Those are just some of the things that voters will be asked to weigh in on this November for the 10 propositions on the California ballot. While we will be reporting on these more up until Nov. 5, we wanted to give you a quick overview now on what each measure covers and what a 鈥測es鈥� or 鈥渘o鈥� vote will mean.
Here are the basics of what you need to know about each proposition (including videos from our colleagues at ).
Proposition 2
seeks voter approval for $10 billion in bonds to improve facilities at public schools and community colleges. The funds would support new construction, including land purchases, renovations, and classroom upgrades.
Of the total funds, 85% is allocated to public schools, 15% to community colleges, and up to $115 million is designated for reducing lead levels in water at school sites. Proposition 2 also includes grants for small and disadvantaged school districts and incentivizes environmentally sustainable practices.
With Proposition 2 on the ballot, the state and local districts can share building costs. Local education bond dollars are furthered by state education bond dollars because 50-55% of new construction projects and 60-65% of renovation projects can be covered by the state bond.
If approved, California will sell the designated amount of bonds to investors. Then, a portion of the debt is set aside in the general fund the following year to pay back investors over 35 years with some interest. The California鈥檚 Legislative Analyst鈥檚 Office says for schools. They estimate it will take $500 million annually over 35 years for the state to repay the bond, and the total debt repaid will be approximately $18 million.
Supporters of Proposition 2 include the California Teachers Association and Assembly member Al Muratsuchi, who co-authored to place Proposition 2 on the November ballot.
"Nearly half of our schools are over 60 years old," Muratsuchi said. "An outdated study estimated that California public schools have over $100 billion in unmet needs."
Opponents, such as Jon Coupal with the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, argue that increasing state debt is not the right approach to funding school facilities.
"The responsibility for funding these facilities should lie with local entities," said Coupal, explaining that districts should leverage their own local education bonds instead.
If Proposition 2 passes, taxpayers will incur no additional cost.
鉁� A 鈥測es鈥� vote approves issuing $10 billion in bonds to build new or renovate existing public school and community college facilities.
鉂� A 鈥渘o鈥� vote would not authorize the state to issue the proposed bonds.
鈥擲rishti Prabha
Proposition 3
Proposition 3 would amend California鈥檚 Constitution to remove language added to the constitution approved by voters in 2008.
After Proposition 8 passed nearly 16 years ago, California鈥檚 Constitution was updated to define marriage as only valid between a man and a woman. While this language remains in the constitution, it is unenforceable due to the U.S. Supreme Court鈥檚 landmark which requires all states to license same-sex marriages. This inactive language is often regarded as a 鈥渮ombie law.鈥�
If Proposition 3 passes, it would ensure that the state constitution fully aligns with the federal decision.
Proponents of the measure say it is a preventive step and a symbolic gesture for the LGBTQ+ community to remove discriminatory language from the document. Many of the proposition say if the language were to remain, discriminatory laws could be reinstated in California if federal protections were to be overturned.
Critics see it as unnecessary, arguing that the current language has no practical effect since it cannot be enforced. Opponents like the , say the measure 鈥渢hreatens shared values of healthy families, healthy children, and a healthy society.鈥�
鉁� A 鈥測es鈥� vote would remove language from the California Constitution stating marriage is permitted only between man and woman.
鉂� A 鈥渘o鈥� vote on this measure would leave such language in the state constitution.
鈥擳ony Rodriguez
Proposition 4
Proposition 4 would allow the state to issue $10 billion in bonds to fund a wide range of climate-related projects. These include improving access to drinkable water, land conservation, wildfire prevention and reducing the impacts of extreme weather on California communities.
California鈥檚 Legislative Analyst鈥檚 Office it will take $400 million annually over 40 years for the state to repay the bond. Critics of the measure, like the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, say it would add further burden to the state鈥檚 $79 billion of existing bond debt.
But advocates 鈥� which include a coalition of environmental organizations 鈥� say these projects are key to keeping the state鈥檚 climate goals for reducing carbon emissions and conserving land on track. They also showing that investing in climate-resilient infrastructure now slashes the costs of disasters later.
鉁� A 鈥測es鈥� vote approves issuing $10 billion in bonds to fund a wide range of climate-related projects.
鉂� A 鈥渘o鈥� vote would not authorize the state to issue the proposed bonds.
鈥擬anola Secaira
Proposition 5
Proposition 5 would make it easier for local governments to pay for housing and infrastructure projects through voter-approved bonds. Right now, bonds require the support of two-thirds of those voting for approval. The measure would change the constitution to say they only have to reach 55% voter approval.
The bonds in question are for housing assistance, which includes building affordable housing or down payment assistance. They also cover a broad range of infrastructure projects, like broadband, water management and hospitals.
Proponents of the measure say that this would help local governments bring much-needed projects online. Opponents say it would encourage cities and counties to take on too much debt and raise taxes too high as a consequence.
鉁� A 鈥测别蝉鈥�&苍产蝉辫;惫辞迟别 would lower the threshold to approve bonds to 55%.
鉂� A 鈥渘辞鈥�&苍产蝉辫;惫辞迟别 would keep the threshold at a two-thirds majority.
鈥擬egan Myscofski
Proposition 6
Proposition 6 would remove language in the California Constitution allowing involuntary servitude as a punishment for a crime.
It would add language stating that California鈥檚 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation can鈥檛 discipline prisoners for refusing work assignments, and specifying that CDCR can award credits to people who volunteer for work. It would go into effect in January 2025. If it passes, it will trigger the implementation of a sister bill, , which requires CDCR to create a volunteer work program.
According to the Legislative Analyst鈥檚 Office, about one-third of people in California prisons work jobs like cooking, cleaning, or other tasks needed to run prisons and jails. Often, incarcerated people make less than $1 per hour. If they refuse to work, they can lose privileges like mail access and good conduct credits
California鈥檚 Reparations Task Force recommended the legislation in , writing 鈥渢he legacy of slavery persists and continues to have devastating impacts on the descendant community in particular,鈥� and the amendment was part of the Legislative Black Caucus鈥� . There is no formal opposition.
It is unclear what the impact would be to taxpayers or incarcerated people, as it depends on next steps from CDCR and the Legislature. Other states like Colorado, Oregon, Tennessee and Vermont have changed their constitutions in recent years to prohibit forced work, although incarcerated people in some of those states say .
鉁� A 鈥測es鈥� vote bans involuntary servitude as a punishment for crime, and prohibits state prisons from disciplining people for refusing work.
鉂� A 鈥渘o鈥� vote means involuntary servitude would continue to be allowed as punishment for crime.
鈥擪ate Wolffe
Proposition 32
Proposition 32 proposes an increase in the statewide minimum wage to $18 an hour. California鈥檚 current minimum wage is $16.
If passed, the increase would go into effect for businesses with over 26 employees starting in 2025. Businesses with fewer than 25 employees would have to pay workers $17 an hour and increase to $18 in 2026. Wages would be adjusted for inflation beginning in 2027.
The that California鈥檚 minimum wage would be around $17 in 2026 without the increase proposed by Proposition 32.
Forty-one across the Golden State have adopted a minimum wage that is higher than California鈥檚 minimum. The city of Sacramento鈥檚 minimum wage is consistent with the state鈥檚 at $16 an hour.
Past state legislation has also increased wages for workers in the and certain healthcare workers. These local and industry-specific wages would be unaffected by Proposition 32.
The California Federation of Labor Unions and the California Democratic Party support the proposition. Business groups including the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Restaurant Association and California Grocers Association are opposing the initiative.
鉁� A 鈥測es鈥� vote means the statewide minimum wage would be increased to $18 in 2026 and be adjusted for inflation in the years following.
鉂� A 鈥渘o鈥� vote means the statewide minimum wage would remain at $16, though that number would be adjusted for inflation.
鈥擫aura Fitzgerald
Proposition 33
Some local governments in California already have rent control policies that cap how much a landlord can raise the rent each year. But a state law limits how far rent control policies can go. This measure would repeal that statewide restriction.
The law is called the . It prevents cities from implementing rent control on single-family homes or housing built on or after February 1st, 1995. It also prevents local governments from telling landlords what to charge new tenants in rent 鈥� they can only dictate how much landlords increase rent for existing renters.
The says that if the measure passes, it is possible it would lead to some people paying less in rent and moving less often. It also says local property taxes could decline. In addition, the LAO says some landlords might sell their properties to new owners who would live there instead of renting it out, leading to fewer available rental units.
Two similar ballot measures failed in 2018 and 2020.
鉁� A 鈥測es鈥� vote would allow local governments to set their own rent control laws with fewer restrictions.
鉂� A 鈥渘o鈥� vote would keep current restrictions on rent control in place.
鈥擬egan Myscofski
Proposition 34
Proposition 34 aims to restrict how certain health care entities spend the funds they gather from a federal discount prescription drug program. But this proposition takes aim at one health care entity in particular: The AIDS Healthcare Foundation, a financial backer of Proposition 33.
The language of the measure establishes a high bar for which health care entities would be required to abide by these restrictions, if passed. These entities must be participants of the discount prescription drug program and spend over $100 million on 鈥減urposes that do not qualify as direct patient care鈥� over 10 years. They also must be 鈥渁n owner-operator of highly dangerous properties.鈥� The measure would require these health care entities to spend this funding on direct patient care instead.
The AIDS Healthcare Foundation is based in Los Angeles and operates affordable housing apartments in five states including California (though none are in Sacramento). The agency said the measure 鈥渟eeks to silence AHF鈥檚 housing advocacy work on rent control.鈥� Other opponents of the measure include the National Organization for Women and the California Democratic Party Renters Council.
The Yes on Prop 34 committee said health care organizations across the nation have used a 鈥渓egal loophole鈥� to 鈥渄ivert money 鈥� to pet projects that have done nothing to benefit patients鈥� including 鈥渟pending millions on lobbying and dumping millions more into political campaigns.鈥� Other supporters include the California Apartment Association and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.
According to the state鈥檚 Legislative Analyst Office, if passed, the measure would have little effect on taxpayers, as few entities would meet the requirements established by the measure. Those entities would also be expected to pay fees to cover enforcement costs incurred by the state.
鉁� A 鈥測es鈥� vote would require the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (and other health care providers like it) to spend 98% of the revenue they gather on direct patient care.
鉂� A 鈥渘o鈥� vote would keep current restrictions on federal discount prescription drug program spending in place.
鈥擟laire Morgan
Proposition 35
California has made sweeping enhancements to its state Medicaid healthcare program, Medi-Cal, in recent years, expanding services for older adults and undocumented Californians.
But the state also has some of the lowest Medicaid reimbursement rates in the nation, according to . That often leads low-income Californians on Medi-Cal to wait for long periods for an appointment and can make getting care inaccessible.
Proposition 35 aims to bolster California medicaid reimbursements by ensuring funds from a tax on certain health insurance plans 鈥� called the Managed Care Organizations tax 鈥� goes toward Medi-Cal services.
Supporters include Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists and the American Academy of Pediatrics. The Yes on 35 Committee said the measure 鈥渨ill protect and enhance our health care system 鈥� without raising taxes on individuals 鈥� and dedicate these funds to protect and expand access to care.鈥�
The proposition has seen little opposition. The state鈥檚 Legislative Analyst鈥檚 Office said if approved, the measure would have little effect on taxpayers.
鉁� A 鈥測es鈥� vote would require funds gathered from the Managed Care Organizations tax to go toward Medi-Cal services.
鉂� A 鈥渘o鈥� vote would mean the Managed Care Organizations tax could end in 2027 unless permanently approved by the state Legislature.
Proposition 36
This measure aims to address concerns about crime rates. It would raise penalties for some crimes by repealing aspects of a 10-year-old proposition that decreased them to address prison overcrowding.
The previous measure, , lowered some theft and drug-related crimes from a felony to a misdemeanor. It made exceptions for defendants with certain violent prior convictions. It also redistributed the money the state saved by incarcerating fewer people to a victim compensation program and to community organizations that provide addiction treatment.
The new measure would generally turn these misdemeanors back into felonies. It would also lengthen some prison sentences and require more felonies be served in prison. Courts would also be able to mandate drug treatment for people charged with possessing illegal drugs.
Proponents say Proposition 36 would lower crime rates, which have since the pandemic began, but are still much lower than in the 80s and 90s. Opponents say the measure is too harsh. They also that suggests forced addiction treatment rarely works.
Californians rejected a previous attempt to make changes to Proposition 47 in 2020.
鉁� A 鈥測es鈥� vote would roll back aspects of Proposition 47 to raise penalties for certain crimes.
鉂� A 鈥渘o鈥� vote would leave Proposition 47 as it is.
鈥擬egan Myscofski
Copyright 2024 CapRadio