarding the rent increase, whether from landlords or tenants of apartments first occupied before February 1, 1995, can receive a binding decision.
• Prohibit landlords from terminating tenancies for no fault or no cause, unless landlords provide relocation benefits. | a
2016 | Burlingame Measure R | • Prohibit landlords from charging rents that exceed rents in effect on March 30, 2016 (with exceptions), plus annual changes in the Consumer Price Index not to exceed 4 percent.
• Prohibit landlords from terminating tenancies unless certain causes exist.
• Due to Costa-Hawkins, applicable to apartments first occupied before February 1, 1995. | d
2016 | East Palo Alto Measure J | • Changes to existing rent control ordinance, including capping rent increase at 10 percent per year and allowing nuisance-based tenant termination. | a
2016 | Humboldt County Measure V | • Prohibit landlords from increasing rents for spaces in mobile home parks by more than the annual change in the Consumer Price Index. | a
2016 | Mountain View Measure V | • Prohibit landlords from increasing rents by more than the annual change in the Consumer Price Index not to exceed 5 percent.
• Prohibit landlords from terminating tenancies unless certain causes exist.
• Due to Costa-Hawkins, applicable to apartments first occupied before February 1, 1995. | a
2016 | Mountain View Measure W | • Prohibit landlords from increasing rents by more than 5 percent per year.
• Prohibit landlords from terminating tenancies unless certain causes exist.
•Due to Costa-Hawkins, applicable to apartments first occupied before February 1, 1995. | d
2016 | Oakland Measure JJ | • Extend just-cause eviction requirements from units approved occupied before October 14, 1980, to units occupied before December 31, 1995.
• Require landlords to request approval for rent increases above the maximum allowed adjustment. | a
2016 | Richmond Measure L | • Prohibit landlords from charging rents that exceed rents in effect on July 21, 2015, plus annual changes in the Consumer Price Index.
• Prohibits landlords from terminating tenancies unless certain causes exist.
• Due to Costa-Hawkins, applicable to apartments first occupied before February 1, 1995. | a
2016 | San Mateo Measure Q | • Prohibit landlords from charging rents that exceed rents in effect on initial occupation, plus annual changes in the Consumer Price Index not to exceed 4 percent.
• Prohibit landlords from terminating tenancies unless certain causes exist.
• Due to Costa-Hawkins, applicable to apartments first occupied before February 1, 1995. | d

### Median rents in California's counties[edit]

California had the second highest median rent in the U.S.—$1,297 per month—as of 2016, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Hawaii had the highest median rent at $1,459 per month. In California, the median rent varied based on location, with the highest median rents located in the San Francisco Bay Area and coastal Southern California and the lowest median rents located in rural Northern California. San Mateo County, located in the San Francisco Bay Area and with a population of 764,797, had the highest median rent in California at $1,830 per month. Modoc County, located at the state's northeastern edge and with a population of 8,795, had the lowest median rent at $681 per month.[18]

### Rents in California's largest cities[edit]

The following table outlines the median rents and rents as a share of income in California's 15 largest cities in 2010 and 2016, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. The median rent increased between 2010 and 2016 in all 15 cities, with the largest percentage increases in San Jose (26.1 percent) and San Francisco (22.9 percent).[18]

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) uses a concept called rental burden as an economic welfare indicator. HUD defines the rate of rental burden as the percentage of households spending more than 30 percent of their income on rent each month. Of the 15 largest cities in California, Santa Ana had the highest rental burden at 64.8 percent and San Francisco had the lowest rental burden at 42.6 percent.[19]

Median rents in California's 15 largest cities, 2010–2016

City  | County  | Population  | 2016 median rent  | 2010 median rent  | 2010–2016 increase  | 30%+ of income on rent
Los Angeles | Los Angeles | 3,999,759 | $1,241 | $1,077 | 15.23% | 61.20%
San Diego | San Diego | 1,419,516 | $1,427 | $1,259 | 13.34% | 54.30%
San Jose | Santa Clara | 1,035,317 | $1,689 | $1,339 | 26.14% | 53.30%
San Francisco | San Francisco | 884,363 | $1,632 | $1,328 | 22.89% | 42.60%
Fresno | Fresno | 527,438 | $901 | $832 | 8.29% | 61.50%
Sacramento | Sacramento | 501,901 | $1,057 | $959 | 10.22% | 53.90%
Long Beach | Los Angeles | 469,450 | $1,150 | $1,033 | 11.33% | 55.20%
Oakland | Alameda | 425,195 | $1,189 | $1,000 | 18.90% | 54.10%
Bakersfield | Kern | 380,874 | $1,005 | $906 | 10.93% | 53.10%
Anaheim | Orange | 352,497 | $1,402 | $1,262 | 11.09% | 62.10%
Santa Ana | Orange | 334,136 | $1,354 | $1,231 | 9.99% | 64.80%
Riverside | Riverside | 327,728 | $1,194 | $1,092 | 9.34% | 60.00%
Stockton | San Joaquin | 310,496 | $967 | $917 | 5.45% | 60.60%
Irvine | Orange | 277,453 | $1,997 | $1,788 | 11.69% | 52.80%
Chula Vista | San Diego | 270,471 | $1,351 | $1,201 | 12.49% | 61.40%

## Path to the ballot[edit]

See also: Laws governing the initiative 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 2020 ballot:

* Signatures: 623,212 valid signatures were required.
* Deadline: The deadline for signature verification was June 25, 2020. However, the process of verifying signatures can take multiple months. The recommended deadlines were March 3, 2020, for an initiative requiring a full check of signatures and April 21, 2020, for an initiative requiring a random sample of signatures.

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.

### Stages of this initiative[edit]

Proponents filed the ballot initiative on April 19, 2019. Proponents listed on the filing were Michael Weinstein, Cynthia Davis, Jesse Brooks, Rene Christian Moya, and Susan Hunter. On June 25, 2019, Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D) published petition language for the ballot initiative, allowing proponents to begin collecting signatures. The deadline to file signatures was December 23, 2019.

On August 8, 2019, proponents announced that the number of collected signatures surpassed the 25-percent threshold (155,803 signatures) to require legislative hearings on the ballot initiative.[20] In 2014, Senate Bill 1253 was enacted into law, which required the legislature to assign ballot initiatives that meet the 25-percent threshold to committees to hold joint public hearings on the initiatives not later than 131 days before the election. On August 29, the campaign announced that more than 50 percent of the required signatures had been collected.[21]

The campaign filed 987,991 signatures on December 5, 2019.[22] At least 623,212 (63.1 percent) of the submitted signatures needed to be valid for the initiative to be certified.

On February 3, 2020, the secretary of state's office announced that a random sample of signatures projected that 75.9 percent of the submitted signatures were valid.[23]

Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired BH-AP Petitioning Partners LLC to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $3,565,077.00 was spent to collect the 623,212 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $5.72.

### Possible negotiations to withdraw initiative[edit]

On April 22, 2019, Michael Weinstein said the campaign wished to enter into negotiations with officials and real estate representatives to avoid a ballot initiative but was prepared to work to place the initiative on the ballot.[24] On August 8, 2019, proponents published a press release, which included a quote from Weinstein, who said, "We applaud Governor Newsom’s support for strong rent control laws. His comments come at a crossroads for the Legislature, which has five weeks to fulfill its earlier promise to Californians that rent relief would be a high priority for this legislative session. We hope they heard his message. But make no mistake: if the Legislature fails to enact meaningful rent reforms, we will take the Rental Affordability Act to the November 2020 ballot."[20] On August 29, Weinstein repeated his call for the legislature to amend Costa-Hawkins, saying, "There are still a few weeks remaining in the 2019 California legislative session and we strongly urge legislators to now work to craft alternative legislation to amend the Costa-Hawkins Act to allow for stronger rent control measures in more communities statewide."[21]

## How to cast a vote[edit]

See also: Voting in California

Click "Show" to learn more about voter registration, identification requirements, and poll times in California.

How to cast a vote in California

The information below covers regular voting policies in the state. Information may have not applied to the election on November 3, 2020, because of temporary changes in response to coronavirus. Click here to read about changes made for the 2020 elections.

### Poll times[edit]

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.[25]

### Registration[edit]

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. Conditional voter registration is available beginning 14 days before an election through Election Day.[26]

On October 10, 2015, California Governor Jerry Brown (D) signed into law Assembly Bill No. 1461, also known as the New Motor Voter Act. The legislation, which took effect in 2016, authorized automatic voter registration in California for any individuals who visit the Department of Motor Vehicles to acquire or renew a driver's license.[27][28]

### Automatic registration[edit]

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.

### Online registration[edit]

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[edit]

California allows same-day voter registration.

### Residency requirements[edit]

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[edit]

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

California does not require proof of citizenship for voter registration, although 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.[29]

### Verifying your registration[edit]

The site Voter Status, run by the California Secretary of State's office, allows residents to check their voter registration status online.

### Voter ID requirements[edit]

California does not require voters to present photo identification. 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.[30][31]

The following list of accepted ID was current as of August 2022. Click here for the California Secretary of State page, "What to Bring to Your Polling Place," to ensure you have the most current information.

* Copy of a recent utility bill
* Sample ballot booklet sent from the county elections office to the voter
* Document sent to the voter by a government agency
* Passport
* Driver’s license
* Official state identification card
* Student identification that includes name and photograph

## See also[edit]

2020 measures

* 2020 ballot measures
* Housing on the ballot
* Business regulation on the ballot
* Local rent control on the ballot
* 2020 legislative sessions

California

* California ballot measures
* California ballot measure laws

News and analysis

* Ballot measure lawsuits
* Ballot measure readability
* Ballot measure polls

|
|

## External links[edit]

### Information[edit]

* Petition #19-0001
* Official Voter Information Guide

### Support[edit]

* Renters and Homeowners United to Keep Families in Their Homes - Yes on 21
* Renters and Homeowners United to Keep Families in Their Homes - Yes on 21 Facebook
* Renters and Homeowners United to Keep Families in Their Homes - Yes on 21 Twitter

### Opposition[edit]

* Californians for Responsible Housing - No on Prop 21
* Californians for Responsible Housing - No on Prop 21 Facebook
* Californians for Responsible Housing - No on Prop 21 Twitter

## Footnotes[edit]

1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 California State Legislature, "AB 1164," accessed April 2, 2018
2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 California Attorney General, "Initiative 19-0001," accessed April 22, 2019
3. ↑ Business Wire, "Rent Control Advocates File for New California Statewide Ballot Measure for 2020," April 21, 2019
4. ↑ The Sacramento Bee, "New California rent control initiative allows homeowner exemptions, affects fewer units," June 25, 2019
5. ↑ The Orange County Register, "Rent control could be headed back to California voters," December 5, 2019
6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 California Secretary of State, "Ballot Title and Summary," accessed July 28, 2020
7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
8. ↑ Homeowners and Tenants United, "Homepage," accessed December 5, 2019
9. ↑ California Secretary of State, "Official Voter Information Guide," accessed September 28, 2020
10. ↑ Californians for Responsible Housing, "Homepage," accessed August 20, 2020
11. ↑ California Secretary of State, "Official Voter Information Guide," accessed September 28, 2020
12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.5 12.6 12.7 Cal-Access, "Campaign Finance," accessed December 9, 2019 Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; name "finance" defined multiple times with different content
13. ↑ California Attorney General, "Initiative #17-0041," accessed October 24, 2017
14. ↑ California Legislative Analyst's Office, "A.G. File No. 2017-041," December 12, 2017
15. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Legislature Deals Blow to Rent Control," July 25, 1995
16. ↑ California State Legislature, "AB 1482," accessed December 5, 2019
17. ↑ National Multifamily Housing Council, "Rent Control Laws by State," September 20, 2019
18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 California Department of Finance, "California State Data Center," accessed June 5, 2018
19. ↑ U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, "Rental Burdens: Rethinking Affordability Measures," accessed July 24, 2018
20. ↑ 20.0 20.1 Business Wire, "2020 CA Rent Control Initiative Tops 25% Signature Threshold, Triggering Legislative Hearings in Sacramento," August 8, 2019
21. ↑ 21.0 21.1 Yahoo Finance, "2020 CA Rent Control Measure Clears 50% Signature Threshold; Backers Urge Lawmakers to Craft Alternate Bill in Final Weeks of Session," August 29, 2019
22. ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "Rent control may be back on California ballot in 2020," December 5, 2019
23. ↑ California Secretary of State, "Random Sample," February 3, 2020
24. ↑ Ballotpedia staff, "Conference call with Michael Weinstein, Cynthia Davis, and René Moya," April 22, 2019
25. ↑ California Secretary of State, "Section 2: Polling Place Hours," accessed October 17, 2019
26. ↑ California Secretary of State, "Voter Registration," accessed October 6, 2019
27. ↑ The Los Angeles Times, "Gov. Brown approves automatic voter registration for Californians," October 10, 2015
28. ↑ The Sacramento Bee, "California voter law could register millions–for a start," October 20, 2015
29. ↑ California Secretary of State, "Registering to Vote," accessed October 6, 2019
30. ↑ California Secretary of State, "What to Bring to Your Polling Place," accessed November 20, 2019
31. ↑ BARCLAYS OFFICIAL CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, "Section 20107," accessed November 20, 2019

v • e

2020 ballot measures

I&R States|

• Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Florida • Idaho • Illinois • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Mexico • North Dakota • Oklahoma • Oregon • South Dakota • Utah • Washington • Wyoming

Non I&R States|

• Alabama • Georgia • Iowa • Kentucky • Louisiana • New Jersey • Rhode Island • Virginia • Wisconsin

Political topics|

• Administration of government‎ • Bond issues‎ • Business regulation‎ • Campaign finance‎ • Civil and criminal trials‎ • Civil rights‎ • Constitutional conventions‎ • Constitutional language‎ • Direct democracy measures‎ • Education‎ • Elections and campaigns‎ • Energy‎ • Firearms‎ • Forests and parks‎ • Healthcare‎ • Law enforcement‎ • Marijuana‎ • Property‎ • Public works‎ • State and local government budgets, spending and finance‎ • State executive official measures‎ • State judiciary‎ • State legislatures measures‎ • Suffrage‎ • Taxes‎ • Term limits‎ • Tobacco‎ • Transportation‎ • Veterans‎ • Water‎

Other|

Scorecard • Petition drive deadlines and requirements • Polls • Lawsuits • Readability analysis • Signature costs • Cost per required signatures analysis • Campaign finance • Media editorial endorsements • Voter guides • Potential measures • Ballot Measure Monthly • Changes in 2020 to laws governing the initiative process • Not on the ballot • Filed initiatives

v • e

State of California
Sacramento (capital)

|

Elections |

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2022 | 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