California propositions: What to know ahead of 2024 election

SACRAMENTO, Calif. - California voters will determine the fate of 10 propositions on Nov. 5 — including issues about rent control, marriage equality, climate change, raising the minimum wage, stiffer penalties for stealing and drugs and paying incarcerated people in prison. 

Here's a closer look at some of the propositions.

Prop 3: California to decide on constitutional right to marriage equality

While same-sex marriage is legal across the country because of the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision, California’s constitution still includes language that only recognizes marriage between a man and a woman.

Proposition 3 aims to change that by enshrining marriage equality in the constitution.

"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," the constitution reads.

Prop 3 would update the language to "The right to marry is a fundamental right," the Associated Press reports.

Essentially, the amendment would make California’s constitution match what federal courts have said about who can marry.

Proponents of the measure say Prop. 3 protects Californians’ freedom to marry, regardless of race and gender. They say the amendment would remove discriminatory language from the constitution.

Opponents of the amendment include the California Family Council and the organization’s president, Jonathan Keller. The organization says the amendment would "dismantle the traditional family structure." They say Prop. 3 opens the door to child marriage, incest and polygamy. They argue the measure harms families and society.

Prop. 4: Borrow $10 billion to respond to climate change

Proposition 4 is a ballot measure that, if passed, would permit California to issue $10 billion in bonds to finance a wide range of environmental and climate resilience projects.

These projects would enhance water safety, wildfire prevention, land conservation, coastal protection, clean energy development, and agricultural resilience, with a strong focus on supporting disadvantaged communities.
 

Prop. 6: Ending forced labor in prison

Proposition 6 would ban the use of forced labor in prison.

According to the California Constitution, involuntary servitude is banned - except as a punishment for crime.

While incarcerated, prisoners can be forced to cook, clean, and perform other tasks that are needed to keep prisons and jails running. Inmates also like working as firefighters on wildfire scenes.

Incarcerated firefighters can earn as much as $10 a day.

About one-third of all California prisoners work. Many of them are paid less than $1 per hour.

Workers can also earn "time credits" that reduce the amount of time they serve in prison or jail. People who refuse to work or do other activities can face consequences such as losing the ability to make regular phone calls.

The proposition would change the Constitution to ban involuntary servitude as a punishment for crime and would also ban state prisons from disciplining people who refuse to work.

Prop. 6 does not stop prisons from giving people time credits for working.
 

 

Prop. 32: California considers raising minimum wage to $18

California's Proposition 32 will let voters decide whether to increase the minimum wage to $18.

Currently, the state's minimum wage stands at $16 per hour for most workers and $20 per hour for fast food workers, among the highest in the U.S.

If passed, Proposition 32, also known as the Living Wage Act, would require employers with 26 or more employees to raise wages to $17 immediately and then to $18 on Jan. 1. For employers with 25 or fewer employees, the increases would be delayed, rising to $17 on Jan. 1, and reaching $18 in 2026.

 

Prop 33: Rent control measure and its impact on renters, landlords

Proposition 33 addresses rent control in California – or at least how much authority local government has over rent control.

For starters, what is rent control? Rent control limits how much a landlord can increase rent year after year. While apartment complexes in Los Angeles do offer leases that are rent-controlled, there are limits on how much the local governments can enact those rent controls.

If Prop. 33 passes, renters living in properties covered by expanded rent control laws would likely benefit from lower rent increases or stabilized rent. Local governments would have more power to regulate rent hikes, potentially keeping costs more manageable for current tenants. For those in properties not subject to rent control or where rent controls are not expanded, rents could rise faster due to market adjustments​.

Landlords may face stricter limits on how much rent they can raise, leading to decreased potential income from their rental properties. Some landlords may decide to sell their rental properties, especially if the regulations make renting less profitable. The value of rental properties might also decrease as potential buyers may be less interested in purchasing regulated properties with limited income potential​.

For context, similar ballot measures have tried to take down Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act in 2018 and 2020, but both efforts ended up failing. In 2019, Gavin Newsom signed a law limiting annual rent increases across California to 5%, with inflation taken into account.

The proposition itself does not make any changes to existing local rent control laws. The prop would prevent the state from taking future actions to limit local rent control, and place that responsibility on local governments.

 

Prop. 34: Californians will decide on prescription drug revenue spending

Prop 34 restricts spending of prescription drug revenues by certain health care providers.

A yes vote on this measure means certain health care providers would have to follow new rules about how they spend revenue they earn from federal drug discount programs.

Going forward, they would be penalized if they break the rules for a ten-year period. The penalty could include not being able to operate as a health care entity.

A no vote means new rules would not go into effect.

Proponents argue Prop 34 would protect patients by ensuring health care dollars would actually go to patients who need it, rather than being used on things like naming rights for stadiums.

Opponents argue this proposition is a wolf in sheep’s clothing and have called it a "revenge initiative."

They say the California Apartment Association doesn’t care about patients and that they want to silence the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. They say this opens the door to attacks on any nonprofit.

It is opposed by The National Organization for Women, Consumer Watchdog, The Coalition for Economic Survival, and UNITE HERE Local 11 among others.  

Prop. 36: Increasing penalties for theft and drug trafficking

Proposition 36 aims to implement harsher penalties for theft and drug trafficking in a state that’s earned a reputation for being "soft on crime." If passed, some of these crimes that were previously classified as misdemeanors would be recategorized as felonies, reversing Prop 47 which was passed back in 2014.

While several progressive mayors and retailers are for it, Gov. Gavin Newsom and the California Democratic Party are against it.

If the majority of California voters vote "no," it would reverse Prop 47 that was passed back in 2014, which allowed low-level crimes, such as theft valued at $950 or less, from felonies to misdemeanors. Some officials said one of the purposes of Prop 47 was to help manage the prison population.

Those who oppose argue this would actually have the opposite effect it intends and believe it would ultimately lead to more crime and will take away funds for victim funding.

It is believed if passed, the cost would range between tens of millions of dollars to hundreds of millions of dollars each year amid an increase in the prison population.