By Kevin Fox
Graphic By Maya Uribe
It is election season and ballots have already been mailed out. This also means we as voters need to figure out what is on the ballot and if you have been paying attention to the last few elections, figuring out what is being proposed in our propositions can be incredibly difficult as hundreds of millions of dollars are being poured into advertisements that contradict one another and leaves voters unable to tell what they are voting for or against. This is a guide to understanding what is being proposed, what voting yes or no means, what the arguments are and who supports these propositions devoid of my personal opinion.
Get out and Vote!
The rest of this was completed with the help of Ballotpedia, a nonprofit and nonpartisan encyclopedia of city, county and state elections and the Voter Guide for California.
Statewide Props:
Prop 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.
Arguments:
Pro: Many schools and community colleges are outdated and need basic health and safety repairs and upgrades to prepare students for college and careers and to retain and attract quality teachers.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.
Con: 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!
Supporters: Californians for Quality Schools, California Teachers Association, California School Nurses Organization and Community College League of California.
Against: Assemblyman Bill Essayli and Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.
Prop 3: CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO MARRIAGE. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Summary: Amends California Constitution to recognize fundamental right to marry, regardless of sex or race. Removes language in the California Constitution stating that marriage is only between a man and a woman. Fiscal Impact: No change in revenues or costs for state and local governments.
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.
Arguments:
Pro: Proposition 3 protects Californians’ freedom to marry, regardless of their race or gender. Proposition 3 removes discriminatory language from the California Constitution stating marriage is only between a man and a woman. Proposition 3 reinforces California’s commitment to civil rights and protects personal freedom.
Con: 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.
Supporters: Sierra Pacific Synod of The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Dolores Huerta Foundation and Equality California
Against: Jonathan Keller, California Family Council and Reverend Tanner DiBella
Prop 4: AUTHORIZES BONDS FOR SAFE DRINKING WATER, WILDFIRE PREVENTION AND PROTECTING COMMUNITIES AND NATURAL LANDS FROM CLIMATE RISKS. LEGISLATIVE STATUTE.
Summary: Authorizes $10 billion in general obligation bonds for water, wildfire prevention and protection of communities and lands. Requires annual audits.
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.
Arguments:
Pro: Yes on 4 for safe drinking water, wildfire prevention, clean air and protection of natural resources. California firefighters, conservation groups, clean water advocates urge YES. Accountable, fiscally responsible, with independent audits and strict transparency. Proactive approach saves money and prevents the worst impacts of devastating wildfires, smoke, droughts and pollution.
Con: 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..
Supporters: Clean Water Action, CALFIRE Firefighters, National Wildlife Federation and The Nature Conservancy.
Against: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.
Prop 5: ALLOWS LOCAL BONDS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE WITH 55% VOTER APPROVAL. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Summary: Allows approval of local infrastructure and housing bonds for low- and middle-income Californians with 55% vote. Outlines accountability requirements.
A YES vote on this measure means: Certain local bonds and related property taxes could be approved with a 55% 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.
Arguments:
Pro: Prop. 5 shifts local spending priorities away from state government, giving local voters and taxpayers the choice and the tools to address the challenges facing their communities. Whether it is housing affordability, safer streets, more fire stations or other community-driven projects, Prop. 5 empowers local voters to solve local problems.
Con: Prop. 5 changes the constitution to make it easier to increase bond debt, leading to higher property taxes. Prop. 5 shifts the financial burden from the state to local communities, increasing costs for homeowners, renters and consumers. Politicians wrote loopholes in Prop. 5 so infrastructure can mean just about anything.
Supporters: California Professional Firefighters, League of Women Voters of California and Habitat for Humanity California.
Against: California Taxpayers Association, California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce and Women Veterans Alliance
Prop 6: ELIMINATES CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION ALLOWING INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE FOR INCARCERATED PERSONS. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Summary: 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).
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.
Arguments:
Pro: Proposition 6 ends slavery in California and upholds human rights and dignity for everyone. It replaces carceral involuntary servitude with voluntary work programs, has bipartisan support and aligns with national efforts to reform the 13th Amendment. It will prioritize rehabilitation, lower recidivism and improve public safety resulting in taxpayer savings.
Con: None
Supports: Assemblymember Lori Wilson
Against: None
Prop 32: RAISES MINIMUM WAGE. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
Summary: Raises minimum wage as follows: For employers with 26 or more employees, to $17 immediately, $18 on Jan. 1, 2025. For employers with 25 or fewer employees, to $17 on Jan. 1, 2025, $18 on Jan. 1, 2026.
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.
Arguments:
Pro: YES on Proposition 32 raises the minimum wage to $18 so more SERVICE, ESSENTIAL, OTHER WORKERS and SINGLE MOMS can AFFORD the state’s COST OF LIVING. CORPORATE PROFIT MARGINS INCREASED 100% since 2000 because CORPORATIONS SPIKED the PRICES OF GOODS. YES on PROP. 32 so workers can afford life’s basic needs.
Con: Prop. 32 was written by one multimillionaire alone, and he wrote a horribly flawed measure. Prop. 32 increases the cost of living, eliminates jobs, makes our state and local government budget deficits worse and makes California’s complex minimum wage laws even harder for businesses and workers to understand.
Supporters: None
Against: California Chamber of Commerce, California Restaurant Association and California Grocers Association
Prop 33: EXPANDS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS’ AUTHORITY TO ENACT RENT CONTROL ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
Summary: Repeals Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995, which currently prohibits local ordinances limiting initial residential rental rates for new tenants or rent increases for existing tenants in certain residential properties.
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.
Arguments:
Pro: The rent is too high. One million people have left California. Rent control in America has worked to keep people in their homes since 1919. California’s 17 million renters need relief. Homeowners and taxpayers benefit from stable communities. The Californian dream is dying. You can help save it.
Con: Don’t be fooled by the latest corporate landlord anti-housing scheme. 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. Vote No on 33 to protect new affordable housing and California homeowners.
Supporters: CA Nurses Association, CA Alliance for Retired Americans, Mental Health Advocacy, Coalition for Economic Survival, TenantsTogether, Susie Shannon, Renters and Homeowners for Rent Control Yes on 33 and Sponsored by AIDS Healthcare Foundation.
Against: California Council for Affordable Housing, Women Veterans Alliance, California Chamber of Commerce and No on Prop. 33 and Californians for Responsible Housing.
Prop 34: RESTRICTS SPENDING OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG REVENUES BY CERTAIN HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
Summary: Requires certain providers to spend 98% of revenues from federal discount prescription drug programs on direct patient care. Authorizes statewide negotiation of Medi-Cal drug prices.
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.
Arguments:
Pro: 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. Protect Patients Now. Vote Yes on Proposition 34.
Con: Prop. 34—The Revenge Initiative. The California Apartment Association, representing billionaire corporate landlords, does not 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.
Supporters: The ALS Association, California Chronic Care Coalition, Latino Heritage Los Angeles, Protect Patients Now: A Coalition of Women, Veterans, LGBTQ+ Advocates and Patient Groups.
Against: National Org. for Women, Consumer Watchdog, Coalition for Economic Survival, AIDS Healthcare Foundation, Dolores Huerta and Susie Shannon.
Prop 35: PROVIDES PERMANENT FUNDING FOR MEDI-CAL HEALTH CARE SERVICES. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
Summary: 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.
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.
Arguments:
Pro: Yes on 35 addresses our urgent healthcare crisis by securing dedicated funding—without raising taxes—to protect access to primary and specialty care, community clinics, hospitals, ERs, family planning and mental health providers. Prop. 35 prevents the state from redirecting funds for non-healthcare purposes.
Con: None
Supporters: Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists and the American Academy of Pediatrics California
Against: None
Prop 36: ALLOWS FELONY CHARGES AND INCREASES SENTENCES FOR CERTAIN DRUG AND THEFT CRIMES. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
Summary: Allows felony charges for possessing certain drugs and for thefts under $950, if the defendant has two prior drug or theft convictions.
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.
Arguments:
Pro: 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.
Con: Don’t be fooled. Proposition 36 will lead to more crime, not less. It reignites the failed war on drugs, makes simple drug possession a felony, and wastes billions on prisons, while slashing crucial funding for victims, crime prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation. This puts prisons first and guts treatment.
Supporters: Crime Victims United of California, California District Attorneys Association, Family Business Association of California and Californians for Safer Communities.
Against: Diana Becton, District Attorney Contra Costa County and Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice.
Ventura County Props:
Briggs Elementary School District, California, Measure G, School Bond Measure (Nov. 2024):
A “yes” vote supports authorizing the Briggs Elementary School District to issue $4.9 million in bonds and enact a property tax, estimated at $30 per $100,000 of assessed property value, while the bonds are outstanding.
A “no” vote opposes authorizing the Briggs Elementary School District to issue $4.9 million in bonds and enact a property tax, estimated at $30 per $100,000 of assessed property value, while the bonds are outstanding.
Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority, Division 1, California, Measure H, Developed Parcel Tax Measure (Nov. 2024):
A “yes” vote supports authorizing an annual parcel tax of $65 per developed parcel for 15 years.
A “no” vote opposes authorizing an annual parcel tax of $65 per developed parcel for 15 years.
Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority, Division 2, California, Measure GG, Developed Parcel Tax Measure (Nov. 2024):
A “yes” vote supports authorizing an annual parcel tax of $38 per developed parcel for 15 years.
A “no” vote opposes authorizing an annual parcel tax of $38 per developed parcel for 15 years.
Ojai, California, Measure O, Pickleball Courts Initiative (Nov. 2024):
A “yes” vote supports requiring the four pickleball courts at Ojai City Hall, located at 401 South Ventura Street, to remain open to the public year-round without the need for any additional permissions or permits, while also implementing sound mitigation measures and efforts to address adverse impacts.
A “no” vote opposes requiring the four pickleball courts at Ojai City Hall, located at 401 South Ventura Street, to remain open to the public year-round without the need for any additional permissions or permits, while also implementing sound mitigation measures and efforts to address adverse impacts.
Oxnard Community Facilities District No. 5, California, Measure I, Continue Current Funding Measure (Nov. 2024):
A “yes” vote supports continuing the current funding for Community Facilities District No. 5 (RiverPark).
A “no” vote opposes continuing the current funding for Community Facilities District No. 5 (RiverPark).
Oxnard Community Facilities District No. 5, California, Measure J, Repeal Special Taxes Initiative (Nov. 2024):
A “yes” vote supports repealing all special taxes specific to Community Facilities District No. 5 (RiverPark).
A “no” vote opposes repealing all special taxes specific to Community Facilities District No. 5 (RiverPark).
Oxnard Community Facilities District No. 5, California, Measure K, Reduce Special Taxes Initiative (Nov. 2024):
A “yes” vote supports reducing the maximum special taxes for Community Facilities District No. 5 (RiverPark) by half.
A “no” vote opposes reducing the maximum special taxes for Community Facilities District No. 5 (RiverPark) by half.
Oxnard Community Facilities District No. 5, California, Measure L, Funding Limits Initiative (Nov. 2024):
A “yes” vote supports adopting limits on how Community Facilities District No. 5 (RiverPark) funding is used, including limiting funding for police protection services, reducing available funding for flood and storm protection, prohibiting the use of CFD funding for maintaining sports fields for youth baseball and soccer, and restricting CFD funding for maintaining parks, parkways and open space to only services beyond standard municipal services.
A “no” vote opposes adopting limits on how Community Facilities District No. 5 (RiverPark) funding is used.
Oxnard Union High School District, California, Measure E, School Bond Measure (Nov. 2024):
A “yes” vote supports authorizing the Oxnard Union High School District to issue $285.0 million in bonds and enact a property tax, estimated at $17.84 per $100,000 of assessed property value, while the bonds are outstanding.
A “no” vote opposes authorizing the Oxnard Union High School District to issue $285.0 million in bonds and enact a property tax, estimated at $17.84 per $100,000 of assessed property value, while the bonds are outstanding.
San Buenaventura, California, Measure P, City Charter Changes Amendment (Nov. 2024):
A “yes” vote supports changing the city charter by adopting gender-neutral language and amending 16 sections to make various changes, including aligning teleconferencing options, notice of special meetings, the passing of emergency ordinances, and council compensation with the Government Code, as well as establishing a requirement for the council to consider convening a charter review commission.
A “no” vote opposes changing the city charter by adopting gender-neutral language and amending 16 sections to make various changes, including aligning teleconferencing options, notice of special meetings, the passing of emergency ordinances, and council compensation with the Government Code, as well as establishing a requirement for the council to consider convening a charter review commission.
San Buenaventura, California, Measure Q, Councilmember Vacancy Measure (Nov. 2024):
A “yes” vote supports requiring the City Council to appoint a person to fill a council member vacancy, allowing the appointee to serve until the next consolidated election in the County, instead of requiring the Council to order a special election if it fails to fill the vacancy.
A “no” vote opposes requiring the City Council to appoint a person to fill a council member vacancy, allowing the appointee to serve until the next consolidated election in the County, instead of requiring the Council to order a special election if it fails to fill the vacancy.
Santa Paula, California, Measure R, Sales Tax Measure (Nov. 2024):
A “yes” vote supports enacting a 1% sales tax in Santa Paula for general city funding.
A “no” vote opposes enacting a 1% sales tax in Santa Paula for general city funding.
Santa Paula Unified School District, California, Measure M, Elementary and Middle School Bond Measure (Nov. 2024):
A “yes” vote supports authorizing the Santa Paula Unified School District to issue $28.4 million in bonds to construct and upgrade elementary and middle school classrooms, libraries, cafeterias and restrooms, and enact a property tax, estimated below $34 per $100,000 of assessed property value, while the bonds are outstanding.
A “no” vote opposes authorizing the Santa Paula Unified School District to issue $28.4 million in bonds to construct and upgrade elementary and middle school classrooms, libraries, cafeterias, and restrooms, and enact a property tax, estimated below $34 per $100,000 of assessed property value, while the bonds are outstanding.
Santa Paula Unified School District, California, Measure N, High School Bond Measure (Nov. 2024):
A “yes” vote supports authorizing the Santa Paula Unified School District to issue $36 million in bonds to rebuild and upgrade Bryden Gym, construct performing arts and vocational/career training facilities, and build a community pool, and enact a property tax, estimated at $24 per $100,000 of assessed property value, while the bonds are outstanding.
A “no” vote opposes authorizing the Santa Paula Unified School District to issue $36 million in bonds to rebuild and upgrade Bryden Gym, construct performing arts and vocational/career training facilities, and build a community pool and enact a property tax, estimated at $24 per $100,000 of assessed property value, while the bonds are outstanding.
Ventura Unified School District, California, Measure H, Parcel Tax Renewal Measure (Nov. 2024):
A “yes” vote supports renewing Ventura Unified School District’s existing parcel tax for eight years at the same rate of $59 per parcel.
A “no” vote opposes renewing Ventura Unified School District’s existing parcel tax for eight years at the same rate of $59 per parcel.
