CALIFORNIA STATE MEASURES
2. Authorizes Bonds for Public School and Community College Facilities (Legislative Statute)
TLDR: SHOULD WE FUND PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITY COLLEGES?
If you prioritize investments in education, public infrastructure, and reducing inequalities in school funding, you would vote YES.
If you prioritize fiscal conservatism and reduced government spending over investment in education, you would vote NO.
DETAILS
This measure approves $10 billion in bonds to fund repairs, upgrades, and new construction for K-12 public schools, charter schools, community colleges, and career technical programs. It focuses on improving health and safety conditions, as well as upgrading classrooms. It also requires annual financial audits.
Yes Vote: California can borrow $10b to build new or renovate existing public schools and community college. Prop. 2 provides funds for necessary repairs and upgrades to schools and community colleges, helping students and attracting quality teachers. It ensures taxpayer accountability with local control.
No Vote: California cannot borrow $10b to build or renovate existing public schools and community college. Prop. 2 adds $10 billion in bond debt, costing taxpayers $18 billion with interest when repaid.
WHAT TO KNOW
Background: Prop. 2 was negotiated by the Legislature and Governor Newsom as the state's school repair funds are nearly depleted. The last bond passed in 2016, but voters rejected a bond in 2020.
Impact on Students: Research shows that well-maintained, clean, and climate-controlled schools improve student achievement, while poorly maintained schools can disrupt learning and pose health risks. In California, 38% of K-12 students attend schools that don't meet basic safety and functionality standards.
Funding Inequality: Wealthier districts can raise more funds through local property taxes, allowing them to get more state money. Poorer districts, with less funding, rely more on limited state assistance. State bonds like Prop. 2 are distributed as matching grants, requiring districts to contribute funds in order to receive money.
4. Authorizes Bonds for Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevnetion, and Protecting Communities and Natural Lands from Climate Risks (Legislative Statute)
TLDR: SHOULD CALIFORNIA ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE?
If you prioritize addressing climate change, improving wildfire prevention, securing clean drinking water, and enhancing environmental resilience for vulnerable communities, you would vote YES on Prop. 4.
If you prioritize increased state debt and are concerned about the long-term costs of repaying $10 billion in bonds, you would vote NO on Prop 4.
Proposition 4 proposes authorizing $10 billion in bonds to fund various climate resilience projects across California, such as improving water infrastructure, reducing wildfire risks, protecting natural habitats, and enhancing public parks.
Yes Vote: A “yes” vote would approve the $10 billion in bonds, allowing the state to invest in projects that improve water supplies, wildfire prevention, climate resilience, and clean air initiatives, with a focus on supporting vulnerable communities.
No Vote: A “no” vote would prevent the state from borrowing $10 billion, halting the proposed investments in climate resilience, environmental protection, and water infrastructure.
WHAT TO KNOW
Background: California has faced increasing environmental challenges due to climate change, including droughts, wildfires, and rising sea levels. The last significant bond measure for environmental issues, Prop 68, passed in 2018, but much of its funding has already been allocated. Prop 4 aims to address the ongoing needs for water security, wildfire prevention, and park access, building on previous efforts.
Impact on Californians: If passed, Prop 4 would provide direct benefits to underserved communities and those most vulnerable to climate change. Projects would focus on wildfire prevention, clean drinking water, and protecting natural habitats, which would help mitigate some of the worst impacts of climate change while providing recreational and environmental benefits to residents.
Budget Implications: The state would repay the $10 billion bond over time, with an estimated $9.3 billion in interest. Annual debt service payments could average about $400 million. Supporters argue that this investment will prevent higher future costs by addressing climate risks now, while opponents express concern over the added debt burden.
3. Constitutional Right to Marriage (Legislative Constitutional Amendment)
TLDR: SHOULD WE CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION SO EVERYONE CAN MARRY, NO MATTER GENDER OR SEXUALITY?
If you prioritize protecting marriage equality and updating California’s constitution to reflect current federal laws, you would vote YES.
If you prioritize keeping the current definition of marriage in the state constitution, you would vote NO.
Proposition 3 amends the California Constitution to recognize the fundamental right to marry, regardless of sex or race, and removes outdated language stating that marriage is only between a man and a woman. This measure updates the constitution to reflect current federal rulings, which have legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.
Yes Vote: A “yes” updates the California Constitution to affirm the right to marry for all individuals, regardless of gender or race, aligning state law with existing federal law and judicial rulings.
No Vote: A “no” vote keeps the existing language in the California Constitution, which states that marriage is only between a man and a woman. However, federal law would continue to allow same-sex marriage.
WHAT TO KNOW
Background: This proposition is a response to the outdated language in California's constitution, which still references the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, despite same-sex marriage being legal across the U.S. since the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015). The measure would repeal Proposition 8, a 2008 amendment that banned same-sex marriage in California but has been unenforceable since the federal ruling.
Impact on Californians: If passed, Prop 3 would provide stronger legal protections for same-sex and interracial marriages by enshrining them in the state constitution. It would prevent future legal or political challenges to marriage equality within the state, reaffirming civil rights for all residents.
Additionally: California law already protects against polygamy (illegal under Penal Code Section 281), child marriage (only allowed with court and parental approval), and incest (prohibited under Penal Code Section 285), ensuring legal safeguards for public welfare and safety.
5. Allows Local Bonds for Affordable Housing and Public Infrastructure with 55% Voter Approval (Legislative Constitutional Amendment)
TLDR: DO YOU WANT MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN CALIFORNIA?
If you prioritize making it easier to fund affordable housing and public infrastructure through local bonds, you would vote YES on Prop. 5.
If you prioritize maintaining the higher threshold to limit local borrowing and avoid potential property tax increases, you would vote NO on Prop 5.
Proposition 5 would lower the voter approval threshold from two-thirds to 55% for local governments to issue general obligation bonds for funding affordable housing and public infrastructure projects. This change aims to make it easier to secure funding for housing and infrastructure needs in local communities.
Yes Vote: A "yes" vote lowers the voting requirement to 55% for local bonds that fund affordable housing and public infrastructure, such as roads, parks, fire stations, and housing for low-income residents. This would enable more local measures to pass and provide funding for these essential projects.
No Vote: A "no" vote keeps the current requirement, meaning that local bonds for housing and infrastructure would still need a two-thirds majority vote to pass. This would maintain the higher threshold for bond approval.
WHAT TO KNOW
Background: Housing affordability is a significant issue in California, with home prices and rents well above the national average. Local governments use bonds to help fund affordable housing and public infrastructure, but current law requires a two-thirds voter approval for these bonds, making it harder to pass them. Proposition 5 builds on previous efforts to reduce this supermajority, similar to measures used for school bonds in the past.
Impact on Californians: If passed, Prop 5 could result in more funding for affordable housing and infrastructure projects by making it easier for local bonds to pass. This could help address housing shortages and improve local public services. However, it may also lead to higher property taxes in areas where bonds are approved.
Budget Implications: Local governments would likely see an increase in borrowing to fund projects. While this could improve housing and infrastructure, it also means higher property taxes to repay these bonds over time. The exact financial impact would depend on how many local governments pursue new bonds and the success of those measures.
6. Eliminates Constitutional Provision Allowing Involuntary Servitude for Incarcerated Persons. (Legislative Constitutional Amendment)
TLDR: DO YOU THINK THE INCARCERATED SHOULD BE FORCED TO WORK WITHOUT PAY?
If you prioritize ending involuntary servitude and promoting rehabilitative work programs, you would vote YES on Prop. 6.
If you prioritize maintaining current work requirements for incarcerated individuals as a punishment for crime, you would vote NO on Prop 6.
WHAT TO KNOW
Background: California's Constitution currently allows involuntary servitude as a punishment for crime, a practice that dates back to the post-Civil War period. Many people in state prisons and jails are required to perform labor, such as cooking or cleaning, and those who refuse can face disciplinary actions, such as losing privileges. This proposition is part of a broader national movement to reform this aspect of the 13th Amendment and eliminate what many see as a form of modern-day slavery, especially given its disproportionate impact on communities of color.
Impact on Californians: If passed, Prop 6 would stop the forced labor of incarcerated individuals in California, potentially encouraging voluntary work programs focused on rehabilitation. It could reduce disciplinary actions against prisoners who refuse to work and may lead to changes in how work opportunities are structured in prisons and jails.
Budget Implications: The fiscal impact is uncertain. Changes in prison work rules could lead to increased or decreased costs, depending on how work programs are restructured. For example, costs might rise if prisons offer higher pay to encourage voluntary participation, but they could also decrease if fewer incarcerated individuals serve longer sentences due to work credits. Any financial impact is expected to be relatively modest, likely not exceeding tens of millions of dollars annually.
Proposition 6 seeks to amend the California Constitution to ban involuntary servitude as a punishment for crime. This would eliminate the current provision that allows incarcerated individuals in state prisons and jails to be forced to work against their will.
Yes Vote: A "yes" vote would prohibit involuntary servitude for incarcerated individuals, meaning people in prisons and jails could no longer be forced to work as a form of punishment. It would also prevent state prisons from disciplining those who refuse to work.
No Vote: A "no" vote would maintain the current constitutional allowance for involuntary servitude as a punishment for crime, meaning prisons and jails could continue to require incarcerated individuals to work.
32. Raises Minimum Wage (Initiative Statute)
TLDR: WANT TO RAISE WAGES FOR WORKERS OR KEEP IT LOWER SO BUSINESSES CAN SAVE A BUCK?
If you prioritize higher wages for low-income workers and helping them manage California’s cost of living, you would vote YES on Prop. 32.
If you prioritize limiting business costs and potential impacts on employment and prices, you would vote NO on Prop 32.
Proposition 32 would raise the state's minimum wage to $18 per hour by 2026. For employers with 26 or more employees, the minimum wage would increase to $18 by January 2025. For employers with 25 or fewer employees, the wage would rise to $17 in 2025 and $18 by 2026. The proposition also adjusts the wage for inflation starting in 2027.
Yes Vote: A "yes" vote raises the minimum wage to $18 per hour by 2026 for all employers and allows for annual inflation adjustments starting in 2027. This aims to help workers cope with California's high cost of living.
No Vote: A "no" vote keeps the minimum wage at about $17 per hour by 2026, with adjustments based on inflation.
WHAT TO KNOW
Background: California currently has one of the highest minimum wages in the nation at $16 per hour, and some cities have set even higher rates. Inflation adjustments under current law are capped at 3.5%. Proposition 32 would accelerate the wage increase for all workers and ensure it keeps pace with inflation beyond 2027.
Impact on Californians: If passed, Prop 32 would lead to higher wages for millions of workers, especially in service and low-wage industries. However, businesses may face higher labor costs, which could result in price increases or reductions in workforce. Small businesses may be particularly affected, but advocates argue that the increase is necessary to help low-wage workers afford basic needs in California.
Budget Implications: The fiscal impact is mixed. While government costs to pay employees and contractors may rise, savings could come from reduced reliance on social safety net programs like Medi-Cal. Overall, state and local revenues might decrease slightly due to lower profits for businesses and potentially fewer jobs. The net budget effect is expected to be less than 1% of the state’s overall budget.
33. Expands Local Governments’ Authority to Enact Rent Control on Residential Property Initiative Statute)
TLDR: DO YOU WANT RENT CONTROL ON ALL TYPES OF HOUSING?
If you prioritize rent control as a way to make housing more affordable for tenants, you would vote YES on Prop. 33.
If you prioritize protecting housing supply and encouraging new development, you would vote NO on Prop 33.
Proposition 33 seeks to repeal the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995, which limits local rent control laws in California. If passed, it would allow cities and counties to impose rent control on more types of housing, including single-family homes and new rental properties.
Yes Vote: A "yes" vote eliminates the current state limitations on rent control, allowing local governments to decide whether to implement rent control on all types of housing, including newly constructed units and single-family homes.
No Vote: A "no" vote maintains the existing restrictions, which prevent rent control from being applied to housing built after 1995 or single-family homes, and allow landlords to set rent at market rates when new tenants move in.
WHAT TO KNOW
Background: The Costa-Hawkins Act currently restricts local rent control, allowing landlords to raise rent to market rates when a tenant moves out and preventing rent control on new construction and single-family homes. Proposition 33 follows previous attempts (in 2018 and 2020) to repeal Costa-Hawkins, which were unsuccessful. Proponents argue that rent control is necessary to make housing more affordable, while opponents say it discourages new housing construction and lowers property values.
Impact on Californians: If passed, Prop 33 could lead to expanded rent control in some cities, making housing more affordable for tenants in the short term. However, it may also reduce the incentive for property owners to rent out their properties, potentially leading to fewer rental units and lower property values. Additionally, long-term housing supply could be impacted if developers are deterred by reduced profitability due to rent control.
Budget Implications: Prop 33 is expected to reduce property tax revenues by tens of millions annually due to the decline in the value of rental properties. Local governments may also face increased costs to implement and enforce expanded rent control laws, but these costs would likely be covered by fees on landlords.
34. Restricts Spending of Prescription Drug Revenues by Certain Health Care Providers (Initiative Statute)
TLDR: SHOULD HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS BE FORCED TO SPEND DRUG DISCOUNT PROFITS ON PATIENT CARE OR KEEP CASH FLOWING WHERE THEY WANT?
If you prioritize maximizing patient care spending from federal drug discounts, you would vote YES on Prop. 33.
If you prioritize allowing health care providers more flexibility in spending revenue from drug discounts, you would vote NO on Prop 33.
Proposition 34 imposes new rules requiring certain health care providers that participate in federal drug discount programs to spend at least 98% of their net revenue on direct patient care. It applies to providers serving low-income populations and penalizes those who do not comply.
Yes Vote: A "yes" vote mandates stricter spending requirements on revenue from federal drug discounts, ensuring that 98% is spent directly on patient care.
No Vote: A "no" vote keeps current laws, allowing providers more flexibility in how they spend revenue from federal drug discount programs.
WHAT TO KNOW
Background: Some health care providers serving low-income communities receive discounted drugs through a federal program. Currently, there are no strict limits on how they spend the revenue from those discounts. Proposition 34 aims to ensure these funds are spent primarily on direct care.
Impact on Californians: Prop 34 would ensure more funds are directed toward patient care, potentially improving health services for low-income individuals. However, it could also discourage some providers from participating in the discount program due to the stricter regulations.
Budget Implications: Proposition 34 could lead to increased state enforcement costs, likely covered by fees on the affected entities. If providers increase spending on patient care, there could be state savings through Medi-Cal. Conversely, if providers leave the federal discount program, it might increase state costs for drug coverage.
35. Provides Permanent Funding for Medi-Cal Health Care Services (Initiative Statute)36. Allows Felony Charges and Increases Sentences for Certain Drug and Theft Crimes (Initiative Statue)
TLDR: DO YOU WANT TO FUND MEDICARE?
If you prioritize securing permanent funding for Medi-Cal and ensuring stable healthcare services, you would vote YES on Prop. 33.
If you prioritize keeping more flexibility in how the state handles health care taxes and funding, you would vote NO on Prop 33.
Proposition 35 seeks to make permanent the Managed Care Organization (MCO) tax on health insurance providers. The tax generates billions annually for the state, which helps fund Medi-Cal, California’s healthcare program for low-income individuals. The measure also creates rules on how this revenue must be used to support various health services.
Yes Vote: A "yes" vote mandates stricter spending requirements on revenue from federal drug discounts, ensuring that 98% is spent directly on patient care.
No Vote: A "no" vote keeps current laws, allowing providers more flexibility in how they spend revenue from federal drug discount programs.
WHAT TO KNOW
Background: Some health care providers serving low-income communities receive discounted drugs through a federal program. Currently, there are no strict limits on how they spend the revenue from those discounts. Proposition 34 aims to ensure these funds are spent primarily on direct care.
Impact on Californians: Prop 34 would ensure more funds are directed toward patient care, potentially improving health services for low-income individuals. However, it could also discourage some providers from participating in the discount program due to the stricter regulations.
Budget Implications: Proposition 34 could lead to increased state enforcement costs, likely covered by fees on the affected entities. If providers increase spending on patient care, there could be state savings through Medi-Cal. Conversely, if providers leave the federal discount program, it might increase state costs for drug coverage.
36. Allows Felony Charges and Increases Sentences for Certain Drug and Theft Crimes (Initiative Statute)
TLDR: DO YOU WANT TO PUT MORE PEOPLE IN PRISON AND JAIL FOR LIGHTER THEFT AND DRUG CRIMES?
If you prioritize tougher penalties for repeat theft and drug offenders, you would vote YES on Prop. 36.
If you prioritize maintaining current criminal justice reforms with lighter sentences, you would vote NO on Prop 36.
Proposition 36 increases penalties for certain theft and drug crimes, reclassifying some misdemeanors as felonies and extending prison sentences. It also introduces a new court process focused on treatment for drug offenders and requires a warning for potential murder charges in cases where drug dealers’ actions lead to death.
Yes Vote: A "yes" vote increases penalties for theft and drug crimes, establishes mandatory treatment for some offenders, and reintroduces stricter sentencing laws.
No Vote: A "no" vote keeps current sentencing laws in place, including reduced penalties for certain theft and drug crimes introduced under Proposition 47.
WHAT TO KNOW
Background: In 2014, Proposition 47 reduced penalties for some theft and drug crimes, including making shoplifting under $950 a misdemeanor. Proposition 36 seeks to reverse some of these changes, increasing penalties for repeat offenders and those involved in organized theft or drug sales, particularly fentanyl.
Impact on Californians: If passed, Prop 36 would result in tougher penalties for repeat theft and drug offenders, potentially deterring crime. However, it could also lead to increased incarceration rates, which may strain prison resources. The proposition aims to balance stricter enforcement with treatment programs for certain drug offenders.
Budget Implications: The measure would increase state and local criminal justice costs by several tens of millions to hundreds of millions annually due to increased prison populations and court workloads. However, it may reduce some costs by diverting offenders into treatment programs.