California Propositions - 2024 Edition
Make informed decisions on California Propositions
Jump to a section
Prop 2 - Borrow $10 billion to build/repair schools, colleges
Proposition: Should California issue $10 billion in bonds to help build or upgrade educational facilities?
Why is it on the ballot: Apparently California does not pay for school repairs through a permanent funding stream, but instead the money needs to come entirely from state and local bonds. The state’s last school facilities bond, a $15 billion proposal in 2020, failed, leaving the state’s school repair account nearly empty.
Yes Means: The state could borrow $10 billion to build new or renovate existing public school and community college facilities.
Proponents Say: Many schools and community colleges are outdated and need basic health and safety repairs and upgrades to prepare students for college and careers and to retain and attract quality teachers. Prop. 2 meets those needs and requires strict taxpayer accountability so funds are spent as promised with local control.
Who is for Yes: State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, Association of California School Administrators, California Labor Federation, California Chamber of Commerce, California Federation of Teachers, California School Boards Association, League of Women Voters of California, Small School Districts Association.
No Means: The state could not borrow $10 billion to build new or renovate existing public school and community college facilities.
Opponents Say: Proposition 2 will increase our bond obligations by $10 billion, which will cost taxpayers an estimated $18 billion when repaid with interest. A bond works like a government credit card—paying off that credit card requires the government to spend more of your tax dollars!
Who is for No: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, East Bay Times/Mercury News, and Southern California News Group.
Click here to learn about more.
Prop 3 - Reaffirm the right of same-sex couples to marry
Proposition: Should marriage rights for same-sex couples be enshrined in the state constitution?
Yes Means: Language in the California Constitution would be updated to match who currently can marry. i.e. constitution will simply be updated to reflect the current laws in the state.
Proponents Say: Proposition 3 protects Californians' freedom to marry, regardless of their race or gender. The current language contradicts both the law, which now allows same-sex couples to marry, and California’s values, which support equality for LGBTQ people. Proposition 3 removes discriminatory language from the California Constitution stating marriage is only between a man and a woman.
Who is for Yes: American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, California Democratic Party, Gov. Gavin Newsom, League of Women Voters of California, California Labor Federation, California Chamber of Commerce.
No Means: Language in the California Constitution would not be changed. There would be no change in who can marry as per the state law since this would've been merely an amendment to the CA constitution.
Opponents Say: Marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman. Proposition 3 removes all rules for marriage, opening the door to child marriages, incest, and polygamy. It changes California's constitution even though same-sex marriage is already legal. By making moms and dads optional, it puts children at risk. This careless measure harms families and society.
Who is for No: California Family Council, The American Council of Evangelicals.
Click here to learn about why it's on the ballet and more.
ProP 4 - Borrow $10 billion to respond to climate change
Proposition: Should California issue $10 billion in bonds to fund various climate- and environment-related projects?
Yes Means: The state could borrow $10 billion to fund various activities aimed at conserving natural resources, as well as responding to the causes and effects of climate change.
Proponents Say: It will allow the state to make needed investments to protect water quality, help prevent wildfires, safeguard coastal communities from sea-level rise, preserve wildlife habitat, and help frontline communities access safe drinking water and green spaces. According to a state report, not intervening would cost Californians $113 billion annually by 2050.
Who is for Yes: Clean Water Action, National Wildlife Federation, California Professional Firefighters, California Labor Federation, League of Women Voters of California, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, California Municipal Utilities Association.
No Means: The state could not borrow $10 billion to fund various activities aimed at conserving natural resources, as well as responding to the causes and effects of climate change.
Opponents Say: Bonds are the most expensive way to fund government spending. Water and wildfire mitigation are necessities, not luxuries. They should be budgeted for, not bonded. Mismanagement led to this crisis. This $10 billion bond will cost taxpayers almost $2 to repay for every dollar spent.
Who is for No: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Senate GOP leader Brian Jones, Assembly member Jim Patterson.
Click here to learn about why it's on the ballet and more.
Prop 5 - Make it easier for local governments to fund affordable housing
Proposition: Should California reduce the vote threshold needed to pass certain local bonds for affordable housing and public infrastructure projects?
Yes Means: Certain local bonds and related property taxes could be approved with a 55 percent vote of the local electorate, rather than the current two-thirds approval requirement. These bonds would have to fund affordable housing, supportive housing, or public infrastructure. If it passes, the new cut-off would apply not just to future bonds, but any that are on the ballot this November.
Proponents Say: 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.
Who is for Yes: California Democratic Party, California State Building and Construction Trades Council, AIDS Healthcare Foundation, California Housing Partnership, California YIMBY, California Labor Federation, League of Women Voters of California.
No Means: Funding for arts education in public schools would continue to depend on state and local budget decisions.
Opponents Say: 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.
Who is for No: California Chamber Of Commerce, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, National Federation of Independent Businesses, Catalyst For Local Control.
Click here to learn about why it's on the ballet and more.
Prop 6 - Limit forced labor in state prisons
Proposition: Should California ban involuntary servitude in prisons and jails?
Yes Means: Involuntary servitude would not be allowed as punishment for crime. State prisons would not be allowed to discipline people in prison 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.
Proponents Say: 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 and it’s not fair for those who refuse a work assignment to face punishments such as losing their right to use the phone or receive visits from family members.
Who is for Yes: ACLU California Action, Anti-Recidivism Coalition, California Democratic Party, California Teachers Association, California Black Legislative Caucus, California Labor Federation, League of Women Voters of California.
No Means: Involuntary servitude would continue to be allowed as punishment for crime.
Opponents Say: If incarcerated people turn down work assignments, prisons would have to spend more money to hire people to cook or clean. Inmates are supposed to be paying their debt to society while incarcerated, and taxpayers should not have to assume a greater burden to fund prison chores.
Who is for No: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.
Click here to learn about why it's on the ballet and more.
Prop 32 - Raise state minimum wage to $18 an hour
Proposition: Should all California employees earn at least $18 per hour by Jan. 1, 2026?
Yes Means: Minimum wage will be raised 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.
Proponents Say: More service, essential, and other workers, and single moms can afford the state’s cost of living. It'll help roughly 2 million Californians who struggle to afford basic necessities. UC Berkeley studies have found that California’s gradual increase to $15 had “no significant” effect on job losses.
Who is for Yes: California Labor Federation, Unite Here, One Fair Wage, Working Families Party California, California Democratic Party, League of Women Voters of California.
No Means: No change would be made to taxes on personal income above $2 million annually.
Opponents Say: Prop. 32 was written by one multimillionaire alone, and he wrote a horribly flawed measure. Employers already face increased supply and labor costs from inflation and that for some, business hasn’t bounced back fully since the COVID pandemic. 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.
Who is for No: California Chamber of Commerce, California Restaurant Association, California Grocers Association, National Federation of Independent Business, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.
Click here to learn about why it's on the ballet and more.
Prop 33 - Expand local governments' authority on rent control
Proposition: Should California remove limits on the ability of cities to impose rent control policies capping annual rent increases?
Yes Means: Cities would be allowed to control rents on any type of housing – including single-family homes and new apartments, and for new tenants. Currently Cities are prohibited from setting rent control on single-family homes or apartments built after 1995 under the "Costa-Hawkins" law.
Proponents Say: Over half of Californians are rent burdened, paying more than 30% of their income on rent. Wage growth has not kept pace with rent increases, and housing costs are driving many people out of the state. Solving the housing crisis does require the state to build more affordable housing; but in the meantime, cities need tools like rent control to keep people housed.
Who is for Yes: AIDS Healthcare Foundation, California Democratic Party, Veterans’ Voices, California Nurses Association, CA Alliance for Retired Americans, CA Alliance for Retired Americans.
No Means: State law would continue to limit the kinds of rent control laws cities and counties could have.
Opponents Say: California voters have rejected this radical proposal twice before. If cities adopt strict rent control ordinances, it will make California’s already dire housing shortage even worse. 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.
Who is for No: California Rental Housing Association, California Senior Alliance, California Chamber of Commerce, Sen. Toni Atkins, Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.
Click here to learn about why it's on the ballet and more.
Prop 34 - Require certain providers to use drug revenue for patients
Proposition: Should California restrict how certain health care providers can spend revenue from prescription drug sales?
Yes Means: Certain health care entities would have to follow new rules about how they spend revenue they earn from a federal drug discount program. Breaking these rules would result in penalties (such as not being able to operate as a health care entity), generally for a ten-year period.
Proponents Say: This will stop health care providers from spending revenue from the drug discount program on efforts that don’t directly benefit patients. It would keep AIDS Healthcare Foundation President Michael Weinstein from funneling money away from patients toward his political pursuits.
Who is for Yes: California Apartment Association, ALS Association, Assemblymember Evan Low, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, California Chamber of Commerce.
No Means: These new rules would not go into effect.
Opponents Say: The initiative is sponsored by landlords to keep the AIDS Healthcare Foundation — the main funder of Proposition 33, the rent control initiative on this ballot — from championing tenant protections. Powerful interest groups shouldn’t be able to use the initiative process to stop organizations from engaging in advocacy work. If passed, it would set a dangerous precedent.
Who is for No: AIDS Healthcare Foundation, Consumer Watchdog, National Organization for Women, The Coalition for Economic Survival.
Click here to learn about why it's on the ballet and more.
Prop 35 - Make a tax on managed care insurance plans permanent
Proposition: Should California make permanent an existing tax on health insurance companies and restrict how those funds can be used?
Yes Means: An existing state tax on health plans that provides funding for certain health programs would become permanent. New rules would direct how the state must use the revenue.
Proponents Say: About 2 in 5 Californians rely on Medi-Cal for their health care, yet they often wait months to see a specialist; not all physicians accept Medi-Cal patients and they are reimbursed lower rates for services. Proposition 35 is intended to alleviate inequity without raising rates for consumers. The proposition will use the existing MCO tax to ensure permanent increased funding for Medi-Cal payments including hospitals and ambulance services. The proposal will prevent the state from redirecting revenue from this tax for non-health care purposes.
Who is for Yes: California Medical Association, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, California Hospital Association, California Dental Association, California Primary Care Association, California Democratic Party, California Republican Party.
No Means: An existing state tax on health plans would end in 2027, unless the Legislature continues it. The new rules would not become law.
Opponents Say: This tax will do more harm than good because the legislation will roll back investments in community health workers, community behavioral health, services that support seniors with Alzheimer’s, and funding to ensure young children are covered by Medi-Cal.
Who is for No: League of Women Voters of California, California Pan-Ethnic Health Network, The Children’s Partnership, California Alliance for Retired Americans, Courage California.
Click here to learn about why it's on the ballet and more.
Prop 35 - Increase penalties for theft and drug trafficking
Proposition: Should California roll back past reforms and make it easier to charge people with felony crimes and send them to jail or prison if they repeatedly shoplift, or possess some drugs, including fentanyl and methamphetamine?
Yes Means: People convicted of certain drug or theft crimes could receive increased punishment, such as longer prison sentences. In certain cases, people who possess illegal drugs would be required to complete treatment or serve up to three years in prison.
Proponents 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.”
Who is for Yes: Walmart, Target, Home Depot, California District Attorneys Association, California Correctional Peace Officers Association, California Republican Party, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, California Chamber of Commerce.
No Means: An existing state tax on health plans would end in 2027, unless the Legislature continues it. The new rules would not become law.
Opponents Say: 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. This puts prisons first and guts treatment.
Who is for No: Gov. Gavin Newsom, Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire, Alliance for Safety and Justice, ACLU of Northern California, California Democratic Party, League of Women Voters of California.
Click here to learn about why it's on the ballet and more.
Leave us feedback here.