Proposition 2
Authorizes Bonds for Public School and Community College Facilities. Legislative Statute.
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.
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.
California doesn’t have a permanent funding stream to pay for school repairs. Funding comes entirely from state and local bonds. The state’s last school facilities bond, a $15 billion proposal in 2020, did not pass, leaving the state’s school repair account with a low balance. Without this local bonds, schools buildings will continue to be in bad shape and worsen.
Prop 2 provides $8.5 Billion for repair, upgrade, and construction of facilities at K–12 public schools (including charter schools) and $1.5 Billion to community colleges, creating transitional kindergarten classrooms, career technical education programs, including for improvement of health and safety conditions and classroom upgrades. The money would be distributed through matching grants, with the state paying a bigger 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.
Opponents say the bill would result in higher property tax
Proposition 3
Constitutional Right to Marriage. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.
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.
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.
The federal courts have said that same-sex couples can marry, but outdated language in the
California Constitution still says that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.
Amends California Constitution to match federal courts to recognize fundamental right to marry, regardless of sex or race. Removes language in California Constitution stating that marriage is only between a man and a woman.
Proposition 4
Authorizes Bonds for Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, and Protecting Communities and Natural Lands From Climate Risks. Legislative Statute.
Bonds are loans given to the state and paid by tax payers.
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.
A NO vote on this measure 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.
Authorizes $10 billion in debt to spend on environmental and climate projects like wildfire prevention, protection of communities and land, 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.
Drought, Flood, and Water Supply ($3.8 Billion). Roughly half of this money would
be for activities to increase the amount and quality of water available for people to
use ($1.9 billion). This would include storing water so it can be used during future
droughts, as well as cleaning polluted water to make it safe to drink. Money would
also be used to help reduce the risk of floods, such as by repairing dams and capturing
and reusing stormwater ($1.1 billion). The rest of the money would be used for
various activities, such as restoring rivers and lakes.
• Forest Health and Wildfire Prevention ($1.5 Billion). All of this money would
support activities to improve the health of forests and reduce the risk of severe and
destructive wildfires. This would include thinning trees in forests that are overgrown
and clearing vegetation near where people live. Money would also be used for other
activities, such as helping homeowners make their properties more resistant to
wildfire damage.
• Sea-Level Rise and Coastal Areas ($1.2 Billion). Most of this money would pay for
activities to restore coastal areas and protect them from the effects of rising sea levels
($890 million). This could include restoring wetlands so they can serve as buffers to
rising sea levels. The rest of this money would be used to improve ocean habitats and
protect fish and other marine wildlife ($310 million).
• Land Conservation and Habitat Restoration ($1.2 Billion). This money would be
used to protect and restore land for the benefit of fish and wildlife. For example, it
could support purchasing land to set aside so that it is not developed.
• Energy Infrastructure ($850 Million). More than half of this money would support
the development of wind turbines off the California coast ($475 million). Most of the
remaining money would pay for building infrastructure such as transmission lines to
carry electricity long distances ($325 million). The rest of the money would pay for
projects to build large batteries that store electricity for when it is needed
($50 million).
• Parks ($700 Million). The bulk of this money would support various activities that
expand recreational opportunities at parks or reduce the impacts of climate change on
parks ($300 million). These activities could include adding new trails and parking
areas. Some of this money would provide grants to local communities to build new
parks or renovate existing parks ($200 million). The rest of this money would be used
to repair state parks and provide nature education ($200 million).
• Extreme Heat ($450 Million). Much of this money would pay for activities focused
on protecting communities from extreme heat ($200 million). These activities could
include adding trees and greenspaces. Money would also support places for people to
go during heatwaves or disasters ($100 million). The rest of the money would
provide grants for local communities to conduct activities that provide environmental
benefits, such as reducing air pollution ($150 million).
• Farms and Agriculture ($300 Million). Much of this money would be used for
activities that encourage farmers to improve soil health, reduce air pollution, and use
less water ($105 million). This money would also support community gardens and
farmers’ markets, such as by purchasing shade canopies ($60 million). The rest of this
money would support a range of other activities, such as purchasing vans to transport
farmworkers and conserving farmland.
Establishes Other Requirements for the Use of Funds. Proposition 4 requires the bond
money to be used in certain ways. For example, at least 40 percent of bond money must be used
for activities that directly benefit communities that have lower incomes or are more vulnerable to
the impacts of climate change. Proposition 4 also requires regular public reporting of how the
bond money is spent.
Proposition 5
Allows Local Bonds for Affordable Housing and Public Infrastructure With 55% Voter Approval. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.
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.
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.
It changes the required two-third vote to 55% to allow approval for borrowing to fund local infrastructure projects like hospitals, parks, police stations, broadband networks and the construction of affordable housing, down payment assistance programs.
Housing Is Expensive in California. A typical California home currently costs around twice
the national average. Similarly, renters in California typically pay about 50 percent more for
housing than renters in other states.
Local Programs Help Pay for Housing. Some programs help low-income Californians
afford housing. For example, governments help pay for housing reserved for low-income
residents. Other programs provide housing and services to specific groups. Examples of such
groups include people with disabilities or those at risk of chronic homelessness. We refer to
affordable and supportive housing programs as “housing assistance.”
Local Governments Also Pay for Public Infrastructure. Examples of infrastructure projects
paid for by local governments include roads, hospitals, fire stations, libraries, and water
treatment facilities.
Local Governments Often Use Bonds to Pay for Housing Assistance Programs and Public
Infrastructure. Bonds are a way for local governments to borrow money and then repay it plus
interest over time. Similar to the way a family pays off a mortgage on their home, bonds allow
governments to spread costs over a few decades.
Certain Bonds Require Two-Thirds Approval of Local Voters. For cities, counties, and
special districts, bonds paid for by increased property taxes typically require two-thirds of local
voters to approve them. These are called general obligation bonds.
Proposition 6
Eliminates Constitutional Provision Allowing Involuntary Servitude for Incarcerated Persons. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.
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 on this measure means: Involuntary servitude would continue to be allowed as punishment for crime.
Amends the California Constitution to remove current provision that allows jails and prisons to force incarcerated persons to work to punish crime.
Some People in State Prison and County Jail Work. People in prison and jail can be
required to work or do other activities such as taking classes. Work includes jobs like cooking,
cleaning, or other tasks needed to run prisons and jails. Roughly one-third of people in prison
work. Many of these workers are paid less than $1 per hour. Workers can also earn “time
credits” that reduce the amount of time they serve in prison or jail. People who refuse to work or
do other activities can face consequences such as losing the ability to make regular phone calls.
Proposition 32
Raises Minimum Wage. Initiative Statute.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Proposition 33
Expands Local Governments’ Authority to Enact Rent Control on Residential Property. Initiative Statute.
A YES vote on this measure means: State law would not limit the kinds of rent control laws cities and counties could have.
A NO vote on this measure means: State law would continue to limit the kinds of rent control laws cities and counties could have.
Repeals Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995, which currently prohibits cities from setting rent control and allowing landlords to stablish their own rental rates for new tenants or rent increases for existing tenants in certain residential properties.
Rental Housing Is Expensive in California. Renters in California typically pay about
50 percent more for housing than renters in other states. In some parts of the state, rent costs are
more than double the national average. Rent is high in California because the state does not have
enough housing for everyone who wants to live here. People who want to live here must compete
with other renters for housing, which increases rents.
Several Cities Have Rent Control Laws. Some local governments in California have laws
that limit how much landlords can increase rents from one year to the next. These laws often are
called rent control. About one-quarter of Californians live in communities with local rent control.
Examples of places with rent control are the Cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Jose.
State Law Limits Rent Increases. In addition to local rent control laws, a state law prevents
most landlords from increasing a tenant’s rent by more than 5 percent plus inflation (up to a total
of 10 percent) in a year. This law lasts until 2030.
State Law Limits Local Rent Control. Another state law, known as the Costa-Hawkins
Rental Housing Act (Costa-Hawkins), limits local rent control laws in three main ways. First,
rent control cannot apply to any single-family homes. Second, rent control cannot apply to any
housing built on or after February 1, 1995. Third, rent control laws generally cannot tell
landlords what they can charge a new renter when first moving in. Instead, rent control can only
limit how much landlords increase rent for existing renters.
Proposition 34
Restricts Spending of Prescription Drug Revenues by Certain Health Care Providers. Initiative Statute.
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.
A NO vote on this measure means: These new rules would not go into effect.
Health care providers who serve low income and at risk patients have been getting a discount on pharmaceuticals which in turn they sell at retail prices. The profits made from the sale of the pharmaceuticals can be used to expand their health care services. Prop 34 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.
Federal Drug Discount Program
Federal Program Provides Discounts on Drugs to Certain Health Care Providers. Under a
federal program, drug makers provide discounts on their drugs to hospitals, clinics, and other
providers. To qualify for these discounts, providers must meet certain rules. Eligible providers
are public or private nonprofits that focus on serving low-income people. (These public and
private nonprofits generally are exempt from paying taxes on their revenue.)
Providers Tend to Earn Revenue From Federal Discounts. Providers tend to earn net
revenue from the federal drug discount program. They do so by charging payors of health care
(such as private health plans and government programs) more than the cost to provide the drugs.
However, providers generally do not earn net revenue on these drugs in Medi-Cal. This is
because state law bans providers from charging Medi-Cal more than the discounted price of the
drug.
Providers Decide How to Spend Revenue. According to the federal government, the intent of
the federal drug discount program is to allow eligible providers to increase services and serve
more low-income patients. Providers can do so by spending their net revenue on services to
patients. Federal and state law, however, does not directly restrict how providers spend their
revenue from federal drug discounts.
Proposition 35
Provides Permanent Funding for Medi-Cal Health Care Services. Initiative Statute.
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.
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.
No cost to tax payers. 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 like primary and specialty care, emergency services, family planning, mental health and prescription drugs.
HOW IT WORKS
State Charges a Specific Tax on Health Plans. Since 2009, California typically has charged a specific tax on certain health plans, such as Kaiser Permanente. This tax is called the Managed Care Organization Provider Tax (“health plan tax”). The tax has worked differently over time. Currently, it charges plans based on the number of people to whom they provide health coverage, including those in Medi-Cal. The tax rate is higher for those in Medi-Cal compared to other kinds of health coverage. (Medi-Cal is a federal-state program that provides health coverage for low-income people. The federal government and the state share the cost of the program. By charging the health plan tax, the state can receive more federal funding.)
FUNDS FROM PROP 35 ARE DEDICATED TO THIS SERVICES AND PREVENTS THE STATE FROM REDIRECTING FUNDS OUTSIDE OF HEALTH CARE SERVICES.
- Improved health care services for 15 million Medi-Cal patients
- Expanded access to preventative health care
- Reducing wait times in emergency rooms
- Primary care physicians
- Community health centers
- Specialty care like cancer, cardiology and OB/GYN
- Family planning
- Hiring more first responders and paramedics to reduce emergency response times
- Expanded mental health treatment
- Health care workforce training to address worker shortage
Proposition 36
Allows Felony Charges and Increases Sentences for Certain Drug and Theft Crimes. Initiative Statute.
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.
A NO vote on this measure means: Punishment for drug and theft crimes would remain the same.
It reclassifies a misdemeanor to a felony charges for possessing certain drugs and for thefts under $950, if defendant has two prior drug or theft convictions.
Prop 36 would allow people who don’t contest their drug charges to complete drug treatment instead of going to jail. Not finishing the treatment could land them in jail for up to three years.
A felony is the most serious type of crime. People can be sentenced to county jail or state prison for felonies, depending on the crime and their criminal history. In some cases, people can be supervised in the community by a county probation officer instead of serving some or all of their sentence in jail or prison. This is called county communitysupervision. The length of a sentence mostly depends on the crime. For example, murder can be
punished by 15 years or more in prison. In contrast, selling drugs can be punished by up to five
years in jail or prison, depending on the drug. Sentences can also be lengthened due to details of
the crime. For example, sentences for selling certain drugs (such as fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, or
methamphetamine) can be lengthened based on the amount sold.
Punishment for Misdemeanors. A misdemeanor is a less serious crime. Examples include
assault and drug possession. People can be sentenced to county jail, county community
supervision, and/or a fine for misdemeanors. Sentences can be up to one year in jail.
Proposition 47 Reduced Punishments for Some Theft and Drug Crimes
In 2014, Proposition 47 changed some theft and drug crimes from felonies to misdemeanors.
For example, shoplifting (stealing items worth $950 or less from a store) and drug possession
generally became misdemeanors.
Write a Reply or Comment
You should Sign In or Sign Up account to post comment.