ATTACHMENT A
TEXT OF PROPOSED LAWSPROPOSITION 2 CONTINUED
this section may be legally defeased to the extent
permitted by law in the manner and to the extent set
forth in the resolution, as amended from time to time,
authorizing that refunded bond.
101452. The proceeds from the sale of bonds
authorized by this chapter are not "proceeds of taxes"
as that term is used in Article XIII B of the California Constitution, and the disbursement of these proceeds is not subject to the limitations imposed by that article.
CHAPTER 4. TRANSPARENCY AND AcCOUNTABILirr PROVISIONS
101460. (a) (1) The governing board of a school
district, the governing board of a community college
district, a county superintendent of schools, or the
governing body of a charter school shall ensure that an independent performance audit of any project funded in
whole or in part from the proceeds of bonds authorized
by this part is conducted to ensure that the use of the applicable funds has been reviewed for expenditure
consistent with the requirements of all applicable laws. (2) A performance audit conducted for any project
funded in whole or in part from the proceeds of bonds
authorized by this part and required by any other law,
including, but not limited to, an audit conducted
pursuant to Section 41024, shall be deemed to satisfy
the requirement of paragraph (1).
(3) The result of any audit required by this subdivision shall be posted on the internet website of the applicable sc/ioo/ district, community college district, county office of education, or charter school.
(b) (1) (A) Before approving a project or projects
seeking funds from this part, the governing board of a
sc/poo/ district, a county board of education, or the
governing body of a charter school shall hold at least
one public hearing to solicit input from members of the public regarding the project or projects being proposed for submission.
(B) Before approving a request for the consideration of a project or projects by the Legislature that would be
funded by the proceeds of bonds authorized by this
part, the governing board of a community college
district shall hold at least one public hearing to solicit input from members of the public regarding the project
or projects being requested for consideration.
(2) The public hearing required pursuant to paragraph
(1) may occur at the same public hearing in which the
applicable governing board or body approves the project or projects seeking funds from this part. The public
hearing may be conducted as part of a regularly
scheduled and publicly noticed hearing of the
applicable governing board or body.
(3) (A) A school district, county office of education,
charter school, or community college district shall post information regarding a project or projects seeking, or requesting, funds from this part that have been
approved by the applicable governing board or body on
its public internet website.
(B) The project information reflected on the internet
website pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall include, but not be limited to, the location of the project or projects, estimated project costs, and the estimated timeline for the completion of the project or projects.
(4) (A) A school district, county office of education,
charter school, or community college district shall
retain all financial accounts, documents, and records
necessa/y for the audit required pursuant to subdivision (a).
(B) For purposes of this paragraph, a school district,
county office of education, charter school, or
community college district may maintain records
electronically in compliance with any applicable state
and federal laws.
^
PROPOSITION 3
This amendment proposed by Assembly Constitutional
Amendment 5 of the 2023-2024 Regular Session
(Resolution Chapter 125, Statutes of 2023) expressly
amends the California Constitution by repealing and
adding a section thereof; therefore, existing provisions proposed to be deleted are printed in strikeout type
and new provisions proposed to be added are printed in
italic type to indicate that they are new.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE I
First—That Section 7.5 of Article I thereof is repealed.
SEG-~7 C:Only marriage between a man and a
woman is valid or recognized in California.
Second—That Section 7.5 is added to Article I thereof,
to read:
SEC. 7.5. (a) The right to marry is a fundamental
right.
(b) This section is in furtherance of both of the
following:
(1) The inalienable rights to enjoy life and liberty and to pursue and obtain safety, happiness, and privacy
guaranteed by Section 1.
(2) The rights to due process and equal protection
guaranteed by Section 7.
PROPOSITION 4
This law proposed by Senate Bill 867 of the 2023-
2024 Regular Session (Chapter 83, Statutes of 2024) is
submitted to the people in accordance with the
provisions of Article XVI of the California Constitution.
This proposed law adds sections to the Public
Resources Code; therefore, new provisions proposed to
be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.
PROPOSED LAW
SECTION 1. The people of California find and declare
all of the following:
Text of Proposed Laws I 75
PROP^ITION CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO MARRIAGE.
LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
OFFICIAL TITLE AND SUMMARYPREPARED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL The text of this measure can be found on page 75 and the Secretary of State's website at voterguide.sos. ca.gov.
Amends California Constitution
to recognize fundamental right to
marry, regardless of sex or race.
Removes language in California
Constitution stating that marriage is
only between a man and a woman.
SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S
ESTIMATE OF NET STATE AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENT FISCAL IMPACT:
• No change in revenues or costs for
state and local governments.
FINAL VOTES CAST BY THE LEGISLATURE ON ACA 5 (PROPOSITION 3) (CHAPTER 125, STATUTES OF 2023)
Senate: Ayes 31 Noes 0
Assembly: Ayes 67 Noes 0
20Title and Summary
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO MARRIAGE. PROP^ITION
LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. 3
ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
BACKGROUND
The federal courts have said that same-
sex couples can marry, but outdated
language in the California Constitution
still says that marriage can only be
between a man and a woman.
PROPOSAL
Proposition 3 updates the Constitution
to match what the federal courts have
said about who can marry.
FISCAL EFFECTS
Proposition 3 would not change who
is allowed to marry in California. This
means there would be no change in
revenues or costs to state and local
governments.
Vwtsos.ca.gov/campaign-lobbying/cal-access-
resources/measure-contributions/2024-
ballot-measure-contribution-totalsior a list
of committees primarily formed to support or
oppose this measure.
Visit fppc.ca.gov/transparency/
top-contributors.html
to access the committee's top 10 contributors.
For the full text of Proposition 3, see page 75. Analysis I 21 PROPKITION CONSTrrUTIONAL RIGHT TO MARRIAGE.
LEGISLATIVE CONSTrTUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
* ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 3 *
VOTE YES on Proposition 3—Protect Your Freedom to
Marry!
Proposition 3 protects every Californian's right to marry— regardless of gender or race.
Proposition 3 would update our state constitution to
align with existing law that allows marriage for same-sex couples, reflecting current court decisions and our values asCalifornians.
Proposition 3 is supported by a broad and bipartisan
coalition of civic and faith leaders as well as civil rights leaders.
lV/7y we need Proposition 3:
Although marriage equality for same-sex couples
has been the law of the land in the United States for
years, California's Constitution still says that same-sex couples are not allowed to marry. Recent threats against fundamental rights have made it clear California must be proactive in protecting the freedom to marry regardless of gender or race.
Proposition 3 removes discriminatory language from
the California Constitution that states marriage is only between a man and a woman and replaces it with
a provision that establishes the right to marry as a
fundamental right, enshrining protections for same-sex
and interracial couples.
California has always been a leader in protecting civil rights and individual freedom. Proposition 3 continues
that legacy.
The proposition respects the freedom of religion in
California. It would not change the existing rights of
clergy and religious denominations to refuse to perform a marriage.
Supporters of Proposition 3 urge you to vote YES:
"Proposition 3 protects the right of every Californian, regardless of gender or race, to marry the person they
love."—Equality California
"As a faith leader, I support Proposition 3 because
it protects the right to marry while respecting faith
communities' First Amendment rights."—The Rev. Jeff R.
Johnson, bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in
America's Sierra Pacific Synod
"This ballot measure comes at a pivotal moment when
the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear its willingness
to revoke hard-won rights, endangering the freedoms of
millions of Californians."—American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California
"Although marriage equality for same-sex couples has
been the law of the land in the United States for years, California's Constitution still says that same-sex couples are not allowed to marry. Let's fix it by voting YES on Proposition 3. Honoring the fundamental rights of all
people and fighting discrimination wherever it exists
is a California value. Prop. 3 helps further California's commitment to protecting civil rights for all its
residents."—Dolores Huerta, President, Dolores Huerta
Foundation
YES on Proposition 3 means FREEDOM and EQUAL
RIGHTS for all.
Learn more at: yesonprop3CA.com
Assemblymember Evan Low
Tony Hoang, Executive Director
Equality California
Jodi Hicks, CEO
Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California
* REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 3 *
The authors of Proposition 3 claim it's about the "freedom to marry," but that's not true. This extreme amendment
goes TOO FAR and puts vulnerable people at risk. It's not just about updating our state laws. This measure takes
away essential safeguards that protect marriage and
children.
Supporters say we need Prop. 3 due to "discrimination." But same-sex marriage has been legal since 2015, and
no one is trying to change that: not the Supreme Court
nor anyone else. There is simply NO REASON to pass this dangerous measure.
Proposition 3 removes ALL protections on marriage,
including limits on children, close relatives, and three or more people marrying each other. All civilized societies prohibit these things because they HURT PEOPLE. That's
why the unclear wording of Prop. 3 will cause huge
problems.
Backers claim to care about civil rights and fairness.
However, Proposition 3 puts what adults want ahead
of what children need. By saying mothers and fathers
aren't necessary, it IGNORES years of studies and basic common sense affirming that kids do best when raised by both parents in a stable home.
California can support equal rights without this risky and unnecessary measure. Proposition 3 THREATENS our
shared values of healthy families, healthy children, and a healthy society. It's not about equality; it's about radically changing marriage and family.
Let's protect our kids, families, and communities. Vote NO on Proposition 3!
Learn more at www.Proposition3.net or
www. CaliforniaFamily.org.
Jonathan Keller, President
California Family Council
Rev. Tanner DiBella, Founder
The American Council of Evangelicals
22ArgumentsArguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO MARRIAGE. PROPOSITION
LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. 3
* ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 3 *
Californians should vote NO on Proposition 3, the so-
called "Freedom to Marry" initiative. Supporters say
it updates our constitution to match current laws,
but it actually changes the definition of marriage in
DANGEROUS and unexpected ways.
The big problem with Proposition 3 is that it overrides all laws on marriage. A "fundamental right" to marry means
it would remove protections against child marriages,
incest, and polygamy. Is this what we want for California? The unclear wording of Prop. 3 would lead to SERIOUS
PROBLEMS that harm our society.
You may hear we need this measure to protect against
possible Supreme Court decisions. But same-sex
marriage has been legal across the country since 2015.
Proposition 3 is fixing a problem that doesn't exist and is instead causing HARM.
Some supporters say "extremist politicians" could
threaten marriage rights. But it is the backers of
Proposition 3 who are EXTREME by wanting to remove all
marriage guidelines. Sadly, all the talk about "equality" hides the RADICAL changes behind this proposal.
Current laws and court decisions already protect the right to marry, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or ethnicity. These laws also protect children, prevent exploitation, and keep marriage as a union between two
consenting adults. But Proposition 3 would REMOVE these defenses.
Instead of protecting civil rights in California, this measure risks the civil rights of children. It even opens the door to polygamy—marriage between more than two people. This
would only exploit vulnerable women and children. Is this the kind of "EQUALITY" we want in our state?
By changing the definition of marriage, this measure also suggests that children don't need both a mom and a dad.
This goes against years of research showing that kids do best when raised by their mother and father in a stable, married home.
Children without a mother or father are more likely to have emotional issues, take part in risky behaviors, struggle in school, and face financial problems.
Proposition 3 INCREASES RISKS to kids' emotions,
physical health, and education.
California is a leader in diversity and acceptance. But TRUE PROGRESS doesn't mean getting rid of all rules and protections. We should update our laws carefully while
keeping necessary safeguards.
Instead of rushing to redefine marriage in ways that
EXCLUDE a child's mother or father, we should insist that all adults conform to the needs of children. Proposition 3 FAILS this test badly.
Don't be tricked by talk of "love" and "acceptance."
Proposition 3 is a RECKLESS and unneeded measure that
would hurt our state. It removes important protections for marriage while pretending to expand rights.
Californians deserve better than this poorly written and HARMFUL proposition. We can protect marriage and civil
rights without allowing child brides, incest, and polygamy.
Vote NO on Proposition 3 to keep common-sense marriage
rules and protect our children, families, and society.
For more information, visit www.Proposition3.net o\-
www. CaliforniaFamily.org.
Jonathan KeIIer, President
California Family Council
Tanner DiBella, President
The American Council for Evangelicals
* REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 3 *
Proposition 3's opponents are wrong. Here are the facts:
Proposition 3 PROTECTS the right of Californians to marry, regardless of gender or race.
Proposition 3 DOES NOT change California's laws
regarding age requirements for marriage or the number of people in a marriage.
Aaron Tang, a constitutional law expert at the University of California, Davis, notes, "Proposition 3 removes outdated language in the California Constitution prohibiting
marriage between same-sex couples."
For decades. Proposition 3's opponents have sought to
deny marriage rights to same-sex couples. They want to
keep discriminatory language in the state constitution.
That is why they oppose Proposition 3.
FAITH LEADERS & CIVIL RIGHTS GROUPS SUPPORT YES
ON 3
The vast majority of Californians believe that every
Californian, regardless of gender or race,should have
the right to marry the person they love. That's why
Proposition 3 is supported by a broad and bipartisan
coalition of faith leaders, civil rights advocates, and family- centered organizations.
California has always been a leader in protecting civil rights and individual freedom. Proposition 3 continues
that legacy.
Learn more atyesonprop3CA.com.
VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 3—PROTECT YOUR
FREEDOM TO MARRY
Senator Scott Wiener
Mia Kirby, Senior Regional Organizing Lead
Human Rights Campaign
Maria Roman, Vice President
TransLatin@ Coalition
Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Arguments 23