Whyyy Are There So Many Props in CA? And How Do I Vote On Them on Nov. 5???
We are rapidly approaching one of the most momentous elections of our lives on Tuesday, Nov. 5, 2024. Not only will we get the chance to elect our first woman President and defeat Trump, but we will also get the opportunity to vote all the way down the ballot to protect our civil liberties and democracy.
When you open your ballot, however, you may be surprised to discover that there are TEN PROPOSITIONS in this election.
JUMP AHEAD TO MY VOTING RECOMMENDATIONS
Don’t worry! I’ve thoroughly researched these propositions, and provided my recommendations below, along with my sources, so that you can see for yourself if you agree with me.
I also have separate posts regarding California’s Congressional races and LAUSD’s School Board.
HOW TO CAST YOUR BALLOT
First, make sure you’re registered to vote! For more information on how to do this, and where and how to vote, go here: “How Do I Make a Voting Plan?”
MY BACKGROUND / QUALIFICATIONS
As I’ve said elsewhere (“WTF Should You Listen To Me?”), I’m a concerned mother / voter who started doing this research years ago, to fill out my own ballots. Then I started sharing it with others, who said they found it useful. I’m a lifelong Democrat, feminist, pro-choice, pro-universal health care, pro-environment, pro-public education, and anti-racist. I believe in VOTING BLUE. Please feel free to fact check my work and let me know if you disagree!
MY VOTING RECOMMENDATIONS
I start by providing a quick cheat sheet. For more detailed explanations of why I recommend voting this way, keep scrolling.
PROPOSITIONS
PROPOSITIONS
YES ON PROP 2: FUNDING SCHOOL FACILITIES
WATCH 1 MIN VIDEO (CAL MATTERS)
Most people on the left are in agreement that Prop 2 is good because it would provide additional funding for schools to fix our aging school facilities, with some caveats regarding making sure the distribution of funds is equitable.
According to CalMatters:
“Proposition 2 would provide $8.5 billion to K-12 schools and $1.5 billion to community colleges to renovate, fix and construct facilities. The money would be distributed through matching grants, with the state paying a greater share of costs for less affluent districts and those with higher numbers of English learners and foster youth. Some of the money would be set aside for removing lead from water, creating transitional kindergarten classrooms and building career and technical education facilities.”
According to the League of Women Voters of California:
“Passage of Prop 2 is critical to our children’s health, safety, and educational progress. At the same time, the measure’s funding formula is not equitable. Except in a few hardship cases, all districts are required to pay 40% or 50% of the cost of a project – with funds being much harder and more expensive to raise in property-poor districts. This inequity hits hardest in rural districts and those with higher numbers of Latine, English learner, and low-income students. Prop 2 slightly lowers the contribution required from poorer districts, but the impact is minimal. While the League of Women Voters of California urges the state to create an equitable funding formula that addresses the dire needs of our most underserved students, we support Prop 2 because providing no funding would hurt all students.”
Voting YES on this proposition is endorsed by State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, California Federation of Teachers, California School Boards Association, California Labor Federation, League of Women Voters of California, East Area Progressive Democrats, San Francisco Chronicle and the Sacramento Bee.
***CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO THE TOP***
YES ON PROP 3: FREEDOM TO MARRY
WATCH 1 MIN VIDEO (CAL MATTERS)
Everyone on the left is in agreement that Prop 3 is good, because it would ensure that California’s constitution protects same-sex marriage.
According to CalMatters:
“Proposition 3 would enshrine the right to same-sex marriage into the California constitution, repealing Proposition 8 — a measure approved by voters in 2008 that defined marriage as between a man and a woman.”
According to the LA Times:
“A district judge ruled in 2010 that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional… In other words, had Proposition 8 remained in force, Californians almost certainly would have…kicked [it] to the curb. But because the measure had been defeated in the courts, there was no rush to remove it from the state Constitution. Until now. …The U.S. Supreme Court [has demonstrated] an agenda of extreme conservatism... That means same-sex marriage could be subjected to… ideological attack. Same-sex couples need official protection, which Proposition 3 on the Nov. 5 ballot would guarantee. It would repeal Proposition 8’s wording and affirm marriage as a basic right in California so that whatever the courts may rule, those marriages will continue to be recognized in the state. That’s the practical rationale to support Proposition 3. But there is an ethical and moral reason to remove it from the California Constitution as well: Though Proposition 8 has no force in the state, its abhorrent language is a reminder of less tolerant and understanding times. Proposition 3 is one way to say that the state recognizes its mistake and has learned better.”
Voting YES on this proposition is endorsed by Equality California, American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, California Democratic Party, Gov. Gavin Newsom, League of Women Voters of California, California Labor Federation, Courage California, East Area Progressive Democrats, San Francisco Chronicle, Mercury News/East Bay Times and the LA Times.
***CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO THE TOP***
YES ON PROP 4: SAFE DRINKING WATER
WATCH 1 MIN VIDEO (CAL MATTERS)
Everyone on the left is in agreement that Prop 4 is good because it would provide additional funding for protecting the environment.
According to the Blue Voter Guide:
“A "yes" vote supports issuing $10 billion in bonds to fund state and local parks, environmental protection projects, water infrastructure projects, energy projects, and flood protection projects.”
According to the League of Women Voters of California:
“Prop 4 is vital for mitigating the escalating costs of climate change and safeguarding our state’s future. This bond will provide essential funding for projects that improve water quality and supply, protect against wildfires, and enhance the resilience of our natural ecosystems. It will also allocate at least 40% of its funding to low-income communities which are vulnerable to a disproportionately heightened risk or increased sensitivity to impacts of climate change and lack adequate resources to cope with, adapt to, or recover from such impacts.”
Voting YES on this proposition is endorsed by the Nature Conservancy, Environmental Defense Fund, Clean Water Action, National Wildlife Federation, California Labor Federation, League of Women Voters of California, California Democratic Party, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, California Municipal Utilities Association, Courage California, East Area Progressive Democrats, and the Sacramento Bee.
***CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO THE TOP***
YES ON PROP 5: SAFE, AFFORDABLE COMMUNITIES
WATCH 1 MIN VIDEO (CAL MATTERS)
Everyone on the left is in agreement that Prop 5 is good because it would make it easier for local governments to fund affordable housing and infrastructure projects.
According to the Blue Voter Guide:
“A "yes" vote supports lowering the vote threshold from two-thirds (66.67%) to 55% for local bond measures to fund housing projects and public infrastructure.”
According to the League of Women Voters of California:
“This constitutional amendment is essential to eliminate the anti-democratic supermajority vote requirement that hinders the approval of local housing and infrastructure bonds. The current two-thirds supermajority vote threshold stifles progress by making it extremely difficult to secure necessary funding for vital projects. Lowering the voting threshold to 55% enhances democratic participation and allows communities to address urgent housing shortages and infrastructure needs more effectively. By empowering local governments to act quickly, Prop 5 promotes economic growth, improves quality of life, and ensures timely investment in essential public services and facilities.”
Voting YES on this proposition is endorsed by California Democratic Party, California Labor Federation, California Teachers Association, League of Women Voters of California, LA Progressive, Courage California, East Area Progressive Democrats, Sacramento Bee and Los Angeles Times.
***CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO THE TOP***
YES ON PROP 6: END MODERN DAY SLAVERY
WATCH 1 MIN VIDEO (CAL MATTERS)
Everyone on the left is in agreement that Prop 6 is good because it would prohibit California from using forced prison labor.
According to CalMatters:
“Proposition 6 would amend the California Constitution to prohibit the state from punishing inmates with involuntary work assignments and from disciplining those who refuse to work. Instead, state prisons could set up a volunteer work assignment program to take time off sentences in the form of credits. It would let county or city ordinances set up a pay scale for inmates in local jails.”
According to the LA Times:
“For more than a century and a half, California has outlawed forced labor. But there has always been an exception for one group — people in prison. The state Constitution specifically prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude except “to punish crime.” It’s time to strike those words from the Constitution by voting “yes” on Proposition 6 on Nov. 5. No one, including state prisoners serving time for serious crimes, should be forced to work against their will. Involuntary servitude is a remnant of a post-slavery practice that is repugnant and has no place in the state, even in its prisons. Proposition 6 will remove the language that allows prisons and jails to force incarcerated people to work and punish them when they refuse.”
Voting YES on this proposition is endorsed by ACLU California Action, California Democratic Party, California Teachers Association, California Black Legislative Caucus, California Labor Federation, League of Women Voters of California, Courage California, East Area Progressive Democrats, Sacramento Bee and LA Times.
***CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO THE TOP***
YES ON PROP 32: $18 MINIMUM WAGE
WATCH 1 MIN VIDEO (CAL MATTERS)
Everyone on the left is in agreement that Prop 32 is good because it would raise California’s minimum wage to $18 per hour.
According to the Blue Voter Guide:
“A "yes" vote supports increasing the state minimum wage to $18 per hour by 2026 for all employers and thereafter adjusting the rate annually by increases to the cost of living.”
According to the League of Women Voters of California:
“A minimum wage of $18 an hour will reduce income inequality and improve the standard of living for millions of California workers. Plus, an $18 minimum wage is likely to increase wages across the board which will increase consumer spending that will help the economy. And increased spending creates more jobs, making everyone better off.”
Voting YES on this proposition is endorsed by California Labor Federation, Unite Here, One Fair Wage, California Democratic Party, League of Women Voters of California, Courage California, East Area Progressive Democrats, Mercury News/East Bay Times, San Francisco Chronicle and LA Times.
***CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO THE TOP***
YES ON PROP 33: RENT CONTROL
WATCH 1 MIN VIDEO (CAL MATTERS)
There is some disagreement on the left about whether or not Prop 33 is good. I personally think it is, because it would prohibit state limitations on local rent control.
More than anything, I find it very telling that organizations such as the California Apartment Association are spending over $118 million to defeat this proposition. However, I have included some dissenting opinions below, so that you can form your own opinion.
According to the Blue Voter Guide:
“A "yes" vote supports: repealing the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act (1995), thereby allowing cities and counties to limit rent on any housing and limit the rent for first-time tenants and adding language to state law to prohibit the state from limiting "the right of any city, county, or city and county to maintain, enact or expand residential rent control."
According to CalMatters,
“Nearly 30% of California renters spend more than half their income on rent — higher than in any other state except Florida and Louisiana… To change that, tenant advocates have been fighting Costa-Hawkins for years, but so far, without success. They tried to overturn it with ballot measures in 2018 and 2020. Lawmakers also tried with legislation. While those efforts failed, Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2019 signed a law limiting annual rent increases statewide to 5% plus inflation. Supporters of Prop. 33 say that doesn’t go far enough. They hope this finally is the year to upend the decades-old rules controlling rent control. But landlord groups opposing the idea tend to have deep pockets, and have been willing to spend a small fortune to convince voters that rent control is not the answer to the state’s housing crisis.”
NO ON PROP 33:
According to the Mercury News:
“California voters will be asked this fall to expand rent control with a statewide ballot measure similar to ones they wisely rejected in 2018 and 2020. Supply-and-demand economic principles today are the same as they were six years ago. “Rent is high in California because the state does not have enough housing for everyone who wants to live here,” notes the state’s nonpartisan legislative analyst. To address California’s housing crisis and hold down rents, the state needs to add supply by incentivizing more construction. But rent control discourages investment in new housing, constraining supply and driving up overall housing costs.
NEUTRAL ON PROP 33:
According to the League of Women Voters of California
“Rent control policies are one strategy to address California’s housing challenges, offer tenant protections, and prevent displacement. Rent control may be an effective short-term solution but studies suggest that its longer-term impact may discourage construction of new housing units, as developers could find it less profitable to build rental units if the rent is controlled by law. This could stifle the building of high-density and more affordable housing and exacerbate the existing housing shortage. Because there are benefits and drawbacks to rent control, the League has chosen to be neutral on Prop 33.”
Voting YES on this proposition is endorsed by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, California Democratic Party, ACLU of Southern California, Harvey Milk LGBTQ Democratic Club, California Environmental Justice Alliance Action (CEJA Action), Veterans’ Voices, California Nurses Association, CA Alliance for Retired Americans, Housing is a Human Right, Tenants Together, Consumer Watchdog, Housing NOW, East Area Progressive Democrats, and Courage California.
***CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO THE TOP***
NO ON PROP 34: STOP THE REVENGE INITIATIVE
WATCH 1 MIN VIDEO (CAL MATTERS)
Most people on the left agree that Prop 34 is bad, because it appears to be written specifically to target one man: Michael Weinstein, President of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF). Since he has many political foes, including the powerful rental lobby, most people consider this proposition an act of revenge.
According to the Blue Voter Guide:
“A "yes" vote supports: requiring health care providers that spent over $100 million in any 10-year period on anything other than direct patient care and operated multifamily housing with over 500 high-severity health and safety violations to spend 98% of revenues from the federal discount prescription drug program on direct patient care.”
According to the San Diego Union Tribune:
“Proposition 34 is nominally about making health care more efficient… But it is more properly seen as a vengeful attempt funded by landlords… to get back at Michael Weinstein. The president of the Los Angeles-based AIDS Healthcare Foundation… has used foundation funds to sponsor three state ballot measures supporting rent control. The latest is also on the November ballot — Proposition 33. The San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board has opposed all these measures... But Proposition 34 sets a terrible precedent that could lead to ballot measures becoming one more way to punish political enemies… [This is why] bills of attainder — the term for legislative acts singling out individual parties for punishment — are banned in the U.S. Constitution.”
According to CalMatters:
“Opponents argue that this is a political hit job paid for by a landlord lobby out for revenge. In a democracy, they say, campaigns should make their case to the voters, not silence their opponents. They also say the measure is also illegal and therefore unenforceable because both the U.S. and state constitutions prohibit a law from singling out a single person or organization for punishment. The foundation put that argument in a lawsuit late last year. Though the state Supreme Court declined to remove the proposition from the ballot on those grounds, courts rarely do so prior to an election. The constitutional issues remain unaddressed. If Prop. 34 passes, it will almost certainly end up back in court.”
[Edited to add: In the original version of this post, I quoted the San Diego Union Tribune as saying that Michael Weinstein is supposedly a slumlord. (His foundation, AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF), owns the Madison Hotel on Skid Row.) Then a friend of a friend reached out to me — Jonathan Eisenberg, who is an employee of AHF. He showed me excerpts of deposition transcripts of four City-of-Los-Angeles housing officials, who (in his words) “testified uniformly that AHF tries very hard to make the Madison Hotel habitable, responds promptly to requests for fixes and repairs, and has improved the building. The officials also testified that Madison Hotel is decent, safe, and habitable.” You can view these transcripts for yourself here: Galardi, Heiberg, Jennings and Robles. That said, regardless of whether Weinstein’s character is good or bad, seeking revenge against his foundation is unconstitutional and wrong.]
Voting NO on this proposition is endorsed by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, Harvey Milk LGBTQ Democratic Club, National Organization for Women PAC, Consumer Watchdog, LA Progressive, Courage California, East Area Progressive Democrats, San Francisco Chronicle, Mercury News/East Bay Times, San Diego Union-Tribune and the LA Times.
***CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO THE TOP***
YES ON PROP 35: PROTECT MEDI-CAL
WATCH 1 MIN VIDEO (CAL MATTERS)
There is some disagreement on the left about whether or not Prop 35 is good. I personally think it is, because it would ensure that California continues to fully fund Medi-Cal programs, no matter what happens to our economy. However, there are some who argue that this restriction would hamstring our budget, right when California is already facing a $56 billion shortfall.
According to the Blue Voter Guide:
“A "yes" vote supports permanently authorizing a tax on managed care organizations based on monthly enrollees, which is set to expire in 2026, and requiring revenues to be used for increased Medi-Cal programs.”
According to CalMatters:
“Supporters argue that California has relied on this tax — known as the Managed Care Organization Tax — for decades to offset general fund spending on Medi-Cal. Managed care health plans pay a tax to get a dollar-for-dollar matching amount of money from the federal government. Health providers who serve Medi-Cal patients argue that the tax revenue should be used for new investments in Medi-Cal rather than supporting the state’s general fund. Supporters also state that the measure leaves some money unrestricted to give lawmakers flexibility in balancing the budget or investing in additional Medi-Cal services.”
NO ON PROP 35:
According to the The League of Women Voters:
“Prop 35 is a well-meaning but misguided effort to try to provide more and steady funding for Medi-Cal... Prop 35 would [make] that money unavailable for other priorities and [make] it difficult to respond to future changes to Medi-Cal that might be mandated by the federal government. The League of Women Voters of California is generally opposed to “ballot-box budgeting,” which limits the legislature’s flexibility to make budgetary decisions and adjust priorities based on emerging and essential needs. Budgetary decisions should be made by the legislature, not by earmarking funds through ballot initiatives. Earmarking can undermine the state’s fiscal stability and its ability to effectively respond to changing conditions. While there is no organized opposition to the measure, Governor Newsom has expressed concerns that it hamstrings the state’s flexibility. Another problem is that Prop 35 could inadvertently decrease overall revenue. This is because the proposition imposes a low cap on taxes collected from non-Medi-Cal enrollees. This cap is designed to prevent the tax from becoming overly burdensome on non-Medi-Cal health plans, but it also introduces a potential risk. If the federal government changes the rules to require a greater share of the tax to come from commercial enrollees, this cap could limit the amount of total revenue that can be collected, potentially reducing the overall effectiveness of the tax.”
Voting YES on this proposition is endorsed California Medical Association, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, California Hospital Association, California Dental Association, California Primary Care Association, California Democratic Party, California Republican Party, East Area Progressive Democrats, and the Sacramento Bee.
***CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO THE TOP***
NO ON PROP 36: STOP PRISON SPENDING SCAM
WATCH 1 MIN VIDEO (CAL MATTERS)
Most people on the left agree that Prop 36 is bad, because it is a blatant attempt to “get tough on crime” by over-penalizing petty theft and drug crimes.
According to LAist:
“Prop. 36 would do three things. First, it would increase criminal punishment for drug and theft-related crimes. Second, it would create a new requirement that people arrested for drug possession crimes be either sent to a drug rehabilitation facility or state prison. Third, it would require courts to warn people convicted of selling or providing illegal drugs to people that they can be charged with murder if they keep doing so and someone dies.”
According to Knock LA:
“Proposition 36… is a criminalization measure backed by the prison and police lobby and financed by giant corporations like Walmart and Home Depot. The initiative is the latest attempt by “tough on crime” groups and their corporate allies to return to the policies and mindset of the War On Drugs era and to fatten the budgets of state prisons and county jails.”
According to the The League of Women Voters:
“Prop 36 would erode criminal justice reform in California by reversing key advances aimed at reducing mass incarceration and promoting rehabilitation. It would impose stricter sentencing laws that disproportionately impact people of color and those with low-income, exacerbating existing racial and socioeconomic disparities in the criminal justice system. Harsher sentencing for minor offenses, like drug possession and retail theft, would take California back to the days when we had unconstitutionally overcrowded prisons. The increased penalties are draconian. For example, if someone gives or sells a controlled substance like psychedelic mushrooms or peyote to someone who suffers a major injury from using it, they could be sentenced to state prison instead of county jail and required to serve a longer term.”
Voting NO on this proposition is endorsed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire, Alliance for Safety and Justice, ACLU of Northern California, California Democratic Party, League of Women Voters, East Area Progressive Democrats, Sacramento Bee and the LA Times.
***CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO THE TOP***
Make sure to vote! Remember, you can vote in person, or mail your ballot, or put it in a ballot drop box by Nov. 5th.
HIGHLY RECOMMENDED RESOURCES
For more information, as well as additional endorsements (since I wasn’t able to cover every single race), here are some excellent resources:
NATIONAL
Ballotpedia
A non-partisan site that tracks every single election in the U.S., as well as who is funding or endorsing every single candidate and measure on the ballot.
Blue Voter Guide
A blue guide that lets you enter your address anywhere in the U.S. and find the candidates/measures on your ballot, as well as who has endorsed them.
CALIFORNIA
Cal Matters
A blue guide that tracks every single election in California and explains who is funding what, whom and why.
Courage California
A blue guide that provides progressive endorsements for elections in California and tracks who else has endorsed these candidates/measures as well.
Supreme Court of CA
A non-partisan site that provides bios and information about every single justice on the Supreme Court of California.
Vote 411
A non-partisan site that lets you enter your address anywhere in California and find the candidates/measures on your ballot, as well as who has endorsed them, their personal statements, links to their websites, and more.
LOS ANGELES
Action Cali
A progressive voting guide for Los Angeles that is really well designed and easy to navigate, but does not provide any explanations beyond endorsements.
East Area Progressive Democrats
A progressive voting guide created by an organization in Los Angeles that allows its members to vote on who/what they want to endorse, but does not provide any other explanations for these endorsements.
Knock LA
A progressive news site that provides detailed information and endorsements for everything on the ballot in Los Angeles; it is a journalistic project of Ground Game LA. I rely on them a lot when it comes to local candidates, where they really excel at providing relevant, current insights, and less so when it comes to federal or statewide ones, where I sometimes find their stances a little too hardline.
LA Forward
A progressive voting guide that provides information and endorsements for most of the candidates/measures in Los Angeles.
LAist: “Everything you need as you prep for the Nov. 5 Election”
A news site called LAist that provides non-partisan information for everyone in Los Angeles about how and where to vote, what is on the ballot, and who is funding what, whom and why.
LA Times
The paper of record for Los Angeles. I don't always agree with their endorsements because even though they skew blue, they tend to favor corporate interests more than I’d like. However, I love that they provide enough information for me to make an informed choice.
Los Angeles County Bar Association
A non-partisan organization that evaluates the qualifications of judges, and ranks them as “Exceptionally Well Qualified,” “Well Qualified,” “Qualified,” and “Not Qualified.”
Parents Supporting Teachers
An amazing organization in Los Angeles that advocates for public education and teachers. Their voting guide is really easy to navigate, but does not provide any explanations beyond endorsements.