Skip to main content

California State Propositions on the November 2024 Ballot

The November election is fast approaching and once again includes a long list of propositions with the potential to significantly impact state issues and policies. 

The following are the 10 propositions that will  appear on the California general election ballot on November 5th: 

Prop. 2 - Public Education Facilities Bond Measure:

This is a legislatively referred bond that would issue $10 billion in bonds, with $8.5 billion dedicated to elementary and secondary school facilities and $1.5 billion for community college facilities. Voters last approved a $9 billion bond measure to fund public education facilities improvements in 2016 and rejected a $15 billion bond measure in 2020.

Prop. 3 - Same-Sex Marriage: 

This is a constitutional amendment to remove outdated language from Prop. 8. In 2008, Prop. 8 defined marriage as only between a man and a woman. Prop 3 would enshrine the right to same-sex marriage into the California constitution, repealing Prop 8. In practice, the ballot measure would not change who can marry. While Prop 8 language is still on the books, it was effectively void after the U.S. Supreme Court allowed same-sex marriage to resume in California in 2013, and after the high court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in a historic 2015 decision. 

Prop. 4 - Parks, Environment, Energy, and Water Bond Measure:

This is another legislatively referred bond that would authorize the state to issue $10 billion in bonds to fund various environmental, energy, and water projects. Some of the proposed initiatives include wind turbine development, state park repairs and renovations, farmland and farmworker support, coastal area restorations, and increased quantity and quality of water supply. It would also require that 40% of the bond revenue be used to fund activities that benefit communities with lower incomes or that are affected by environmental changes or disasters. 

Prop. 5 - Changing Voting Thresholds for Bond Approval:

This is another state constitutional amendment that would lower the current majority required to approve local bond measures from a two-thirds vote to 55%. Cities and counties use bond measures to fund items like affordable housing construction, public infrastructure projects, including water management, local hospitals, police stations, broadband networks, and parks. To avoid opposition by the powerful California Realtors Association, the initiative also now includes a ban on local governments using the money to buy up existing single-family homes to convert them into affordable units.

Prop. 6 - Limit Forced Labor in State Prisons:

Prop. 6 would amend the state constitution to prohibit the state from punishing inmates with involuntary work assignments and from disciplining those who refuse to work. Instead, state prisons could set up a volunteer work assignment program to take time off an inmate’s sentence in the form of credits. It would also allow county or city ordinances to establish a pay scale for inmates in local jails. 

Prop. 32 - Increasing State Minimum Wage:

Prop. 32 would raise the minimum wage to $17 an hour for the remainder of 2024, and $18 an hour starting in January 2025—a bump from the current $16 an hour. Small businesses with 25 or fewer employees would be required to start paying at least $17 an hour next year, and $18 an hour in 2026. If passed by voters, California will have the nation’s highest state minimum wage. Starting in 2027, the wage would be adjusted based on inflation.

Prop. 33 - Local Rent Control: 

The Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act is long-established law that imposes limits on the amount set by cities that a landlord can raise the rent each year. Cities cannot set rent control on single-family homes or apartments built after 1995. Currently, landlords are free to set their own rental rates when new tenants move in. If Prop. 33 is approved, cities will be allowed to control rents on ANY type of housing, including single-family homes and new apartments. This will be a highly contested fight with the opposition currently outspending the ballot supporters 3-to-1. 

Prop. 34 - Use of Prescription Drug Revenue for Patients:

Occasionally, a proposition appears on the ballot and serves as a reminder of how this citizen-run process can be abused. Prop. 34 is arguably one of those propositions.

Technically, Prop. 34 would require some California healthcare providers to spend at least 98% of their net drug sale revenue on “direct patient care.” But the proposition doesn’t apply to all healthcare providers—only those that spend at least $100 million on expenses other than direct care, and who also own and operate apartment buildings that have racked up at least 500 severe health and safety violations in the last decade. Curiously, only one organization fits into this category: The AIDS Healthcare Foundation. 

The foundation operates HIV/AIDS clinics in 15 states and has become a major player in state and local housing politics. It has aggressively lobbied and campaigned against legislation requiring local governments to permit denser housing, and has poured millions of dollars into rent control measures, including Prop. 33. Along the way, the foundation has amassed a sizable portfolio of rental properties in LA’s Skid Row area. The California Apartment Association, the state’s premier landlord lobby and a major opponent of rent control, is funding this initiative. The proposition has already been the subject of an ongoing legal battle, which may escalate even further if it passes. 

Prop. 35 - Making the Managed Care Organization (MCO) Tax Permanent: 

Lawmakers have dramatically expanded Medi-Cal in the past 10 years to cover all low-income residents regardless of citizenship status. Benefits have also been restored to include dental insurance, hearing aids, and doulas. Today, more than 14 million Californians use Medi-Cal. Over the same time period, payments to doctors and other Medi-Cal providers have increased only minimally, if at all. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, California’s reimbursement rate falls in the bottom third nationally. As a result, many providers won’t treat Medi-Cal patients. In 2024, the state implemented an MCO tax, a provider tax by the state on managed care plans. The MCO tax generated a substantial amount of new funding for the state, with the premise that the funds would be spent to further invest in Medi-Cal. However, the funds have been targeted for diversion into other general purposes to fill the state's budget needs.

Prop. 35 would require the state to spend the money only on Medi-Cal and not deviate it to the general fund for other purposes. The new revenue stream would go to primary and specialty care, emergency services, family planning, mental health, prescription drugs, and increased payments to the providers themselves. It would also prevent legislators from using the tax revenue to replace existing state Medi-Cal spending. Over the next four years, it is projected to generate upwards of $35 billion.

Prop. 36 - Increase Drug and Theft Penalties and Reduce Homelessness Initiative: 

This measure is meant to reform Prop. 47, a 2014 voter-approved measure that reduced penalties for certain theft and drug offenses. For retail theft, Prop. 47 increased the dollar amount from $400 to $950 for when thefts could be prosecuted as a felony. The idea was to reduce overcrowding in the state’s jails. If voters approve Prop. 36, people with at least two prior theft convictions could be charged with felonies, even if what’s stolen is less than $950. Prop. 36 would also allow judges to sentence drug dealers to state prison rather than county jail if convicted of trafficking hard drugs in large quantities or possessing a firearm while trafficking drugs. The proposition does call for treatment plans for those who plead guilty to felony drug possessions, which could result in dismissed charges.

For more details on the propositions, visit: 
https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-measures/qualified-ballot-measu…   

Gabriela Villanueva is CAP’s Government and  External Affairs Analyst. Questions or comments  related to this article should be directed to GVillanueva@CAPphysicians.com.