November 3, 2026 · California General Election
What connects them
They fall into three distinct categories. Seen together, they describe a pattern: voters are asked to grant sweeping authority over public contracting before the rules governing that authority are written.
Category 01
Giving blank-check authority
Category 02
Stripping out today’s protections
Cities that are already charter cities ask voters to remove protections their charters currently contain — raising the threshold at which competitive bidding is required, or removing limits on assigning public works to city crews instead of competitively bidding them.
Category 03
Cutting voters out of the loop
Background
California cities operate under one of two forms of government. A general law city derives its authority from state law and must govern consistently with the California Constitution and state statutes. A charter city operates under a locally adopted charter granting greater authority over matters considered strictly local — “municipal affairs.”
In many respects a charter functions as a local constitution. It can determine how officials are elected, how authority is divided, and how municipal contracts are awarded. This authority is significant — but it is not unlimited.
For public contracting, Public Contract Code section 1100.7 generally provides that the Code applies to charter cities unless an express charter exemption or conflicting provision exists. A city’s charter status does not automatically exempt it from state contracting law. The actual language adopted by the city is what matters.
The five measures
Category 01
Measure N · Kern County
Proposed City Charter · General law → charter city
CIFAC ballot argument filed
A yes vote would
Adopt a City Charter granting McFarland broad authority over public contracting, public finance, elections, taxation, prevailing wage, land use, and governance.
Why CIFAC opposes it
Read CIFAC’s full argument against Measure N
Vote NO on Measure N, the proposed McFarland City Charter.
The ballot question describes this sweeping change simply as providing “local control.” But becoming a charter city would give the City Council broad new authority over elections, public contracting, public finance, taxation, prevailing wages, land use, and City governance.
The proposed Charter repeatedly uses vague, open-ended language such as “all powers allowable,” “including but not limited to,” and “any and all rights, powers and privileges.” It further provides that the Charter should be interpreted broadly in favor of expanding the City’s authority. That is not meaningful accountability. It is a transfer of power without clearly defined limits.
Local control must still include checks and balances. Voters should not approve a broadly written local constitution first and learn the actual rules later. Demand clear contracting requirements, enforceable ethical safeguards, independent oversight, and meaningful taxpayer protections before granting these sweeping powers.
Protect transparency. Protect competitive bidding. Protect taxpayer dollars.
Who is behind the measure
Measure K · Orange County
Simple Home Rule Charter · General law → charter city
A separate argument was filed by residents
A yes vote would
Why CIFAC opposes it
A separate term-limit argument
The Charter’s contracting provisions, in full
Category 02
Measure C · Santa Clara County
Public Works Charter Amendment · Existing charter city
Intends to file a ballot argument
A yes vote would
Why CIFAC opposes it
How it reached the ballot
Santa Clara originally considered a comprehensive charter overhaul covering elections, redistricting, council powers, and commissions. On July 14, 2026 the Council set that package aside — members raised concerns that it was moving too quickly and had not received enough public scrutiny, and the Mayor argued a charter is meant to be a durable, constitutional layer. The contracting amendment was separated out and sent to the ballot on its own.
The evidence: CIFAC’s 2025 investigation
In 2025 CIFAC investigated the Pruneridge Avenue and Hillsdale Avenue water-main replacement projects. City documents identified estimated costs of approximately $1.06 million for Pruneridge and $715,142 for Hillsdale, with both assigned to City forces.
The scopes described in the City’s own documents included abandoning existing water mains, installing substantial lengths of new main, transferring services, and replacing fire hydrants.
After reviewing records, CIFAC’s legal counsel raised concerns that the work appeared to fall within Charter Section 1310’s competitive bidding requirements, and that CIFAC had not been provided a Council resolution authorizing the use of City forces for either project.
That history matters because Santa Clara has previously followed the existing process even for far smaller work — in December 2024, staff brought a $30,684 water improvement project to the Council and requested authorization to use City forces.
Read CIFAC’s full argument
Vote NO on the Public Works Charter Amendment.
Competitive bidding protects Santa Clara taxpayers by requiring public construction contracts to be openly advertised and awarded through a fair, transparent process. This measure would weaken those protections by raising the threshold for formal bidding and City Council approval from $1,000 to $250,000.
Vote NO. Require the City to return with a clear, narrowly written proposal that protects competition, taxpayer funds, and public oversight.
Measure U · Tulare County
Charter Section 61 Amendment · Existing charter city
Argument and rebuttal filed · Tulare County
A yes vote would
Why CIFAC opposes it
The Precedent
2013
The proposal
2014
Voters said no
2026
It returns — and goes further
$75,000
The bidding threshold Porterville could adopt today — no charter amendment, no election, no cost.
What the City could do instead
If the City believes a $5,000 threshold is outdated, it does not need a charter amendment to change it. California’s Uniform Construction Cost Accounting Act lets a city opt in and raise its bidding threshold to $75,000 — at no cost to taxpayers, and without an election.
The difference is what comes with it. The Act keeps uniform cost accounting standards, public notice, and independent oversight in place. Measure U removes the safeguards and puts nothing in their place.
Read CIFAC's filed argument
Vote NO. It gives the government too much authority while weakening competitive bidding, taxpayer protections, and public accountability.
Competitive bidding requires projects to be openly advertised so qualified contractors can compete for the work. This process promotes transparency, helps control costs, and protects taxpayers from favoritism, waste, fraud, and misuse of public funds.
These safeguards help ensure projects are completed properly without forcing taxpayers to pay twice when problems arise.
Protect transparency. Protect competition. Protect taxpayer dollars.
CIFAC's rebuttal to the argument in favor
The City has not shown that Measure U saves money. Expanding the Council’s authority creates no additional crews, equipment, expertise, or funding — it only removes the competition and the independent pricing that keep project costs honest.
And if the concern is genuinely that a $5,000 threshold is outdated, the Uniform Construction Cost Accounting Act already offers a $75,000 threshold at no cost, with cost accounting standards and oversight left intact.
Measure U does not need to raise taxes to cost taxpayers more.
Documents & sources
Category 03
Measure LA · Los Angeles County
Infrastructure & Contracting Charter Amendment · Existing charter city
CIFAC was not granted its own ballot-argument filing
A yes vote would
Why CIFAC opposes it
CIFAC's separate argument was not included in the voter guide
The official voter guide includes an argument against Measure LA. It focuses on preserving the Board of Public Works as an independent check on City contracting and public spending.
CIFAC requested the opportunity to submit an argument against this Charter amendment and was not granted its own filing. CIFAC’s case addresses additional concerns: removing the voters’ check on commercial enterprise, creating a new competitive-bidding exception, and changing the City’s public-works oversight.
This page makes CIFAC’s separate public-contracting and government-enterprise case available to voters.
Questions the City has not answered
Background Reading
Take action
No other state agency enforces competitive bidding laws. Your membership funds the watchdog work that keeps public projects open to fair competition.
See public work that wasn’t competitively bid? Report it free and anonymously through the KwikCompli app.