Your June 2 ballot is mostly a candidate ballot, but there are also tax measures, fireworks initiatives, a data center ban, and a handful of school bonds, and this page walks through every one of them.
This is the inventory of every ballot measure that an LA County voter will see on the June 2, 2026 primary ballot, with a plain-language explanation of what each one does, who is lined up for and against it, where I land, and the sources behind it so you can check the work yourself. The measures fall into a few clear groups: one countywide health-services tax, three City of Los Angeles measures, several Southeast LA cities raising sales tax because the state's card-room ruling cut a hole in their budgets, a set of other LA County city measures on fireworks and on a data center ban, and six school district bonds.
One thing to settle right away: there are no statewide propositions on the June 2 ballot. The California Secretary of State confirms it and Ballotpedia's qualified-measures page confirms it. The propositions the Legislature has been moving, on voting thresholds, on recall reform, and on public campaign financing, are all queued for November 2026, not June, so at the state level this primary is a candidate election. If anyone tells you there is a statewide prop on June 2, there is not one. Everything below is county, city, or school district.
The highest-stakes measure on this ballot for our neighborhoods is LA County Measure ER, the half-cent county sales tax for health services, because our public hospitals and the safety-net clinic network are facing hundreds of millions of dollars a year in federal Medi-Cal cuts and ER is the county's stopgap. It is also a sales tax, which is regressive, and I am not going to pretend that tension away. The rest of the cards below walk through it, and everything else, honestly.
What it does, in one line: adds a half-cent (0.5%) general sales tax across all of LA County for five years, October 2026 through 2031, projected to raise about $1 billion a year for the county's public hospitals, clinics, and health programs.
Measure ER is the Board of Supervisors' answer to the 2025 federal reconciliation bill, which the Trump administration signed and which tightens Medicaid eligibility (Medi-Cal in California) and cuts the federal match. The LA County public health system serves more than a million Medi-Cal patients, and the projected loss to the county runs into the hundreds of millions of dollars a year, which is the kind of money that closes hospital wings and shuts clinic doors if it is not backfilled. ER would raise the countywide sales tax from 9.75% to 10.25% for five years, ending in 2031, and the ballot language earmarks the money for the four public hospitals (Harbor-UCLA, LA General, Olive View, and Rancho Los Amigos), the network of public clinics, public health programs, reproductive health services, school-based health, and in-home supportive services for older adults and people with disabilities.
The honest tension is that this is a sales tax, and sales taxes are regressive, which means working-class families pay a higher share of their income on them than wealthy families do. The county is asking the same neighbors whose Medi-Cal is being cut to also pay more in sales tax to save the system that serves them. The counter-argument from the people backing it is that without ER the clinics close, and a closed clinic is a far worse outcome for those same families than a half-cent on the dollar, and that is the trade I have to sit with rather than wish away.
The measure was placed on the ballot by a 4 to 1 vote of the Board of Supervisors, with Supervisor Kathryn Barger the sole no vote.
Marketed as the Essential Services Restoration Act for Los Angeles County, the measure asks voters to approve a 0.5% general transactions and use tax for five years for county health services. As a general tax it requires a simple majority (50% plus 1) to pass.
Estimated to raise roughly $1 billion a year. The need behind it: county health officials estimate LA County could lose around $2.4 billion in health care funding over three years, with the federal reconciliation law expected to cut roughly $800 million a year from the county health department. About 3.3 million county residents are covered by Medi-Cal. County officials cite the closure of seven community clinics and roughly 200,000 fewer Medi-Cal enrollees in the past year.
The Yes side is well funded and disclosed. St. John's Community Health is the largest single funder of the support committee, contributing at least $4 million. SEIU Local 721 ($200,000) and the California Community Foundation ($200,000) have also given, along with the LA County Medical Association PAC ($50,000). No formally organized, well-funded No campaign committee was found in the available reporting; the opposition appears to be coming from the Howard Jarvis organization and taxpayer associations as advocacy voices rather than a large funded committee.
This is the most consequential measure on the ballot for Southeast LA. The public hospitals and safety-net clinics that Measure ER funds are the health care backbone for low-income, Latino, and immigrant families across Southeast LA, many of whom are on Medi-Cal or uninsured and rely on the county system regardless of immigration status. If the federal cuts hit without ER, the documented results are clinic closures and reduced hospital capacity, which fall hardest on exactly these communities. At the same time, a sales tax is regressive: a family in Huntington Park or Bell pays the same half-cent on a stroller or school clothes as a wealthy family in a richer city, and that half-cent is a bigger share of a low-income budget. California sales tax does not apply to groceries or prescription medication, which softens the regressivity but does not erase it. Both halves are true: ER protects a health system working-class immigrant families depend on, and the financing asks those same families to pay. County health services are available regardless of immigration status.
What it does, in one line: extends the city's existing cannabis business tax to unlicensed cannabis operators, applying the same tiered rates (1% to 10%) that licensed businesses already pay.
Measure CB closes a tax loophole. Licensed cannabis businesses in LA pay a gross-receipts tax of 1% to 10% depending on what they do: 10% on adult-use sales, 5% on medical sales, 2% on manufacturing or cultivation, and 1% on transportation or testing. Unlicensed shops, the ones operating in the gray and black markets that have proliferated since 2016, pay nothing to the city. Measure CB applies the same tax to the unlicensed operators, and it would generate an estimated $30 million to $35 million a year for the city's general fund, money the City Administrative Officer says would go to police, fire, 911 response, and street and sidewalk repairs.
The fight underneath this is the equity fight. Legal operators say they cannot compete with shops that pay no tax, no licensing fee, and no labor or safety standards, and Measure CB at least starts collecting the tax. Social equity advocates, including the nonprofit Social Equity LA, say the measure essentially legitimizes the unlicensed shops by giving the city a financial interest in their continued operation, instead of closing them down and clearing the path for the licensed operators, many of whom are the social-equity license holders the program was designed to lift up. Both arguments are real, and that is what makes this one hard.
One unusual detail worth flagging: no formal arguments for or against Measure CB were submitted to the official voter information materials, which is rare for a city tax measure.
Titled "Applying Cannabis Business Taxes To Unlicensed Cannabis Businesses." It asks whether to apply the city's existing cannabis business taxes to unlicensed operators at current rates (10% on cannabis sales, 5% on medical cannabis sales, 2% on manufacturing or cultivation, 1% on transportation, testing, or research), generating approximately $30 to $35 million a year for general city services. As a general tax it requires a simple majority. The City Council voted 10 to 2 in February 2026 to place it on the ballot.
Estimated $30 million to $35 million a year to the city general fund. The City Administrative Officer says the money would go to general services such as police, fire, 911 response, and street and sidewalk repairs.
No organized, funded campaign committee was found for either side of Measure CB in the available reporting. This measure appears to have very little campaign activity. Campaign finance is not yet confirmed.
The direct impact on low-income and immigrant families is modest. Cannabis taxes are paid by businesses on gross receipts, not directly by consumers as a separate line item, though businesses may pass some cost into prices. The more relevant community angle is the social-equity fight. LA's cannabis licensing system included a social-equity program meant to give license priority to people, disproportionately Black and Latino, harmed by the war on drugs. Social Equity LA argues that taxing the illegal market, rather than shutting it down, undercuts the equity license holders who followed the rules. Whether Measure CB helps or harms working-class communities depends on enforcement the measure itself does not guarantee. There is no strong evidence it directly harms low-income or immigrant residents; the concern is fairness to equity entrepreneurs.
What it does, in one line: requires online travel companies such as Expedia, Hotels.com, Priceline, and Booking.com to pay the city's hotel tax on the full marked-up price they charge customers, not the lower wholesale rate they pay to hotels.
LA charges a 14% Transient Occupancy Tax, the hotel tax, on every hotel stay. The way the law works right now, when an online travel company books a hotel and marks up the price, the city only collects the tax on the wholesale price the booking company paid to the hotel, not on the higher price the customer actually paid. That gap is real money, and the City Administrative Officer estimates that closing it adds about $5 million a year to the general fund. Measure TC closes the gap by making the online travel companies responsible for the tax on the full retail price.
This is a paired measure with TT. TC is the structural fix and TT is the rate increase. Both have to pass to do what the city wants, and both are pitched as Olympics-prep revenue, so it helps to read them together.
Marketed as expanding implementation of the local hotel tax. Placed on the ballot by the LA City Council. As a general tax it requires a simple majority.
The City Administrative Officer estimates closing the gap adds about $5 million a year to the general fund. TC is paired with Measure TT: TC is the structural fix to how the tax is calculated, and TT is the rate increase.
No significant organized campaign spending was found specific to Measure TC. Campaign finance is not yet confirmed.
Minimal direct impact, and what impact there is leans slightly positive. The tax is paid by hotel guests, who are overwhelmingly visitors rather than LA residents, and TC specifically targets the markup that online booking corporations have been keeping untaxed. It does not raise costs for working-class Angelenos in any direct way, and the $5 million a year goes to general city services. There is no evidence of harm to low-income, Latino, or immigrant communities; closing a corporate loophole is mildly favorable to the public funds that pay for local services.
What it does, in one line: raises the city hotel tax (Transient Occupancy Tax) from 14% to 16% through December 31, 2028, then drops it to 15% permanently starting January 1, 2029.
Measure TT is the rate increase, the companion to TC. The city's hotel tax is 14% right now, and TT raises it by 2 percentage points, to 16%, through the end of 2028, which is the year LA hosts the Olympics. After that it drops to 15%, a permanent 1-point increase over today's rate. The City Administrative Officer estimates this generates about $44 million a year through 2028 and about $22 million a year after that, money that goes into the general fund for the usual mix of services such as street repairs, 911, fire protection, and parks.
The pitch is Olympics-prep revenue without raising taxes on Angelenos directly, since most of the people paying the hotel tax are visitors, not residents. The opposition from the hotel industry is that a higher tax means fewer bookings, and the unsupported version of that claim is the one to discount; the supported version is that LA's combined tax-plus-fees on a hotel stay is already among the highest in the country and that adding to it makes the city less competitive with Anaheim and Santa Monica, and that is a real argument worth taking seriously.
Marketed as increasing the local hotel tax. Placed on the ballot by the LA City Council. As a general tax it requires a simple majority.
The City Administrative Officer estimates TT generates about $44 million a year through 2028, then about $22 million a year afterward, going into the general fund for city services such as street repairs, 911, fire protection, and parks.
No detailed campaign finance totals were found for either side of TT in the available reporting. Campaign finance is not yet confirmed. The position of UNITE HERE Local 11, the hotel workers union, was also not confirmed.
Mostly neutral for residents, with one indirect angle worth naming. The tax is paid by hotel guests, who are mostly visitors, so it does not directly raise costs for working-class Angelenos. The indirect angle is that the hotel industry employs a large, heavily immigrant and Latino workforce in housekeeping, food service, and front desk roles. The industry argues a higher tax depresses bookings and therefore jobs; the unsupported version of that claim should be discounted, but the supported version, that LA already has very high hotel taxes, is a real argument. There is no strong evidence TT meaningfully harms hotel workers, and the revenue funds general services those same workers and their families use. The step-down from 16% to 15% in 2029 is a genuine sunset feature.
These three measures share one story: the cities of Bell, Bell Gardens, and Commerce all have general funds tied to card-room revenue, and a state ruling that took effect April 1, 2026 restricts the blackjack-style player-dealer games at California card rooms, which is the budget hole each measure is trying to fill.
What it does, in one line: adds a one-cent (1%) local sales tax in Bell to fund public safety, raising the city's total sales tax rate above the current 10.25%.
Bell, like Bell Gardens and Commerce, has its general fund tied to card-room revenue, and the state ruling that took effect April 1, 2026 restricts the blackjack-style player-dealer games at California card rooms. The state Attorney General's own fiscal analysis projects up to a 50% revenue and jobs loss for the card-room industry, and Bell's own projection is a 30% hit to the city's general fund. Measure BB is the city's response: a 1% local sales tax dedicated to public safety, which is a higher rate than the neighboring cities are asking for, because Bell is reaching higher to cover the gap.
The full ballot designation is "One Cent Sales Tax to Fund Public Safety Programs." The voting threshold is the open question on this measure. A tax whose revenue is legally restricted to a specific purpose (a special tax) requires a two-thirds supermajority (66.67%) in California; a general tax whose revenue goes to the general fund needs only a simple majority. The "fund public safety programs" framing reads like a special tax, but cities sometimes draft public safety measures as general taxes paired with a non-binding advisory question, which keeps the threshold at a simple majority. The available reporting did not definitively confirm which structure Bell used, and that materially changes the measure's odds of passing. Confirm the threshold with the Bell City Clerk or the LA County Registrar before relying on it.
Titled "One Cent Sales Tax to Fund Public Safety Programs." It adds a 1% local sales tax in the City of Bell dedicated to public safety programs. The voting threshold, simple majority versus two-thirds supermajority, is not yet confirmed (see above).
A specific annual revenue projection for Measure BB was not found in the available reporting. A 1% sales tax in a city of Bell's size would raise a meaningful sum, but the exact figure is not yet confirmed and should be taken from the city's own staff report.
No campaign finance data was found for either side of Measure BB. Campaign finance is not yet confirmed.
Bell is a working-class, overwhelmingly Latino city, and it carries a heavy historical caution. The 2010 Bell salary scandal, in which city officials paid themselves enormous salaries while taxing one of the poorest cities in the county, is a documented and defining piece of local history. That history means any new tax in Bell, especially one labeled for public safety without ironclad spending transparency, deserves close scrutiny. On the other side, the card-room revenue loss is real, and the alternative to BB is service cuts in a city that cannot absorb them. A one-cent sales tax is also the steepest of the Southeast LA card-room measures, and a sales tax is regressive, falling proportionally harder on Bell's low-income families. The honest read: BB addresses a genuine fiscal emergency, but the combination of Bell's corruption history, the public safety earmark, and the size of the increase means voters are right to ask exactly what the money funds and what oversight applies.
What it does, in one line: adds a quarter-cent (0.25%) local sales tax in Bell Gardens to bring the rate to the LA County cap of 10.75%, generating about $1.2 million a year for general city services.
Bell Gardens has the same problem as Bell and Commerce, only sharper: the Parkwest Bicycle Casino is one of the largest single revenue sources for the city, and the April 1 card-room ruling is projected to cut general-fund revenue by up to 30%. The Bell Gardens City Council declared a fiscal emergency and put Measure BG on the June ballot. The measure raises the city's sales tax from 10.50% to 10.75%, the absolute cap for LA County cities under state law, and brings in roughly $1.2 million a year. The money goes to general city services: police and emergency response, street and sidewalk repairs, park maintenance, youth and senior services, and the Community Family Service Center.
This is a general tax, which means it passes with a simple majority. The strategic move is that Bell Gardens is grabbing the last available quarter-cent under the cap, and once it is taken, no future city tax measure in Bell Gardens can raise the rate further unless state law changes.
The ballot asks voters to approve a quarter-cent transactions and use tax to fund police and emergency response, street maintenance and repair, city facilities, park maintenance, youth and senior programming, family services, and other general purposes. As a general tax it requires a simple majority. The Bell Gardens City Council unanimously declared a fiscal emergency on February 23, 2026 and placed the measure on the ballot.
Projected to raise approximately $1.2 million a year for general city services.
No campaign finance data was found for either side. Campaign finance is not yet confirmed.
Bell Gardens is a working-class, overwhelmingly Latino and substantially immigrant city. The services Measure BG funds, police and emergency response, parks, youth and senior programs, family services, and the Community Family Service Center, are services this community uses directly. A quarter-cent sales tax is regressive, but the regressivity argument is weaker here than for a countywide measure: the tax stays in Bell Gardens and funds Bell Gardens services, so it works more as community self-funding than as a transfer of wealth. The quarter-cent is both the smallest possible increase and the legal ceiling, so there is no smaller version to ask for. Groceries and prescription medication are not taxed, which limits the everyday-cost impact. The honest read: BG asks Bell Gardens residents to tax themselves modestly to keep their own city services running after a casino-revenue loss outside their control.
What it does, in one line: adds a quarter-cent (0.25%) local sales tax in Commerce, raising the rate from 9.75% to 10.0%, generating about $4.5 million a year for general city services.
It is the same card-room story as Bell Gardens. Commerce hosts The Commerce Casino, one of the largest card rooms in the country, and the April 1 ruling on player-dealer games hits the city's revenue base hard. Measure PC adds 0.25% to the sales tax, bringing it to 10.0%, and the projected annual revenue is about $4.5 million for general city services. Commerce's rate has more headroom than Bell Gardens because Commerce's starting sales tax was lower (9.75% rather than 10.50%), so PC does not push the city all the way to the county cap.
Commerce is a small city, about 13,000 residents, surrounded by industrial land and the 5 freeway, and the city's general fund pays for things that residents, and the much larger daytime population working in Commerce, rely on. The framing here is similar to Bell Gardens: this is a fiscal-emergency response, not a wish-list tax.
The Commerce Essential Services Protection Measure asks voters to approve a quarter-cent transactions and use tax for general city services such as safety and emergency response, youth and recreational programs, safe and clean public areas, and street and infrastructure repair. As a general tax it requires a simple majority. The Commerce City Council voted unanimously around February 24, 2026 to place it on the ballot.
Estimated to generate approximately $4.5 million a year for Commerce general city services. The quarter-cent raises the rate from 9.75% to 10.0%, which still leaves Commerce under the 10.75% county cap.
No campaign finance data was found for either side. Campaign finance is not yet confirmed.
Commerce is a small city, around 13,000 residents, predominantly Latino and working-class, surrounded by industrial land. The general-fund services PC protects, including the city's well-known free municipal bus service, recreation programs, and street maintenance, are services residents rely on directly. As with Bell Gardens, the regressivity of a sales tax is real but softened by the fact that the revenue stays in Commerce and funds Commerce services, so it functions as community self-funding. Groceries and prescription medication are not subject to the tax. The honest read: PC asks Commerce residents to modestly tax themselves to keep their own services running after a casino-revenue threat outside their control, and the services protected serve the same families who pay.
What it does, in one line: adds a quarter-cent (0.25%) local sales tax in Covina to fund public safety, generating about $3 million a year.
Covina is asking voters for a quarter-cent sales tax with revenue going to 911 emergency medical response, fire, and police. The exemptions exclude groceries, prescription medications, medical supplies, rent, and utilities, which is the standard California sales-tax carve-out. Projected revenue is about $3 million a year. The framing is "public safety programs," and the city's pitch is that the tax keeps response times where they are.
Framed as a public safety sales tax for 911 emergency medical response, fire, and police. The public safety framing usually signals a special-purpose tax with a two-thirds threshold, but it may be structured as a general tax with an advisory question. The threshold was not confirmed and should be verified with the Covina City Clerk or LA County Registrar.
Estimated approximately $3 million a year. Standard California exemptions apply, so groceries, prescription medication, medical supplies, rent, and utilities are not taxed.
No campaign finance data was found for either side. Campaign finance is not yet confirmed.
Covina is in the San Gabriel Valley, outside the area this guide covers deeply, and is a mixed-income city. As a sales tax it is regressive, with the usual essentials exempted. There is no measure-specific evidence of unusual harm or benefit to low-income, Latino, or immigrant communities beyond the general regressivity point. Listed for completeness for any Tablero reader in the San Gabriel Valley.
Covina is outside the area I cover deeply, so I am not making a recommendation here, but the measure is worth listing for any Tablero reader in the San Gabriel Valley.
What it does, in one line: adds a quarter-cent (0.25%) local sales tax in Gardena to fund general city services, generating about $3.9 million a year.
Gardena's City Council approved Measure GG unanimously on January 27, 2026, putting a 0.25% local sales tax on the June ballot. The measure raises the rate from 10.50% to 10.75%, the LA County cap. Revenue, about $3.9 million a year, goes to general services: police, 911 emergency response, youth and senior programs, library operations, parks, street and infrastructure maintenance, and graffiti cleanup. The measure carries annual independent audits and public reporting. Groceries, prescriptions, and other non-taxable essentials are not subject to the tax.
Gardena is a card-room city too, home to the Hustler Casino and the Larry Flynt's Lucky Lady card rooms, so the same April 1 ruling is part of the budget context, although the city has not declared a fiscal emergency the way Bell Gardens did.
A quarter-cent transactions and use tax for general city services, including fire, paramedic, police and 911 response, hiring and retaining police, parks and public areas, addressing homelessness, street and pothole repair, and afterschool and senior programs. As a general tax it requires a simple majority. The Gardena City Council approved placing it unanimously on January 27, 2026. The measure runs until ended by voters and carries required annual independent audits and public spending disclosure.
Estimated approximately $3.9 million a year. The quarter-cent raises the rate from 10.50% to 10.75%, the LA County cap. Groceries, prescription medication, and other non-taxable essentials are exempt.
No campaign finance data was found for either side. Campaign finance is not yet confirmed.
Gardena is a diverse, working-class city with significant Latino, Black, and Asian-American populations. The services GG funds are services residents use directly. As a sales tax it is regressive, but with the same softening logic as the other card-room cities: revenue stays local and funds local services. The required annual audits and public disclosure are a meaningful accountability feature. Gardena is somewhat outside the area this guide covers deepest, but the dynamics mirror Bell Gardens and Commerce.
Gardena is outside the area I cover deeply, so I am not making a recommendation, but the same card-room dynamic applies and the framing is honest.
What it does, in one line: a citizen initiative that would overturn Carson's current zero-tolerance fireworks ban and permit up to 12 temporary stands selling "safe and sane" fireworks around the Fourth of July.
Carson currently bans all fireworks, including the "safe and sane" category that other LA County cities permit, after years of community complaints about noise, fire risk, and the influx of illegal fireworks that piggyback on legal sales. Measure FW is a citizen-initiated ballot measure, qualified by signatures, that would repeal the ban and allow regulated sales by nonprofit groups, a typical structure where local nonprofits, often youth sports leagues, get the fundraising revenue. The City Council ordered the measure onto the ballot at an estimated administrative cost of $372,400.
A citizen initiative that qualified by signature. The petition gathered roughly 9,495 signatures, of which about 7,200 were validated against a required threshold of about 6,405 (10% of registered voters). The measure would overturn Carson's zero-tolerance fireworks ban and allow up to 12 temporary stands to sell "safe and sane" fireworks during limited periods around the Fourth of July. As a citizen initiative it requires a simple majority.
The direct city cost cited is the roughly $372,400 election administration estimate. If passed, revenue from safe-and-sane fireworks sales typically goes to the nonprofit groups that operate the stands rather than to the city.
Campaign finance for the FW signature campaign and any opposition was not found. National fireworks distributors such as TNT Fireworks partner with local nonprofits for these sales nationwide, but whether a distributor directly funded the Carson signature campaign is not yet confirmed.
This is one of two measures where the evidence points to a clear direction of harm. LA County in 2026 is acutely fire-conscious after the January 2025 Palisades and Eaton fires. Safe-and-sane fireworks are well documented as a cover that increases overall fireworks activity, including the illegal mortars and rockets that cause the most serious fires and injuries. The communities most exposed to fire risk, dense housing, and poor air quality from smoke are disproportionately working-class and Latino. The nonprofit-fundraising benefit is real but accrues to a small set of vendor-affiliated groups, while the fire, injury, and air-quality risk is borne by the whole community. Grounded in the fire-safety evidence: repealing the ban raises risk for the broader community, and that risk falls hardest on dense, lower-income neighborhoods.
What it does, in one line: a citizen initiative that would repeal Inglewood's February 2025 ban on "safe and sane" fireworks, permit their sale by temporary stands, and allow their use within city limits during the Fourth of July season.
Inglewood passed a fireworks ban in February 2025 after years of resident complaints about noise, fire, and quality of life, and the petition campaign to overturn it qualified for the June 2026 ballot almost immediately after the ban took effect. The signature drive cleared the threshold by 540 signatures above the minimum. Measure I would repeal the ban, permit temporary stands within Inglewood, and allow "safe and sane" use during specified dates around July 4, while keeping the prohibition on "dangerous fireworks." Mayor James Butts has said the city received complaints about fireworks for at least 12 years before the ban was finally passed.
A citizen initiative that qualified by signature, clearing the qualification threshold by about 540 signatures above the minimum. It would repeal Inglewood's February 2025 ban on "safe and sane" fireworks, permit their sale by temporary stands within city limits, and allow their use during specified dates around the Fourth of July, while keeping the prohibition on dangerous fireworks such as mortars and rockets. As a citizen initiative it requires a simple majority.
No specific city revenue or cost figure was found in the available reporting. As with Carson, safe-and-sane sales revenue typically flows to nonprofit stand operators rather than the city.
Campaign finance for the signature campaign and any opposition was not found. Who funded the petition drive is not yet confirmed; the speed of the campaign, qualifying within about a year of the ban, raises the question of whether vendors and nonprofits, rather than a broad public, drove it.
Same direction of harm as Carson FW, grounded in the same evidence. Inglewood is a working-class, majority Black and Latino city. The 2025 ban was passed after more than a decade of resident complaints about noise, fire, and quality of life. Inglewood already struggles with widespread illegal fireworks activity that overwhelms emergency services each year. Repealing the ban and reintroducing legal sales is well documented to increase overall fireworks activity, including the illegal devices that cause the worst fires and injuries. The fire and air-quality burden falls on the whole community, especially dense, lower-income neighborhoods, while the fundraising benefit accrues to a small set of vendor-affiliated nonprofits. The honest read: Measure I would reverse a public-safety policy adopted in direct response to long-standing resident demand, and the evidence on fireworks risk points to net harm for the broader working-class community.
What it does, in one line: amends the Monterey Park General Plan to prohibit data centers citywide in all commercial, industrial, and mixed-use zones.
Monterey Park became the front line in a fight a lot of California cities are about to face: AI-scale data centers. A developer, HMC StratCap, proposed a 250,000-square-foot data center in a Monterey Park business park, and after months of resident pressure over the projected pollution, energy load, water cooling demand, noise, and health risks from diesel backup generators, the developer pulled the application. The City Council went further and passed three ordinances on April 20, 2026 labeling data centers a public nuisance. Measure NDC is the belt-and-suspenders move: it amends the General Plan itself, which the City Council cannot rescind without a future vote of the people.
If it passes, Monterey Park would be the first U.S. city where voters directly banned data centers. The data center industry argues this is anti-development and shuts the city out of the AI economic boom; residents argue the externalities of water, electricity, and air quality are not worth the trade. Data processing facilities under one acre that are accessory to another use, a normal server room in an office building, are exempt.
The measure asks whether Monterey Park should permanently prohibit data centers within the city by amending the General Plan and municipal code. As a General Plan amendment it cannot be rescinded by a future City Council without returning to the voters. It requires a simple majority. The Monterey Park City Council voted unanimously on March 4, 2026 to place it on the ballot.
No major direct city revenue or cost figure applies; this is a land-use prohibition, not a tax or bond. The trade-off cited by the data center industry is foregone potential development and tax base; the trade-off cited by residents is avoided externalities such as electricity load, water use for cooling, air pollution from diesel backup generators, and noise.
No campaign finance data was found for either side. Campaign finance is not yet confirmed.
The evidence points to a clear direction of benefit for working-class communities. Monterey Park is a working-class city with large Asian-American and Latino populations. AI-scale data centers carry well-documented externalities: very high electricity demand that can raise regional power costs and strain the grid, large water consumption for cooling, air pollution from diesel backup generators, and constant noise. These burdens fall on the surrounding residential community, which in Monterey Park is heavily immigrant and working-class and already deals with regional air-quality problems. The "shut out of the AI economy" argument promises jobs and tax base, but data centers are not large direct employers relative to their footprint. Measure NDC locks an environmental-health protection into the General Plan, where it is durable. The honest read: NDC protects a working-class, immigrant-heavy community from the pollution, water, and energy burdens of data centers, and the organizing that already forced the developer to withdraw shows this reflects genuine resident demand.
Six school districts in LA County have facilities bonds on the June 2 ballot. School bonds in California pass with a 55% majority under Proposition 39, and they are repaid through a tax on property within the district.
What it does, in one line: authorizes $360 million in school facilities bonds for Compton Unified to repair, modernize, and upgrade aging classrooms and school facilities.
Compton Unified is asking voters for $360 million in general obligation bonds, on top of the district's existing Measure S (2002, $80 million) and Measure AAA (2022, $350 million). The project list includes removing asbestos and dry rot, fixing aging plumbing and sewer systems, replacing deteriorating roofs, repairing dangerous electrical, and modernizing classrooms across the district. The bond requires a 55% majority to pass under Proposition 39.
The opposition argument is fiscal: the combined principal-plus-interest stack of S, AAA, and CPT could total $2 billion to $2.7 billion over the life of the bonds, and Compton's enrollment has dropped from over 22,000 students to about 19,400, which raises a real question about whether the district should be expanding facilities capacity now. Without CPT, school bond taxes in Compton are projected to begin declining around 2035; with CPT, that relief moves into the 2050s.
A school facilities improvement bond authorizing $360 million in general obligation bonds for Compton Unified, placed on the ballot by the school board. Under Proposition 39 it requires a 55% majority to pass.
To repay the bonds, the district would levy a property tax of approximately $60 per $100,000 of assessed value, generating roughly $22 million a year while the bonds are outstanding. The opposition's fiscal warning is that the combined principal-plus-interest of Measure S, Measure AAA, and CPT could total $2 billion to $2.7 billion over the life of the bonds. Bond money cannot legally be spent on salaries or operating costs, only on facilities.
A Yes on CPT campaign committee exists, but specific fundraising totals for either side were not found. Campaign finance is not yet confirmed. The positions of the Compton Education Association, CSEA, and the LA County Federation of Labor were not individually confirmed.
Compton Unified serves a low-income, overwhelmingly Latino and Black student population, many from immigrant families. The documented facilities needs, asbestos, dry rot, failing roofs, dangerous electrical, and old plumbing, are real health and safety conditions that directly affect children in classrooms. Because bond money funds buildings, not teacher pay or programs, CPT addresses facilities only. On the cost side, the bond is repaid through property taxes; in a city where many families rent, the direct tax is paid by property owners, though landlords can pass some cost into rent over time, which is a real but indirect channel affecting renters. Compton homeowners, including working-class Latino and Black homeowners, would carry a real added tax for decades. The honest read: CPT funds genuinely needed repairs to schools serving low-income immigrant and Latino children, and the trade-off is a long-term property tax that extends well into the 2050s. The enrollment-decline question is a fair one for voters to weigh.
What it does, in one line: authorizes approximately $185 million in school facilities bonds for La Cañada Unified.
La Cañada Unified is asking voters for about $185 million in bonds for school facilities upgrades and repairs. This is on top of the district's 2017 Measure LCF, the same letter code, which provided $149 million. The district is small and high-income, and bond measures here tend to pass easily; the project list focuses on upgrades to schools serving a community where local funding has carried most of the school improvements for decades.
A school facilities bond authorizing approximately $185 million in general obligation bonds for La Cañada Unified, placed by the school board. Under Proposition 39 it requires a 55% majority. The press has used "approximately $185 million"; the certified amount should be confirmed against the official Registrar list.
Reporting cites an interim ballot test conducted at a tax rate of $50 per $100,000 of assessed value. The certified tax rate should be confirmed from the official bond tax rate statement. Bond money funds facilities only, not salaries or programs.
No campaign finance data was found. Campaign finance is not yet confirmed.
La Cañada Flintridge is a small, high-income, predominantly non-Latino district outside the area this guide covers deeply. There is no measure-specific impact on low-income, Latino, or immigrant communities to report; the district demographics are not the constituency this guide centers. Listed for completeness.
This is a wealthy non-SELA district outside the area I cover deeply, and Tablero's editorial focus is elsewhere, so I am not making a recommendation here.
What it does, in one line: authorizes $42 million in school facilities bonds for Lawndale Elementary to modernize classrooms, replace aging plumbing and electrical, and enhance school security.
Lawndale Elementary is a small district in the South Bay, covering Lawndale, parts of Hawthorne, and unincorporated LA County, and Measure LL would authorize $42 million in general obligation bonds. The project list emphasizes plumbing, electrical, classroom modernization, and security upgrades. Lawndale Elementary serves a working-class community with a substantial Latino and Black student population, and the district's facilities have been a recurring topic at school board meetings.
Designated the "Fund Repair and Modernization of Public School Facilities Bond Measure." It authorizes $42 million in general obligation bonds for Lawndale Elementary to modernize classrooms, enhance school security and student safety, and replace aging plumbing and electrical systems. Under Proposition 39 it requires a 55% majority.
The exact tax rate per $100,000 of assessed value was not found in the available reporting and should be confirmed from the official bond tax rate statement. The $42 million ask is modest relative to the larger bonds on this ballot. Bond money funds facilities only, not teacher salaries or programs.
No campaign finance data was found. Campaign finance is not yet confirmed.
Lawndale Elementary is a small South Bay district serving a working-class community with a substantial Latino and Black student population, many from immigrant families. The project list, classroom modernization, security upgrades, and aging plumbing and electrical, addresses real facilities conditions affecting children's learning environment and safety. As a bond it cannot fund teacher salaries or programs, only buildings. The cost is a property tax paid by property owners in the district, with possible indirect pass-through into rents over time. The honest read: LL funds needed facilities work for a working-class, heavily Latino school district, and the trade-off is a property tax whose rate should be confirmed before voters rely on it.
This is not a deep-coverage district for me, so I am not making a recommendation yet, but the demographics and the need are real and I want to see the project list before I land.
What they do, in one line: LR authorizes $45 million in bonds for safety repairs and construction, LS authorizes a separate $45 million in bonds for facilities and equipment upgrades, and each measure would cost property owners about $30 a year per $100,000 of assessed value while the bonds are outstanding.
Little Lake City School District is a small K-8 district in the Santa Fe Springs and Norwalk corridor that is putting two bond measures on the same ballot, which is unusual. Splitting the bond into two propositions usually reflects an attempt to give voters a partial-yes option, or to tie different project types to different revenue streams. LR is the health and safety measure, and it pays to repair aging classrooms, plumbing, electrical and gas lines, and leaky roofs, to remove asbestos, lead paint and mold, and to upgrade emergency and security systems, while LS is the instruction measure, and it pays to modernize classrooms and learning technology for science, math, the arts and early literacy, and both measures need 55 percent to pass.
Two separate school facilities bonds, each placed by the Little Lake City School District board. LR is designated the "Fund Safety Repair and Construction Public School Projects Bond Measure" ($45 million). LS is designated the "Fund Facilities and Equipment Upgrades Bond Measure" ($45 million). Each requires a 55% majority under Proposition 39. A voter can support one and not the other.
Each measure would cost property owners about $30 a year per $100,000 of assessed value while the bonds are outstanding, so roughly $60 per $100,000 if both pass. The exact certified tax rates should be confirmed from the district's official bond tax rate statements. Neither bond can fund teacher salaries or programs.
No campaign finance data was found for either measure. Campaign finance is not yet confirmed.
Little Lake City School District serves a working-class, substantially Latino community in the Santa Fe Springs and Norwalk area. The projects, safety repairs, construction, and facilities and equipment upgrades, address real conditions in school buildings used by children from low-income and immigrant families. As bonds, neither LR nor LS can fund teacher salaries or programs. The notable feature voters should weigh is that this is a $90 million combined ask split into two questions, and a voter can vote yes on one and no on the other. The cost is a property tax on district property owners, with possible indirect rent pass-through over time. The honest read: the underlying facilities needs are real for a working-class Latino district, but the unusual two-measure structure deserves a real look at the district's project lists and prior bond-spending record.
I am not landing on LR and LS yet, because Little Lake is a small district I do not cover closely, and two $45 million measures stacked on the same ballot, a $90 million ask in all, deserve a real look at the district's project list and its spending record before I make a call.
What it does, in one line: authorizes $128 million in school facilities bonds for upgrades, repairs, and new construction.
The South Pasadena Unified school board approved a $128 million facilities bond for the June 2026 ballot. The funds will go to upgrades and repairs to existing educational facilities, plus new construction. South Pasadena is a small, relatively high-income district with strong community support for prior school bonds.
A school facilities bond authorizing $128 million in general obligation bonds for South Pasadena Unified for upgrades and repairs to existing facilities plus new construction, placed by the school board. Under Proposition 39 it requires a 55% majority. The district's 2016 bond is expected to be fully spent in 2026.
The certified tax rate per $100,000 of assessed value was not found in the available reporting and should be confirmed from the official bond tax rate statement. Bond money funds facilities only.
No campaign finance data was found. Campaign finance is not yet confirmed.
South Pasadena is a small, relatively high-income district outside the area this guide covers deeply. There is no measure-specific impact on low-income, Latino, or immigrant communities to report. Listed for completeness.
South Pasadena is outside the area I cover deeply, so I am not making a recommendation here.
What it does, in one line: authorizes $256 million in bonds for Bonita Unified to upgrade and repair public school facilities, at a cost of about $59 a year per $100,000 of assessed value while the bonds are outstanding.
Bonita Unified covers parts of San Dimas and La Verne in the eastern San Gabriel Valley. The district has placed the $256 million Measure A on the June 2026 ballot to pay for upgrades across its 13 campuses, most of them more than 55 years old, with the money going to remove hazardous materials like asbestos and lead paint, modernize science labs and classrooms, and repair aging roofs, sewer lines and electrical systems.
Designated the "Upgrade and Repair Public Schools Facilities Bond Measure." It authorizes $256 million in general obligation bonds for Bonita Unified, placed by the school board. Under Proposition 39 it requires a 55% majority.
The bond would cost property owners about $59 a year per $100,000 of assessed value while the bonds are outstanding. The certified rate should be confirmed from the official bond tax rate statement. Bond money funds facilities only.
No campaign finance data was found. Campaign finance is not yet confirmed.
Bonita Unified covers San Dimas and La Verne in the eastern San Gabriel Valley, outside the area this guide covers deeply, and is a mixed-income suburban district. The facilities needs, asbestos and lead paint removal, aging roofs, and electrical, are real health and safety conditions in old buildings, but there is no Southeast LA-specific or strongly Latino-immigrant-specific impact to report. Listed for completeness for any Tablero reader in the eastern San Gabriel Valley.
Bonita Unified is outside the area I cover deeply, so I am not making a recommendation here.
If you vote in Orange County or Ventura County, your June 2 ballot is candidate-only at the county level, because no countywide measures qualified in either county, and no city or school district measures were confirmed for June 2 in either one. Fullerton's City Council explored two sales-tax measures and Costa Mesa explored a hotel-tax increase, but neither city placed its measures on this ballot, and the Ventura County Community College District's proposed $820 million bond was rejected by the Board of Trustees and did not make the ballot. Santa Ana, Ventura, and most other cities in those counties run their municipal elections in November, so this is a primary without local measures for most OC and Ventura voters.
This guide is free. If it helps you, chip in to keep it that way.