On November 5th, the much-anticipated 2024 US Presidential election day in the United States, voters across California have started receiving their ballots, with some already casting their votes. Besides selecting new federal, state, and local officials, voters will also decide on 10 ballot propositions that cover various aspects of everyday life such as public safety, education, healthcare, marriage, and minimum wage.
These ballot propositions are closely tied to the daily lives of the public, encompassing areas like public safety, education, healthcare, marriage, and minimum wage. This year, many of California’s ballot propositions are related to fiscal budgets and taxation measures targeting voters.
In the past, many voters have made mistaken judgments on ballot propositions due to lack of understanding or being misled by the language used. Therefore, many groups are urging voters to be vigilant when casting their votes, as some propositions may appear on the ballot with good titles like “repairing public school facilities, maintaining California equality and justice, protecting drinking water, preventing wildfires, creating more affordable housing for families,” but in reality, they are indirectly taxing voters, compensating Black individuals, or amending constitutional clauses protecting voter rights.
So what are the 10 ballot propositions (“Proposition”) facing California voters this year?
Proposition 36, also known as the “Reduce Homelessness, Addiction, and Theft Act,” aims to repeal the 2014 Voter-Approved Proposition 47, increase penalties for certain drug and theft offenders, and enhance punishments for robbers.
Supporters argue that Proposition 36 will prevent criminals from exploiting loopholes in Proposition 47, safeguarding community members and businesses. However, opponents, including Governor Newsom and some Los Angeles County officials, believe that the proposition will lead to an increase in prison populations and court costs, further straining the already tight government budget. Nevertheless, with a surge in theft and property crime rates across the state, most voters believe that improving public safety is the top priority.
Proposition 36 includes requirements such as requiring arrested addicts to complete rehabilitation programs, increasing penalties for fentanyl traffickers, and prosecuting repeat theft offenders as felons regardless of the stolen amount.
For Proposition 36 in the November election, a “Yes” vote indicates support for stiffening penalties for theft offenders and drug traffickers, while a “No” vote signifies disagreement.
The California Republican Party (CAGOP) is urging voters to vote “Yes,” while the California Democratic Party (CADEM) holds the opposite view.
Proposition 2, a $10 billion school bond measure, seeks voter approval to authorize California to issue $10 billion in general obligation bonds to fund construction, renovation, and upgrades for public schools, community colleges, and technical education projects.
Supporters believe that this bond will fund school building renovations, testing and remediation of lead pollution in school water systems, and address safety hazards in some schools. On the other hand, opponents argue that providing a safe environment for children should be the state government’s responsibility, and funds should be allocated to prioritize students’ safety and repair school infrastructures.
California Assemblyman Bill Essayli in opposition to Proposition 2 in the voter guide argued that the educational finance bonds required by the proposition should have been included in this year’s $288 billion state budget. He criticized the state legislature’s decision to prioritize allocating over $5 billion for illegal immigrant healthcare rather than supporting and repairing school infrastructure.
Analysts estimate that if the bond is approved, California will need approximately $500 million annually over 35 years to repay the bond, with total interest expenses reaching around $8 billion. A “No” vote signals disagreement with issuing more bonds.
Proposition 3, a constitutional amendment proposal, aims to amend the California Constitution to repeal the provision that marriage is only between one man and one woman.
Supporters argue that the community needs to change the constitution to acknowledge different types of marriages under current legal standards. However, opponents express concerns that the ballot language declaring marriage a “fundamental right” is too vague and could open the door to various interpretations of marriage beyond one man and one woman or same-sex marriage, potentially leading to child marriage, polygamy, or incest.
Dean Broyles, Chairman of the National Center for Law and Policy and a constitutional expert, warned that Proposition 3 introduces a marriage concept that may completely deviate from traditional societal and moral standards.
Civil groups believe that in the long run, this constitutional amendment ballot proposition will bring significant consequences and disasters. A “No” vote indicates disagreement with amending the constitution.
Proposition 4, also a bond proposition, asks voters to approve a $10 billion bond aimed at alleviating wildfires, droughts, and floods to protect communities and land, with at least 40% of the funds allocated to economically disadvantaged communities.
Supporters argue that the fund will benefit emergency responders, calling it a proper investment and the most cost-effective way to address and prevent disasters.
Critics argue that the debt created by bonds is a long-term problem, as continuous bond issuances by the government will not only increase the debt burden but also raise borrowing costs, threatening the economy. They believe the government should find a benign solution and use funds more prudently.
For Proposition 4, a “No” vote signifies disagreement with issuing more bonds. The California Republican Party is urging voters to vote “No,” while the California Democratic Party holds the opposite stance.
Proposition 5 is also a constitutional proposition. Currently, California’s constitution mandates that certain bonds and taxes for infrastructure and housing must be approved by a two-thirds vote of the electorate.
Proposition 5 seeks to overturn this threshold, allowing local bonds for infrastructure and housing to be approved by a 55% majority. If Proposition 5 passes, local governments would find it easier to approve bonds and levy special taxes.
Supporters argue that Proposition 5 helps address California’s housing supply issue. However, the Legislative Analyst’s Office states that any loan costs will ultimately be paid for by higher property taxes.
Robert Gutierrez, Chairman of the California Taxpayers Association, stated in opposition to Proposition 5 that it would make cities, counties, and districts more likely to increase property taxes on residents, paying for California’s already substantial debt.
A “No” vote indicates disagreement with amending the constitution and not relaxing the voter authorization threshold. The California Republican Party urges voters to vote “No,” while the California Democratic Party holds the opposite view.
Proposition 6 is also a constitutional proposition. Under current law, correctional facilities can require prisoners to engage in cleaning, cooking, and other types of work or participate in some educational training. Proposition 6 aims to prohibit mandatory prison labor.
Supporters of the proposition argue that compulsory prison labor is cruel and unfair. There are no listed opponents on the ballot, but a prisoner serving 29 years for second-degree murder in a California state prison, Brian James, believes that prisons should enforce work. He argues based on his experience that this type of forced labor does not amount to enslavement but equips prisoners with the necessary skills for “re-entry into society.”
California’s Republican Party is urging voters to vote “No” on Proposition 6, while the California Democratic Party holds the opposite stance.
Under the existing Living Wage Law, California’s minimum wage was raised to $16 per hour earlier this year, with it set to increase to $17 per hour from January next year for businesses with over 25 employees.
Proposition 32 proposes raising the minimum wage to $18 per hour in January 2025. For businesses with fewer than 25 employees, the minimum wage will rise from $16 to $17 per hour in 2025 and then to $18 per hour in 2026.
Supporters argue that a raise is necessary to address California’s cost of living issues. However, analysts suggest that this proposition will have wide-ranging economic impacts; labor markets will face pressure, and businesses may pass on higher labor costs to consumers through increased prices for goods and services.
Some also believe that the government mandating higher business costs could lead to the closure of some small businesses due to lack of profitability. The recent wage increases in California have already led to the closure of some businesses.
For Proposition 32, the California Republican Party urges voters to vote “No,” while the California Democratic Party holds the opposite view.
In recent years, the California government has made multiple attempts to legislate rent control, all of which have failed. Proposition 33 is a new attempt at this, aiming to repeal the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, which restricts local governments from setting rent control limits on housing and single-family residences built after 1995.
If passed, Proposition 33 would grant local governments greater authority to control the rent of private properties. Supporters argue that the proposition will help lower housing costs for renters.
However, analysts believe that implementing stricter rent control laws may increase the government’s costs of enforcement and compliance by tens of millions of dollars annually, with costs likely passed on to landlords through other fees. Stricter rent control regulations could lower the value of rental properties, reducing property tax revenue received by the government annually.
California voter Valerie states that the government has no right to meddle in the management of private industries or deny individuals the freedom to manage their properties. She argues that government intervention in private property management disrupts market balance; landlords become more selective when choosing tenants, leading to fewer housing options and eventually higher rents, leaving both landlords and tenants as victims.
A “No” vote indicates disagreement with government involvement in managing private property rental.
Proposition 34 aims to require certain healthcare service providers to allocate 98% of their revenue to direct patient care, including spending over $100 million outside of direct patient care in any 10-year period, operating multiple family dwellings with over 500 severe violators.
According to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, enforcing this proposition may cost the state government millions of dollars annually due to compliance and enforcement.
Opponents argue that this proposition poses a “serious threat to democracy” and is a form of market monopoly.
Proposition 35 aims to extend the Medi-Cal health insurance provider tax, extending the current tax on health insurance companies (also known as the MCO tax) that was set to expire in 2026 indefinitely, funding care projects covered by the Medi-Cal program.
The proposition stipulates that the tax collected monthly can only be used for specific Medi-Cal services such as primary and specialty care, emergency services, family planning, mental health care, and prescription drugs.
Starting from 2024, California will provide free healthcare services for illegal immigrants in the state, requiring an additional $3 to $6 billion in taxpayer funds annually. Many question whether the funds collected by Proposition 35 will likely be used to assist illegal immigrants in healthcare.
On November 5th, this year’s Presidential election day, legal voters are required to register as voters by October 21st to ensure timely receipt of ballots; voters choosing to mail their ballots must do so by November 5th or earlier; voters can also cast their votes at various polling stations from 7 am to 8 pm on November 5th. To ensure that votes are counted promptly, the California Republican Party reminds voters not to wait and to start voting immediately.