California voters weighed 10 ballot propositions this year, measures that touch on everything from insurance-related taxes and new bonds to fight climate change to proposals that would solidify same-sex marriage in California and crack down on not-so-petty theft.
As of Tuesday’s initial results from the secretary of state, here’s where those ballot propositions stood:
LIVE ELECTION RESULTS: See a chart of the latest vote counts
Prop. 2 (Education funding)
Four years after rejecting a proposal to sell $15 billion in bonds to pay for new school buildings, early ballot returns Tuesday suggested California voters appeared poised to break that cycle by passing Proposition 2, a $10 billion version of a similar school building proposal.
Supporters of Proposition 2 note that lower-income school districts in California rely heavily on bonds to pay for new construction and to expand new services, such as pre-kindergarten programs.
Opponents argue that Proposition 2 is discriminatory because lower-income districts would get a bigger share of the money.
Prop. 3 (Marriage equality)
A move to change the state constitution to recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry, a right already guaranteed in federal law, appears likely to be approved by California voters according to the first wave of ballot counts released late Tuesday.
The idea to codify the right to same-sex marriage gained traction in California and other states in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling on Dobbs, which lets states set their own rules about abortion. As part of that ruling, Justice Clarence Thomas suggested the Supreme Court should revisit the 2013 ruling that legalized same-sex marriage, and others have echoed that sentiment.
In addition to enshrining marriage equality in California, Proposition 3 also repeals Proposition 8, a 2008 law that bans same-sex marriage. Though federal law overrides Proposition 8, the law has remained on the books.
Prop. 4 (Environmental project funding)
Voters appear poised to OK a bid to add about $10 billion in bond debt to pay for a variety of projects connected to climate change.
Among other things, Proposition 4 would set aside $3.8 billion in new bond revenue for water quality improvement and projects aimed at mitigating the effects of floods and droughts, both of which are more pronounced as California ping pongs between wet and dry rainy seasons.
Supporters argue that the bonds are necessary because the state recently whacked about $10 billion in spending on environmental programs. Opponents note that the bonds are expensive, and would cost state taxpayers $400 million a year over 40 years
Prop. 5 (Affordable housing)
Early returns Tuesday suggest voters aren’t ready to make it easier to pass tax-related bonds, lowering the threshold for approval from 66% to 55%.
Supporters say giving one-third of voters veto power over any tax increase is fundamentally undemocratic. Though Proposition 5 wouldn’t totally end that imbalance, it would reduce it considerably.
Proposition 5 opponents say local taxes tend to fall disproportionately on property owners, so the tax burden itself is undemocratic. They also argue that the high threshold to approve a tax prevents what they view as poor spending decisions.
Prop. 6 (Involuntary servitude)
The practice of forcing inmates to work for little or no pay appears likely to continue in California as early returns show state voters are poised to reject Proposition 6, a bid to change the state constitution to outlaw involuntary servitude in state prisons.
The rules pitched by Proposition 6 would end a practice of punishing prisoners by forcing them to work such jobs as cooking, cleaning, construction and firefighting, among other things. Proposition 6 would allow inmates to work at such jobs as a way to earn credit toward time off.
Supporters say forced labor in state prisons is a vestige of slavery and that the practice disproportionately affects people of color. Opponents argue that changing the rules on prison work is a form of reparation that isn’t affordable during a time when the state faces budget deficits.
Prop. 32 (Minimum wage increase)
It’s unclear if lower-wage workers in California will get a raise, starting this month, as early returns showed no clear direction on the passage of Proposition 32.
California’s current minimum wage is $16 an hour, though a complex set of exemptions based on the type of industry and geography already mean bigger paydays for many workers.
Proposition 32, however, would extend raises to an estimated 2 million people who currently earn the state minimum. The new minimum would be $17 an hour in 2025 and $18 an hour in 2026.
Supporters say higher minimum wages reflect the realities of living in California. They also argue that many minimum-wage workers are forced to tap into state programs for food and housing assistance, and that forcing employers to boost their pay would benefit state taxpayers and local economies.
Opponents say higher minimum wages will mean fewer new jobs and possibly some layoffs. They note that the state delayed boosting a minimum wage hike for state workers when budget shortfalls became apparent last year and that private businesses should be allowed to play by the same rules.
Prop. 33 (Rent control)
Cities in California aren’t likely to expand rent control as early returns Tuesday show California voters are likely to reject Proposition 33.
Though many cities in California have had rent control on the books for decades, those rules have been blunted by Costa-Hawkins, a law that limits rent control to houses and apartment buildings built prior to 1995 and lets landlords raise rents when new tenants move in. Proposition 33 aims to let cities set rent rules that work for most of their residents.
California has a much higher share of renters (44%) than the national average (about 35%), and supporters of Proposition 33 say most of those renters pay more than a third of their income to keep a roof over their heads.
Supporters of Proposition 33 say the rules would ease rent obligations for millions of Californians and help slow the state’s growing housing crisis.
Opponents say the law would have an opposite effect.
Prop. 34 (Health care spending)
Early returns show no clear direction on Proposition 34, a law that, if it is passed, might wind up being fought over again in court.
Essentially, Proposition 34, is a proposed tweak to health care law. It would require a very specific subset of healthcare providers to set aside 98% of any discount they get in buying drugs specifically for use in patient care.
But the world of health providers described in the measure is so narrow that many believe it applies to one entity – the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which operates HIV/AIDS health centers in California and 14 other states.
Opponents say Proposition 34’s purpose is to punish AIDS Healthcare Foundation for advocating for lower rents and other concepts opposed by the real estate industry. Supporters say the law’s purpose is to instill accountability; federal discounts on drug prices should be used to help patients.
It’s against federal and state law to craft a proposal aimed at any individual or company.
Prop. 35 (Health care tax)
Voters apparently want California to spend roughly $35 billion expected to come from Medi-Cal taxes over the next four years on Medi-Cal, the public insurance program for low-income Californians, and not on the general fund.
That spending path is the underlying promise of Proposition 35, which seeks to change a long-time Sacramento practice of using Medi-Cal taxes to plug fiscal gaps in non-health care areas.
Supporters of Proposition 35 argue the system needs a fiscal boost. Opponents say the measure is too restrictive on how money is spent in Sacramento.
Prop. 36 (Retail theft and drug crimes)
A decade after passing Prop. 47, which was aimed at reducing penalties and incarceration rates for drug-related crimes, California voters appeared set to reverse course Tuesday and approve Proposition 36.
The new measure reclassifies some misdemeanors as felonies and creates a new category of crime – “treatment-mandated felonies” – that would offer addicts convicted of certain crimes an option of completing rehab or spending up to three years in prison.
The vote reflects widespread frustration with pandemic-era spikes in retail thefts, car break-ins and the apparent awareness by some criminals that stealing anything less than $1,000 worth of goods won’t land you in prison. A study found that shoplifting crimes involving property valued at $950 or less jumped by about 28% during a five-year window that ended last year.
Backers of Proposition 36 link the law to homelessness, saying the spike of people struggling to find housing involves people who also are struggling with addiction.
Opponents say the law is likely to re-fill prisons and jails that have become less crowded since the passage of Proposition 47, something that would cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.
Related Articles
Early election takeaways: Next president will lead fractured nation
Map: 2024 presidential election results
2024 Senate election results across the U.S.
2024 House election results across the U.S.
Results of 2024 ballot measures across the U.S.