Navigating the ballot can be overwhelming, especially when faced with complex propositions that can significantly impact our communities. As your trusted content creators at conduct.edu.vn, we’ve analyzed the upcoming California ballot initiatives to provide you with a clear and concise voter guide, rooted in progressive values. This guide, specifically tailored for Los Angeles voters and aligned with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) perspective, aims to cut through the political jargon and offer straightforward recommendations on how to vote on each proposition. We believe in empowering voters with the information they need to make informed decisions that benefit the working class and advance social justice in California. This guide is your resource to understand each proposition’s background, analyze its potential impact, and confidently cast your vote in line with DSA principles. Let’s delve into each proposition and ensure our voices are heard in shaping a more equitable California.
Proposition 2 – Yes
Background
Proposition 2 authorizes a significant $10 billion in general obligation bonds for the crucial task of repairing, upgrading, and constructing facilities across California’s public education system. This includes K-12 public schools, charter schools, community colleges, and career technical education programs. A key focus is on improving health and safety conditions and modernizing classrooms to create better learning environments. To ensure accountability, the proposition mandates annual audits of how these funds are utilized.
The financial implication of Proposition 2 is an estimated increase in state costs of approximately $500 million annually for the next 35 years to repay the bond.
A broad coalition of supporters backs this proposition, highlighting its importance for education. This includes prominent organizations such as the California Federation of Teachers, California Teachers Association, California Labor Federation, Alameda County Office of Education, Association of California School Administrators, California Builders Alliance, California Chamber of Commerce, California Retired Teachers Association, Community College League of California, League of Women Voters of California, and the Los Angeles Unified School District.
Opposition is notably represented by figures like Brian Jones, a state Assembly member and former gubernatorial candidate, who raises concerns about the overall cost of repayment and the financial burden on local school districts, which are required to contribute 50% of the costs.
It’s important to note that these bonds can be used for both new and previously initiated projects. Beyond the immediate benefits to educational facilities, the financial beneficiaries of bond-financed construction include investors earning interest on the bonds, as well as construction companies and workers involved in these projects. The California Teachers Association (CTA) and California Building Industry Association are significant financial contributors to the campaign supporting Proposition 2.
Current polling data indicates strong public support, with a recent California Elections & Public Policy poll showing 54% in favor.
Analysis
While we recognize that bond financing isn’t the most fiscally ideal method for funding public programs due to the added burden of interest payments, Proposition 2 presents a necessary measure to inject substantial funds into California’s under-resourced educational facilities. These facilities are vital public assets that directly benefit the working class, providing essential services and opportunities for our communities. Therefore, despite the inherent drawbacks of bond financing, we recommend a YES vote on Proposition 2, acknowledging its critical role in supporting public education infrastructure.
Proposition 3 – Yes
Background
Proposition 3 seeks to amend the California Constitution by enshrining the fundamental right to marry, irrespective of sex or race. This proposition directly addresses and aims to remove discriminatory language currently in the state constitution that defines marriage solely as between a man and a woman.
This initiative represents the second attempt to fully repeal Proposition 8, a controversial measure passed in 2008. Proposition 8 had constitutionally banned LGBTQ+ marriage in California, but was later effectively nullified by a U.S. Supreme Court decision. However, there remains a risk of reconsideration by the current, more conservative Supreme Court, making this constitutional amendment crucial.
Proposition 3 enjoys widespread support from a diverse range of liberal elected officials, LGBTQ+ rights organizations, and civil rights groups. Notable supporters include the California Democratic Party, ACLU of Northern California, ACLU of Southern California, California Chamber of Commerce, Equality California, Human Rights Campaign, League of Women Voters of California, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, and the Trans Latina Coalition.
Opposition to Proposition 3 is primarily voiced by right-wing, anti-LGBTQ+ elected officials and organizations, such as California Capitol Connection, California Family Council, Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee, Freedom in Action, and Real Impact.
A Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) poll conducted on September 11th indicated strong support for Proposition 3, with 68% of respondents in favor.
Analysis
Proposition 8, a discriminatory measure narrowly passed in 2008, made same-sex marriage illegal in California. Although federal court rulings later deemed it unconstitutional, the California Constitution still technically contains this ban. With the current composition of the U.S. Supreme Court, there’s a tangible threat that the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, could be overturned. If this were to happen, LGBTQ+ Californians could once again face legal uncertainty and discrimination regarding their right to marry.
Proposition 3 directly addresses this vulnerability by overturning Proposition 8 and eliminating the unconstitutional ban on same-sex marriage from the state constitution. The importance of this proposition is self-evident. We strongly recommend a resounding YES vote on Proposition 3 to unequivocally protect marriage equality in California.
Proposition 4 – Yes
Background
Proposition 4 proposes authorizing another $10 billion in general obligation bonds, this time dedicated to critical water infrastructure, wildfire prevention efforts, and the protection of communities and natural lands across California. Similar to Proposition 2, it includes a requirement for annual audits to ensure financial transparency and accountability.
This bond measure has garnered endorsements from a diverse coalition including the California Labor Federation, IBEW Local 569, Clean Water Action, Environmental Defense Fund, and the Natural Resources Defense Council. Katelyn Roedner Sutter, the state director of the California Environmental Defense Fund, is a vocal supporter.
Opposition to Proposition 4 primarily comes from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, which argues against bond measures in general, stating concerns about long-term debt burdening future generations who did not vote on the authorization.
A significant aspect of Proposition 4 is its mandate that 40% of the bond revenue must be directed towards projects and activities that specifically benefit lower-income communities or those disproportionately impacted by environmental changes and disasters. Furthermore, the proposition requires the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency to publicly list all funded programs and projects on the agency’s website. This public report must include detailed information for each project, such as location, objectives, current status, anticipated outcomes, total cost, allocated bond funding, and any matching funds received. The costs associated with publishing this report are to be covered by the bond revenue itself.
Recent polling data from PPIC indicates substantial public support for Proposition 4, with 65% of respondents expressing their intention to vote yes.
Analysis
Similar to Proposition 2, Proposition 4 involves infrastructure bond financing, which inevitably entails interest costs and generates profits for financial institutions. However, despite this inherent aspect of bond measures, we advocate for a YES vote on Proposition 4. The proposed spending is essential for bolstering California’s environmental infrastructure, particularly in areas crucial for the well-being of the working class. Investments in water infrastructure and wildfire prevention are not merely environmental concerns; they are fundamental to public health, safety, and economic stability for communities across the state, especially those most vulnerable to environmental risks.
Proposition 5 – Yes (Endorsed by CA DSA)
Background
Proposition 5 aims to facilitate local investment in infrastructure and housing for low- and middle-income Californians by lowering the voter threshold required for local infrastructure and housing bonds to pass. Currently, these measures often require a two-thirds supermajority vote, which can be a significant hurdle. Proposition 5 would reduce this requirement to a 55% majority vote. The proposition also includes accountability requirements to ensure funds are used effectively and as intended.
The potential amount of bonds issued under Proposition 5 would depend on the decisions of local governments and ultimately, local voters. These bonds would be repaid through increased property taxes within the localities that issue them.
Passing Proposition 5 is seen as a crucial step towards empowering California cities and counties to address the housing crisis and infrastructure needs more effectively. By lowering the voting threshold for property tax increases dedicated to these purposes, it becomes easier to publicly fund new housing and infrastructure projects. Proponents argue that Proposition 5 empowers working Californians to take direct action in solving their housing needs, rather than relying solely on the private market and waiting for developers to deem projects sufficiently profitable.
Proposition 5 is a key component of CA DSA’s priority campaign, ARCH (Affordable, Re-imagined, Community Housing). DSA chapters across California are actively organizing canvasses, setting up information tables, and engaging in digital communication efforts to support Proposition 5. Campaign resources and materials are available in the ARCH campaign toolkit.
A wide range of supporters have endorsed Proposition 5, including the California Democratic Party, California Labor Federation, State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, ACLU of Southern California, California State Association of Counties, AIDS Healthcare Foundation, California YIMBY, and the League of Women Voters of California.
Recent polling from the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) showed Proposition 5 with 49% support, indicating it is in a more contested position compared to some other propositions.
Analysis
One of the significant barriers to progress in California is the existing constitutional requirement that affordable housing bond measures need a two-thirds supermajority to pass. Proposition 5, a ballot measure endorsed by California DSA as part of the ARCH campaign, directly tackles this obstacle by lowering the threshold to a more achievable 55%.
While ideally, we would prefer even fewer impediments to the development of affordable housing projects, passing Proposition 5 is a vital and much-needed step forward in addressing the pervasive housing crisis that affects Californians throughout the state. This constitutional amendment would make it significantly easier for local communities to invest in solutions. We strongly recommend a YES vote on Proposition 5. We also encourage you to get involved with your local DSA chapter’s ARCH campaign efforts. Check out the campaign toolkit to find out how you can contribute to this important initiative.
Proposition 6 – Yes
Background
Proposition 6 aims to eliminate a loophole in the California Constitution that currently allows for involuntary servitude as a punishment for incarcerated individuals. This legislative constitutional amendment seeks to remove this exception and fully abolish slavery in all forms within the state.
According to the Anti-Recidivism Coalition, “More than 94,000 Californians are currently enslaved in state prison.” This disproportionately affects African Americans, who constitute 28% of the prison population despite representing less than 6% of California’s overall population. While forced labor isn’t explicitly ordered as part of criminal sentencing, it is a standard practice to compel incarcerated people to perform labor.
Proposition 6 has garnered support from a broad coalition of civil rights and labor organizations, including the California Labor Federation, ACLU of California, ACLU of Southern California, Abolish Slavery National Network, Anti-Recidivism Coalition, California Legislative Black Caucus, and the League of Women Voters of California.
A PPIC poll indicated that Proposition 6 has 46% support, suggesting a need for increased public awareness and advocacy.
Analysis
It may be surprising to many, but slavery is still legally sanctioned in the United States through an exception in the 13th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits slavery “except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.” This loophole has allowed for the exploitation of incarcerated individuals, forcing them into labor for minimal or no pay. In California, this manifests as incarcerated people being compelled to work, often in dangerous conditions such as fighting wildfires, while receiving only meager wages, sometimes just a few dollars per day. This system disproportionately impacts working-class and Black Californians, perpetuating systemic injustice.
Slavery in any form is morally reprehensible and should have no place in our society. Voting YES on Proposition 6 is a crucial step to unequivocally abolish slavery in California and consign this abhorrent practice to history.
Proposition 32 – Yes
Background
Proposition 32 proposes to raise California’s minimum wage to $18 per hour over a period of time.
Current California law mandates annual increases to the state’s minimum wage until it reaches $15.00 per hour for all businesses by January 1, 2023. Proposition 32 builds upon this by extending these annual $1.00 increases until the minimum wage reaches $18.00 per hour. As of now, the minimum wage is $15.00 per hour for businesses with 26 or more employees and $14.00 per hour for smaller businesses. Once it reaches $18.00, the minimum wage will continue to be adjusted annually for inflation, as per existing law. The proposition includes a provision allowing the governor to suspend these annual increases up to two times during periods of decreased economic activity or state budget deficits, potentially extending the timeline to reach $18.00 per hour.
The official fiscal impact study provides a wide and uncertain range, stating an “unclear change in annual state and local tax revenues, likely between a loss of a couple of billion dollars and a gain of a few hundred million dollars.” It also projects an “increase in annual state and local government costs likely between half a billion dollars and a few billion dollars.”
Supporters of Proposition 32 include the California Democratic Party, California Labor Federation, California Teachers Association, ACLU of Southern California, and the League of Women Voters of California.
A PPIC poll indicates 50% support for Proposition 32.
Analysis
California currently has the third-highest state minimum wage in the United States, at $16 per hour, surpassed only by Washington, D.C., and Washington state. However, even this wage rate is not a living wage in many parts of California, particularly in expensive urban areas like Los Angeles. While numerous cities in California have already enacted higher local minimum wages, a statewide increase is essential to improve living standards for low-wage workers across the state.
Proposition 32 would raise the California minimum wage to $18 per hour, with the increase taking effect in January 2025 for large businesses and January 2026 for small businesses. While this is a positive step, we must recognize that even $18 per hour may still fall short of a true living wage in many areas. Therefore, while we recommend a YES vote on Proposition 32 as a necessary improvement, we must continue to advocate for an even higher minimum wage that truly reflects the cost of living and allows all workers to thrive, not just survive.
Proposition 33 – Yes (Endorsed by CA DSA)
Background
Proposition 33, known as the Justice for Renters Act, is a crucial initiative aimed at strengthening rent control in California and protecting tenants from exorbitant rent increases and unjust evictions. A YES vote on Proposition 33 would repeal the 1995 Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, a state law that severely restricts the ability of local governments to implement and strengthen rent control ordinances. Costa-Hawkins prohibits rent control on newer buildings and, critically, allows landlords to raise rents to market rates without limit when a tenant vacates a unit, creating a significant incentive for landlords to force out existing tenants.
Repealing Costa-Hawkins through Proposition 33 would empower local governments to enact stronger rent control policies, potentially stabilizing housing costs, reducing housing inflation, and helping keep tenants in their homes and off the streets.
Proposition 33 is a centerpiece of CA DSA’s ARCH campaign. DSA chapters are actively involved in organizing canvasses, collaborating with DSA-endorsed candidate campaigns, and conducting outreach through tabling and digital communications to mobilize support for this proposition.
A broad and diverse coalition supports Proposition 33, including Senator Bernie Sanders, California Democratic Party, California Nurses Association, ACLU of Southern California, Americans for Democratic Action – Southern California, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Housing is a Human Right, Pomona United Stable Housing Coalition, Social Security Works – California, and Veterans’ Voices. The AIDS Healthcare Foundation is the primary sponsor of the initiative.
Opposition is spearheaded by the California Apartment Association, the powerful landlord lobby, which is spending tens of millions of dollars on misleading mailers, digital ads, and television commercials to misrepresent the impact of Proposition 33 and protect their profits. Other opponents include the California Republican Party, some Democratic officials who have sided with real estate interests such as state Senator Tony Atkins and Assembly member Buffy Wicks, California YIMBY (Yes In My Backyard), California Chamber of Commerce, and the California Business Roundtable.
The fight surrounding Proposition 33 is a clear example of class struggle, pitting renters against landlords and working people against capitalist interests who prioritize profit over housing security.
PPIC polling shows Proposition 33 with 51% support, indicating a closely contested battle against well-funded opposition.
Analysis
Proposition 33 is the second ballot measure endorsed by California DSA as part of our ARCH campaign. It represents the third attempt to overturn the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, following Propositions 10 in 2018 and 21 in 2020. Costa-Hawkins, enacted in 1995, has had a devastating impact on housing affordability in California by imposing strict limitations on rent control ordinances and outright banning vacancy control, which is the practice of limiting rent increases even between tenancies.
Addressing California’s severe housing crisis requires a multifaceted approach, including both building more affordable housing and, crucially, protecting tenants from displacement and rent gouging. Proposition 5, discussed earlier, helps address the former by making it easier to fund affordable housing development. Proposition 33 directly tackles the latter by giving local communities the power to strengthen tenant protections.
We must put an end to runaway rent increases if we are serious about preventing displacement and homelessness, particularly in a state like California where a staggering 30% of renters spend more than half of their income on rent. Furthermore, Proposition 33 would strike a blow against the growing trend of private equity firms financializing single-family homes and driving up rents. We urge you to vote YES on Proposition 33. Join your local DSA chapter’s ARCH campaign to contribute to this critical fight for housing justice. Explore the campaign toolkit to get started and find ways to get involved.
Proposition 34 – No
Background
Proposition 34 is widely understood as a retaliatory measure orchestrated by the California Apartment Association (landlords) in response to Proposition 33 and other rent control expansion efforts championed by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF). The California Apartment Association has spent a staggering $30 million to promote Proposition 34, with the apparent aim of financially crippling the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and preventing it from funding future initiative campaigns, particularly those related to tenant protections and rent control.
Opposition to Proposition 34 is led by the very organization it targets, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, as well as Housing is a Human Right, and the League of Women Voters of California. Even some media editorials have voiced opposition to what is seen as a vindictive and anti-democratic effort to silence a political opponent.
PPIC polling indicates that Proposition 34 currently has 53% support, highlighting the effectiveness of the landlord lobby’s expensive campaign in misleading voters about its true intent.
Analysis
Proposition 34 is centered around the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF), a non-profit organization providing HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment, and advocacy services. AHF has also become a significant funder of rent control ballot measures across California. For example, AHF has contributed $34 million to support Proposition 33, representing 87% of the measure’s total funding. While this is a substantial sum, it is considerably less than the $68 million spent to oppose Proposition 33, primarily by the California Apartment Association (representing landlords) and the Association of Realtors. Furthermore, AHF’s spending on political initiatives is relatively small compared to its nearly $2 billion in annual revenue.
However, landlords and the real estate industry are not content with simply outspending AHF in political campaigns; they are attempting to restrict AHF’s ability to fund these measures altogether, especially given AHF’s successes in achieving some local rent control victories.
It is important to acknowledge that AHF is not without its controversies. While we appreciate its support for rent control initiatives, AHF’s own housing practices have been subject to criticism, with some labeling it a “slumlord.” Despite these criticisms, we firmly reject Proposition 34 as a blatant attempt to single out AHF among other healthcare nonprofits for punitive measures. The motives behind Proposition 34 are transparently self-serving and anti-democratic. A staggering 99% of Proposition 34’s funding originates from the California Apartment Association, and the measure is endorsed by the California Republican Party. For these reasons, we strongly recommend a NO vote on Proposition 34 and reject this attempt to silence advocacy for tenants’ rights.
Proposition 35 – No Recommendation
Background
Proposition 35 seeks to make permanent an existing tax on managed health care insurance plans (HMOs). This tax is currently set to expire in 2026 and the state uses the revenue generated to fund healthcare services for low-income families with children, seniors, people with disabilities, and other groups covered by the Medi-Cal program (California’s Medicaid program). The proposition mandates that these revenues must be exclusively used for specified Medi-Cal services, including primary and specialty care, emergency care, family planning, mental health services, and prescription drugs. It explicitly prohibits the use of these funds to replace other existing sources of Medi-Cal funding, aiming to ensure it is truly supplemental. Proposition 35 also includes provisions to cap administrative expenses and requires independent audits of programs receiving funding from this tax revenue.
Supporters of Proposition 35 primarily represent various segments of the healthcare industry in California. These include the California Dental Association, California Hospital Association, California Medical Association, California Primary Care Association, and Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California. These groups generally benefit from the dedicated funding streams and mandated spending allocations outlined in Proposition 35.
Opponents raise concerns that Proposition 35 would lock in funding allocations that disproportionately favor doctors and hospitals over other crucial healthcare needs, such as services for children, seniors, and community health workers. They also argue that it would inflexibly restrict the state legislature’s ability to adjust budget priorities annually to respond to evolving needs and circumstances. Opponents include the California Alliance of Retired Americans, Healthy California Now, California Pan-Ethnic Health Network, and the League of Women Voters of California.
PPIC polling indicates 63% support for Proposition 35.
Analysis
Healthcare advocates are notably divided on Proposition 35. On one hand, it offers the benefit of securing essential funding for Medi-Cal services by guaranteeing that revenue from the tax on managed care organizations cannot be diverted by the legislature for other purposes. This dedicated funding stream could provide stability and predictability for crucial healthcare programs.
However, concerns are raised about the specific allocation of these guaranteed funds. Certain community health programs, services for seniors, and other currently funded services are not explicitly included in the list of services guaranteed funding under Proposition 35. Critics argue that the major healthcare industry institutions that drafted and are funding the campaign for Proposition 35 have strategically earmarked the revenues to primarily benefit their own programs and sectors. Given the genuine need to ensure well-funded health services for vulnerable populations, but also considering the valid concerns about the potentially skewed funding allocations and the inflexibility imposed on the state budget, we are unable to make a definitive recommendation on Proposition 35. Therefore, we offer No Recommendation and encourage voters to carefully consider these competing arguments before making their decision.
Proposition 36 – No
Background
Proposition 36 is presented as a response to rising crime rates and, in particular, the perceived increase in retail theft during the pandemic. However, critics argue that it exploits voters’ fears and aims to reinstate punitive aspects of the carceral system that previous reforms, particularly Proposition 47 in 2014, sought to mitigate.
Proposition 36 proposes several key changes to criminal law:
- It would reclassify certain drug possession offenses, including possession of fentanyl, and thefts under $950 as felonies if the individual has two prior drug or two prior theft convictions, respectively. Currently, these offenses are generally charged as misdemeanors. However, individuals who plead guilty to felony drug possession and complete a treatment program could have the charges dismissed.
- It would increase sentences for other specified drug and theft crimes.
- The proposition acknowledges that increased prison sentences could potentially reduce savings generated by Proposition 47, which currently fund mental health and drug treatment programs, K-12 schools, and victim services. Any remaining savings could be redirected to new felony treatment programs created under Proposition 36.
The Vera Institute of Justice, an opponent of Proposition 36, argues that it would have several detrimental effects:
- It would reverse California’s progress in reducing its prison population, which has decreased by 28% since 2014, along with a reduction in racial disparities in incarceration.
- It would deplete funding for essential services currently supported by Proposition 47 savings, including employment assistance for formerly incarcerated individuals, victim services, and housing programs.
- It risks making California less safe, as programs funded by Proposition 47 have been shown to reduce recidivism without increasing violent crime.
Supporters of Proposition 36 include a bipartisan group of elected officials, the Republican Party, major retail corporations such as Home Depot, Target, Walgreens, and Walmart, Inc., as well as law enforcement associations like the California District Attorneys Association, California Police Chiefs Association, and California State Sheriffs’ Association. Business groups such as the California Retailers Association, California Chamber of Commerce, and California Business Roundtable also support the measure, alongside taxpayer advocacy groups like the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and organizations representing correctional officers.
PPIC polling indicates strong public support for Proposition 36, with 71% of respondents in favor.
Analysis
Despite data indicating that overall crime rates in California are not surging to new highs, media narratives and political rhetoric have fueled public fear and anxiety about crime, particularly regarding retail theft. Right-wing political interests and corporate retail giants have capitalized on this heightened fear to promote Proposition 36, which seeks to undo key criminal justice reforms enacted by Proposition 47 in 2014. Proposition 47 aimed to reduce California’s overcrowded prison population by reclassifying certain non-violent offenses from felonies to misdemeanors.
While Proposition 36 is primarily driven by Republicans and opposed by the California Democratic Party and most Democratic elected officials, including Governor Gavin Newsom, it has garnered support from a number of Democrats, including the mayors of major cities like San Francisco (London Breed), San Diego (Todd Gloria), and San Jose (Matt Mahan). Public opinion polls also show significant support for this initiative, reflecting the effectiveness of fear-based messaging.
However, we must resist these reactionary forces and their attempts to roll back years of hard-won progress in criminal justice reform and return to the failed and harmful policies of mass incarceration. Proposition 36 represents a step backward towards a more punitive and less effective approach to public safety. We strongly recommend a NO vote on Proposition 36 and urge voters to reject fear-mongering and embrace evidence-based solutions to community safety.
