Ballot measures

What’s on the ballot

For voters in ZIP 92101 (downtown San Diego), the June 2, 2026 primary carries an unusually light list of ballot measures. There are zero statewide propositions and zero San Diego County measures. The only measure on the ballot is one City of San Diego measure: Measure A, a tax on vacant non-primary homes.

The June primary historically carries fewer state propositions than the November general election, and for June 2026 that is true to an extreme. All three already-qualified statewide measures — ACA 13 (voting thresholds), SCA 1 (recall reform), and SB 42 (public campaign financing) — are scheduled for the November 3, 2026 general election, not the June primary.

At the county level, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors placed its charter-reform package (term-limits changes, an ethics commission, and an independent budget analyst) on the November 2026 ballot, so no county measure appears in June either.

San Diego Measure A — Non-Primary Homes Tax

What it does in plain English. Measure A creates a new annual City of San Diego tax on residential properties that are (1) not claimed as anyone’s primary residence and (2) sit vacant more than 182 days in a calendar year. The tax is a flat dollar amount per qualifying home, not a percentage of property value: $8,000 per home in 2027, rising to $10,000 in 2028 and adjusted for inflation (CPI) thereafter. Corporately owned vacant non-primary homes pay an additional surcharge — $4,000 in 2027 and $5,000 from 2028. The City estimates roughly 5,140 homes (well under 1% of San Diego’s housing stock) would qualify; these are identifiable because they carry a “non-primary residence” status or lack a homeowner’s exemption on file with the County Assessor. If passed, the tax would take effect January 1, 2027 and remain until voters repeal it. Revenue goes into the City’s general fund with no legally binding earmark.

This is a Council-referred measure, not a citizen initiative. The San Diego City Council voted 8–1 on March 3, 2026 to place it on the June ballot, led by Councilmember Sean Elo-Rivera. It is a narrowed version of a broader earlier proposal (which would also have covered full-time vacation rentals) that failed in January 2026. The lone no vote, Councilmember Raul Campillo, cited what he viewed as inadequate legal analysis from the City Attorney. Because Measure A is a general tax with unrestricted revenue, it requires only a simple majority (50% plus one) to pass, rather than the two-thirds supermajority a dedicated special tax would need.

A YES vote / A NO vote

A YES vote means the City would levy the new annual tax — $8,000 rising to $10,000-plus per qualifying vacant non-primary home, plus the corporate surcharge — starting in 2027, with the revenue flowing into the general fund.

A NO vote means no new vacancy tax is imposed. Owners of vacant second or non-primary homes would continue to pay only existing property taxes, and the current rules would remain in place.

Fiscal impact

Per the City’s Independent Budget Analyst (IBA), Measure A would raise an estimated $9.2 million–$21.4 million in year one and $10.5 million–$24.3 million in year two. The wide range reflects uncertainty over how many owners would pay the tax versus rent or sell their homes to avoid it, as well as first-year administrative startup and enforcement costs — the City would have to build a system to identify and audit qualifying homes.

Who is exempt

The measure contains carve-outs intended to keep it from reaching ordinary owners. Exemptions apply to homes where the owner is in long-term care or has recently died; properties made uninhabitable by a disaster; homes occupied by family members; legacy owners in financial hardship; qualifying active-duty military; and any property the owner actually lives in or has under an active lease. By definition, a primary residence — for example, a downtown condo lived in year-round — is not subject to the tax, and there is no tax on a home that is occupied or leased out.

What supporters say

Supporters include labor and housing-affordability groups: the San Diego City Firefighters IAFF Local 145, the San Diego Housing Federation, the San Diego & Imperial Counties Labor Council, and the San Diego Municipal Employees Association. They argue that Measure A raises meaningful revenue for city services from a small and relatively wealthy slice of property owners, and that it pressures owners of intentionally empty homes to rent or sell them, easing the housing shortage. The “Yes on A” campaign reported roughly $97,000 as of April 2026, drawn mostly from city-employee and teacher unions.

What opponents say

Opponents are led by the real-estate industry — the California Association of Realtors and the National Association of Realtors — along with the California Apartment Association. They argue that the measure adds a tax burden, infringes on property rights, lacks a binding spending plan because the money goes to the unrestricted general fund, and is legally vulnerable. Opponents also point to a nearly identical San Francisco vacancy tax (2022) that was struck down in court as an unconstitutional taking and a violation of California’s Ellis Act; San Francisco stopped collecting in 2024 pending appeal. San Diego’s City Attorney has said its version is “sufficiently different” but has not publicly detailed how. The “No on A” campaign reported roughly $602,500 as of April 20, 2026 (later around $685,000), reported as entirely funded by the Realtor associations — a roughly 6-to-1 money advantage over supporters that financed a heavy mailer and advertising campaign.

Notes on the campaign and ballot language

Two factual disputes shaped the campaign:

• A judge forced a renaming of the measure. Former councilmember Scott Sherman sued over the ballot materials, and in March 2026 Superior Court Judge Blaine Bowman ruled that calling it the “Empty Homes Tax” was misleading — voters might picture dilapidated or abandoned buildings — and ordered the “Non-Primary” framing instead. The judge also found that the City’s materials wrongly implied the revenue was dedicated to housing or infrastructure when it actually goes to the unrestricted general fund.
• A fact check on opponent advertising. A “No on A” ad claimed the measure “threatens every San Diego resident and family with a $10,000 per home tax.” iNewsource rated this claim false, noting that fewer than 1% of homes (about 5,100) would qualify, and that primary residences and occupied or leased homes are exempt.