California Lawmakers Abandon Repeal of Law Requiring Voter Approval for Some Public Housing - Times of San Diego
 |
| California State Capitol. (Photo: Kevin Sanders for California Globe) |
California Lawmakers Abandon Repeal of Law Requiring Voter Approval for Some Public Housing - Times of San Diego
California lawmakers on Monday abandoned their attempt to repeal the nation’s only law requiring voter approval for publicly funded affordable housing projects, a provision added to the state Constitution more than half a century ago that aimed to keep people of color out of white neighborhoods.
Most everyone in the state Capitol agrees the law needs to go, and no organized opposition has emerged to repealing it. But the measure is one of more than a dozen that have qualified for the November election, and supporters worry about raising the millions of dollars it will take to campaign for its passage.
That’s one reason why lawmakers voted to withdraw the measure on Monday just three days before the secretary of state must certify the ballot for the November election.
“While (the repeal) was one of many efforts to help address the housing crisis, the November ballot will be very crowded and reaching voters will be difficult and expensive,” said Democratic state Sen. Ben Allen, who authored the bill to remove the measure from the ballot.
California has a robust initiative process that lets the public bypass the state Legislature to propose and pass laws via a statewide election. Each election, there are sometimes more than a dozen measures crowding the ballot competing for voters’ attention.
This year, initiatives have qualified that would raise the minimum wage to $18 per hour, increase penalties for certain drug and theft crimes and require high-school students to take a personal finance course before they can graduate.
Some ballot measures have been removed. The California Supreme Court last week removed a measure that would have made it harder to raise taxes. Business groups and legislative leaders reached a compromise last week to withdraw a measure that would have repealed a state law that allows workers to sue their employers for labor violations.
The ballot measures that are left will require expensive campaigns to advocate for or against them — campaigns that can cost as much as $20 million or more because California has some of the country’s most expensive media markets.
Going to the ballot is more than just expensive — it’s risky. Once a campaign fails, it can take years for supporters to try again. Voters have rejected attempts to either repeal or change California’s housing law three times before, in 1974, 1980 and 1993.
The housing law dates to 1949, when the federal Housing Act banned racial discrimination in public housing projects. A year later, voters passed a constitutional amendment requiring the government to get voter approval before using public money to build affordable housing.
Decades later, California is the only state that has a law like this, and it only applies to public funding for affordable housing, which is disproportionately used by people of color.
Over the years, lawmakers have found ways around the law. They changed the definition of “low-rent housing project” to mean any development where more than 49% of the units are set aside for people with low incomes. Anything less than that doesn’t require an election.
And last year, lawmakers passed and Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law that exempted housing developments that received funding from various state programs.
California Constitution Overview: Public Housing, Article XXXIV
Legislation not in conflict may be enacted to facilitate its operation
By Chris Micheli, May 9, 2023 4:42 am
Article 34, dealing with public housing, was added to the California Constitution by Proposition 10 that was adopted by the voters on November 7, 1950. This article contains the following four sections:
Section 1 – No low rent housing project can be developed, constructed, or acquired in any manner by any state public body until a majority of the qualified electors of the local jurisdiction may approve such a project by voting in favor of it at an election to be held for that purpose, or at any general or special election. The phrases “low rent housing project,” “persons of low income,” “state public body,” and “Federal Government” are defined.
Section 2 – The provisions of this Article are self-executing, but legislation not in conflict may be enacted to facilitate its operation.
Section 3 – If any portion, section or clause of this article is for any reason declared unconstitutional or held invalid, the remainder of this Article, or the application of that portion, section or clause to other persons or circumstances, is not affected.
Section 4 – The provisions of this Article supersede all provisions of this Constitution and laws enacted that are in conflict with it.
Chris Micheli is an attorney and lobbyist with Snodgrass & Micheli, LLC, as well as an Adjunct Professor at McGeorge School of Law.
Why it's been so hard to kill Article 34, California's 'racist' barrier to affordable housing - Los Angeles Times
It’s been called a racist relic of California’s past, a rule that has stalled vital affordable housing developments for decades.
But it’s been difficult for California to repeal Article 34, a state constitutional provision that requires cities to get voter approval before they build “low-rent housing” funded with public dollars.
No other state constitution similarly requires voter approval for public housing, according to the California Constitution Center at UC Berkeley’s law school.
Earlier attempts to repeal or weaken the provision faltered, and now a plan for seeing its repeal this year might be delayed.
Here’s an examination of Article 34 from the pages of The Times:
What is Article 34?
The article is a provision of California’s state Constitution that requires voter approval before public housing is built in a community.
At the time it passed in 1950, the real estate industry argued taxpayers should have a right to vote on low-income housing projects because they were publicly funded infrastructure similar to schools or roads. The campaign also appealed to racist fears about integrating neighborhoods and featured heated rhetoric about the need to combat socialism.
What is its history?
Article 34 grew out of a fight in the northern coastal city of Eureka. Residents there collected signatures to overturn a decision to build public housing financed by a federal program inaugurated during the New Deal. But in 1950, the state Supreme Court ruled the acceptance of federal dollars wasn’t subject to a referendum and residents couldn’t block the development.
The California Real Estate Assn., the forerunner of today’s California Assn. of Realtors, came up with a ballot initiative later that year to combat the Eureka decision and require a public vote before public housing could be built. Realtors argued that residents should be able to weigh in on such a project because it could create taxpayer debt.
But the campaign, which coincided with the start of the Korean War, was about more than giving voters a say. In the Realtors’ internal newsletter, Charles B. Shattuck, the organization’s legislative committee chairman, wrote that public housing threatened capitalism.
Newspaper ads paid for by the Realtors also blamed “minority pressure groups” for pushing public housing. At the time, the Realtors’ Code of Ethics included a provision barring agents from integrating neighborhoods on the basis of “race or nationality” if doing so would be “clearly detrimental to property values.”
The initiative passed by fewer than 50,000 votes.
What was the impact?
The rule stymied low-income home construction in California for decades, including a decision to abandon public housing in Los Angeles’ Chavez Ravine neighborhood and build Dodger Stadium instead.
Article 34 also weakened efforts to integrate suburban communities across the state and led to a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that had the effect of allowing government policies nationwide that discriminate against poor people.
By 1969, voters across the state had turned down nearly half the public housing that had been proposed in Article 34 elections — 15,000 units — and many housing agencies didn’t hold elections, fearing that their plans would be rejected. A federal Department of Housing and Urban Development report at the time found that California had the nation’s largest population of poor people but ranked 22nd in the amount of housing available for them. The report blamed Article 34.
What has happened recently?
Article 34 is much less of a barrier to low-income housing construction than it used to be. Over the years, funding sources for such projects have changed. When private developers set aside a portion of homes in a project for low-income residents or housing is funded by federal or state tax credits, a vote is not required.
Courts also have decided that local governments can hold elections to authorize an overall number of public housing units to be built in future years rather than go to voters for each individual project. And residents became friendlier to Article 34 elections, with around 80% of referenda approved by the early 1990s, according to a report by the state Department of Housing and Community Development.
But efforts to fully repeal Article 34 are repeatedly failed. Three times state lawmakers have put efforts to remove or weaken Article 34 before voters, and all three efforts were defeated at the ballot box.
In 2020, state legislators began another attempt. But they’ve been hesitant to place a repeal of Article 34 on the ballot because they’ve been unable to find interest groups willing to fund what is expected to be a multimillion-dollar campaign in favor of getting rid of it.
More coverage:
The dark side of California affordable housing (2019)
California Remove Voter Approval Requirement for Public Low-Rent Housing Projects Amendment (2024)
From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
| California Remove Voter Approval Requirement for Public Low-Rent Housing Projects Amendment | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 5, 2024 | |
| Topic Housing | |
| Status On the ballot | |
| Type Constitutional amendment | Origin State legislature |
The California Remove Voter Approval Requirement for Public Low-Rent Housing Projects Amendment is on the ballot in California as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 5, 2024.
A "yes" vote supports amending the California Constitution to repeal Article 34, which requires local voter approval via a ballot measure for federal and/or state government-funded housing projects classified as low rent.
A "no" vote opposes this constitutional amendment, thereby maintaining the local voter approval requirement for publicly-funded housing projects classified as low rent.
Overview
How would the amendment affect public low-rent housing projects in California?
- See also: Text of measure
The ballot measure would repeal Article 34 of the California Constitution, which was enacted in 1950 via Proposition 10. Article 34 requires local voter approval by a simple majority for rental housing projects that receive funding or assistance from the federal and/or state government and are intended for persons of low income. Therefore, the ballot measure would allow rental housing projects intended for persons of low income and receiving government funding or assistance to be developed, constructed, or acquired without a local referendum. The constitution defines a person of low income as "persons or families who lack the amount of income which is necessary (as determined by the state public body developing, constructing, or acquiring the housing project) to enable them, without financial assistance, to live in decent, safe and sanitary dwellings, without overcrowding." As of 2024, California is the only state with such a constitutional requirement.[1][2]
How does the state define low-rent housing projects?
The constitution defines low-rent housing project to mean "any development composed of urban or rural dwellings, apartments or other living accommodations for persons of low income, financed in whole or in part by the Federal Government or a state public body or to which the Federal Government or a state public body extends assistance by supplying all or part of the labor, by guaranteeing the payment of liens, or otherwise." Publicly funded projects where less than 50% of the units are for low-income households are exempt from Article 34's voter approval requirement.[1][3]
Have there been other ballot measures to repeal Article 34?
- See also: Efforts to repeal
Since its adoption, the state legislature has placed three constitutional amendments on the ballot to repeal it in 1974, 1980, and 1993. All three measures were defeated by voters with at least 58.93% or more of the vote.
Text of measure
Constitutional changes
- See also: Article 34, California Constitution
The measure would repeal Article 34 of the California Constitution. The following text would be deleted:[2]
Note: Use your mouse to scroll over the below text to see the full text.
|
Support
Supporters
- State Sen. Ben Allen (D)
- State Sen. Scott Wiener (D)
Arguments
Opposition
Ballotpedia did not locate a campaign in opposition to the ballot measure.
Campaign finance
If you are aware of a committee registered to support or oppose this amendment, please email editor@ballotpedia.org.
| Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Support | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 |
| Oppose | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 |
Background
California Proposition 10 (1950)
In 1950, voters approved Proposition 10, an initiated constitutional amendment that enacted Article 34 of the California Constitution requiring voter approval of a ballot measure to authorize publicly funded low-rent housing projects. It was sponsored by the California Real Estate Association. It was approved by a margin of 50.78% to 49.22%.[5]
Efforts to repeal
Since its adoption, the state legislature has placed three constitutional amendments on the ballot to repeal it.
In November 1974, California voters defeated Proposition 15, which would have repealed the constitutional voter requirement. It was defeated by a vote of 61.28% to 38.72%.
In June 1980, California voters defeated Proposition 4, which would have repealed the local voter referendum requirement and replaced it with a referendum option on the project if 10% of voters signed a petition. It was defeated by a margin of 58.93% to 41.07%.
In November 1993, California voters defeated another attempt to repeal the requirement with the defeat of Proposition 168, which like the 1980 measure would have added a citizen-initiated referendum option on housing projects. It was defeated by a margin of 59.82% to 40.18%.
James v. Valtierra (1971)
In 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court held in a 5-3 ruling that Article 34 was constitutional after a legal challenge was filed arguing that it violated the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The lawsuit was filed by citizens of San Jose and San Mateo County, California, where local referendums were defeated keeping local housing authorities from applying for federal funds for low-rent housing.
The majority opinion of the court written by Justice Hugo L. Black said, "This procedure ensures that all the people of a community will have a voice in a decision which may lead to large expenditures of local governmental funds for increased public services and to lower tax revenues. It gives them a voice in decisions that will affect the future development of their own community. This procedure for democratic decisionmaking does not violate the constitutional command that no State shall deny to any person 'the equal protection of the laws.'"[6]
The dissent argued it did violate the Equal Protection Clause writing, "It is far too late in the day to contend that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits only racial discrimination; and to me, singling out the poor to bear a burden not placed on any other class of citizens tramples the values that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to protect."[6]
Ballotpedia tracked 15 local ballot measures in 14 jurisdictions between 2016 and 2022 that authorized additional units for public low-rent housing projects. All 15 measures were approved. The average "yes" vote percentage for the measures was 68.17%.
| Year | Jurisdiction | Title | Yes vote | No vote | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | Los Angeles | Proposition LH | 70.45% | 29.55% |  |
| 2022 | Berkeley | Measure N | 76.13% | 23.87% | |
| 2022 | Oakland | Measure Q | 80.07% | 19.93% | |
| 2022 | South San Francisco | Measure AA | 58.85% | 41.15% | |
| 2022 | Sacramento | Measure D | 60.90% | 39.10% | |
| 2020 | Arcata | Measure B | 74.19% | 25.81% | |
| 2020 | El Monte | Measure HN | 69.28% | 30.72% | |
| 2020 | Humboldt County | Measure I | 67.40% | 32.60% | |
| 2020 | San Francisco | Proposition K | 73.52% | 26.48% | |
| 2018 | Healdsburg | Measure P | 55.76% | 44.24% | |
| 2018 | Stockton | Measure K | 75.86% | 24.14% | |
| 2016 | Berkeley | Measure Z1 | 83.34% | 16.66% | |
| 2016 | Eureka | Measure O | 57.85% | 42.15% | |
| 2016 | San Diego | Measure M | 66.41% | 33.59% | |
| 2016 | Tuolumne County | Measure K | 52.56% | 47.44% | |
Path to the ballot
- See also: Amending the California Constitution
In California, a two-thirds vote is needed in each chamber of the California State Legislature to refer a constitutional amendment to the ballot for voter consideration.
Senators Ben Allen (D) and Scott Wiener (D) introduced the constitutional amendment as Senate Constitutional Amendment 2 (SCA 2) on December 7, 2020. On January 26, 2022, the California State Senate passed SCA 2 in a unanimous vote of 37-0 with three senators absent. On August 31, 2022, the California State Assembly passed SCA 2 in a unanimous vote of 73-0 with seven assembly members absent. On September 6, 2023, the state legislature passed Senate Bill 789 (SB 789) to move the amendment from the March 5 primary ballot to the November general election ballot.[2][7]
How to cast a vote
- See also: Voting in California
Click "Show" to learn more about current voter registration rules, identification requirements, and poll times in California.
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ Jump up to: 1.0 1.1 California Legislative Information, "Article XXXIV," accessed December 22, 2022
- ↑ Jump up to: 2.0 2.1 2.2 California State Legislature, "SCA 2," accessed January 27, 2022
- ↑ Mercury News, "California’s ‘racist’ Article 34 remains an obstacle to affordable housing," September 26, 2022
- ↑ Jump up to: 4.0 4.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, "California voters to decide on repeal of anti-public housing measure in 2024," accessed September 19, 2023
- ↑ Jump up to: 6.0 6.1 U.S. Supreme Court, James v. Valtierra, decided April 26, 1971
- ↑ California State Legislature, "Senate Bill 789," accessed September 7, 2023
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Section 3: Polling Place Hours," accessed April 4, 2023
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Voter Registration," accessed April 4, 2023
- ↑ The Los Angeles Times, "Gov. Brown approves automatic voter registration for Californians," October 10, 2015
- ↑ The Sacramento Bee, "California voter law could register millions–for a start," October 20, 2015
- ↑ Jump up to: 12.0 12.1 California Secretary of State, "Registering to Vote," accessed April 4, 2023
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "What to Bring to Your Polling Place," accessed April 4, 2023
- ↑ BARCLAYS OFFICIAL CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, "Section 20107," accessed April 4, 2023
Only the first few references on this page are shown above. Click to show more.
| [show]2024 ballot measures |
|---|
 |
[show]State of California Sacramento (capital) |
|---|
Comments
Post a Comment