2024 California Proposition Guide
As always I try to provide a succinct, yet accurate, description of the proposition, then my own commentary and finally how I will be voting.
If you are interested in my bona fides: I have been working in and around the California state legislature for the last 15 years. I have been a legislative aide, legislative consultant, deputy district director, government relations consultant, and government relations manager. My expertise is in TK12 public education, teacher credentialing, and higher education policy.
I hope you find this guide useful. Donāt forget to vote!
Prop 2. - $10 Billion Public School Facility Bond
If approved, local education agencies would be provided $10 billion from state bond revenues for the improvement of existing buildings or the construction of new buildings. Generally, local education agencies are expected to cover about half of the costs of any facility construction. The last statewide education facilities bond was passed in 2016 for $9 billion. The March 2020 ballot had a school facilities bond on it ($15 billion) but it was rejected by voters.
How California funds school facilities is not great. But there is no denying that with over 10,000 schools and over 150 community colleges there is likely a need for updated or replaced facilities.
The state has an estimated $80 billion in bonded debt and has authorization to issue $ 35 billion more in bonds. The state spends approximately $6 billion from the General Fund (3% of the total fund) each year to repay bonds.The costs to repay Prop. 2 would be an estimated $500 million annually for 35 years.
I will be voting YES
Prop 3. - Constitutional Right to Marry
In 2008, Californians voted to approve Prop. 8, which overturned a state judicial ruling, and defined āmarriage as between one man and one womanā in the stateās constitution. In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges overturned the provisions of Prop. 8. The text of Prop. 8 remains in the California constitution. Prop. 3 would eliminate the provisions of Prop. 8 from the California constitution and instead include the right to marry as a fundamental right as protected by Section 1 and Section 7 of the California constitution.
It does not repeal or invalidate any of the existing statutes that prohibit polygamy, bigamy, etc. Though you might be surprised to know that there is no minimum age at which a child can be married off in California as long at least one of their guardianās consents to it?! In 2021, there were over 8,000s reported child marriages in the state, the vast majority being underage girls.
I will be voting YES
Prop 4. - $10 Billion Safe Water, Wildfire Prevention, Climate Risks Bond
If approved, permits the state to issue $10 billion in bonds to fund various environmental, energy, and water projects. The plurality of these monies would go to drought, flood, and water supply projects, with forest health/wildfire protection, coastal protection, and conservation/habitat restoration getting the majority of the rest of the funds. Prop. 4 also requires that 40% of the bond revenue be used to fund activities that benefit communities with lower incomes or that are affected by environmental changes or disasters.
The costs of the climate crisis are more and more clear, whether it is wildfires, extreme heat, flooding, or sea level rise. I believe we should be doing a lot more to deal with this issue but this is a start. The state has an estimated $80 billion in bonded debt and has authorization to issue $35 billion more in bonds. The state spends approximately $6 billion from the General Fund (3% of the total fund) each year to repay bonds. The cost to repay Proposition 4 would be an estimated $400 million annually for 40 years
I will be voting YES.
Prop. 5 - Lower Voting Threshold for Affordable Housing and Local Infrastructure Bonds to 55%
The current threshold for local governments to pass affordable housing or public infrastructure bonds is two-thirds (66.67%). Prop. 5 would lower that to 55%. Prop. 5 defines affordable housing as housing developments, or portions of housing developments, that are affordable to individuals, families, seniors, people with disabilities, veterans, or first-time homebuyers, who are lower income households or middle-income households earning up to 150 percent of countywide median income, as those terms are defined in state law. Affordable housing would also include downpayment assistance programs, first-time homebuyer programs, permanent supportive housing, and facilities used to serve residents of affordable housing. The prop defines public infrastructure as water quality, sanitation, treatment of wastewater, protection of property from sea level rise, parks and recreation facilities, flood control, streets, highways, broadband internet access, local hospital construction, public safety buildings, and public libraries.
I would prefer that most, if not all, laws require merely a majority of voters. I believe most high voting thresholds are anti-democratic. This is a start to rectifying that.
I will be voting YES.
Prop. 6 - Eliminates Carceral Slavery
The California constitution bans āinvoluntary servitudeā except as a punishment for crime. This proposition would ban āinvoluntary servitude" as a punishment for crime and ban state prisons from disciplining people who refuse to work. āInvoluntary servitudeā is a fancy way of saying slavery. I cannot condone slavery for any reason. I especially do not believe the state should be imposing it.
I will be voting YES.
Prop. 32 - Raises State Minimum Wage from $15 to $18 an hour.
Californiaās current minimum wage is $15.50, except for fast food workers (itās complicated). In 2016, a law was enacted that raised the minimum wage to that level over the course of seven years. Once it reached $15.00 in 2023 increases were to the Consumer Price Index. This proposition is modeled after that law and would over the course of two years raise the minimum wage to $18 and then tie further increases to the Consumer Price Index.
I believe in the dignity of all work. I also believe that it is workers who create the most value in an organization and are entitled to a better part of the fruits of their labor.
I will be voting YES.
Prop. 33 - Removes Statewide Restrictions on local Governments Enacting Rent Control Laws
Repeals the stateās current ban on rent control on single-family homes and houses completed after February 1, 1995. Removes the stateās current prohibitions on rent control laws that mandate what a landlord can charge a tenant when they first move in. If Prop. 33 passed it would allow local governments, cities and counties, to limit rent on any housing and limit the rent for a first-time tenant. Prop. 33 also contains a provision that would prohibit the state from limiting āthe right of any city, county, or city and county to maintain, enact or expand residential rent control.ā
It is expensive to live in California. Ask me how I know! In general, economists do not think rent control is the best way to go about making your city, county, state more affordable. The best way would be to build enough housing, of all types, so that all the people who want to live in California can afford to. But that is generally harder than passing rent control laws. California voters rejected similar propositions in 2020 and 2018. The provisions that prohibit the state from limiting local government to enact or expand residential rent control are so vague and broad as to allow cities to eliminate all affordable housing by simply placing steep affordability requirements on any new construction making it impossible to build. So much so that Huntington Beach, a notoriously NIMBY city that has been sued multiple times by the state for affordable housing violations, is in support of this measure.
The proponents and opponents of this bill both seem to be not great. The primary supporter is the Aids Healthcare Foundation, the primary opponent is the CA Apartment Association. They seem to have a real passion for hating each other. And both seem to have some shady practices as well. Prop. 34 is a direct result of this measure being on the ballot.
I do not know how I will be voting. Leaning NO.
Prop. 34 - Restricts R/x Drug Revenues by One Health Care Provider
Would put into state law the method that Medi-Cal has been using to procure R/x drugs since 2019. Would also place restrictions on health care entities that participate in the federal drug discount program. These restrictions are very specific and likely only apply to one health care entity: Aids Healthcare Foundation.
The primary supporter of this proposition is the CA Apartment Association. As I said above, neither this group nor the main target of this proposition seems that great. And when people talk about how all politics is evil this is the sort of thing they are talking about. Placing a revenge proposition on the ballot seems especially insidious. Some real āa plague oā both your houses!ā stuff right here.
Ultimately whether this proposition passes or not it is very unlikely to affect you.
I do not know how I will be voting. Leaning NO.
Prop. 35 - Makes Permanent an Existing Tax to Fund Medi-Cal Healthcare Services
This proposition would make permanent an existing tax on managed care organizations (MCO) that was originally enacted in 2009. An MCO is a type of organization that offers health insurance coverage to consumers at fixed monthly costs. This tax is a charge on the number of monthly enrollees of an MCO. The current MCO tax expires in 2026. In 2024, the tax for each monthly Medi-Cal enrollee was $182.50, and $1.75 for each commercial enrollee. Prop. 35 requires that the revenues of this tax be used to defray the costs of Medi-Cal beneficiaries and/or expand Medi-Cal coverage.
There are some concerns that making this tax permanent ties up funding that might be needed for other areas of the budget. It also doesnāt provide any guidance on what would happen if the federal government rejects the tax, which has to be approved by them.
I do not know how I will be voting. Leaning YES.
Prop. 36 - Rollback of Certain Provisions Prop. 47 of 2014 that would increase criminal penalties for drug and theft crimes.
In 2014, California voters approved Prop. 47. That proposition classified certain crimes as misdemeanors instead of felonies unless the defendant had prior convictions for serious crimes (murder, rape, certain sex offenses, or certain gun crimes), and allowed re-sentencing for those currently serving a prison sentence for any of the offenses that the initiative reduced to misdemeanors. Prop. 16 would undo some of Prop. 47's reduced sentencing, such as theft of items worth $950 or less by a person with two or more past convictions would become a felony.
Additionally, Prop. 16 would classifying certain drug offenses as treatment-mandated felonies; increase penalties for certain drug crimes by increasing sentence lengths and level of crime; and, require courts to warn individuals convicted of distributing illegal drugs of their potential future criminal liability if they distribute deadly drugs like fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine.
I believe much of the news about retail theft and drug use has been exaggerated. Crime statistics around the store locations that have been closed do not reflect increased crimes in those areas, nor do we have clear statistics on retail theft (we have to rely on self reported shrinkage #s that include employee theft and loss as a percentage of salesā¦) Data also shows that increased incarceration rates does not reduce crime or recidivism.
I will be voting NO.
If you read all this then congrats, it was a lot! Imagine how much it was to research and type up?! Youāre a semi-educated voter now. Hopefully this helps you in the voting booth. Educated and active citizens are what we desperately need more of in the USA.