¿No en Ciudad de Davis? Encuentra la guía de tu estado.
Proposition 2 aims to replenish the funds needed to continue ongoing building updates in public-education buildings, many of which have stalled since funds from the last bond measure in 2016 ran out. This measure will distribute funds across two buckets of public education: $8.5 billion for K–12 institutions and $1.5 billion for community colleges. The proposition dictates a model for fund distribution that would require local districts to raise 35% to 40% of the project costs through a local bond or other financing before requesting a match from the state. The exact match requirement depends on a formula that includes factors such as the socioeconomic status of students, the wealth of the district, the size of the district, and other considerations. Districts can apply for matching funds to be used for renovation or new construction projects, with an intent to ensure that public-education structures provide all learners with safe environmental conditions. A similar bond measure for $15 billion failed in 2020 after receiving only 47% of the vote. After much discussion in the state legislature, Proposition 2 requests that a simple majority of voters pass a smaller bond measure to renew this funding stream for public-school facility maintenance and upkeep.
- Proposition 2 was placed on the ballot by the state legislature as a result of passing id=202320240AB247" target="blank">AB 247 (Muratsuchi). Over 30 allied equity and community-based organizations and impacted school districts opposed AB 247, arguing that the matching formula and first-come first-served funding process favors better-resourced districts. To their point, studies have shown that the matching fund formula has delivered four times as much in state bond funds to wealthy districts as low-wealth districts over decades.
- Research indicates that student learning is boosted when education facilities are modernized, climate-controlled, and have updated electrical infrastructure. Voting YES on Proposition 2 will provide a meaningful funding stream to allow more students to have access to technology and classroom environments that will improve learning outcomes. Yet, due to the equity concerns identified above, it is not clear whether this funding will reach students who need it the most.
- Due to delays in repair and renovation, many districts have resorted to repurposing gymnasiums as cafeterias, and using auxiliary classrooms. Recent data shows that over one third of California students are enrolled in a school that doesn’t meet minimum facility standards. These conditions can diminish student access to technology, adequate learning space, and physical education classes. Voting YES on Proposition 2 will provide more districts with the resources they need to expand facilities and ensure comprehensive learning opportunities for students.
- If Prop 2 passes, there likely will not be another school-funding bond opportunity for 5–10 years. An alternative to voting yes for this bond would be to support education equity advocates in pursuing legislative and legal avenues to make the funding and distribution rules more equitable and serve the highest-need school districts.
- Proposition 2 has received support from many school districts in the state, including the nation’s second-largest public district, Los Angeles Unified School District, which has an enrollment of over 660,000 students. It has also been popular with education administrators and leaders, and has earned the support of the Association of California School Administrators, and the California School Boards Association.
- The powerful education advocacy group Coalition for Adequate School Housing has also provided its support to Proposition 2.
- Proposition 2 is opposed by the anti-tax Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.
Proposition 2 aims to replenish the funds needed to continue ongoing building updates in public-education buildings, many of which have stalled since funds from the last bond measure in 2016 ran out. This measure will distribute funds across two buckets of public education: $8.5 billion for K–12 institutions and $1.5 billion for community colleges. The proposition dictates a model for fund distribution that would require local districts to raise 35% to 40% of the project costs through a local bond or other financing before requesting a match from the state. The exact match requirement depends on a formula that includes factors such as the socioeconomic status of students, the wealth of the district, the size of the district, and other considerations. Districts can apply for matching funds to be used for renovation or new construction projects, with an intent to ensure that public-education structures provide all learners with safe environmental conditions. A similar bond measure for $15 billion failed in 2020 after receiving only 47% of the vote. After much discussion in the state legislature, Proposition 2 requests that a simple majority of voters pass a smaller bond measure to renew this funding stream for public-school facility maintenance and upkeep.
- Proposition 2 was placed on the ballot by the state legislature as a result of passing id=202320240AB247" target="blank">AB 247 (Muratsuchi). Over 30 allied equity and community-based organizations and impacted school districts opposed AB 247, arguing that the matching formula and first-come first-served funding process favors better-resourced districts. To their point, studies have shown that the matching fund formula has delivered four times as much in state bond funds to wealthy districts as low-wealth districts over decades.
- Research indicates that student learning is boosted when education facilities are modernized, climate-controlled, and have updated electrical infrastructure. Voting YES on Proposition 2 will provide a meaningful funding stream to allow more students to have access to technology and classroom environments that will improve learning outcomes. Yet, due to the equity concerns identified above, it is not clear whether this funding will reach students who need it the most.
- Due to delays in repair and renovation, many districts have resorted to repurposing gymnasiums as cafeterias, and using auxiliary classrooms. Recent data shows that over one third of California students are enrolled in a school that doesn’t meet minimum facility standards. These conditions can diminish student access to technology, adequate learning space, and physical education classes. Voting YES on Proposition 2 will provide more districts with the resources they need to expand facilities and ensure comprehensive learning opportunities for students.
- If Prop 2 passes, there likely will not be another school-funding bond opportunity for 5–10 years. An alternative to voting yes for this bond would be to support education equity advocates in pursuing legislative and legal avenues to make the funding and distribution rules more equitable and serve the highest-need school districts.
- Proposition 2 has received support from many school districts in the state, including the nation’s second-largest public district, Los Angeles Unified School District, which has an enrollment of over 660,000 students. It has also been popular with education administrators and leaders, and has earned the support of the Association of California School Administrators, and the California School Boards Association.
- The powerful education advocacy group Coalition for Adequate School Housing has also provided its support to Proposition 2.
- Proposition 2 is opposed by the anti-tax Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.
In 2008, California voters passed Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment that defined the only valid and recognized marriages in the state as those between a man and a woman, with 52% of the vote. Although Proposition 8 remains in the state constitution, it was overturned by the state Supreme Court in a decision that went into effect in 2013, and was further overruled by the federal Supreme Court’s 2015 when same-sex marriage was legalized nationally in the Obergefell v. Hodges decision. Proposition 3 would formally repeal Proposition 8, remove the constitutional language indicating that marriage is between a man and a woman, and affirm the fundamental right to marry.
- While marriage equality is protected nationally, LGBTQIA+ communities continue to be targeted by discriminatory legislation across the country. A YES vote would reaffirm California’s commitment to protecting the rights of these communities.
- The Supreme Court’s current right-wing majority has vocalized their interest in overturning the Obergefell v. Hodges decision and recently voted in favor of a website designer’s refusal to create online wedding pages for LGBTQIA+ couples because she claimed it infringed on her right to free speech. A YES vote would ensure that marriage equality is protected in California even if the Supreme Court eventually overturns the national legalization.
- To date, Nevada is the only state that has amended its state constitution to create protection for marriage equality. A YES vote will make California a progressive leader on this issue and create significant protections for the 2.7 million state residents who identify as LGBTQIA+.
- This proposition originated as a bill, ACA 5, which was authored by State Senator Scott Wiener and Assemblymember Evan Low, passed both chambers of the legislature with bipartisan support, and has received vocal support from Gov. Gavin Newsom and several other elected officials.
- Many LGBTQIA+ and progressive groups support this constitutional amendment, including ACLU California Action, Courage California, Equality California, Human Rights Campaign, National Center for Lesbian Rights, and Reproductive Freedom for All California.
- California Capitol Connection, a Baptist lobbying group, leads the opposition to ACA 5 and argues that the Bible defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
- The opposition has also been supported by other groups with religious affiliations, including California Family Council, Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee, Freedom in Action, and Real Impact.
- Notably, Proposition 3 has not encountered resistance from many of the groups that worked tirelessly to pass the discriminatory Proposition 8 sixteen years ago. Prop 8 was supported by various religious groups, including the Roman Catholic Church, Knights of Columbus, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the San Diego branch of the Church of Scientology. These groups have not issued a stance or made significant financial contributions to deter Proposition 3.
In 2008, California voters passed Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment that defined the only valid and recognized marriages in the state as those between a man and a woman, with 52% of the vote. Although Proposition 8 remains in the state constitution, it was overturned by the state Supreme Court in a decision that went into effect in 2013, and was further overruled by the federal Supreme Court’s 2015 when same-sex marriage was legalized nationally in the Obergefell v. Hodges decision. Proposition 3 would formally repeal Proposition 8, remove the constitutional language indicating that marriage is between a man and a woman, and affirm the fundamental right to marry.
- While marriage equality is protected nationally, LGBTQIA+ communities continue to be targeted by discriminatory legislation across the country. A YES vote would reaffirm California’s commitment to protecting the rights of these communities.
- The Supreme Court’s current right-wing majority has vocalized their interest in overturning the Obergefell v. Hodges decision and recently voted in favor of a website designer’s refusal to create online wedding pages for LGBTQIA+ couples because she claimed it infringed on her right to free speech. A YES vote would ensure that marriage equality is protected in California even if the Supreme Court eventually overturns the national legalization.
- To date, Nevada is the only state that has amended its state constitution to create protection for marriage equality. A YES vote will make California a progressive leader on this issue and create significant protections for the 2.7 million state residents who identify as LGBTQIA+.
- This proposition originated as a bill, ACA 5, which was authored by State Senator Scott Wiener and Assemblymember Evan Low, passed both chambers of the legislature with bipartisan support, and has received vocal support from Gov. Gavin Newsom and several other elected officials.
- Many LGBTQIA+ and progressive groups support this constitutional amendment, including ACLU California Action, Courage California, Equality California, Human Rights Campaign, National Center for Lesbian Rights, and Reproductive Freedom for All California.
- California Capitol Connection, a Baptist lobbying group, leads the opposition to ACA 5 and argues that the Bible defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
- The opposition has also been supported by other groups with religious affiliations, including California Family Council, Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee, Freedom in Action, and Real Impact.
- Notably, Proposition 3 has not encountered resistance from many of the groups that worked tirelessly to pass the discriminatory Proposition 8 sixteen years ago. Prop 8 was supported by various religious groups, including the Roman Catholic Church, Knights of Columbus, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the San Diego branch of the Church of Scientology. These groups have not issued a stance or made significant financial contributions to deter Proposition 3.
In 2022, Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration made a commitment to spend $54 billion on climate protections, some of which were cut to balance the state’s budget. Proposition 4, the Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, Drought Preparedness, and Clean Air Bond Act, would allow the state to borrow $10 billion to be urgently allocated across a variety of climate projects and reimbursed by taxpayers through a bond. The bill outlines allocations for these funds that include $3.8 billion for safe drinking and groundwater projects, $1.5 billion for wildfire protections, $1.2 billion for coastal infrastructure efforts, $1.2 billion to protect biodiversity, and $450 million for extreme heat mitigation. With a focus on water, wildfire, and the coast, this funding is designed to create present-day solutions that will stop or reverse existing climate challenges and mitigate the need for more expensive projects in the future.
- Proposition 4 mandates that 40% of funding must benefit disadvantaged communities, which it defines as areas where the median household income is less than 80% of the region’s average. Voting YES will ensure that the communities most negatively impacted by environmental disinvestment will benefit from these climate projects.
- Along with providing benefits for water, wildfire, and coastal areas, Proposition 4 will also allocate funds to address wildlife habitat preservation, build public parks, increase sustainable farming operations, and fight air pollution. Voting YES will provide for these initiatives for wide-ranging community benefits across the state.
- An analysis from the California Natural Resources Agency indicates that without action today, the state’s climate-related expenses could rise to $113 billion annually by 2050. Voting YES on Proposition 4 will allow the state to take immediate action to establish more protections and adaptability to avert high annual expenses in the coming decades.
- Proposition 4 has the support of many environmental, labor, and justice groups, including Environmental Defense Fund, California Coastal Protection Network, California Water Impact Network, and WateReuse California.
- SB867, which moved Proposition 4 forward to the ballot, was introduced in February 2023 and authored by Sen. Ben Allen, Sen. Josh Becker, Assm. Eduardo Garcia, Sen. Lena Gonzalez, Sen. Monique Limón, Sen. Anthony Portatino, Sen. Henry Stern, and Assm. Lori Wilson. It received over 82% support in final floor votes in both the Assembly and the Senate.
- Proposition 4 has been publicly opposed by Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, which argues that repayment of the bond with interest will result in an overall taxpayer cost in excess of $19 billion over 30 years. They argue that asking future generations to shoulder a financial burden they did not have the opportunity to vote on directly is unjust, though the prevailing analysis is that inaction will cost the state more money. Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association generally opposes raising public revenue to pay for critical infrastructure, programs, and services, including bonds that have been popular with voters.
In 2022, Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration made a commitment to spend $54 billion on climate protections, some of which were cut to balance the state’s budget. Proposition 4, the Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, Drought Preparedness, and Clean Air Bond Act, would allow the state to borrow $10 billion to be urgently allocated across a variety of climate projects and reimbursed by taxpayers through a bond. The bill outlines allocations for these funds that include $3.8 billion for safe drinking and groundwater projects, $1.5 billion for wildfire protections, $1.2 billion for coastal infrastructure efforts, $1.2 billion to protect biodiversity, and $450 million for extreme heat mitigation. With a focus on water, wildfire, and the coast, this funding is designed to create present-day solutions that will stop or reverse existing climate challenges and mitigate the need for more expensive projects in the future.
- Proposition 4 mandates that 40% of funding must benefit disadvantaged communities, which it defines as areas where the median household income is less than 80% of the region’s average. Voting YES will ensure that the communities most negatively impacted by environmental disinvestment will benefit from these climate projects.
- Along with providing benefits for water, wildfire, and coastal areas, Proposition 4 will also allocate funds to address wildlife habitat preservation, build public parks, increase sustainable farming operations, and fight air pollution. Voting YES will provide for these initiatives for wide-ranging community benefits across the state.
- An analysis from the California Natural Resources Agency indicates that without action today, the state’s climate-related expenses could rise to $113 billion annually by 2050. Voting YES on Proposition 4 will allow the state to take immediate action to establish more protections and adaptability to avert high annual expenses in the coming decades.
- Proposition 4 has the support of many environmental, labor, and justice groups, including Environmental Defense Fund, California Coastal Protection Network, California Water Impact Network, and WateReuse California.
- SB867, which moved Proposition 4 forward to the ballot, was introduced in February 2023 and authored by Sen. Ben Allen, Sen. Josh Becker, Assm. Eduardo Garcia, Sen. Lena Gonzalez, Sen. Monique Limón, Sen. Anthony Portatino, Sen. Henry Stern, and Assm. Lori Wilson. It received over 82% support in final floor votes in both the Assembly and the Senate.
- Proposition 4 has been publicly opposed by Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, which argues that repayment of the bond with interest will result in an overall taxpayer cost in excess of $19 billion over 30 years. They argue that asking future generations to shoulder a financial burden they did not have the opportunity to vote on directly is unjust, though the prevailing analysis is that inaction will cost the state more money. Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association generally opposes raising public revenue to pay for critical infrastructure, programs, and services, including bonds that have been popular with voters.
At the local level, the California Constitution currently requires that general obligation bonds and special taxes for both affordable housing and public infrastructure projects earn a two-thirds supermajority vote, or 67%, to pass. Proposition 5 seeks to reduce that vote threshold to 55% of the popular vote to provide local governments with a better opportunity to move forward on these local service and development projects using public funds. The proposition also establishes accountability standards to require annual, independent audits of the use of funds, and create citizen oversight committees to evaluate spending.
- Over the last several years, California has seen a growing population of unhoused people, chronically high housing costs, and the highest rate of poverty in the country. Each of these issues are directly tied to a lack of affordable housing development across communities. Reducing the vote threshold to a more attainable level by voting YES on Proposition 5 would improve the likelihood that local governments could pass funding measures to address these issues.
- Since Proposition 39 passed in 2000, local school districts have been able to pass bond measures with the lower 55% requirement. The effectiveness of this vote threshold reduction establishes a strong precedent for the changes proposed in Proposition 5. Voting YES on Proposition 5 would expand this principle to fund housing and infrastructure projects.
- Infrastructure improvements, like upgrades to roads, water systems, public parks, and libraries, improve quality of life in a community and increase existing property values. Voting YES on Proposition 5 would make it easier for municipalities to fund projects to expand broadband access, improve public safety, amend water sanitation and quality, protect property against flooding and sea level changes, and build hospitals.
- Proposition 5 has the endorsement of many groups, including California Association of Housing Authorities, California State Association of Counties, California Transit Association, California State Council of Laborers, Santa Clara Valley Water District, and Urban Counties of California. It has also received the support of several cities, including Camarillo, Davis, Gustine, Laguna Beach, Lathrop, Lodi, Moorpark, and San Luis Obispo.
- Proposition 5 was authored in the state legislature as ACA 1 by Assm. Cecelia Aguiar-Curry, Assm. Marc Berman, Assm. Matt Haney, Assm. Alex Lee, and Assm. Buffy Wicks. It received over 65% support from floor votes in both the Assembly and the state Senate.
- Proposition 5 has been heavily opposed by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association (HJTA), whose stated mission is to protect Proposition 13 and ensure the right to limited taxation. Howard and Estelle Jarvis participated in the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, before founding HJTA to continue to advocate against tax increases. HJTA argues that Proposition 5 threatens Proposition 13 and existing protections for taxpayers, and that it will ultimately result in increased taxation in the state.
- Opponents of Proposition 5 claim that it is a direct attack on Proposition 13, which passed in 1978 and restricted property tax increases by capping a homeowners’ general levy tax to just 1% of their home’s assessed value. This is FALSE. Proposition 5 modernizes the process by which a passing vote can be achieved for specific categories of funding but does not repeal Proposition 13.
- Opponents claim that Proposition 5 will make California less affordable for working families and renters. This is FALSE. Creating an easier process for municipalities to fund housing and infrastructure development will increase the availability of housing units and effectively draw down an inflated cost of living that has been exacerbated by housing scarcity.
At the local level, the California Constitution currently requires that general obligation bonds and special taxes for both affordable housing and public infrastructure projects earn a two-thirds supermajority vote, or 67%, to pass. Proposition 5 seeks to reduce that vote threshold to 55% of the popular vote to provide local governments with a better opportunity to move forward on these local service and development projects using public funds. The proposition also establishes accountability standards to require annual, independent audits of the use of funds, and create citizen oversight committees to evaluate spending.
- Over the last several years, California has seen a growing population of unhoused people, chronically high housing costs, and the highest rate of poverty in the country. Each of these issues are directly tied to a lack of affordable housing development across communities. Reducing the vote threshold to a more attainable level by voting YES on Proposition 5 would improve the likelihood that local governments could pass funding measures to address these issues.
- Since Proposition 39 passed in 2000, local school districts have been able to pass bond measures with the lower 55% requirement. The effectiveness of this vote threshold reduction establishes a strong precedent for the changes proposed in Proposition 5. Voting YES on Proposition 5 would expand this principle to fund housing and infrastructure projects.
- Infrastructure improvements, like upgrades to roads, water systems, public parks, and libraries, improve quality of life in a community and increase existing property values. Voting YES on Proposition 5 would make it easier for municipalities to fund projects to expand broadband access, improve public safety, amend water sanitation and quality, protect property against flooding and sea level changes, and build hospitals.
- Proposition 5 has the endorsement of many groups, including California Association of Housing Authorities, California State Association of Counties, California Transit Association, California State Council of Laborers, Santa Clara Valley Water District, and Urban Counties of California. It has also received the support of several cities, including Camarillo, Davis, Gustine, Laguna Beach, Lathrop, Lodi, Moorpark, and San Luis Obispo.
- Proposition 5 was authored in the state legislature as ACA 1 by Assm. Cecelia Aguiar-Curry, Assm. Marc Berman, Assm. Matt Haney, Assm. Alex Lee, and Assm. Buffy Wicks. It received over 65% support from floor votes in both the Assembly and the state Senate.
- Proposition 5 has been heavily opposed by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association (HJTA), whose stated mission is to protect Proposition 13 and ensure the right to limited taxation. Howard and Estelle Jarvis participated in the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, before founding HJTA to continue to advocate against tax increases. HJTA argues that Proposition 5 threatens Proposition 13 and existing protections for taxpayers, and that it will ultimately result in increased taxation in the state.
- Opponents of Proposition 5 claim that it is a direct attack on Proposition 13, which passed in 1978 and restricted property tax increases by capping a homeowners’ general levy tax to just 1% of their home’s assessed value. This is FALSE. Proposition 5 modernizes the process by which a passing vote can be achieved for specific categories of funding but does not repeal Proposition 13.
- Opponents claim that Proposition 5 will make California less affordable for working families and renters. This is FALSE. Creating an easier process for municipalities to fund housing and infrastructure development will increase the availability of housing units and effectively draw down an inflated cost of living that has been exacerbated by housing scarcity.
California’s state constitution outlaws slavery but maintains language that allows for involuntary servitude to be used as punishment for a crime. Proposition 6 would repeal that language and replace it with language that clearly outlaws the use of involuntary servitude under any circumstances, and allows the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to instead issue credits to incarcerated people for the acceptance of voluntary work assignments during their incarceration. This bill was strongly supported by the Legislative Black Caucus, which included it as part of a larger package designed to move the state forward on reparations.
- Voting YES on Proposition 6 would join California with over 30 other states that have struck down the archaic practice of involuntary servitude in their state constitutions.
- The current policy further enriches prisons by allowing them to require inmates to work for wages as low as eight cents an hour. Voting YES on Proposition 6 will eliminate forced labor in the state prison system and provide for more dignity in the earning capacity and rehabilitation process of incarcerated people.
- The incarcerated population in California is disproportionately made up of Black and Latino men. Voting YES on Proposition 6 will disrupt the ongoing legacy of slavery and exploitation that has historically impacted these populations.
- Voting YES on Proposition 6 will allow incarcerated people to exercise more autonomy in shaping their rehabilitation and pursuit of voluntary work experience during their time in the prison system.
- Proposition 6 has the support of many social justice advocacy organizations, including Courage California, ACLU California Action, the California Immigrant Policy Center, and League of Women Voters California. It has also received the endorsement of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.
- ACA 8, the bill associated with Proposition 6, was authored by Assm. Lori Wilson, and introduced in February 2023. It received over 82% support in final floor votes in both the Assembly and the state Senate.
- While there has been no public opposition to Proposition 6, there have been some expressed concerns from Republican lawmakers that this bill would result in the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation being required to compensate incarcerated people at minimum-wage rates for their voluntary work contributions. This is FALSE. AB 628, a new law related to Proposition 6, directly contradicts this argument, stating that it does not require that the state supply minimum wage to incarcerated workers. AB 628 dictates that the Department of Corrections would have the authority to set compensation standards within the prison system.
California’s state constitution outlaws slavery but maintains language that allows for involuntary servitude to be used as punishment for a crime. Proposition 6 would repeal that language and replace it with language that clearly outlaws the use of involuntary servitude under any circumstances, and allows the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to instead issue credits to incarcerated people for the acceptance of voluntary work assignments during their incarceration. This bill was strongly supported by the Legislative Black Caucus, which included it as part of a larger package designed to move the state forward on reparations.
- Voting YES on Proposition 6 would join California with over 30 other states that have struck down the archaic practice of involuntary servitude in their state constitutions.
- The current policy further enriches prisons by allowing them to require inmates to work for wages as low as eight cents an hour. Voting YES on Proposition 6 will eliminate forced labor in the state prison system and provide for more dignity in the earning capacity and rehabilitation process of incarcerated people.
- The incarcerated population in California is disproportionately made up of Black and Latino men. Voting YES on Proposition 6 will disrupt the ongoing legacy of slavery and exploitation that has historically impacted these populations.
- Voting YES on Proposition 6 will allow incarcerated people to exercise more autonomy in shaping their rehabilitation and pursuit of voluntary work experience during their time in the prison system.
- Proposition 6 has the support of many social justice advocacy organizations, including Courage California, ACLU California Action, the California Immigrant Policy Center, and League of Women Voters California. It has also received the endorsement of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.
- ACA 8, the bill associated with Proposition 6, was authored by Assm. Lori Wilson, and introduced in February 2023. It received over 82% support in final floor votes in both the Assembly and the state Senate.
- While there has been no public opposition to Proposition 6, there have been some expressed concerns from Republican lawmakers that this bill would result in the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation being required to compensate incarcerated people at minimum-wage rates for their voluntary work contributions. This is FALSE. AB 628, a new law related to Proposition 6, directly contradicts this argument, stating that it does not require that the state supply minimum wage to incarcerated workers. AB 628 dictates that the Department of Corrections would have the authority to set compensation standards within the prison system.
In 2016, the California state legislature passed SB 3 to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour by 2023, and mandated adjustments for inflation tied to the Consumer Price Index (CPI). SB 3 also established unique timelines for businesses to provide wage increases based on the number of people employed. Proposition 32 would follow a similar format to continue to increase the statewide minimum wage to $18 per hour by 2026, with a required CPI-based increase after $18/hour has been reached. The proposition also includes a provision that would allow the governor to delay the increases up to two times in response to an unexpected economic downturn.
- While California maintains a higher minimum wage than other states, the current standard still puts workers earning minimum wage far below the state’s average cost of living. Voting YES on Proposition 32 will move California forward in closing this socioeconomic gap for workers.
- Some industries in the state have secured union-negotiated wage increases over the last few years, including a move to $25/hour for health-care workers, and $20/hour for fast-food workers. Voting YES on Proposition 32 will advance the earning power of workers who do not benefit from the protection and advocacy of labor unions.
- Static wages can make it difficult for individuals and families to maintain stable housing, health care, and access to quality food. These limitations can have long-term impacts on the health and safety of households and communities. Voting YES on Proposition 32 will help level the playing field and mitigate some of these challenges across the state.
- Recent estimates have shown that the minimum wage would be over $25 per hour if it had kept pace with economic productivity since the 1960s. Voting YES will move California closer to providing this realistic living wage to workers.
- Proposition 32 has received support from Golden State Opportunity, a nonprofit group that advocates for anti-poverty initiatives. The group is led by progressive entrepreneur Joe Sanberg, who has also supported earned income tax credits for low-income families, and founded the state’s largest anti-poverty program, CalEITC4Me.
- After recent success in raising wages in health care and fast-food service, there is some debate in some labor unions about whether this blanket approach to wage increases is as strategic as pursuing industry-based efforts.
- The California Republican Party has formally opposed Proposition 32, citing concerns about the negative financial impacts on business within the state.
- Some business leaders have been critical of Proposition 32, expressing concerns that allowing political winds to determine this element of economic growth is irresponsible. They argue that markets should dictate wage growth, and that this increase will squeeze business owners, who will then shift the cost burden to consumers.
In 2016, the California state legislature passed SB 3 to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour by 2023, and mandated adjustments for inflation tied to the Consumer Price Index (CPI). SB 3 also established unique timelines for businesses to provide wage increases based on the number of people employed. Proposition 32 would follow a similar format to continue to increase the statewide minimum wage to $18 per hour by 2026, with a required CPI-based increase after $18/hour has been reached. The proposition also includes a provision that would allow the governor to delay the increases up to two times in response to an unexpected economic downturn.
- While California maintains a higher minimum wage than other states, the current standard still puts workers earning minimum wage far below the state’s average cost of living. Voting YES on Proposition 32 will move California forward in closing this socioeconomic gap for workers.
- Some industries in the state have secured union-negotiated wage increases over the last few years, including a move to $25/hour for health-care workers, and $20/hour for fast-food workers. Voting YES on Proposition 32 will advance the earning power of workers who do not benefit from the protection and advocacy of labor unions.
- Static wages can make it difficult for individuals and families to maintain stable housing, health care, and access to quality food. These limitations can have long-term impacts on the health and safety of households and communities. Voting YES on Proposition 32 will help level the playing field and mitigate some of these challenges across the state.
- Recent estimates have shown that the minimum wage would be over $25 per hour if it had kept pace with economic productivity since the 1960s. Voting YES will move California closer to providing this realistic living wage to workers.
- Proposition 32 has received support from Golden State Opportunity, a nonprofit group that advocates for anti-poverty initiatives. The group is led by progressive entrepreneur Joe Sanberg, who has also supported earned income tax credits for low-income families, and founded the state’s largest anti-poverty program, CalEITC4Me.
- After recent success in raising wages in health care and fast-food service, there is some debate in some labor unions about whether this blanket approach to wage increases is as strategic as pursuing industry-based efforts.
- The California Republican Party has formally opposed Proposition 32, citing concerns about the negative financial impacts on business within the state.
- Some business leaders have been critical of Proposition 32, expressing concerns that allowing political winds to determine this element of economic growth is irresponsible. They argue that markets should dictate wage growth, and that this increase will squeeze business owners, who will then shift the cost burden to consumers.
In 1995, the state legislature passed the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, which prohibited rent control in single-family homes, condominium units, and newly built rental properties. In cities that already had rent control in place at the time of Costa-Hawkins, like Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Berkeley, the definition of “new” was backdated to those earlier ordinances. Proposition 33 would repeal Costa-Hawkins, allow municipalities to reestablish rent limits on any housing in their jurisdiction, and prohibit the state from limiting any later establishment or expansion of rent control. Similar ballot initiatives, Proposition 10 in 2018 and Proposition 21 in 2020, failed by a margin of nearly 20 points.
- California is experiencing a faster rate increase in homelessness than any other state in the country. Recent data shows an annual increase of up to 7% in statewide homelessness between 2022 and 2023, and partially attributes this ongoing crisis to increasing rents and housing unaffordability. Voting YES on this initiative will allow local governments to prevent homelessness and support unhoused neighbors by putting measures in place to regulate costs in the housing market and strengthen renter protections.
- Community development and growth is aided by the long-term investment in housing security of local residents who establish a personal network, professional ties, and social connections in a neighborhood. Voting YES on this initiative will help ensure that individuals and families investing in their local community will not be priced out of their home by unchecked rental price increases.
- Recent Zillow data indicates that rental costs across the state have increased by as much as 40% since the start of the pandemic in 2020. This data includes striking increases in inland regions of the state that have previously been considered more affordable, including 39% in Bakersfield, 38% in Fresno, and 37% in Riverside. Voting YES on this initiative will limit these inflated year-over-year rental-cost increases across the state.
- This initiative is sponsored by AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) and their associated initiative, Housing Is a Human Right. These organizations work at the intersection of health, social equity, and human rights, and have been strong advocates of communities impacted by the unsustainable increase in housing costs within the state. They sponsored the previous ballot-measure efforts to repeal Costa-Hawkins. Notably, AHF has a track record of being a problematic landlord, especially as one the the biggest landlords in Skid Row in Los Angeles.
- Additional endorsers of this effort include Pomona United Stable Housing Coalition, Housing Now! California, Healing and Justice Center, SLO Rent Coalition, Oakland Tenants Union, ACCE, and IE Votes. This initiative has also received the endorsement of many elected leaders, including Rep. Ro Khanna, Rep. Barbara Lee, Assm. Alex Lee, State Sen. María Elena Durazo, and many local mayors and council members.
- Stakeholders in support of this initiative raised $13.9 million as of the first quarter of 2024, with the majority of those dollars contributed directly by AIDS Healthcare Foundation.
- Committees in opposition to this initiative, Californians for Responsible Housing and Californians to Protect Affordable Housing, have raised $2.9 million as of the first quarter of 2024. These committees have received direct sponsorship, and the majority of their funding, from the California Apartment Association that represents landlords, including corporations that own rental properties.
- Stakeholders who oppose this initiative claim that it will reduce housing supply by forcing landlords to convert their rental apartments into sellable condos, and creating local housing ordinances that make affordable housing development more difficult. This is FALSE. While this initiative would limit corporate landlords from imposing skyrocketing rent increases on families, it does not dictate that rents must be held below market rate, and it does not suggest that local building or development standards would be directly impacted.
- Objectors have also argued that this initiative would impose rent control on privately owned residences, limiting an owner’s ability to set the rent for their property. This is FALSE. This initiative does not contain special restrictions for private owners, but it would make them subject to the same equitable market-rate expectations that apply to rental apartment owners.
In 1995, the state legislature passed the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, which prohibited rent control in single-family homes, condominium units, and newly built rental properties. In cities that already had rent control in place at the time of Costa-Hawkins, like Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Berkeley, the definition of “new” was backdated to those earlier ordinances. Proposition 33 would repeal Costa-Hawkins, allow municipalities to reestablish rent limits on any housing in their jurisdiction, and prohibit the state from limiting any later establishment or expansion of rent control. Similar ballot initiatives, Proposition 10 in 2018 and Proposition 21 in 2020, failed by a margin of nearly 20 points.
- California is experiencing a faster rate increase in homelessness than any other state in the country. Recent data shows an annual increase of up to 7% in statewide homelessness between 2022 and 2023, and partially attributes this ongoing crisis to increasing rents and housing unaffordability. Voting YES on this initiative will allow local governments to prevent homelessness and support unhoused neighbors by putting measures in place to regulate costs in the housing market and strengthen renter protections.
- Community development and growth is aided by the long-term investment in housing security of local residents who establish a personal network, professional ties, and social connections in a neighborhood. Voting YES on this initiative will help ensure that individuals and families investing in their local community will not be priced out of their home by unchecked rental price increases.
- Recent Zillow data indicates that rental costs across the state have increased by as much as 40% since the start of the pandemic in 2020. This data includes striking increases in inland regions of the state that have previously been considered more affordable, including 39% in Bakersfield, 38% in Fresno, and 37% in Riverside. Voting YES on this initiative will limit these inflated year-over-year rental-cost increases across the state.
- This initiative is sponsored by AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) and their associated initiative, Housing Is a Human Right. These organizations work at the intersection of health, social equity, and human rights, and have been strong advocates of communities impacted by the unsustainable increase in housing costs within the state. They sponsored the previous ballot-measure efforts to repeal Costa-Hawkins. Notably, AHF has a track record of being a problematic landlord, especially as one the the biggest landlords in Skid Row in Los Angeles.
- Additional endorsers of this effort include Pomona United Stable Housing Coalition, Housing Now! California, Healing and Justice Center, SLO Rent Coalition, Oakland Tenants Union, ACCE, and IE Votes. This initiative has also received the endorsement of many elected leaders, including Rep. Ro Khanna, Rep. Barbara Lee, Assm. Alex Lee, State Sen. María Elena Durazo, and many local mayors and council members.
- Stakeholders in support of this initiative raised $13.9 million as of the first quarter of 2024, with the majority of those dollars contributed directly by AIDS Healthcare Foundation.
- Committees in opposition to this initiative, Californians for Responsible Housing and Californians to Protect Affordable Housing, have raised $2.9 million as of the first quarter of 2024. These committees have received direct sponsorship, and the majority of their funding, from the California Apartment Association that represents landlords, including corporations that own rental properties.
- Stakeholders who oppose this initiative claim that it will reduce housing supply by forcing landlords to convert their rental apartments into sellable condos, and creating local housing ordinances that make affordable housing development more difficult. This is FALSE. While this initiative would limit corporate landlords from imposing skyrocketing rent increases on families, it does not dictate that rents must be held below market rate, and it does not suggest that local building or development standards would be directly impacted.
- Objectors have also argued that this initiative would impose rent control on privately owned residences, limiting an owner’s ability to set the rent for their property. This is FALSE. This initiative does not contain special restrictions for private owners, but it would make them subject to the same equitable market-rate expectations that apply to rental apartment owners.
Proposition 34 is a real estate industry effort to limit organizations that receive federal drug program funding—especially the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF)—from funding ballot initiatives, including supporting Proposition 33 on rent control on this general election ballot.
The initiative seeks to create a new category of state entities called “prescription drug price manipulators,” and to place tight restrictions on the requirements those organizations must meet to maintain their tax-exempt status. The initiative defines prescription drug price manipulators as any entity that is an active participant in the federal 340B drug price discount program, is licensed to act as a health-care provider in the state, contracts with Medi-Cal as a provider, has contributed over $100 million over the last 10 years to initiatives unrelated to direct patient care, and has owned multifamily properties that have received a minimum of 500 government violations. If passed, Proposition 34 would require organizations designated as prescription drug price manipulators to spend a minimum of 98% of their revenues from the federal prescription drug program on direct patient care activities, and also abstain from any conduct that could be viewed as in opposition to public health and safety. In addition, Proposition 34 would codify the Medi-Cal Rx program, which was established in 2019 via an executive order from Gov. Gavin Newsom.
In recent years, AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF), which meets all the criteria for a prescription drug price manipulator, has provided extensive funding and advocacy support to ballot initiatives intended to support low-income housing development. Proposition 34, which is supported by a variety of actors with real estate interests, would curtail this organization’s capacity to distribute its funds in support of affordable housing initiatives.
- Real estate interests and their benefactors across the state are responsible for rental increases that have exceeded 35% in some regions since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Voting NO on Proposition 34 will ensure that organizations like AHF can continue to allocate funding to disrupt the cynical and greedy business practices of the real estate industry.
- The California Apartment Association and similar groups frequently provide financial support to state and local initiatives and candidates. Voting NO on Proposition 34 will prevent the creation of a new and narrow restricted category of funder, and would rebuke a hypocritical attempt by a wealthy industry lobbyist to restrict their opposition.
- The stated target of Proposition 34, AIDS Healthcare Foundation, has publicly opposed the initiative, arguing that their efforts to purchase single-occupancy hotels and other multi-unit structures has resulted in the permanent housing of over 1,000 people over the years and has been instrumental in supporting California’s unhoused population. Notably, recent investigations have revealed that many of AHF’s housing units are in disrepair and have not been properly maintained.
- Consumer Watchdog and National Organization for Women have also come out in opposition to Proposition 34.
- California Apartment Association is the lead sponsor of Proposition 34 and the associated Protect Patients Now campaign, and has dishonestly framed the initiative as a patient care protection measure. In their view, limiting AHF’s political spending will require the organization to reinvest funds in low-income patient care, and will prevent them from overcharging the government for prescription drugs through the Medi-Cal Rx program. In reality, their sponsorship of Proposition 34 is a direct attack on a political opponent, and they have not prioritized patient protection in any way prior to this ballot measure. California Apartment Association has contributed over $11 million in support of Proposition 34.
- Proposition 34 has also received support from the California Republican Party, ALS Association, and San Francisco Women’s Cancer Network.
Proposition 34 is a real estate industry effort to limit organizations that receive federal drug program funding—especially the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF)—from funding ballot initiatives, including supporting Proposition 33 on rent control on this general election ballot.
The initiative seeks to create a new category of state entities called “prescription drug price manipulators,” and to place tight restrictions on the requirements those organizations must meet to maintain their tax-exempt status. The initiative defines prescription drug price manipulators as any entity that is an active participant in the federal 340B drug price discount program, is licensed to act as a health-care provider in the state, contracts with Medi-Cal as a provider, has contributed over $100 million over the last 10 years to initiatives unrelated to direct patient care, and has owned multifamily properties that have received a minimum of 500 government violations. If passed, Proposition 34 would require organizations designated as prescription drug price manipulators to spend a minimum of 98% of their revenues from the federal prescription drug program on direct patient care activities, and also abstain from any conduct that could be viewed as in opposition to public health and safety. In addition, Proposition 34 would codify the Medi-Cal Rx program, which was established in 2019 via an executive order from Gov. Gavin Newsom.
In recent years, AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF), which meets all the criteria for a prescription drug price manipulator, has provided extensive funding and advocacy support to ballot initiatives intended to support low-income housing development. Proposition 34, which is supported by a variety of actors with real estate interests, would curtail this organization’s capacity to distribute its funds in support of affordable housing initiatives.
- Real estate interests and their benefactors across the state are responsible for rental increases that have exceeded 35% in some regions since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Voting NO on Proposition 34 will ensure that organizations like AHF can continue to allocate funding to disrupt the cynical and greedy business practices of the real estate industry.
- The California Apartment Association and similar groups frequently provide financial support to state and local initiatives and candidates. Voting NO on Proposition 34 will prevent the creation of a new and narrow restricted category of funder, and would rebuke a hypocritical attempt by a wealthy industry lobbyist to restrict their opposition.
- The stated target of Proposition 34, AIDS Healthcare Foundation, has publicly opposed the initiative, arguing that their efforts to purchase single-occupancy hotels and other multi-unit structures has resulted in the permanent housing of over 1,000 people over the years and has been instrumental in supporting California’s unhoused population. Notably, recent investigations have revealed that many of AHF’s housing units are in disrepair and have not been properly maintained.
- Consumer Watchdog and National Organization for Women have also come out in opposition to Proposition 34.
- California Apartment Association is the lead sponsor of Proposition 34 and the associated Protect Patients Now campaign, and has dishonestly framed the initiative as a patient care protection measure. In their view, limiting AHF’s political spending will require the organization to reinvest funds in low-income patient care, and will prevent them from overcharging the government for prescription drugs through the Medi-Cal Rx program. In reality, their sponsorship of Proposition 34 is a direct attack on a political opponent, and they have not prioritized patient protection in any way prior to this ballot measure. California Apartment Association has contributed over $11 million in support of Proposition 34.
- Proposition 34 has also received support from the California Republican Party, ALS Association, and San Francisco Women’s Cancer Network.
In 2023, the state legislature passed AB 119 to reimpose a tax on managed care organizations (MCO) in the state that had been dormant since 2012. MCOs provide health insurance coverage to their enrollees at a fixed monthly cost, and the tax is based on the number of monthly enrollees that a given MCO has. Commercial plans pay a lower rate ($1.75/member) than Medi-Cal health plans ($274/member). The renewed tax is in effect through December 2026. Proposition 35 would make the tax permanent and place a ceiling on the amount of tax that commercial health plans would be required to pay ($2.75/member). Proposition 35 would also redirect billions of dollars that support the Medi-Cal program and the state general fund to specified provider rate increases, and effectively reduce Medi-Cal investments by $1 billion to $2 billion a year, including in the current 2024/2025 budget.
In the 2024/2025 state budget signed by Governor Newsom, important health groups and services—including emergency department physician services, abortion care and family planning, ground emergency medical transportation, community health workers, private duty nurses, and adult and pediatric day health centers—receive investments and Medi-Cal rate increases. Children who qualify for Medi-Cal but are at risk of automatic disenrollment (80% annually) because of administrative or procedural issues are also supported for continued coverage in the state budget. If Prop 35 passes, these groups will not receive any of the MCO tax funds, which will go to rate increases in other areas.
- Proposition 35 has received support from a wide array of health-care stakeholders, including California Hospital Association, California Medical Association, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, and the Coalition to Protect Access to Care. Health-care providers have supported the expansion of Medi-Cal eligibility in the state, and view this initiative as an opportunity to further expand the services they provide and the patient population they engage with and prevent state leaders from repurposing the funds, as Governor Newsom has sought to do.
- Proposition 35 has also received the support of the California Republican Party and the California Democratic Party. AB 119 received bipartisan support when it was passed in 2023, earning over 85% of the vote in final floor votes in both the Assembly and the state Senate.
- Supporters have raised over $19 million for Proposition 35, including donations from California Hospitals Committee on Issues, and Global Medical Response Inc.
- While there is not currently a committee working in opposition to Proposition 35, Courage California joins health-equity advocates, like the California Pan-Ethnic Health Network, California Alliance for Retired Americans, the Children’s Partnership, and League of Women Voters, in opposition to this ballot measure.
In 2023, the state legislature passed AB 119 to reimpose a tax on managed care organizations (MCO) in the state that had been dormant since 2012. MCOs provide health insurance coverage to their enrollees at a fixed monthly cost, and the tax is based on the number of monthly enrollees that a given MCO has. Commercial plans pay a lower rate ($1.75/member) than Medi-Cal health plans ($274/member). The renewed tax is in effect through December 2026. Proposition 35 would make the tax permanent and place a ceiling on the amount of tax that commercial health plans would be required to pay ($2.75/member). Proposition 35 would also redirect billions of dollars that support the Medi-Cal program and the state general fund to specified provider rate increases, and effectively reduce Medi-Cal investments by $1 billion to $2 billion a year, including in the current 2024/2025 budget.
In the 2024/2025 state budget signed by Governor Newsom, important health groups and services—including emergency department physician services, abortion care and family planning, ground emergency medical transportation, community health workers, private duty nurses, and adult and pediatric day health centers—receive investments and Medi-Cal rate increases. Children who qualify for Medi-Cal but are at risk of automatic disenrollment (80% annually) because of administrative or procedural issues are also supported for continued coverage in the state budget. If Prop 35 passes, these groups will not receive any of the MCO tax funds, which will go to rate increases in other areas.
- Proposition 35 has received support from a wide array of health-care stakeholders, including California Hospital Association, California Medical Association, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, and the Coalition to Protect Access to Care. Health-care providers have supported the expansion of Medi-Cal eligibility in the state, and view this initiative as an opportunity to further expand the services they provide and the patient population they engage with and prevent state leaders from repurposing the funds, as Governor Newsom has sought to do.
- Proposition 35 has also received the support of the California Republican Party and the California Democratic Party. AB 119 received bipartisan support when it was passed in 2023, earning over 85% of the vote in final floor votes in both the Assembly and the state Senate.
- Supporters have raised over $19 million for Proposition 35, including donations from California Hospitals Committee on Issues, and Global Medical Response Inc.
- While there is not currently a committee working in opposition to Proposition 35, Courage California joins health-equity advocates, like the California Pan-Ethnic Health Network, California Alliance for Retired Americans, the Children’s Partnership, and League of Women Voters, in opposition to this ballot measure.
In 2014, California voters passed Proposition 47 with over 59% of the vote to reclassify some nonviolent crimes from felonies to misdemeanors, including low-value shoplifting, grand theft, forgery, fraud, and the personal use of illegal drugs. This change effectively reduced the state’s prison burden, and allowed the government to divert millions of dollars in funds previously used for incarceration to rehabilitation and reentry programs. Proposition 36 would make changes to Proposition 47 by increasing the sentence for possession of certain quantities of illegal drugs, adding fentanyl to the list of illegal drugs that can warrant a felony charge, and making low-value property theft a felony for repeat offenders.
- Proposition 36 would upend the progress that Proposition 47 established to increase community investment in mental health services, substance use treatment, and diversion programs, and refocusing on mass incarceration. Voting NO will ensure that California remains focused on effective rehabilitation and reentry programs for individuals involved in low-level crimes.
- A fiscal-impact statement associated with Proposition 36 estimates that it will ultimately result in a price tag of hundreds of millions of dollars annually in court costs and the expense of housing an increased prison population. Voting NO will allow these critical funds to continue to be spent on truancy, youth services, rehabilitation, and substance-use treatment programs.
- Recent data suggests that criminalizing personal drug use is largely ineffective, and tends to disproportionately impact marginalized groups. Additionally, it often results in destabilizing long-term consequences, like the disruption of family relationships, and difficulty in accessing employment opportunities and public assistance. Voting NO on Proposition 36 will maintain the misdemeanor status for these crimes while continuing to support social programs in addressing the root causes of addiction and criminal behavior.
- Gov. Gavin Newsom spoke out against modifications to Proposition 47 in early 2024, and opposes Proposition 36. He and other Democratic lawmakers briefly worked on a more moderate measure to address fentanyl and retail theft, but ultimately withdrew it.
- The Stop the Prison Spending Scam campaign opposing Proposition 36 is led by Californians for Safety and Justice and includes ACLU California, Smart Justice California, and Courage California.
- Proposition 36 has received the support of many law-enforcement agencies, including California Sheriffs’ Association, San Francisco Police Officers Association Issues PAC, Kern County Prosecutors Association PAC, California District Attorneys Association, and Association of Deputy District Attorneys PAC. These groups view this initiative as a way to reduce crime rates and curb drug use by returning to the problematic theory that crime can be collectively deterred through the establishment of strong punitive consequences.
- Proposition 36 has also received the support of San Francisco Mayor London Breed and San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, conservative Democrats who both lead cities in the Bay Area where drug use and property crime have been significant political issues over the last several years. It has also received the support of the California Republican Party.
- Supporters have raised over $9 million, and include business stakeholders who have made exaggerated claims of being negatively impacted by the low-value theft and property crime that Proposition 36 seeks to reclassify – claims that have since been retracted and refuted by more accurate data. Donors include Target Corporation, Walmart, 7-Eleven, American Petroleum and Convenience Store Association, and California Fuels and Convenience Alliance.
- Proposition 36 will NOT get more people into drug and mental health treatment and does NOT provide any funding for that treatment. Instead, it will reduce $850 million of funding for rehabilitation and treatment services over the next decade.
- Proposition 36 will NOT solve homelessness. There is no funding for housing in the proposition, and studies show that people who have been incarcerated are nearly 10 times more likely to be homeless. It costs $132,000 per year to incarcerate someone, but less to provide permanent supportive housing.
In 2014, California voters passed Proposition 47 with over 59% of the vote to reclassify some nonviolent crimes from felonies to misdemeanors, including low-value shoplifting, grand theft, forgery, fraud, and the personal use of illegal drugs. This change effectively reduced the state’s prison burden, and allowed the government to divert millions of dollars in funds previously used for incarceration to rehabilitation and reentry programs. Proposition 36 would make changes to Proposition 47 by increasing the sentence for possession of certain quantities of illegal drugs, adding fentanyl to the list of illegal drugs that can warrant a felony charge, and making low-value property theft a felony for repeat offenders.
- Proposition 36 would upend the progress that Proposition 47 established to increase community investment in mental health services, substance use treatment, and diversion programs, and refocusing on mass incarceration. Voting NO will ensure that California remains focused on effective rehabilitation and reentry programs for individuals involved in low-level crimes.
- A fiscal-impact statement associated with Proposition 36 estimates that it will ultimately result in a price tag of hundreds of millions of dollars annually in court costs and the expense of housing an increased prison population. Voting NO will allow these critical funds to continue to be spent on truancy, youth services, rehabilitation, and substance-use treatment programs.
- Recent data suggests that criminalizing personal drug use is largely ineffective, and tends to disproportionately impact marginalized groups. Additionally, it often results in destabilizing long-term consequences, like the disruption of family relationships, and difficulty in accessing employment opportunities and public assistance. Voting NO on Proposition 36 will maintain the misdemeanor status for these crimes while continuing to support social programs in addressing the root causes of addiction and criminal behavior.
- Gov. Gavin Newsom spoke out against modifications to Proposition 47 in early 2024, and opposes Proposition 36. He and other Democratic lawmakers briefly worked on a more moderate measure to address fentanyl and retail theft, but ultimately withdrew it.
- The Stop the Prison Spending Scam campaign opposing Proposition 36 is led by Californians for Safety and Justice and includes ACLU California, Smart Justice California, and Courage California.
- Proposition 36 has received the support of many law-enforcement agencies, including California Sheriffs’ Association, San Francisco Police Officers Association Issues PAC, Kern County Prosecutors Association PAC, California District Attorneys Association, and Association of Deputy District Attorneys PAC. These groups view this initiative as a way to reduce crime rates and curb drug use by returning to the problematic theory that crime can be collectively deterred through the establishment of strong punitive consequences.
- Proposition 36 has also received the support of San Francisco Mayor London Breed and San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, conservative Democrats who both lead cities in the Bay Area where drug use and property crime have been significant political issues over the last several years. It has also received the support of the California Republican Party.
- Supporters have raised over $9 million, and include business stakeholders who have made exaggerated claims of being negatively impacted by the low-value theft and property crime that Proposition 36 seeks to reclassify – claims that have since been retracted and refuted by more accurate data. Donors include Target Corporation, Walmart, 7-Eleven, American Petroleum and Convenience Store Association, and California Fuels and Convenience Alliance.
- Proposition 36 will NOT get more people into drug and mental health treatment and does NOT provide any funding for that treatment. Instead, it will reduce $850 million of funding for rehabilitation and treatment services over the next decade.
- Proposition 36 will NOT solve homelessness. There is no funding for housing in the proposition, and studies show that people who have been incarcerated are nearly 10 times more likely to be homeless. It costs $132,000 per year to incarcerate someone, but less to provide permanent supportive housing.
