2024 CALIFORNIA BALLOT PROPOSITIONS
QUICK TAKES
Updated October 5. Somewhat to my dismay, the ballot has changed significantly since April. I have removed the many initiatives I thought would make the ballot. This year’s set of initiatives is quite taut for an election year.
Proposition 2 (education facilities bond): RELUCTANT YES
Proposition 3 (repeal Prop 8): YES
Proposition 4 (parks & water bond): YES
Proposition 5 (lowering the supermajority for housing): YES
Proposition 6 (eliminating slavery in state prison): YES
Proposition 32 (minimum wage): YES
Proposition 33 (prohibit state limitation on local rent control): RELUCTANT YES
Proposition 34 (targeting the AIDS Healthcare Foundation): NO
Proposition 35 (MCO tax): YES
Proposition 36 (more drug offenders in prison): NO
PROPOSITION 2: PUBLIC EDUCATION FACILITIES BOND MEASURE
Type of initiative: BI (bond issue). The last bond measure of its kind was Proposition 13 in 2020, which was defeated 53-47. In 2016, Proposition 51 passed 55-45 and issued $9 billion in bonds to fund K-12 facility improvement.
California’s bonded debt is $80 billion and the state is authorized to sell an additional $35 billion in bonds. $6 billion (3%) of the annual general fund is used to repay bonds. This one would add $500 million for 35 years.
The teacher and labor unions support this, as well as—surprise!—the California Chamber of Commerce. I assume this is because facilities upgrades represents a windfall for construction companies. Howard Jarvis opposes, but no money is being spent in opposition.
The measure sounds like a slam dunk, but I have questions. Apparently the money only goes to schools and colleges in districts that will be contributing part of the funding for facility repairs and upgrades. The Mercury News advises NO on this proposition because they claim the measure’s funding “favors districts that already have access to money over those that don’t.”
Yuck.
Facilities don’t last forever after they’re built, and schools are already facing cuts this year and next year. Sounds like the money is not going where it’s most needed. But, that’s not to say the money isn’t needed at all.
RELUCTANT YES
PROPOSITION 3. RIGHT TO MARRY & REPEAL PROP 8.
Type of initiative: LRCA (legislatively-referred constitutional amendment). In other words, the state legislature has placed this on the ballot in order to amend the state constitution.
A YES vote here repeals the vile 2008 proposition defining marriage as a matter of what body parts you happen to have.
When my marriage to my dying partner was invalidated by a majority of my neighbors, I felt humiliated and enraged. Although the Supremes invalidated Prop 8 at the federal level in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015, this ballot initiative has the current court in mind. Alito, Thomas, and others would love to overturn Obergefell and kick it back to the states; in that case, Prop 8 would again become operative.
No one in the legislature voted against it—not even Republicans. The usual right-wing church trolls are lining up against it but they’re not likely to waste their money fighting it.
IT’S ABOUT F#&*ING TIME.
PROPOSITION 4. PARKS, ENVIRONMENT, ENERGY, AND WATER BOND
Type of intiative: BI (bond initiative). California’s bonded debt is $80 billion and the state is authorized to sell an additional $35 billion in bonds. $6 billion (3%) of the annual general fund is used to repay bonds. This one would add $400 million for 40 years.
A YES vote here authorizes the sale of bonds in order to fund environmental, energy, and water projects around the state, including projects that mitigate wildfires and flooding. 40% of the money would have to be spent on projects that benefit lower income communities.
There is not a lot of campaign activity either way with this one.
It’s nice to see the state trying to be proactive about disasters and drinking water.
YES.
PROPOSITION 5: LOWER THE SUPERMAJORITY REQUIREMENT FOR HOUSING & INFRASTRUCTURE TAXATION
Type of initiative: LRCA (legislatively-referred constitutional amendment). In other words, the state legislature has placed this on the ballot in order to amend the state constitution.
A YES vote here will allow municipal and county governments to ask the electorate to approve taxes for the purpose of affordable housing or public infrastructure with a 55% majority instead of a two-thirds majority. Income tax, property tax, and other state-level taxes would be unaffected. Yes, this is an attempt to amend the notorious 1978 voter-approved Proposition 13, but only for local governments, not for Sacramento. It would also require local governments to audit the expenditure of tax dollars to make sure they’re in compliance with this amendment; for example, the money could not be used for government salaries or operating expenses.
The usual anti-government suspects stand arrayed against it: Howard Jarvis, the Chamber of Commerce, California Republicans, and so forth. One of their concerns is that the term “infrastructure” isn’t particularly specific. Mostly, they’re whining about how it’s a windfall for Sacramento. It isn’t. In fact it makes local governments less dependent on Sacramento.
Supporters include California Democrats, the ACLU, California firefighters, the League of Women Voters, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, and the California Association of Counties.
YES has raised $5.3 million; NO has raised $3.2 million (10/5), making this our first hot potato.
The LA Times urges a YES vote, claiming 2/3 is too high a threshold and gives too much power to NIMBYs. The Mercury News warns that companies standing to benefit from this money (contractors and others) already have too cozy a relationship with elected officials. Of course I hate that, but the threshold for passage is not the problem here — lack of transparency and oversight is.
I am for local control of taxation and funding of infrastructure, and for easing local dependence on state and federal funding sources. Here’s how this should work and can work: “In November 2011, Palm Springs voters approved Measure J, a one-cent sales tax increase that has funded hundreds of important citywide services and capital improvement projects, including the Downtown Revitalization Project and public improvements, the new Downtown Park, hundreds of miles of city street paving…” (palmspringsca.gov)
Let’s make it a bit easier for cities to do their jobs.
YES.
PROPOSITION 6: REMOVE INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE AS A PUNISHMENT FOR CRIME
Type of initiative: LRCA (legislatively-referred constitutional amendment). In other words, the state legislature has placed this on the ballot in order to amend the state constitution.
A YES vote here prohibits slavery as a punishment for committing a crime. It would authorize the Department of Corrections to award credits to incarcerated persons who voluntarily work while in prison.
Alabama (!), Oregon, Tennessee, Utah, Nebraska, and Vermont have already done this. A similar measure failed in Louisiana. California remains among 16 states who enslave inmates.
Even Idaho and South Carolina don’t enslave their inmates.
This shouldn’t even be remotely controversial. The Sacramento Bee urges a YES vote. The Mercury News, by contrast, argues that requiring inmates to clean and cook is reasonable, comparing inmates to children in families who help out without an allowance, and to members of the armed forces who do chores—apparently forgetting that members of the armed services are paid. Are these people dumb?
YES
PROPOSITION 32. $18 MINIMUM WAGE.
Type of initiative: CISS (citizen-initiated ballot measure) that amends state law.
A YES vote here will raise the minimum wage to $18/hour by the first day of 2025 for employers with 26 or more workers, and by the first day of 2026 for employers with 25 or fewer workers. The minimum wage would continue to increase based on changes in the U.S. Consumer Price Index.
Last time they did this? Governor Jerry Brown (D) signed the $15 minimum wage into law in 2016. It gave small businesses until 2023 to adjust.
YES is supported by the Yes on California Living Wage Act PAC, California Democrats, the ACLU, and various unions, and has raised $11.5 million (10/5).
NO is supported by the usual suspects, including Howard Jarvis, and has raised $65,000.
The Mercury News and the LA Times support the measure.
$18 is not a livable wage in California, unless you live in your car. Seems like a no-brainer.
But did you know? A minimum wage increase encourages the hiring of undocumented migrants for less. And, the burden for any minimum wage increase rests with small businesses and middle class consumers, not with the hoarding class and with large employers like Wal-Mart and Amazon, who depend on government services to supplement the meager pay they offer their employees. And, minimum wage hikes put inflationary pressure on the economy and fail to address the root causes of homelessness and poverty.
But we have to do better and this isn’t much of an ask in the grand scheme of things. It’ll pass.
YES.
PROPOSITION 33: PROHIBIT STATE LIMITATIONS ON LOCAL RENT CONTROL.
Type of initiative: CISS (citizen-initiated ballot measure) that amends state law.
A YES vote here repeals the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995, which prohibited rent control on single-family homes and houses completed after February 1, 1995. So in other words, a YES vote bars Sacramento from interfering with rent control laws and the county and municipal level. In addition, any laws currently inoperative because of Costa-Hawkins would take effect.
Justice for Renters and the AIDS Healthcare Foundation is leading the campaign with $10.7M after spending over $63M in two failed similar campaigns in 2018 and 2020. Veterans and immigrant rights organizations are also behind it.
The California Apartment Association worries about the measure’s abolition of vacancy control, which allows owners to adjust rents to market rates after a tenant vacates the property. Why, they argue, would owners invest in the rental market going forward? Why would they spend money to keep their properties from deteriorating?
I appreciate what rent control advocates are trying to achieve. I share their goals. But price controls tend to depress supply, and that is unacceptable. What would work better is if low-income renters received vouchers from the state, thereby lowering their rent without punishing owners, who can’t be trusted to invest in the rental market if there’s no profit to be made. In exchange for vouchers, renters would be required to keep the property in acceptable condition. The voucher system could easily be paid for if non-residents—people who do not pay California income tax—particularly foreign owners, saw their property taxes soar, and if the construction of new luxury housing was depressed by a luxury tax.
That, in addition to higher wages and higher income taxes at the top of the bracket, is what’s needed. Not price controls.
All that said, I do generally support local control over as many issues as possible. The state should be in charge of income tax, education, health care, environmental protection, and civil rights—and not much else. My voucher idea would have to be a state-level measure; until then, let local governments have sway over rent control.
RELUCTANT YES.
PROPOSITION 34: REQUIRE CERTAIN PARTICIPANTS IN MEDI-CAL RX PROGRAM TO SPEND 98% OF REVENUES ON PATIENT CARE
Boy, that’s a mouthful.
Type of initiative: CISS (citizen-initiated ballot measure) that amends state law.
I’m going to simplify as much as possible. A YES vote here will force health care providers identified as prescription drug price manipulators to meet special requirements in order to maintain their tax-exempt status, as well as their license to operate. Any entity that doesn’t spend $100 million on purposes not related to direct patient care in the last 10 years will be unaffected.
So who is being targeted for bad behavior here? It appears specially designed to go after the AIDS Healthcare Foundation.
YES is supported by California Republicans, Howard Jarvis, and other groups who claim they want to force the AIDS Healthcare Foundation to focus more on low-income patients and direct patient care, and less on their other expenditures. It also seeks to prevent them from overcharging government agencies for prescription drugs.
Opponents including the League of Women Voters contend that the REAL goal here is to shut down the AIDS Healthcare Foundation because it supports rent controls for those living with HIV/AIDS.
Now it all makes sense.
YES has raised $30 million to opponents’ $1 million.
The Mercury News, the San Francisco Chronicle, and other publications oppose this. So do I.
NO.
PROPOSITION 35: MANAGED CARE ORGANIZATION TAX AUTHORIZATION INITIATIVE
Type of initiative: CISS (citizen-initiated ballot measure) that amends state law.
A YES vote here would permanently authorize a tax on managed care organizations based on monthly enrollees rather than allowing it to expire in 2026. However, the tax is capped at $2.50 per enrollee, and the total revenue raised is capped at $36 million, and the money would continue to help pay for Medi-Cal’s overhead.
MCOs offer health insurance to consumers at fixed costs.
Supporters include both major parties, the hospitals, Planned Parenthood, and the California Medical Association. The League of Women Voters opposes. Supporters have raised an eye-watering $48 million. The Mercury News and the San Francisco Chronicle urge a NO vote here because it ties the hands of legislators in Sacramento who might want to spend the money differently. “Budgeting at this level of complexity and uncertainty shouldn’t happen at the ballot box.”
Sounds all right until you hear it put like that. It’s interesting — and telling — that doctors, hospitals, and ambulance companies need a ballot initiative in order to get this done.
All that said, I am hesitant to deny funding to Medi-Cal.
YES.
PROPOSITION 36: DRUG AND THEFT CRIME PENALTIES AND TREATMENT-MANDATED FELONIES
Type of initiative: CISS (citizen-initiated ballot measure) that amends state law.
The goal here is to change Proposition 47 (2014) in order to classify certain drug offenses as “treatment-mandated felonies,” in order to increase sentence lengths for certain crimes, and in order to increase sentences for theft based on the value of the property stolen.
None of that has ever worked before, so it should be interesting to see who’s in favor of this and why they think it’s necessary.
Our friendly neighborhood U.S. Representative Ken Calvert (R-CA) has put his name to it. The San Francisco mayor supports this, I guess because she thinks it will help get people off her streets and into the prison system. Republicans and law enforcement support it, as well as big retailers like Wal-Mart and Target. Opponents include California Democrats, the ACLU, the teachers, the nurses, the League of Women Voters, and the governor. That’s normally far more than enough information for me to decide, but let’s consider what the proponents are saying.
Supporters claim it will make neighborhoods safe and clean. They’re spending more than 10-1 to get it passed.
How? Crowding the criminal justice system with drug offenders has never worked.
The Mercury Times isn’t offering any more than that in their editorial supporting 36. That’s really all they have? I guess it is.
The LA Times argues “it’s more illusion than solution.” Exactly.
NO.