Proposition 2
Prop. 2 proposes a ten billion dollar bond for public schools and community colleges. If passed, the bond is expected to cost the state’s government $18 billion, at about five hundred million dollars per year for 30 years. This money would go towards renovating school buildings and improving the safety and health of classrooms. A vote “yes” would deliver funds for school facilities, and better building safety. The California Federation of Teachers, California Labor Federation and the Los Angeles Times are all supporters of “yes” on Prop. 2. A vote “no” on Prop. 2 prevents California from being able to borrow ten billion dollars for building new public school and community college facilities. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the East Bay Times are both opponents of Prop. 2. Supporters of Prop. 2 say that it would greatly benefit the school districts with lower incomes that do not have the means to get modern equipment and upgrades. Opposing sides say that Prop. 2 would increase California’s bond obligations too much, and disapprove of the increased taxes required to pay for the bond.
Proposition 3
Prop. 3 proposes changing the language of the California constitution to formally recognize same-sex marriage in California. If Prop. 3 wins, Prop. 8 — which changed the California constitution to say that marriage is only between a man and a woman — would be repealed, which would mean a removal of that language. Gavin Newsom, a supporter of Prop. 3 and California governor, said that Prop. 8 has no place in our constitution and that California stands with the LGBTQIA+ community and their right to live freely. San Francisco Chronicle has also endorsed Prop. 3 saying that “it merely confirms and upholds existing law.” The California Family Council, a right-wing Christian organization, opposes Prop. 3, claiming that it could lead to incest, child marriage, and polygamy.
Proposition 5
Prop. 5 would allow local governments to pass housing bonds with a 55 percent approval. As of right now, to pass a county or city bond, a two-thirds majority vote is required. Prop. 5 intends to change the California Constitution and lower the required amount to 55 percent for local infrastructure and housing bonds. Jesse Arreguín, the mayor of Berkeley, said that Prop. 5 will make it easier and give more control to voters on how our money is spent. Opponents of Prop. 5 argue that when the local government borrows money, it ends up being property owners who pay for that bond because of higher taxes.
Proposition 33
Prop. 33 would repeal the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, which prohibits cities from setting rent control on single family homes or apartments built after 1995. The Act also states that landlords can change pricing rates when a new tenant moves in. Over the past eight years, California has tried variations of this proposition and have failed. Some arguments in support of Prop. 33 are that the average rent within California is way too high, and increased rent control would alleviate that. Those opposed say that increasing rent control disincentives new housing construction.
Proposition 35
Prop. 35 would create a tax to fund Medi-Cal Health Care, which provides health insurance for low income, undocumented or disabled California residents. The government of California gets federal money to help fund Medi-Cal, however, only part of that money is actually used to fund Medi-Cal as the other part of the money goes to balance the state budget. People that use Medi-Cal are finding it more difficult to find doctors, since there is not a reliable or permanent way that Medi-Cal is funded. The payment to doctors that take Medi-Cal patients has not kept up with the expansion of Medi-Cal users and inflation. Both the Democratic Party of California and the Republican Party of California support this proposition. Opposers say it is not fair to make voters decide on complicated healthcare tax policy.
Proposition 4
Prop. 4 proposes a ten billion dollar bond for environmental and climate projects. $1.9 billion of this would be allotted for drinking water improvements. Prop. 4 requires annual audits. Supporters such as Clean Water Action and National Wildlife Federation have said that, since California continues to have threats from wildfires, water pollution, and extreme heat, the need to spend more money on climate is urgent. The California Republican Party opposes Prop. 4 and argues that bonds are the most expensive way to fund government spendings and that issues such as climate change should already be in the state budget.
Proposition 6
Prop. 6 would amend the California Constitution so the state cannot punish incarcerated people with unwanted work and discipline assignments, essentially abolishing involuntary servitude for incarcerated people in the state. Instead of forcing inmates to do labor, California prisons and jails would make work for incarcerated people optional. If Prop. 6 were not to go forward, involuntary labor assignments could still be used as a form of punishment. Supporters of Prop. 6, including the American Civil Liberties Union of California, say that it is inhumane to be forced to do long hours of work with little pay, and that incarcerated people frequently face punishment for refusing dangerous work. The only filed opposer to Prop. 6 is the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, who say that Prop. 6 gives grounds for incarcerated people to ask for higher pay, which they believe would burden tax payers.
Proposition 34
Prop. 34 would require certain participants in the Medi-Cal Rx program to spend 98 percent of revenues on patient care. The Medi-Cal Rx program is a program where healthcare providers are given a low price drug that they can provide to low income homes. The AIDS Healthcare Foundation is one of the biggest users of the Medi-Cal Rx program. The AIDS Healthcare Foundation in the past used some of its money on funding propositions and other non patient care related things. The AIDS Healthcare Foundation argues that this proposition was created by the California Apartment Association with the goal of silencing them and prevent them from sponsoring future propositions to expand rent control. Supporters of the proposition claim the goal is close loopholes that allow corporations to spend millions of dollars on things such as “stadium naming rights” and “CEO salaries.” A vote “yes” on this proposition would mean that the AIDS Health Foundation would have to spend 98 percent of its money on patient care. A vote “no” would mean that these new rules would not go into effect.
Proposition 32
Prop. 32 would set the minimum wage in California to be $18 per hour by 2026 for employees and would adjust that wage based on the annual rate of the increase in the cost of living. A vote “yes” on Prop. 32 would help those in the service industry and single parents be able to afford living in California. The California Democratic Party endorsed this proposition. A vote “no” on Prop. 32 would mean that the minimum wage that is in place at this time would stay the same, except for adjustments for inflation up to 3.5 percent annually. If Prop. 32 does not go forward, the minimum wage in California is expected to be around $17 per hour by 2026. Some arguments opposing Prop. 32 are that it will increase the prices of running a small business because employees will require higher pay.
Proposition 36
Prop. 36 has to do with certain theft and possession of drugs being classified as misdemeanors or felonies. In 2014, Prop. 47 was passed by Califonia voters, which changed certain theft and possession crimes from felonies to misdemeanors. Prop. 36 would reverse Prop. 47, changing the misdemeanors back into felonies. At this moment it is a misdemeanor to steal anything under $950. In Texas, for example, that number is $2,500. If Prop. 36 were to go into effect, stealing anything under $950 would turn into a felony if the offender had two prior theft convictions. The proposition would increase prison sentences, and classify certain drug offensives as “treatment-mandated felonies”. The proposition is supported by the Republican Party of California. California Governor Gavin Newsom is opposed to Prop. 36, and says that the proposition would fuel mass incarceration.