Most ballot measure questions in Alameda County are biased

A volunteer body composed of former Alameda County Grand Jurors started a new rating system to help voters understand which ones are misleading

In November, 34 ballot measures will be put to voters across Alameda County — 21 measures propose tax increases and the remainder relate to rent control, land use, and municipal code changes.¹  

It is often said that “California voters never met a tax they didn’t like” — a taunt that implies California voters’ left-leaning tendencies predispose them to approve tax measures. But the pro-tax bias may have deeper root causes than left-leaning politics. 

In 2021, the Alameda County Civil Grand Jury² found that wording of ballot questions is inherently biased to favor the proponents of the measures: “Every [ballot measure] we reviewed contains language that is more likely to be read as supportive of the measure rather than an element of ‘a true and impartial synopsis.’” However, state law requires that each 75-word ballot measure question “shall be in language that is neither argumentative nor likely to create prejudice for or against the measure.”

To address this issue, a volunteer body composed of former Grand Jurors—the Alameda County Civil Grand Jury Association—took it upon themselves to create the rating system that scores and reviews each ballot measure on this year’s ballot. And this year, a panel of 15 Association members created their first set of ratings.

Sandy McCabe, a member of the Association, told Oakland Report: “It is our hope that through continued exposure of the ratings, agencies will self-regulate the wording of future measures to get higher ratings — and, dare I hope, the County will move toward the recommendation of the 2021 Grand Jury report.”

The findings of bias come from the Alameda County Civil Grand Jury’s 2020-2021 investigation into the processes by which ballot measures are written in Alameda County. It showed that ballot measures are formulated and written by the local officials who are advocating for their passage. As such, nearly all measures suffer from multiple forms of bias. Specifically, the report notes: 

The typical question-writing process, generally the same in all the jurisdictions we reviewed, is likely to lead to non-transparent, less than fully accurate, and overly partisan questions simply because all participants involved share a desire that the measure be approved… Indeed, some participants, such as consultants and pollsters, are involved for the very purpose of assuring a positive outcome… None of the jurisdictions reported having policies or guidelines that are used to assure compliance with legal requirements, beyond having the entity attorney participate in the process and ultimately sign off on the language… In all cases the entity’s governing body or council has the ultimate authority and responsibility for approving a ballot measure, including the corresponding ballot question.

One common bias is for ballot questions to imply that the measure funds will be used for the most popular services among voters, even if those services are not required or even mentioned in the ballot measure. For example, Alameda County’s Measure W, as posed to voters on November 3, 2020, misleads voters in this way. The Grand Jury explains:

“[The ballot question] says the funds will be used ‘to provide essential services’ and then goes on to list four specific categories of services, including ‘housing and services for those experiencing homelessness, mental health services, job training [and] social safety net’ services… [But] spending on ‘essential services’ [is] not even mentioned, let alone prescribed, in the requirements of the underlying ordinance. The county could choose to eliminate all of the services specifically mentioned in the text of the question without violating the requirements of the ordinance.

The 75 words of a ballot question are generally all a voter uses to make their decision. Even a little bias can have outsized consequences for local governance, taxes, and services.

Surprisingly, there is no independent review of the measure language unless citizens file a challenge in court. And according to the Grand Jury report, such challenges are an uphill battle. “Judges review a challenged question only for ‘substantial compliance’ with statutory requirements, and are required to presume that the question, as drafted by the forgoing process, is accurate.”

To remedy the situation, the Alameda County Grand Jury recommended creating a non-partisan advisory commission that evaluates the language of measures proposed by government agencies prior to their finalization. And if agencies do not submit to review, the commission would be empowered to issue an official rating of the impartiality and clarity of the ballot measure questions. This could impact public interpretation of the trustworthiness of the measure itself, and thus would give the commission some “teeth” because it would incentivize agencies to submit ballot questions for review before finalization.

The Alameda County Board of Supervisors rejected the recommendation in their 2021 response to the Grand Jury report stating: “The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable.” Undaunted, the volunteers of the Alameda County Civil Grand Jury Association took it upon themselves to create the rating system anyway.

The Association reviewed and scored all 34 ballot measures on a 1 (worst) to 5 (best) scale, and provided an explanation for each rating. The the lowest score was 0.9³ and the highest was 4.6, with an average score of 2.91. They have also sent the ratings to the relevant agencies, and are attending the agency Council or Board meetings to speak to the ratings.

Below, we reprint their rating of the three Oakland Measures. And we encourage readers from other cities to read the other reviews provided by the Alameda County Civil Grand Jury Association.

Note that the Grand Jury Association is not judging the merits of the proposed law. They are only reviewing the 75-word ballot measure description for accuracy and impartiality in accordance with the requirements of state law.

Reviews of the City of Oakland Ballot Measure Questions (reprinted)

Reviews authored by the Alameda County Civil Grand Jury Association. See here for all 34 reviews of Alameda County measures on the November 5, 2024 ballot.

Measure MM

City of Oakland, Wildfire Protection Zone

Shall the measure levying a special tax for 20 years in the “Wildfire Prevention Zone” (defined in the measure), to prevent wildfires by implementing City of Oakland prevention plans, including vegetation management, evacuation route protection, enhanced fire patrols during high danger periods, and goat grazing, at annual rates of $99/single-family parcel, $65/condominium/multifamily unit; nonresidential parcels based on a formula, generating $2,670,000 in 2025-26, with cost of living increases, citizens’ oversight and audits, be adopted?

Vote Required: 2/3

SCORE: 4.3

Comments: The score was lowered from the maximum of five because there was a lack of clarity as to whether there was an existing similar tax and what the new money would be spent on relative to the level of city fire protection service that would be provided if the measure does not pass. Inflation increases should provide a source for the inflation index used. Otherwise this is an accurate and informative ballot measure description.

Measure NN

City of Oakland, Citywide Violence Reduction Services

Shall the measure to: (1) fund Citywide violence reduction services, such as 9-1-1 dispatch, community policing, mobile crisis responders, and violence interruption, and (2) increase police and fire minimum staffing, by extending and increasing both the existing parking tax surcharge to 10% and the existing parcel tax to $198 annually for single-family parcels, and other parcels as specified, with exemptions and reductions, for 9 years, raising approximately $47,400,000 annually, with oversight and auditing, be adopted?

Vote Required: 50%+1

SCORE: 3.9

Comments: The score was lowered from the maximum of five because there was a lack of clarity as what the money would be spent on relative to existing police services. The language for a special tax should be clear. The use of the term “such as” could create the fear that little of none of the proceeds might go to 9-1-1 emergency operators or police staffing. The raters assume that this measure is a Special not a General tax, but the required 50%+1 vote would appear to refute that. If this is a citizen-initiated measure, which may have a 50%+1 vote to pass, that should be made clear. The parcel tax is described as an increase, but there is no explanation of what the existing parcel tax rate is. A “parking tax surcharge” possibly might only apply to city-operated parking facilities, but it might apply to other private parking facilities. Voters are not given sufficient information as to what parking costs are being increased.

Measure OO

City of Oakland, Public Ethics Commission

Shall a measure amending the City Charter and Oakland Municipal Code to, among other things, revise qualifications and restrictions for service and removal procedures, specify the vote threshold for action and increase minimum staffing requirements for the Public Ethics Commission; allow the Commission to set City Attorney and City Auditor salaries biannually rather than annually; and amend the Lobbyist Registration Act to restrict payments and expenses incurred by local government lobbyists, be adopted?

Vote Required: 50%+1

SCORE: 2.0

Comments: The score was lowered from the maximum of five because of the lack of clarity as to why the measure was needed, and what is being proposed. There also is no explanation as to whether there would be financial impacts from the change, and what those impacts might affect. Regarding the Commission’s setting of certain salaries, “biannual” means twice a year. Biennial means every two years. The proposed change to setting salaries twice a year may be a mistake by the drafters of the measure. As a City Charter amendment this change is binding and permanent.

1. State law requires that voters approve unrestricted-use “general” taxes (by majority approval) and restricted-use “special taxes” (by two-thirds approval).

General Taxes:

A general tax is used for general governmental purposes. According to Proposition 218 (approved in 1996), a general tax must be approved by a simple majority (50% + 1 vote) of voters in a general election. This is outlined in California Constitution Article XIII C, Section 2.

Special Taxes:

A special tax is one that is used for specific purposes (e.g., funding a particular project or service). Under Proposition 13 (passed in 1978), any special tax requires a two-thirds (66.67%) majority vote. This is codified in California Constitution Article XIII A, Section 4.

School Bonds and Parcel Taxes:

School bonds, which raise funds for school construction and improvements, often require 55% voter approval, as established by Proposition 39 in 2000. Parcel taxes for school districts typically require a two-thirds majority vote as well.

2. The Alameda County Civil Grand Jury is a body established by California law. Every one of the 58 California Counties is required to maintain one. It is composed of 19 community volunteers who are appointed to 1-year terms. Civil Grand Juries are distinct from Criminal Grand Juries. The Civil Grand Jury investigates local government agencies for potential inefficiencies, corruption, or mismanagement and report their findings annually with recommendations for how to improve those agencies. The agencies are required to read and respond to the reports. A Criminal Grand Jury investigates whether there is probable cause of criminal activity sufficient to indict someone for a felony.

3. A score below 1 is possible due to the subtraction of up to one point for extraneous language designed to influence voters. For example, the raters thought so poorly of Berkeley’s Measure HH question that when the subtractions were factored in, it took the score below one.