Prop 2: School Facility Development
Proposition 2 aims to authorize a general obligation bond of $10 billion for facility repairs, upgrades and construction in K-12 public and charter schools, community colleges and technical career education programs. The fiscal impact of this proposition, if it were to be approved, would be an increased state cost of about $500 million annually for 35 years. Endorsers of this proposition believe that rebuilding and upgrading schools is crucial for safety and for low-income districts to be able to advance. Opponents believe that funding reconstruction should be added to the regular budget rather than relying on “overburdened” taxpayers. Voting YES would mean that the state can borrow the $10 billion, and voting NO means that the state cannot borrow the bond to renovate or build public schools and community college facilities. Some supporters of this proposition are State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, Association of California School Administrators, and California Chamber of Commerce. However, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is against this proposition.
Prop 3: Constitution Right to Marriage
Proposition 3 amends the California Constitution to establish marriage as a fundamental right and removes gendered language stating that marriage is only between a man and woman. This would then repeal proposition 8 which was supported in 2008 and defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Supporters argue that the state legislature should match the federal and have the same inclusive language, especially due to the threat on fundamental rights, alluding to the overturning of Roe v. Wade. The opposition to this proposition believe that the removal of specific language would legalize polyamory, incest and child predation. They also believe that a child should have a mother and a father, and without those the child and society is at harm. A vote YES agrees to the language change that would update who can marry, but makes no changes to those who can already marry under the current language. A vote NO would not agree with the language change, and the California Constitution would remain as it is. Some endorsers for this proposition are Equality California, American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California and Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, while California Family Council and The American Council of Evangelicals oppose proposition 3.
Prop 4: Climate Risk Bond
Proposition 4 plans to allow the state $10 billion in general obligation bonds aimed at conserving natural resources. Specific conservation efforts will be placed on drinking water, wildfire prevention and clean air. Voting NO on proposition 4 would not allow the state to borrow the $10 billion. An argument against this proposition expresses that “bonds are the most expensive way to fund government spending” and that natural resources are necessities that should have their own budget rather than a bond. They suggest that California should invest in unproven technology that would not increase the debt that the state is already harboring. Arguments for this proposition express that the “urgency” of climate change justifies the need for this bond to be taken on. Voting YES would authorize this bond, and groups such as the Californians for Safe Drinking Water and Wildfire Prevention believe that this proposition can prevent the worst impacts of devastating wildfires, smoke, droughts, and pollution. Some of the entities that endorse this proposition are Clean Water Action, National Wildlife Federation and California Professional Firefighters. The opposers are Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, California Republican Party, Senate Grand Old Party (GOP) leader Brian Jones and Assemblymember Jim Patterson.
Prop 5: Voting Threshold
Proposition 5 would make it easier for local governments to borrow money. Many small town community projects are funded through local bond campaigns, which need a two thirds majority of those voting to pass. This makes funding and borrowing money for projects such as building new infrastructure and conducting repairs very difficult. According to an article by the L.A times, California has put more than 151 bond measures on the ballot since 2002 with roughly half of them passing. If the voting threshold is lowered to 55% as stated in Proposition 5, 86% of them could have passed. If this proposition were to pass, not only would it apply to future bonds but also those that are currently on the ballot. Many believe that passing this measure would also give local governments more power, without having to rely on the state as much to fund projects that concern their specific communities. Proponents also cite the idea of one-third of voters being able to reject the wishes of the majority as “undemocratic”. Those who opposed the legislation argue that proposition 5 would make it easier for cities to “easier for cities, counties, and special districts to increase property taxes to pay for our already massive debt levels in California.” There is particular concern regarding California’s mounting debt, and the future generations that will have to pay it back. Bonds are also paid back using property taxes, which would be raised to pay back the money borrowed, allowing the majority of the financial burden caused by this bill to fall on the shoulders of property owners. A vote YES means that select local bonds and related property taxes could pass with 55% of votes from the local population rather than the two thirds needed now. A vote NO means that these local bonds and property taxes would rest at the two thirds threshold. Supporters for the bill include California Democratic Party and United Way Bay Area. Notable opponents are, California Chamber Of Commerce, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, and Catalyst For Local Control.
Prop 6: Involuntary Servitude for Inmates
Proposition 6 aims to remove the provision that “allows jails and prisons to impose involuntary servitude to publish crime” in the California Constitution. The fiscal impact of this change would be a difference in revenue depending on the labor changes. These costs would be seen at a state and local level depending on the changes made to working conditions for those who are incarcerated. Supporters of this proposition believe that this is “inhumane” to work that does not pay well and prisoners should not be punished for declining work that could be life-threatening. Those who are against this proposition have not filed an official argument. However, critics in other states believe that the current system helps to rehabilitate and integrate inmates into a “necessary order.” A vote YES means that state prison and county jails cannot use involuntary servitude as a punishment. A vote NO means that involuntary servitude can be allowed and will continue as a punishment for crime. Some endorsers for this proposition are ACLU California Action, Anti-Recidivism Coalition and California Democratic Party. Some opponents are Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and California Republican Party.
Prop 32: Minimum Wage
Proposition 32 would raise the state minimum wage to $18 an hour. Currently resting at $16 an hour, the proposition, if passed, would raise the minimum wage to $17 an hour for the rest of 2024 and $18 an hour starting the new year. This proposition would adjust for inflation, and is already being implemented in many cities across the country. Furthermore, as prices rise, the wage limit would continue to increase accordingly as time passes. Many believe that with rising prices and inflation that has not gone down since late 2022-2023 that it is necessary to increase the minimum wage so that people can afford basic necessities and comfortably make ends meet. They believe that even though prices will increase and some businesses will need to cut labor, the estimated likelihood of that happening is said to be at 0.5% and 0.25% respectively, which is enough of a risk to take. Opponents of the legislation believe that the increased minimum wage will hurt small businesses as they will not be able to as readily afford that level of wage increase. Furthermore, the workers themselves as many companies may start scaling back their hiring efforts or even letting their employees go due to being unable to afford their labor. Other worries include inflation as a whole going up due to this increase in wages as well as making the budget deficit worse causing the burden to fall on taxpayers. A vote YES for this proposition means that the state minimum wage would go up to $18 at the beginning of 2026 and would go up each year based on how fast prices are going up. A vote NO would mean that the minimum wage would stay at $17 an hour in 2026 and go up as prices increase. Supporters for the bill include the California Labor Federation, Working Families Party California, and United Farm Workers. Opponents are the California Chamber of Commerce, California Restaurant Association, and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.
Prop 33: Prop Rent Control:
Proposition 33 would allow cities to control rent of anytype of housing. This includes single family homes, new apartments, and new tenants. Rent control limits the amount by which a landlord can raise their rent each year. Cities across California already enact this policy to combat rising costs of living and “stagnant” wages. This policy can be considered controversial to many within California as there is a divide between those that see themselves contributing a large sum of their earnings towards rent, and property owners within California feel that they cannot make the most of their assets. Opponents of rent control feel that “rent control reduces the supply of decent housing, as landlords would rather convert a building to condos or adapt it to commercial use than abide by a law that limit their profits” as well as investment in new rental housing stalling, and that maintenance of buildings under rent control is “lax or nonexistent because of the poor return on investment for landlords.” Proponents of rent control argue that rent prices are rising far faster than wages, that neighborhoods are safer with a stable base of residents and that “rent control may enable moderate-income families and people on fixed incomes to live decently and without fear of a personally catastrophic rent hike.” Supporters are in favor of the legislation taking into account the recent inflation that has skyrocketed over the past couple of years. Inflation changes are so high that “5% of Californians are rent burdened, paying more than 30% of their income on rent and there is no end in sight. Rent increases are far outstripping pay increases. A starting teacher, cop, or fire fighter is paying half their salary to afford the average apartment in California’s cities. Many who live on a fixed income are one rent increase away from homelessness— and seniors represent the fastest growing homeless population. Something has to give.” Those who are against the legislation feel as though this will only seek to make the housing crisis worse as “property values will drop and developers will be less likely to build new housing, which, in turn, will drive up prices in existing rental units.” A vote YES on this measure that “State law would not limit the kinds of rent control laws cities and counties could have”. A vote NO means that state law would continue to limit various rent control measures as they do now. Additionally, many are concerned that the legislation does not actually include any protections for renters. Supporters include AIDS Healthcare Foundation, California Democratic Party, and California Nurses Association. Opponents are the California Small Business Association, California Senior Alliance, and the California Council of Carpenters.
Prop 35: Permanent Funding for Medi-Cal
This proposition seeks to make permanent the taxes that are currently funding health care insurance, which provides revenue for Medi-Cal. Medi-Cal is an insurance policy meant to support 15 million Californians, as of 2022. A vote YES for this proposition allows for the current taxes that fund health insurance programs such as Medi-Cal, if approved by the federal government. A vote NO means that starting in 2027, the taxes will no longer be imposed unless there is a reinstatement. This proposition is currently being endorsed by California Medical Association, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, California Hospital Association and others. Those who oppose this are the League of Women Voters of California, California Pan-Ethnic Health Network, The Children’s Partnership, and others. Government (Gov.) Gavin Newsome expressed that he is against this proposition due to the restriction placed on him when allocating money for other purposes. With a strict permanent tax that funds health care, the tax money can then not be used for other possible needs.
Prop 34: Drug Revenue Funneled Towards Patients
Proposition 34 would require certain health care providers to use prescription drug revenue towards their patients. Federal law allows health care companies to receive a discount on pharmaceuticals when they serve low-income and at risk-patients. Providers can then “make use of this program and turn around and sell those drugs at retail rates. Their profits can then be used to expand their healthcare services to disadvantaged groups.” Proposition 34 only applies to companies that “spend at least $100 million on expenses other than direct care, that also own and operate apartment buildings and that have racked up at least 500 severe health and safety violations in the last decade.” Many see this as a way to hold certain health care companies accountable and make sure that funds are properly allocated towards the citizens it is supposed to benefit. Others see this as a way to get back at Micheal Weinstein, president of the Los Angeles AIDs Healthcare Foundation, who has poured a great deal of campaign money into housing politics in the state. A vote YES would mean that select healthcare companies would have to follow certain rules regarding how they spend the money they receive from the federal discount program. A vote NO means that these new rules would not be enforced. This proposition would primarily affect his organization. The proponents of this bill are California Apartment Association and Assemblymember Evan Low. His opposition includes the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and the Consumer Watchdog.
Prop 36: Increase Penalties for Theft and Drug:
This proposition would reclassify some theft and drug crimes as felonies. According to Cal Matters, people who don’t contest the charges could go to a treatment facility instead of going to prison, but if they do not complete treatment they could be facing up to three years of prison. Those in favor of the bill see it as a way to combat the rise in homelessness and burglaries that have taken place over the pandemic. They argue that previous legislation has made it harder to force offenders to go to rehabilitation facilities and that “without the threat of felony punishment, judges lost leverage to convince addicts who are serial offenders to complete mental health and drug treatment programs in exchange for dismissal of the charges.” To many this would also reduce the spread of fentanyl on the drug market by adding a larger amount of prison time to their sentence depending on how much was trafficked. Those against it say that it will re-enact the “war on drugs” that failed years ago and that it does not adequately deal with problems such as addiction and homelessness. This will inevitably end with overcrowded prisons and none of the core issues solved, so “California can and should do a better job of addressing homelessness, theft crimes and drug addiction. Namely by making it much easier to build more housing, continuing to prosecute theft to the fullest extent of the law and making sure Californians can get help for drug addiction.” Additionally they argue that crime has not increased as drastically in relation to public perception as homicides in the state have increased from a low in 2019 of 1,679 to 2,361 in 2021. Motor vehicle thefts increased from 140,732 in 2019 to a high of 195,853 in 2023. Larceny thefts fell from 622,869 in 2019 to 560,414 in 2023. A vote YES would mean people convicted of select drugs and thefts could receive more extensive punishment such as increased sentencing required treatment. A vote NO would mean that the current rules and regulations regarding the matter would stay the same. Those who support the bill are Walmart, Target and the California District Attorneys Association. Those who oppose it are Gov. Gavin Newsom and Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire Alliance for Safety and Justice.
