By Jack Haslett
Races at the city, state and presidential level may grab attention during election season, but state propositions on the 2024 ballot have the power to put laws in place that may have the most impact for the individual voter.
Proposition 3: Same-Sex Marriage Language Change
Proposition 3 would amend the California Constitution to change the phrasing to match federal rulings on who can marry. Currently, Article 1, Section 7.5 of the California Constitution states that, “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” This phrasing contradicts preceding Supreme Court rulings that affirm the right to same-sex marriage.
Proposition 32: Minimum Wage
Proposition 32 would raise the California minimum wage to $18 an hour. California’s current minimum wage is $16 an hour, the third highest in the nation according to a report by Bloomberg Law. An $18 minimum wage would be the highest in the nation if the proposition is approved.
The wage increase would be different depending on business size. Starting in 2025, businesses employing more than 25 people would be required to pay an $18 minimum wage, whereas businesses employing 25 people or less would only be required to pay a $17 wage. The minimum wage would also be adjusted for inflation yearly, beginning in 2027.
Some reasons for opposition to the measure include fears of price increases in small businesses, similar to the price increases seen in fast food after fast food workers’ minimum wage went up to $20 in April 2023.
However, a recent study published by UC Berkeley’s Institute from Labor and Employment found that while fast food menu prices did increase, average menu prices only rose 3.7% compared to the 18% increase in income for workers.
Proposition 33: Local Rent Control
Proposition 33 would repeal the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, a state law limiting the power of local governments to pass rent control laws.
Rent control laws limit how much landlords in a given city or county can increase rent between years, according to the Official California Voter Guide. Currently, Costa-Hawkins prohibits rent control on single-family homes, on any housing development built after Feb. 1, 1995 and generally prevents rent control laws from deciding the original amount of rent a landlord would charge a new tenant.
By repealing Costa-Hawkins, city and county governments would have greater freedom to enact rent control laws without the aforementioned restrictions.
Proposition 4: Climate Bond
Proposition 4 would authorize the state to sell a $10 billion bond to use as funding in climate and environment focused projects. A bond is a way for the state to borrow money from investors to fund long-term projects. The funding would be divided into several categories covering natural disaster services, energy infrastructure and land conservation.
Efforts to combat droughts and wildfires would account for the majority of the $10 billion spending if Proposition 4 is passes. Graphic by Jack Haslett.
Proposition 6: Involuntary Servitude
Article 1, Section 6 of the California Constitution prohibits slavery, but permits involuntary servitude as a punishment for crime, meaning incarcerated people in California prisons can be forced to work or be punished for refusing to work. Proposition 6 would introduce an amendment to the California Constitution banning involuntary servitude as a form of punishment. It would also ban California state prisons from punishing inmates who refuse to work.
Proposition 5: Voting Threshold
Currently, the California Constitution requires most cities and county governments to obtain two-thirds local voter approval to approve bonds. Proposition 5 would reduce required voter approval from 67% to 55%. This would only affect monies borrowed used to fund affordable housing construction and public infrastructure projects. Due to a recent addition to the proposition, it also includes a ban on local governments using the borrowed funds to buy existing single-family homes and convert them into affordable units, according to CalMatters.
Proposition 34: Direct Patient Spending
Proposition 34 would establish new spending rules for health care providers collecting revenue from the Federal Drug Discount Program to direct 98% of their net revenue on patient care services. In addition, they will be required to report their annual revenue to the state in an effort to curb spending by healthcare organizations on lobbying, political donations and acts such as purchasing stadium naming rights, according to the official California Voter Information Guide.
Non-profit clinics and healthcare organizations that receive discounted prescription medication from the program are able to collect revenue by charging private and government-provided health plans more than the cost to acquire the prescriptions.
Opposition to the measure states that it is only on the ballot in an effort to harm the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, who support Prop 33, according to Jerilyn Stapleton, a board member of the National Organization for Women, in a rebuttal of Prop 34 published in the Official California Voter Information Guide.
Proposition 36: Criminal Penalties
Proposition 36 would increase the punishment for certain theft and drug-related crimes. Thefts of $950 or less are currently considered a misdemeanor by California state law. The prop would change these crimes to felonies if the offender had two or more prior convictions for thefts such as shoplifting or burglary, with a penalty of up to three years in jail or state prison.
The measure creates a new classification of punishment for certain drug-related crimes: a treatment mandated felony. A person with two or more previous drug-related convictions charged with possession of drugs like heroin, fentanyl or cocaine could be sentenced to complete some form of mental health or drug rehabilitation treatment.
Those who finish the treatment can have their charges dropped while a failure to complete the treatment could result in an up-to-three year state prison sentence, according to the Official California Voter Information Guide. Prop 36 has bipartisan support with endorsements from organizations like the California Republican Party and Equality California.
Proposition 35: Health Care Tax
Proposition 35 would make the Management Care Organization Provider Tax, also known as the “health plan tax,” permanent, beginning in 2027. It is currently set to expire in 2026.
The tax, first implemented in 2009, affects managed care health plans such as Kaiser-Permanente, that work with contracted healthcare providers to reduce patient costs and prioritize preventative care, according to the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention.
The tax charges managed care plans based on the number of people they cover, with an increased rate for Medi-Cal patients. The state uses the revenue from the tax to further fund Medi-Cal and reduce financial strain on the State General Fund from Medi-Cal costs.
Proposition 2: School Bond
Proposition 2 would approve the sale of a $10 billion bond to be used to fund public school and community college projects in the state.
$8.5 billion of the funding would be spent on public schools, with over $7 billion used for either renovation or construction of buildings on a first come, first serve basis, according to the Official California Voter Information Guide. The remaining $1.5 billion would go toward community colleges, though the community college funding is not divided like the public school funding.
