California Ballot Initiatives 2024
Proposition 2 is a $10 billion bond initiative for public schools and community colleges. It was approved in the state legislature by near unanimity. The bond funds would be divided up as follows: $1.5 billion for community colleges, $600 million for charter school facilities, $600 million for career technical education schools, $3.3 billion for new public-school buildings and $4 billion for renovations and repairs of existing public school facilities. The last school bond measure passed in 2016; a larger bond measure was proposed in 2020 and was defeated by the state’s voters. School bond funds have run dry.
The charter and tech school funding would be distributed based on competitive proposals. The community college funding would be decided by the legislature and governor based on the respective merits of community college proposals. The new construction and renovations of public-school facilities would be distributed on a first come, first served basis.
Local public-school districts must pay for half the costs, but there is higher state matching rate available for schools in districts with low property values and thus low property tax revenues.
The opposition argues that school construction should be funded on a pay as you go basis, rather than with long term bonds and that school enrollment is declining. https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_2,_Public_Education_Facilities_Bond_Measure_(2024)
Most editorials from prominent media support Prop 2, but the San Jose Mercury News opposes until the legislature fixes the broken local matching system that makes it harder for poorer school districts to access bond funding. https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_2,_Public_Education_Facilities_Bond_Measure_(2024)
School repairs and facilities should be a vital vote and important investment for our children and grand children’s future.
Proposition 3 repeals the prohibition in the state constitution that marriage must be between a man and a woman. It recognizes the right to marry is a fundamental right in the California Constitution. It was approved in the state legislature with near unanimity.
This would repeal Prop 8 from 2008 which amended the California state Constitution to declare marriage must be between a man and woman. In Obergfell v. Hodges, the US Supreme Court invalidated state bans on gay marriage. In his concurrence in Dobbs, Justice Clarence Thomas called for reconsidering the line of cases from Griswold v. Connecticut to Obergfell recognizing an individual’s rights to privacy from government intrusion.
The opposition argues that this would open the doors to polygamy and incest and that the Bible decreed that marriage must always be between a man and a woman. https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_3,_Right_to_Marry_and_Repeal_Proposition_8_Amendment_(2024)
This changes a very bad ballot initiative decision California voters made many years ago that does not belong in our Constitution.
Proposition 4 authorizes $10 billion in state bonds for water storage and safe drinking water, flood prevention, wildfire prevention and other measures to protect the environment and ameliorate climate change.
The bond funds would be divided as follows: Drought, flood and water supply -- $3.8 billion, forest health and wildfire prevention -- $1.5 billion, sea level rise and coastal protections -- $1.2 billion, land conservation and habitat restoration -- $1.2 billion, energy infrastructure -- $850 million, parks -- $700 million, extreme heat -- $450 million, and farms and agriculture $300 million.
The opposition argues for a pay as you go approach, rather than bond funding for these projects.
This was approved by the state legislature for voter approval with large bi-partisan majorities. There were 5 Republican no votes in the Assembly and another five in the Senate.
The San Francisco Chronicle has an excellent editorial making the case for Prop 4. https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/prop-4-california-ballot-19808194.php The San Jose Mercury News and San Diego Tribune editorialized against the measure, arguing that it was a grab bag for the environmental groups, rather than a carefully planned policy proposal and that the state was already overcommitted with long term debt (about $80 billion). https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_4,_Parks,_Environment,_Energy,_and_Water_Bond_Measure_(2024)
We urgently need these types of bonds to invest in water storage and conservation, fire prevention, parks and climate measures. This is a very important long-term investment in our state,
Proposition 5 allows local voters to approve local bonds with a 55% majority as opposed to a 2/3rds majority that is currently required. Bonds can be for local low- and moderate-income housing, for public infrastructure such as roads, bridges and water, and/ or for fire prevention. Increased local oversight is required.
A number of local ballot initiatives to build more affordable low- and moderate-income housing have exceeded the 55% threshold but failed because they failed to get a 2/3rds vote.
In the Assembly and Senate, Democrats voted for and Republicans either against or not voting. https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_5,_Lower_Supermajority_Requirement_to_55%25_for_Local_Bond_Measures_to_Fund_Housing_and_Public_Infrastructure_Amendment_(2024)
Local governments and the state’s builders’ unions are strongly in favor, while business and anti-tax groups are strongly opposed. The LA Times endorsed it saying it’s undemocratic to require super majorities like the 2/3rd rule, and the San Jose Mercury News is opposed, saying it lacks sufficient safeguards against the cozy relationships that can form to promote local school bonds that don’t achieve their stated goals.
This is an important vote to get more low- and moderate-income housing built with local bond measures.
Proposition 6 abolishes involuntary servitude in penal institutions.
The California Constitution permits involuntary servitude in county jails and state prisons. Working prisoners may be paid as low as $1.00 a day. This repeals the requirement to work in prisons and prohibits the Department of Corrections from taking disciplinary action against prisoners who fail to work, but permits time credits for those who do so.
It is opposed by the Howard Jarvis group arguing that prisoners should be required to work to pay for the costs of their incarceration. The Mercury News editorialized against Prop 6, saying it’s really about empowering prisoners to turn down work assignments like cleaning floors and preparing food. https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_6,_Remove_Involuntary_Servitude_as_Punishment_for_Crime_Amendment_(2024)
There were only three no votes in the state legislature that approved the measure for consideration by the state’s voters.
It’s way past time to get rid of involuntary servitude in prisons and jails and to pay prisoners a decent wage when they work.
Prop 32 would raise California’s minimum wage from $16 an hour to $17 for the remainder of 2024 and then $18 in 2025 for employers of 25 or more employees. For employers of less than 25 employees, it would be $17 in 2025 and then $18 in 2026.
California has a cost of living adjuster in its current minimum wage laws, so the impacts of these increases are mitigated by existing COLA adjustments.
The proponents point out this will improve wages for about 2 million Californians at the bottom of the wage scale and have ripple effects in improving wages for those above the state minimum. The opponents from the state’s business community assert this will fuel inflation and cause low wage workers to lose their jobs and cause businesses to close or move out of state.
The major editorial boards say the increase is warranted, needed and at the right scale. https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_32,_$18_Minimum_Wage_Initiative_(2024)
Only two of the 28 state ballot measures to raise the minimum wage have failed in the past 28 years. https://ballotpedia.org/Minimum_wage_on_the_ballot
This is a welcome increase in worker’s wages at the bottom and ought to be supported.
Proposition 33 would repeal the Costa Hawkins Act of 1995 which places limits on local rent control as follows: 1) single family homes are exempt, 2) new construction after 1995 is exempt, 3) rents can be adjusted to market after a tenant moves out. https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_33,_Prohibit_State_Limitations_on_Local_Rent_Control_Initiative_(2024)
It is supported by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and other progressive organizations and US Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont.
It is opposed by the realtors, the apartment owners, business organizations and a number of notable Democrats, such as Toni Atkins, Villaraigosa and Elerni Kounalakis.
The rationale for the proponents is that rents (and for that matter home prices) are among the nation’s highest; it is encouraging Californians to leave the state to find more affordable housing. Rents are highest in the Bay Area and Southern California coastal regions – all highly desirable places for many people to live.
The response of the opponents is that we need to build more housing, and rent control deters new housing construction and needed renovations of and improvements in existing units.
This measure, sponsored by LA AIDS Health Care Foundation, has been defeated twice before in 2018 and 2020 with a nearly 60% no vote.
In the interim, California’s legislature passed state rent control; it caps rent increases at 5% plus inflation and requires just cause to evict a tenant who has lived there for one year. It includes exemptions for new housing and single-family homes.
The ballot arguments for this and Prop 34 are filled with ad hominem attacks and fail to discuss why state rent control is not sufficient to block landlord abuses.
I don’t see any reason to vote for this as we already have state rent control, and we already have local rent control, albeit with the Costa-Hawkins exceptions, which are pretty reasonable ones.
Proposition 34 would require AIDS Health Care Foundation to spend 98% of its MediCal patient revenues on patient care.
It is sponsored by the landlord and real estate opponents of Prop 33, and there is no good reason for it other than to attack and disable one’s political opponent.
The measure would also allow the state to negotiate drug prices for the MediCal program, which the state already does and has been doing since 2019.
The media endorsements all urge a “no” vote. https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_34,_Require_Certain_Participants_in_Medi-Cal_Rx_Program_to_Spend_98%25_of_Revenues_on_Patient_Care_Initiative_(2024)
This is a very bad initiative and ought to be defeated.
Prop 35 makes the expiring managed care organization (MCO) tax that funds the MediCal program permanent, and it designates its purposes. These include fee increases for providers and training for doctors. This would amount to $2-5 billion annually.
It is supported by all the providers getting the fee increases and by the Democratic and Republican parties.
It is opposed by the League of Women Voters and CPEHN who warn against locking up all the MCO tax funding for the designated purposes as opposed to other state budgetary needs that may arise in the future.
The Chronicle and the Mercury News oppose the measure saying these decisions ought to be made in the state legislature not by groups of providers that stand to benefit from the initiative.
In truth, this should be decided by the legislature and does not warrant a ballot initiative, where the prospective beneficiaries (not our duly elected representatives) decide how to allocate the funds. However, it’s tough to pass taxes and find revenues for badly needed fee increases. I’ll hold my nose at the process used by the sponsors to get this done bypassing the legislative branch, and vote yes because the fee increases are badly needed.
Prop 36 makes certain crimes felonies rather than misdemeanors. The convicted defendant goes to state prison rather than county jails and serves a longer sentence.
Shoplifting items of less than $950 would become a felony if it’s your third offense. Selling meth, cocaine, heroin and fentanyl would be a felony not a misdemeanor. Possession of the above drugs as a 3rd offence would be a felony, and the defendant could choose court ordered treatment. If they successfully complete treatment, the felony is dismissed. This reverses some of the punishment reforms encompassed in Prop 47 of 2014.
The initiative is sponsored by Walmart, Target, Home Depot, and the California District Attorney’s Assn. It is endorsed by many Democratic and Republican elected officials. It is opposed by other elected officials and prosecutors; the Governor points out that 22 counties don’t have the drug treatment facilities called for by the initiative. It is opposed the LA Times and endorsed by the San Jose Mercury News.
Crime is down in California; however there have been a spate of offenses such as organized shoplifting since the pandemic. Violent crime is down 50% from its peak in 1992. https://calbudgetcenter.org/resources/crime-in-california-remains-well-below-historical-peaks/ Property crime rates are down 2/3rds from its peak in the early 80’s. https://calbudgetcenter.org/resources/crime-in-california-remains-well-below-historical-peaks/
The imprisonment rate has declined from close to 500 per 100,000 residents to closer to 250 per 100,000 residents between 1995 and 2023, some of which is due to the criminal justice reforms passed by the voters and the legisalators. https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_36,_Drug_and_Theft_Crime_Penalties_and_Treatment-Mandated_Felonies_Initiative_(2024)
The California legislature passed a package of criminal justice reforms in the just completed 2024 session to address the rise in organized shoplifting and in automobile crimes. https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_36,_Drug_and_Theft_Crime_Penalties_and_Treatment-Mandated_Felonies_Initiative_(2024)
The state legislature has already been acting against both drug crimes and organized shoplifting in a thoughtful, prompt manner, and this ought to be decided in the state legislature, rather than through a ballot initiative.