Prop 2: Education Finance
| Ballot language | Authorizes $10 billion in general obligation bonds for repair, upgrade, and construction of facilities at K-12 public schools (including charter schools), community colleges, and career technical education programs, including for improvement of health and safety conditions and classroom upgrades. Requires annual audits. |
|---|---|
| What a YES vote means | The state could borrow $10 billion to build new or renovate existing public school and community college facilities. |
| What a NO vote means | The state could not borrow $10 billion to build new or renovate existing public school and community college facilities. | Argument for | Many schools and community colleges are outdated and need basic health and safety repairs and upgrades to prepare students for college and careers and to retain and attract quality teachers. Prop. 2 meets those needs and requires strict taxpayer accountability so funds are spent as promised with local control. | Argument against | Proposition 2 will increase our bond obligations by $10 billion, which will cost taxpayers an estimated $18 billion when repaid with interest. A bond works like a government credit card—paying off that credit card requires the government to spend more of your tax dollars! Vote NO on Prop. 2. | Fiscal impact | Increased state costs of about $500 million annually for 35 years to repay the bond. | Supporters | California Teachers Association; California School Nurses Organization; Commuinty College League of California | Opponents | Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association |
Prop 3: Marriage Equality
| Ballot language | Amends California Constitution to recognize fundamental right to marry, regardless of sex or race. Removes language in California Constitution stating that marriage is only between a man and a woman. |
|---|---|
| What a YES vote means | Language in the California Constitution would be updated to match who currently can marry. There would be no change in who can marry. |
| What a NO vote means | Language in the California Constitution would not be changed. There would be no change in who can marry. | Argument for | Proposition 3 protects Californians' freedom to marry, regardless of their race or gender. Proposition 3 removes discriminatory language from the California Constitution stating marriage is only between a man and a woman. Proposition 3 reinforces California's commitment to civil rights and protects personal freedom. Vote YES!td> | Argument against | Proposition 3 removes all rules for marriage, opening the door to child marriages, incest, and polygamy. It changes California's constitution even though same-sex marriage is already legal. By making moms and dads optional, it puts children at risk. This careless measure harms families and society. Vote No on Proposition 3. | Fiscal impact | None | Supporters | Sierra Pacific Synod of The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; Dolores Huerta Foundation; Equality California | Opponents | Jonathan Keller, California Family Council; Rev. Tanner DiBella |
Prop 4: Climate Impacts
| Ballot language | Authorizes $10 billion in general obligation bonds for water, wildfire prevention, and protection of communities and lands. Requires annual audits. |
|---|---|
| What a YES vote means | The state could borrow $10 billion to fund various activities aimed at conserving natural resources, as well as responding to the causes and effects of climate change. |
| What a NO vote means | The state could not borrow $10 billion to fund various activities aimed at conserving natural resources, as well as responding to the causes and effects of climate change. | Argument for | Yes on 4 for safe drinking water, wildfire prevention, clean air, and protection of natural resources. California firefighters, conservation groups, clean water advocates urge YES. Accountable, fiscally responsible, with independent audits, strict transparency. Proactive approach saves money and prevents the worst impacts of devastating wildfires, smoke, droughts, and pollution. | Argument against | Bonds are the most expensive way to fund government spending. Water and wildfire mitigation are necessities, not luxuries. They should be budgeted for, not bonded. Mismanagement led to this crisis. This $10 billion bond will cost taxpayers almost $2 to repay for every dollar spent. Vote NO on Prop. 4. | Fiscal impact | Increased state costs of about $400 million annually for 40 years to repay the bond. | Supporters | Clean Water Action; CALFIRE Firefighters; National Wildlife Federation; The Nature Conservancy | Opponents | Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association |
Prop 5: Affordable Housing
| Ballot language | Allows approval of local infrastructure and housing bonds for low- and middle-income Californians with 55% vote. Accountability requirements. |
|---|---|
| What a YES vote means | Certain local bonds and related property taxes could be approved with a 55 percent vote of the local electorate, rather than the current two-thirds approval requirement. These bonds would have to fund affordable housing, supportive housing, or public infrastructure. |
| What a NO vote means | Certain local bonds and related property taxes would continue to need approval by a two-thirds vote of the local electorate. | Argument for | Prop. 5 shifts local spending priorities away from state government, giving local voters and taxpayers the choice and the tools to address the challenges facing their communities. Whether it's housing affordability, safer streets, more fire stations, or other community-driven projects, Prop. 5 empowers local voters to solve local problems. Vote YES. | Argument against | Prop. 5 changes the constitution to make it easier to increase bond debt, leading to higher property taxes. Prop. 5 shifts the financial burden from the state to local communities, increasing costs for homeowners, renters, and consumers. Politicians wrote loopholes in Prop. 5 so "infrastructure" can mean just about anything. | Fiscal impact | Increased local borrowing to fund affordable housing, supportive housing, and public infrastructure. The amount would depend on decisions by local governments and voters. Borrowing would be repaid with higher property taxes. | Supporters | California Professional Firefighters; League of Women Voters of California; Habitat for Humanity California | Opponents | California Taxpayers Association; California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce; Women Veterans Alliance |
Prop 6: Slavery
| Ballot language | Amends the California Constitution to remove current provision that allows jails and prisons to impose involuntary servitude to punish crime (i.e., forcing incarcerated persons to work). |
|---|---|
| What a YES vote means | Involuntary servitude would not be allowed as punishment for crime. State prisons would not be allowed to discipline people in prison who refuse to work. |
| What a NO vote means | Involuntary servitude would continue to be allowed as punishment for crime. | Argument for | Proposition 6 ends slavery in California and upholds human rights and dignity for everyone. It replaces carceral involuntary servitude with voluntary work programs, has bipartisan support, and aligns with national efforts to reform the 13th Amendment. It will prioritize rehabilitation, lower recidivism, and improve public safety, resulting in taxpayer savings. | Argument against | No argument against Proposition 6 was submitted. | Fiscal impact | Potential increase or decrease in state and local costs, depending on how work for people in state prison and county jail changes. Any effect likely would not exceed the tens of millions of dollars annually. | Supporters | Assemblymember Lori Wilson | Opponents | None submitted. |
Prop 32: Minimum Wage
| Ballot language | Raises minimum wage as follows: For employers with 26 or more employees: to $17 immediately, to $18 on January 1, 2025. For employers with 25 or fewer employees: to $17 on January 1, 2025, to $18 on January 1, 2026. |
|---|---|
| What a YES vote means | The state minimum wage would be $18 per hour in 2026. After that, it would go up each year based on how fast prices are going up. |
| What a NO vote means | The state minimum wage likely would be about $17 per hour in 2026. After that, it would go up each year based on how fast prices are going up. | Argument for | YES on Proposition 32 raises the minimum wage to $18 so more SERVICE, ESSENTIAL, AND OTHER WORKERS, and SINGLE MOMS can AFFORD the state’s COST OF LIVING. CORPORATE PROFIT MARGINS INCREASED 100% since 2000 because CORPORATIONS SPIKED the PRICES OF GOODS. YES on PROP. 32 so workers can afford life’s basic needs. | Argument against | Prop. 32 was written by one multimillionaire alone, and he wrote a horribly flawed measure. Prop. 32 increases the cost of living, eliminates jobs, makes our state and local government budget deficits worse, and makes California’s complex minimum wage laws even harder for businesses and workers to understand. No on 32! | Fiscal impact | State and local government costs could increase or decrease by up to hundreds of millions of dollars annually. State and local revenues likely would decrease by no more than a few hundred million dollars annually. | Supporters | None submitted. | Opponents | California Chamber of Commerce; California Restaurant Association; California Grocers Association |
Prop 33: Rent Control
| Ballot language | Repeals Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995, which currently prohibits local ordinances limiting initial residential rental rates for new tenants or rent increases for existing tenants in certain residential properties. |
|---|---|
| What a YES vote means | State law would not limit the kinds of rent control laws cities and counties could have. |
| What a NO vote means | State law would continue to limit the kinds of rent control laws cities and counties could have. | Argument for | The rent is too damn high. One million people have left California. Rent control in America has worked to keep people in their homes since 1919. California’s 17 million renters need relief. Homeowners and taxpayers benefit from stable communities. The California dream is dying. You can help save it. | Argument against | Don’t be fooled by the latest corporate landlord anti-housing scheme. California voters have rejected this radical proposal twice before, because it would freeze the construction of new housing and could effectively reverse dozens of new state housing laws. Vote No on 33 to protect new affordable housing and California homeowners. | Fiscal impact | Reduction in local property tax revenues of at least tens of millions of dollars annually due to likely expansion of rent control in some communities. | Supporters | CA Nurses Assoc.; CA Alliance for Retired Americans; Mental Health Advocacy; Coalition for Economic Survival; TenantsTogether | Opponents | California Council for Affordable Housing; Women Veterans Alliance; California Chamber of Commerce |
Prop 34: Health Care Spending
| Ballot language | Requires certain providers (the AIDS Healthcare Foundation) to spend 98% of revenues from federal discount prescription drug program on direct patient care. Authorizes statewide negotiation of Medi-Cal drug prices. |
|---|---|
| What a YES vote means | Certain health care entities would have to follow new rules about how they spend revenue they earn from a federal drug discount program. Breaking these rules would result in penalties (such as not being able to operate as a health care entity), generally for a ten-year period. |
| What a NO vote means | These new rules would not go into effect. | Argument for | Proposition 34 will protect patients and ensure public healthcare dollars actually go to patients who need it. Prop. 34 will close a loophole that allows corporations to spend this money on things like buying stadium naming rights and multi-million dollar CEO salaries. Protect Patients Now. Vote Yes on Proposition 34. | Argument against | Prop. 34—The Revenge Initiative. California Apartment Association, representing billionaire corporate landlords, doesn't care about patients. Their sole purpose is silencing AIDS Healthcare Foundation, the sponsor of the rent control initiative. 34 weaponizes the ballot, is a threat to democracy, and opens the door to attacks on any non-profit. | Fiscal impact | Increased state costs, likely in the millions of dollars annually, to enforce new rules on certain healthcare entities. Affected entities would pay fees to cover these costs. | Supporters | The ALS Association; California Chronic Care Coalition; Latino Heritage Los Angeles | Opponents | National Org. for Women; Consumer Watchdog; Coalition for Economic Survival; AIDS Healthcare Foundation; Dolores Huerta |
Prop 35: Health Care Tax
| Ballot language | Makes permanent the existing tax on managed health care insurance plans, which, if approved by the federal government, provides revenues to pay for Medi-Cal health care services. |
|---|---|
| What a YES vote means | An existing state tax on health plans that provides funding for certain health programs would become permanent. New rules would direct how the state must use the revenue. |
| What a NO vote means | An existing state tax on health plans would end in 2027, unless the Legislature continues it. The new rules would not become law. | Argument for | Yes on 35 addresses our urgent healthcare crisis by securing dedicated funding—without raising taxes—to protect access to primary and specialty care, community clinics, hospitals, ERs, family planning, and mental health providers. Prop. 35 prevents the state from redirecting funds for non-healthcare purposes. Supported by Planned Parenthood, pediatricians, California Medical Association. | Argument against | No argument against Proposition 35 was submitted. | Fiscal impact | Short-term state costs between roughly $1 billion and $2 billion annually to increase funding for certain health programs. Total funding increase between roughly $2 billion to $5 billion annually. Unknown long-term fiscal effects. | Supporters | Planned Parenthood Affiliates of CA; American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists; American Academy of Pediatrics, CA | Opponents | None submitted. |
Prop 36: Crime Penalties
| Ballot language | Allows felony charges for possessing certain drugs and for thefts under $950, if defendant has two prior drug or theft convictions. |
|---|---|
| What a YES vote means | People convicted of certain drug or theft crimes could receive increased punishment, such as longer prison sentences. In certain cases, people who possess illegal drugs would be required to complete treatment or serve up to three years in prison. |
| What a NO vote means | Punishment for drug and theft crimes would remain the same. | Argument for | Prop. 36 makes California communities safer by addressing rampant theft and drug trafficking. It toughens penalties for fentanyl and drug traffickers and "smash-and-grabs" while holding repeat offenders accountable. It targets serial thieves and encourages treatment for those addicted to drugs, using a balanced approach to fix loopholes in current laws. | Argument against | Don't be fooled. Proposition 36 will lead to more crime, not less. It reignites the failed war on drugs, makes simple drug possession a felony, and wastes billions on prisons, while slashing crucial funding for victims, crime prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation. This puts prisons first and guts treatment. Vote No. | Fiscal impact | State criminal justice costs likely ranging from several tens of millions of dollars to the low hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Local criminal justice costs likely in the tens of millions of dollars annually. | Supporters | Crime Victims United of California; California District Attorneys Association; Family Business Association of California | Opponents | Diana Becton, District Attorney Contra Costa County; Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice |