UPDATED California Globe Voter Guide: 2024 Ballot Measures Broken Down to Just the Facts

UPDATED 10/15/2024: California voters have many decisions to make November 5, 2024, and not just on a President. California voters are facing 10 ballot initiatives dealing with rampant theft and drug trafficking (Prop. 36), limiting rent control laws (Prop. 33), several bonds (more taxation/government spending) for building new or renovating existing public school and colleges (Prop. 2), bonds to build low-income housing (Prop. 5), water, wildfire prevention (Prop. 4), permanent funding for Medi-Cal, California’s welfare/low-income health care (Prop. 35), and more…

The bottom line voters want to know – “What will screw me over, and what will make my life better?”

Remember, bonds mean more spending and excessive and inflated taxation on things that should be budgeted for in the state budget.

I have included how I will be voting on the ballot initiatives. And, if you need more detail about each of the state ballot initiatives, I joined Steve Hilton on his podcast along with Jennifer Horn, radio talk show host extraordinaire on AM870 The Answer, and Susan Shelley, Columnist & member of the Editorial Board at Orange County Register, L.A. Daily News, Southern California News Group, and Vice President Communications of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, where we cover all of the California ballot initiatives. 

PROPOSITION 2: NO – Authorizes Bonds for Public School and Community College Facilities. Legislative Statute.

Authorizes $10 billion in general obligation bonds for repair, upgrade, and construction of facilities at K–12 public schools (including charter schools), community colleges, and career technical education programs, including for improvement of health and safety conditions and classroom upgrades. Requires annual audits.

Supporters: California Teachers Association; California School Nurses Organization; Community College League of California say Many schools and community colleges are outdated and need basic health and safety repairs and upgrades.

A YES vote on this measure means: The state could borrow $10 billion to build new or renovate existing public school and community college facilities. Cost: increased taxpayer’s costs of about $500 million annually for 35 years to repay the bond.

Opponents: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association 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! Vote NO on Prop. 2.”

A NO vote on this measure means: The state could not borrow $10 billion to build new or renovate existing public school and community college facilities.

PROPOSITION 3: NO – Constitutional Right to Marriage. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.

Amends California Constitution to recognize fundamental right to marry, regardless of sex or race. If all this initiative did was remove language in California Constitution stating that marriage is only between a man and a woman in support of marriage equality, it would have my vote. But this initiative isn’t what it appears.

Supporters: Sierra Pacific Synod of The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; Dolores Huerta Foundation; Equality California.

A YES vote on this measure means: Language in the California Constitution would be updated to match who currently can marry. There would be no change in who can marry.

Opponents: Jonathan Keller, California Family Council; Rev. Tanner DiBella.

A NO vote on this measure means: Language in the California Constitution would not be changed. There would be no change in who can marry.

UPDATED 9/25/24: As the California Family Council reports, constitutional expert Dean Broyles, president of the National Center for Law and Policy, raises serious concerns about the far-reaching implications of this amendment. Broyles warns that marriage in California would become “the public projection of whatever the autonomous individual privately imagines would satisfy his or her pursuit of freedom and happiness.” In other words, marriage would no longer be about building stable families or serving the common good; it would become just another vehicle for personal expression.

Broyles lists a number of “marriage possibilities” that may seem far-fetched today but could become plausible under Proposition 3. These include polyamorous marriages, where three or more people are joined in matrimony, and even marriages between people and non-human entities. While these scenarios may seem improbable, Broyles reminds us that same-sex marriage was once considered just as unlikely. For example, Berkeley and Oakland both passed legal protections for Polyamory earlier this year. (read more here at the California Family Council.)

Cats and dogs can marry? Or I can marry my dog? This initiative is a hot mess.

PROPOSITION 4: NO – Authorizes Bonds for Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, and Protecting Communities and Natural Lands from Climate Risks. Legislative Statute.

Authorizes $10 billion in general obligation bonds for water, wildfire prevention, and protection of communities and lands. Requires annual audits. (Double that $10 billion when the bond is eventually paid off…)

This is something the state should have been already budgeted for on the state budget. Yet, for at least 15-20 years that I know of, the California Legislature won’t budget the relatively small amount of money it would take to provide clean, fresh and safe drinking water for the Central Valley town of Porterville.

Supporters: Clean Water Action; CALFIRE Firefighters; National Wildlife Federation; The Nature Conservancy.

A YES vote on this measure 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. Increased state costs of about $400 million annually for 40 years to repay the bond.

Opponents: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

A NO vote on this measure means: The state should 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. 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. Vote NO on Prop. 4.

Additional information from HJTA: This is the $10 billion “climate bond” that state politicians have long planned. California already has too much bond debt, over $78 billion outstanding as of January 1. Then $6.38 billion was added with Proposition 1 in March. Proposition 4 would add another $10 billion in bond debt to pay for climate “programs.” It’s reckless to use borrowed money, an estimated $18 billion with interest, to pay for “programs,” including salaries for all the groups that receive the money. Bond financing only makes sense for necessary projects that will last more than the 30 years it takes to repay the debt. The governor has already declared a budget emergency because the state spends more than it takes in. Spending even more “on the credit card” is a bad idea.

PROPOSITION 5: NONONONONO – WARNING: Prop. 5 is a direct attack on Proposition 13. Allows Local Bonds for Affordable Housing and Public Infrastructure with 55% Voter Approval. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.

Allows approval of local infrastructure and housing bonds for low-and middle-income Californians with 55% vote. Accountability requirements.

Supporters: California Professional Firefighters; League of Women Voters of California; Habitat for Humanity California.

A YES vote on this measure 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.

Opponents: California Taxpayers Association; California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce; Women Veterans Alliance.

A NO vote on this measure means: Certain local bonds and related property taxes would continue to need approval by a two-thirds vote of the local electorate.

More from HJTA: Proposition 5 is ACA 1, a direct attack on Proposition 13. It makes it easier to raise taxes by eliminating the longstanding two-thirds vote of the electorate required to pass local bonds (borrowed money that must be repaid with interest). All new bond measures for “infrastructure” (nearly everything is “infrastructure”) and for public housing projects would pass with just 55% approval instead of the current 66.7%. Local bonds are paid for with extra charges on property tax bills, adding to the tax burden on homeowners and businesses, leading to higher rents for tenants and higher consumer prices for everyone. If Proposition 5 is not stopped, property tax bills are likely to go up after every election, forever. Proposition 5 will raise the cost of living in California, which already has the highest poverty rate in the country when the cost of living is taken into account.

PROPOSITION 6: NO – Eliminates Constitutional Provision Allowing Involuntary Servitude for Incarcerated Persons. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.

In California lawmakers claim slavery is “forced labor in prison.” This is one of 14 reparations bills the legislative Black Caucus was trying to get passed.

Amends the California Constitution to remove current provision that allows jails and prisons to impose involuntary servitude to punish crime (i.e., forcing incarcerated persons to work). Fiscal Impact: Potential increase or decrease in state and local costs, depending on how work for people in state prison and county jail changes. Any effect likely would not exceed the tens of millions of dollars annually. Opponents: None submitted

Supporters: Assemblywoman Lori Wilson.

A YES vote on this measure 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.

A NO vote: Prison and incarceration is where a criminal pays their debt to society; it is supposed to isn’t supposed to be fun. It can however, be productive where inmates can earn a GED or higher education degree. Inmates can work and even learn a trade. Proposition 6 bans mandatory work requirements for state prison inmates.

PROPOSITION 32: NO – Raises Minimum Wage. Initiative Statute

Proposition 32 would raise California’s hourly minimum wage from $16 to $18 and then adjust it annually for inflation.

Raises minimum wage as follows: For employers with 26 or more employees, to $17 immediately, $18 on January 1, 2025. For employers with 25 or fewer employees, to $17 on January 1, 2025, $18 on January 1, 2026.

Supporters: None submitted

A YES vote on this measure means: The state minimum wage would be $18 per hour in 2026. After that, it would go up each year based on how fast prices are going up.

Opponents: California Chamber of Commerce; California Restaurant Association; California Grocers Association.

A NO vote on this measure means: The state minimum wage likely would be about $17 per hour in 2026. After that, it would go up each year based on how fast prices are going up.

HJTA says: raising the hourly minimum wage has sometimes reduced weekly wages as businesses cut hours and lay off workers. The best way to raise incomes in California is to stop driving job-creating businesses out of the state or into the ground. Raising the minimum wage is counter-productive. It also increases the state’s expenses by raising government labor costs.

PROPOSITION 33: NO – Expands Local Governments’ Authority to Enact Rent Control on Residential Property. Initiative Statute.

HJTA says: Proposition 33 is a rent control measure that would lead to a reduction in the supply of rental housing. It repeals a sensible 1995 law, the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, which put limits on rent control laws to ensure that housing providers could make a fair return on their investment and stay in business. Repealing Costa-Hawkins would mean cities could enact radical rent control, even on single-family homes and condos, and prevent property owners from resetting the rent to the market rate after a tenant voluntarily moves out. Proposition 33 would lead to a sharp reduction in new apartment construction as lenders evaluate financial risk due to potential rent control laws. That will worsen the housing shortage in California. Voters have already rejected this proposal twice before, in 2018 and 2020.

The CAA says: Repeals the state’s most important rental housing protection law. Costa-Hawkins exempts specific properties, such as single-family homes and new construction, from local rent control and safeguards vacancy decontrol, allowing landlords to adjust rents to market rates after a tenant moves out and a new renter moves in.

Supporters: CA Nurses Assoc.; CA Alliance for Retired Americans; Mental Health Advocacy; Coalition for Economic Survival; TenantsTogether

A YES vote on this measure means: State law would not limit the kinds of rent control laws cities and counties could have.

Opponents: California Council for Affordable Housing; Women Veterans Alliance; California Chamber of Commerce.

A NO vote on this measure means: State law would continue to limit the kinds of rent control laws cities and counties could have.

California voters have rejected this radical proposal twice before, because it would freeze the construction of new housing and could effectively reverse dozens of new state housing laws.

PROPOSITION 34: YES – Restricts Spending of Prescription Drug Revenues by Certain Health Care Providers. Initiative Statute.

Requires certain providers to spend 98% of revenues from federal discount prescription drug program on direct patient care. Authorizes statewide negotiation of Medi-Cal drug prices. Fiscal Impact: Increased state costs, likely in the millions of dollars annually, to enforce new rules on certain health care entities. Affected entities would pay fees to cover these costs.

Supporters: The ALS Association; California Chronic Care Coalition; Latino Heritage Los Angeles

A YES vote on this measure 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. Proposition 34 will protect patients and ensure public healthcare dollars actually go to patients who need it. Prop. 34 will close a loophole that allows corporations to spend this money on things like buying stadium naming rights and multi-million dollar CEO salaries.

Opponents: National Org. for Women; Consumer Watchdog; Coalition for Economic Survival; AIDS Healthcare Foundation; Dolores Huerta.

A NO vote on this measure means: The Revenge Initiative. California Apartment Association, representing billionaire corporate landlords, doesn’t care about patients. Their sole purpose is silencing AIDS Healthcare Foundation, the sponsor of the rent control initiative. 34 weaponizes the ballot, is a threat to democracy, and opens the door to attacks on any non-profit.

PROPOSITION 35: NO – Provides Permanent Funding for Medi-Cal Health Care Services. Initiative Statute.

Makes permanent the existing tax on managed health care insurance plans, which, if approved by the federal government, provides revenues to pay for Medi-Cal health care services. Fiscal Impact: Short-term state costs between roughly $1 billion and $2 billion annually to increase funding for certain health programs. Total funding increase between roughly $2 billion to $5 billion annually. Unknown long-term fiscal effects.

HJTA says: California currently taxes managed care organizations (MCOs) such as Anthem Blue Cross and others. The MCO tax is set to expire in 2026, and we expect the Legislature to make it permanent. Proposition 35 would also make it permanent but would require the revenue from the tax to fund Medi-Cal, the government health insurance program for low-income residents, instead of being used to close gaps in the state budget. About 14 million California residents rely on the Medi-Cal program for their health care needs.

Supporters: Planned Parenthood Affiliates of CA; American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists; American Academy of Pediatrics, CA

A YES vote on this measure 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.

Opponents: None submitted

A NO vote on this measure means: An existing state tax on health plans would end in 2027, unless the Legislature continues it. The new rules would not become law.

PROPOSITION 36: YESYESYES – This is the Reform Prop. 47 initiative: Allows Felony Charges and Increases Sentences for Certain Drug and Theft Crimes. Initiative Statute.

Rampant retail theft throughout California cities has caused thousands of small business and store closures. Escalating fentanyl overdoses are killing young Californians at a stunning rate. Proposition 36 would be much tougher on third offenses and offer drug and mental health treatment as an alternative to incarceration. It would allow judges to sentence some individuals to state prison instead of county jail.

This is the initiative that Gov. Gavin Newsom and legislative Democrats threatened to prepare their own competing crime (Prop 47) initiative for the Nov 2024 ballot, as well as trying to undermine the qualified initiative with their own package of bills to “combat crime.” Democrats had 10 years to address the escalating crime because of Prop. 47, but did not until Prop. 36 qualified.

Allows felony charges for possessing certain drugs and for thefts under $950, if defendant has two prior drug or theft convictions. Fiscal Impact: State criminal justice costs likely ranging from several tens of millions of dollars to the low hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Local criminal justice costs likely in the tens of millions of dollars annually.

Supporters: Crime Victims United of California; California District Attorneys Association; Family Business Association of California

A YES vote on this measure 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.

Opponents: Diana Becton (Soros backed DA), District Attorney Contra Costa County; Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice

A NO vote on this measure means: Punishment for drug and theft crimes would remain the same – rampant theft and crimes would continue.

Prop. 36 makes California communities safer by addressing rampant theft and drug trafficking. It toughens penalties for fentanyl and drug traffickers and “smash-and-grabs” while holding repeat offenders accountable. It targets serial thieves and encourages treatment for those addicted to drugs, using a balanced approach to fix loopholes in current laws.

Opponents dubiously and stupidly claim Proposition 36 will lead to more crime, not less.

HJTA Crib sheet: 

NO on 2, 4, 5, 6, 32, 33

YES on 34, 36

HJTA takes no position on 3, 35

Why the gap in the numbers? Propositions 2 through 6 were placed on the ballot by the Legislature and given special numbering. Propositions 32-36 are citizens’ initiatives that were given sequential numbering from prior elections, as usual.

For information on the 2024 ballot initiatives, go to the California Secretary of State’s website.