California Propositions explainers

In November, voters will determine the fate of 10 propositions — including whether to borrow a combined $20 billion for climate programs and school construction, whether to approve three amendments to the state constitution and what direction to take on crime, health care and taxes.

Live election results

Get general information about the election, news coverage, an interactive ballot guide and results on election day.

Launch →

Proposition 2 — Borrow $10 billion to build schools, colleges

What would it do?

Proposition 2 would provide $8.5 billion to K-12 schools and $1.5 billion to community colleges to renovate, fix and construct facilities. The money would be distributed through matching grants, with the state paying a greater share of costs for less affluent districts and those with higher numbers of English learners and foster youth. Some of the money would be set aside for removing lead from water, creating transitional kindergarten classrooms and building career and technical education facilities.

What are the arguments for and against?

• For

Supporters say this money is crucial for making basic safety improvements in schools, as well as for important upgrades like modern science labs, performing arts spaces and transitional kindergarten classrooms. School districts in lower-income areas have no other way to pay for those improvements.

• Against

Opponents say the state should include school repairs in its regular budget rather than turn to taxpayers, who they say are already overburdened. In addition, they argue that Prop. 2 would not directly impact students.

Several organizations are neutral on Prop. 2 but have voiced concerns about what they see as the inequitable distribution of funds. The state’s sliding scale for matching funds should be wider, they said, with lower-income districts receiving a greater share of the funds. The nonprofit law firm Public Advocates has threatened to sue if the measure passes.

Funders

Back to top ↑

Proposition 3 — Reaffirm the right of same-sex couples to marry

What would it do?

Proposition 3 would enshrine the right to same-sex marriage into the California constitution, repealing Proposition 8 — a measure approved by voters in 2008 that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. In practice, the ballot measure would not change who can marry.

What are the arguments for and against?

• For

Supporters argue the measure would simply remove obsolete language from the California constitution and uphold the right to a practice already recognized by the highest court in the land. The protection is especially timely, they said, due to “recent threats against fundamental rights,” alluding to the 2022 Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and allow states to decide abortion laws.

• Against

Opponents say the measure goes too far and would “override” marriage laws and remove protections against “child marriages, incest, and polygamy.” They argue that it’s best for children to be raised by both mothers and fathers, and that the measure “threatens our shared values of healthy families, healthy children, and a healthy society.”

An analysis of the proposal’s impact by the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office does not mention changes to state marriage laws.

Funders

Back to top ↑

Proposition 4 — Borrow $10 billion to respond to climate change

What would it do?

Approving Proposition 4 would authorize $10 billion in debt to spend on environmental and climate projects, with the biggest chunk, $1.9 billion, for drinking water improvements. The bond prioritizes lower-income communities, and those most vulnerable to climate change, and requires annual audits.

Repaying the money could cost $400 million a year over 40 years, a legislative analysis said, meaning taxpayers could spend $16 billion.

What are the arguments for and against?

• For

Supporters argue that, given the threat the state faces from wildfires, water pollution, and extreme heat, the need for more spending on these issues is “urgent.” Dozens of environmental groups are backing the measure.

• Against

Opponents argue that “bonds are the most expensive way for the government to pay for things” and that some of the money could go toward unproven technologies. They say that California should pay for such projects without taking on more debt.

Funders

Back to top ↑

Proposition 5 — Make it easier for local governments to fund affordable housing, infrastructure projects

What would it do?

California makes it difficult for local governments to borrow money. Not only do most city and county bonds require voter approval, they need the support of at least two-thirds of those voting to pass.

Proposition 5 would amend the California constitution by lowering the required threshold to 55% for any borrowing to fund affordable housing construction, down payment assistance programs and a host of “public infrastructure” projects, including those for water management, local hospitals and police stations, broadband networks and parks.

If it passes, the new cut-off would apply not just to future bonds, but any that are on the ballot this November.

What are the arguments for and against?

• For

Supporters argue that allowing just one third of voters to overrule the wishes of two thirds is undemocratic. If the majority of voters want their local government to borrow money to fund desperately needed affordable housing or other public infrastructure, they should be able to do so.

Backers also say this is a question of local control. Reducing the required vote threshold from two-thirds to 55% would allow local officials to fund their own priorities more easily without having to rely as much on statewide bonds or federal dollars.

• Against

Opponents argue that it’s always easy to support taking on more debt if you aren’t the one who has to pay it back. When a local government decides to borrow money, that tab almost always gets put on property owners — who might make up a minority of voters — through higher taxes. Rather than allow a narrow majority to make what are potentially financially irresponsible decisions, the choice to issue a bond should be made only when a broad consensus exists.

Critics also call this measure just the latest attempt by Democratic lawmakers to undo the taxpayer protections that California voters embedded into the state constitution with Proposition 13.

Funders

Back to top ↑

Proposition 6 — Limit forced labor in state prisons

What does it do?

Proposition 6 would amend the California Constitution to prohibit the state from punishing inmates with involuntary work assignments and from disciplining those who refuse to work. Instead, state prisons could set up a volunteer work assignment program to take time off sentences in the form of credits. It would let county or city ordinances set up a pay scale for inmates in local jails.

The measure’s potential costs remain unknown and a point of contention. If approved, the state may have to pay the minimum wage to inmates with work assignments depending on how courts interpret the law and future voluntary work programs.

What are the arguments for and against?

• For

Supporters say that prisoners are often retaliated against for turning down assignments that can be dangerous or life threatening. It’s inhumane, they say, to have to work long hours on jobs that do not necessarily contribute to future skills for little pay.

They also cite the growing number of states — including Colorado, Alabama, Tennessee and Vermont in recent years — that have adopted similar measures, though California would have stronger language against retaliation toward inmates.

• Against

An official ballot argument against the measure has yet to be filed. But a few Republican legislators voted against it. It reflects their larger opposition to reparations efforts by the state at a time when the budget deficit is a top priority.

Critics in other states have said that the current work system helps inmates and promotes necessary order in facilities aiming to rehabilitate inmates. Some say that upending that system by allowing inmates to turn down assignments could eventually make it more difficult to manage prisons.

Funders

Back to top ↑

Proposition 32 — Raise state minimum wage to $18 an hour

What does it do?

Proposition 32 would raise the minimum wage to $17 for the remainder of 2024, and $18 an hour starting in January 2025 — a bump from the current $16. Small businesses with 25 or fewer employees would be required to start paying at least $17 next year, and $18 in 2026. If voters say “yes,” California will have the nation’s highest state minimum wage.

Starting in 2027, the wage would be adjusted based on inflation, as the state already does. The hike would apply statewide, but it would have a bigger effect in some areas than in others. Nearly 40 California cities have local minimum wages that are higher than the state’s, including six that already require at least $18 and several already are just a small inflationary adjustment away from it.

What are the arguments for and against?

• For

Labor groups support the measure, though many say it’s not as high a minimum wage as they’d like. Sanberg estimates it would give raises to 2 million workers statewide who haven’t yet benefitted from industry-specific raises, or don’t live in cities that require a higher wage. Supporters also argue the money would help families afford basic needs, would be spent at local businesses and would help reduce low-income Californians’ use of taxpayer-provided benefits. UC Berkeley studies have found that California’s gradual increase to $15 had “no significant” effect on job losses.

• Against

Business groups oppose the measure. They argue employers already face increased supply and labor costs from inflation and that for some, business hasn’t bounced back fully since the COVID pandemic. They point to the state government itself, which, facing a budget deficit, delayed a $25 health care worker minimum wage until this fall to see if it has the cash to cover it, and argue private employers should get the same benefit. They also point to surveys commissioned by the small city of West Hollywood, where 42% of businesses said they laid off staff or cut workers’ hours in response to the city’s $19.08 minimum wage.

Funders

Back to top ↑

Proposition 33 — Allow local governments to impose rent controls

What does it do?

Many cities, including San Francisco and Los Angeles, limit the amount a landlord can raise the rent each year — a policy known as rent control. But for nearly 30 years, California has imposed limits on those limits, via a law known as Costa-Hawkins. Cities cannot set rent control on single-family homes or apartments built after 1995. And landlords are free to set their own rental rates when new tenants move in.

If Proposition 33 passes, that would change. Cities would be allowed to control rents on any type of housing – including single-family homes and new apartments, and for new tenants.

What are the arguments for and against?

• For

Arguments for Prop. 33 boil down to one, basic point: The rent is too damn high. Teachers, police officers and firefighters starting their careers are paying half their salary to live in many California cities, while others on fixed incomes are one step away from homelessness.

Supporters argue rent control works well in many cities to help keep people housed. And, they say, passing Prop. 33 will return decisions about rent control back to local governments, which can pass tailored policies that work for their residents.

• Against

Opponents say if cities adopt strict rent control ordinances, it will make California’s already dire housing shortage even worse. They argue 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.

Critics also point out the measure does not actually include protections for renters.

After all, opponents argue, California voters have shot down this proposal twice already.

Funders

Back to top ↑

Proposition 34 — Require certain providers to use prescription drug revenue for patients

What would it do?

Since 1992, federal law has given health care providers a deal: Serve low-income and at-risk patients and get a discount on pharmaceuticals. Providers that make use of this program can 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 would require some California providers to spend at least 98% of that net drug sale revenue on “direct patient care.” Providers that don’t risk having their state license and tax-exempt status revoked and losing out on government contracts.

But the proposition doesn’t apply to all providers — only those 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.

As far as anyone can tell, that only applies to one organization: The AIDS Healthcare Foundation.

The measure would also put into law a Newsom administration policy that requires all state agencies to negotiate for lower drug prices as a single entity.

What are the arguments for and against?

• For

Supporters say this is a simple case of accountability. When the federal government gives discounts to health care providers, taxpayers deserve to know that the money is being used to help the neediest patients. This proposition, they say, would provide much needed transparency and rein in abuse.

Supporters have also called out Weinstein specifically, calling him a “safety net scammer.” Prop. 34 would keep Weinstein from diverting the organization’s funds away from disadvantaged HIV and AIDS patients and towards his quixotic political projects.

• Against

Opponents argue that this is a political hit job paid for by a landlord lobby out for revenge. In a democracy, they say, campaigns should make their case to the voters, not silence their opponents.

They also say the measure is also illegal and therefore unenforceable because both the U.S. and state constitutions prohibit a law from singling out a single person or organization for punishment. The foundation put that argument in a lawsuit late last year. Though the state Supreme Court declined to remove the proposition from the ballot on those grounds, courts rarely do so prior to an election. The constitutional issues remain unaddressed. If Prop. 34 passes, it will almost certainly end up back in court.

Funders

Back to top ↑

Proposition 35 — Make permanent a tax on managed care health insurance plans

What would it do?

Proposition 35 would require the state to spend the money from a tax on health care plans on Medi-Cal, the public insurance program for low-income Californians and people with disabilities. The revenue would go to primary and specialty care, emergency services, family planning, mental health and prescription drugs. It would also prevent legislators from using the tax revenue to replace existing state Medi-Cal spending. Over the next four years, it is projected to generate upwards of $35 billion.

Earlier this year, Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed using the tax revenue to cover other Medi-Cal program expenses, walking back a deal to support new investments.

What are the arguments for and against?

• For

Supporters argue that California has relied on this tax — known as the Managed Care Organization Tax — for decades to offset general fund spending on Medi-Cal. Managed care health plans pay a tax to get a dollar-for-dollar matching amount of money from the federal government. Health providers who serve Medi-Cal patients argue that the tax revenue should be used for new investments in Medi-Cal rather than supporting the state’s general fund. Supporters also state that the measure leaves some money unrestricted to give lawmakers flexibility in balancing the budget or investing in additional Medi-Cal services.

• Against

Gov. Newsom has indicated he will oppose the measure even though there is no official registered opposition group so far. He argues restricting how the tax revenue is spent “hamstrings” future legislators and governors’ ability to balance the state budget.

Funders

Back to top ↑

Proposition 36 — Increase penalties for theft and drug trafficking

What would it do?

Proposition 36 would reclassify some misdemeanor theft and drug crimes as felonies.

The measure would also create a new category of crime — a “treatment-mandated felony.” People who don’t contest the charges could complete drug treatment instead of going to prison, but if they don’t finish treatment, they still face up to three years in prison.

What are the arguments for and against?

• For

Supporters pitch Prop. 36 as a way to combat homelessness, which is up by more than 50% since Prop. 47 passed. The reason, supporters say, is that drug dependence pushes people to the street, and increasing the penalties for drug possession is the only way to force people into treatment.

Supporters also say Prop. 36 is a good middle ground between California’s tough-on-crime days, which pushed prison capacity past its breaking point, and the last decade under Prop. 47, which they have say created “loopholes in state law that criminals exploit to avoid accountability for fentanyl trafficking and repeat retail theft.”

• Against

Opponents say that no studies on criminal justice or homelessness support the idea that harsher punishment — or the threat of harsher punishment — prevents crime or gets people off the street.

Prop. 36 will expend hundreds of millions of dollars in court and prison costs, they say, without measurably reducing crime or poverty. In the meantime, schools, health care and other essential services will go wanting.

The measure’s opponents argue Prop. 36 would mark a return to the War on Drugs, which they said California voters rejected a decade ago with Prop. 47.

Funders

Back to top ↑

Explore your virtual ballot

We teamed up with Ballot Ready to offer in-depth information about what's on your ballot with this interactive guide!

• Use your address to get a personalized ballot
• Get info on candidates, measures, and who supports them
• Keep track of your choices and use them to vote