Updates on all 10 of California’s ballot proposals – Daily Breeze

California voters weighed 10 ballot proposals this year, measures that touch on everything from insurance-related taxes and new bonds to fight climate change to proposals that would strengthen California’s same-sex marriage and crack down on not-so-petty theft.

Proposition 36, which was designed to address the gaps some said were left by the passage of Proposition 47 in 2014, was expected to win voter approval. Proposition 3, which would give same-sex couples the right to marry in California, also received strong support.

According to the results from the Minister of Foreign Affairs on Wednesday afternoon, the voting proposals were listed here:

LIVE ELECTION RESULTS: View a chart of the latest vote counts

Prop. 2 (Educational financing)

Four years after rejecting a proposal to sell $15 billion in bonds to pay for new school buildings, California voters appear poised to break that cycle by passing Proposition 2, a $10 billion version of a similar proposal for the construction of schools, according to ballots counted on Wednesday.

Proponents of Proposition 2 note that lower-income school districts in California rely heavily on bonds to pay for new construction and expand new services, such as preschool programs.

Opponents argue that Proposition 2 is discriminatory because lower-income districts would get a larger share of the money.

Proposition 3 (Marriage Equality)

A proposal to amend the state constitution to recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry, a right already guaranteed in federal law, was far ahead, according to released ballots.

The idea of ​​codifying the right to same-sex marriage gained traction in California and other states in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs ruling, which lets states set their own rules on abortion. As part of that ruling, Justice Clarence Thomas suggested that the Supreme Court should review the 2013 ruling that legalized same-sex marriage, and others have echoed that sentiment.

In addition to enshrining marriage equality in California, Proposition 3 also repeals Proposition 8, a 2008 law banning same-sex marriage. Although federal law overrides Proposition 8, the law has remained on the books.

Prop. 4 (Financing of environmental projects)

Voters are poised to accept a bid to add about $10 billion in bond debt to finance a variety of projects related to climate change.

Proposition 4 would, among other things, set aside $3.8 billion in new bond revenues for improving water quality and for projects aimed at mitigating the effects of floods and droughts, both of which are more pronounced as California plays ping-pong between wet and dry rainy seasons.

Supporters argue the bonds are necessary because the state recently spent about $10 billion on environmental programs. Opponents note that the bonds are expensive and would cost state taxpayers $400 million a year over 40 years.

Prop. 5 (Affordable housing)

Voters opposed an effort to make it easier to approve tax-related bonds, lowering the threshold for approval from 66% to 55%, according to figures released Wednesday.

Supporters say giving a third of voters a veto over a tax increase is fundamentally undemocratic. While Proposition 5 would not completely eliminate this imbalance, it would significantly reduce it.

Opponents of Proposition 5 say local taxes tend to fall disproportionately on property owners, making the tax burden itself undemocratic. They also argue that the high threshold for approving a tax precludes what they see as poor spending decisions.

Prop. 6 (Involuntary servitude)

It appears California prisoners will continue to work for little or no pay, according to figures released Wednesday. Voters oppose Proposition 6, an effort to amend the state constitution to ban involuntary servitude in state prisons.

Proposition 6’s rules would end the practice of punishing prisoners by forcing them to work as cooks, janitors, construction workers and firefighters, among others. Proposition 6 calls for allowing prisoners to work such jobs, as a way to earn credit for time off work.

Advocates say forced labor in state prisons is a vestige of slavery and that the practice disproportionately affects people of color. Opponents argue that changing prison labor rules is a form of reparation that is unaffordable at a time when the state is facing budget shortfalls.

Prop. 32 (Minimum wage increase)

It’s still unclear whether lower-wage workers in California will get a raise starting this month, as the vote count Wednesday still showed only a narrow lead for those who would reject Proposition 32.

The current minimum wage in California is $16 an hour, although a complicated set of exemptions based on industry type and geography already means slightly higher paydays for many workers.

However, Proposition 32 would extend wage increases to an estimated 2 million people currently earning the state minimum. The new minimum would be $17 per hour by 2025 and $18 per hour by 2026.

Supporters say higher minimum wages reflect the reality of life in California. They also argue that many minimum wage workers are forced to use state food and housing assistance programs, and that forcing employers to raise wages would benefit state taxpayers and local economies.

Opponents say higher minimum wages will mean fewer new jobs and possibly some layoffs. They note that the state postponed raising the minimum wage for government workers when budget shortfalls emerged last year, and that private companies must adhere to the same rules.

Prop. 33 (Rent control)

An effort to expand rent control in California, Proposition 33, appeared to end in a landslide defeat.

While many California cities have had rent controls on the books for decades, those rules have been weakened by Costa-Hawkins, a law that limits rent control to homes and apartment buildings built before 1995 and allows landlords to raise rents when new tenants move in. Proposition 33 aims to let cities set rental rules that work for most of their residents.

California has a much higher share of renters (44%) than the national average (about 35%), and supporters of Proposition 33 say most of those renters pay more than a third of their income to keep a roof over their heads keep.

Proponents of Proposition 33 say the rules would ease rental obligations for millions of Californians and help slow the state’s growing housing crisis.

Opponents say the law would have the opposite effect.

Prop. 34 (Healthcare Expenditure)

Wednesday’s latest vote count showed only a narrow lead for passage of Proposition 34, a law that, if passed, could be challenged in court again.

Essentially, Proposition 34 is a proposed amendment to health care law. It would require a very specific subset of healthcare providers to set aside 98% of the rebates they receive when purchasing drugs specifically for use in patient care.

But the world of health care providers described in the measure is so limited that many believe it applies to one entity: the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which operates HIV/AIDS health centers in California and fourteen other states.

Opponents say the purpose of Proposition 34 is to punish the AIDS Healthcare Foundation for advocating lower rents and other concepts opposed by the real estate industry. Supporters say the purpose of the law is to teach responsibility; federal rebates on drug prices should be used to help patients.

It is against federal and state law to make a proposal that targets an individual or business.

Prop. 35 (Healthcare tax)

Voters apparently want California to spend about $35 billion from Medi-Cal taxes over the next four years on Medi-Cal, the public insurance program for low-income Californians, and not on the general fund, according to Wednesday’s results.

That spending path is the underlying promise of Proposition 35, which aims to change a longstanding practice in Sacramento of using Medi-Cal taxes to close budget gaps in non-healthcare areas.

Proponents of Proposition 35 argue that the system needs a budgetary boost. Opponents say the measure is too restrictive on how money is spent in Sacramento.

Prop. 36 (Retail theft and drug offences)

Ten years after the passage of Proposition 47, which aimed to reduce penalties and incarceration rates for drug-related crimes, California voters overwhelmingly supported Proposition 36. Vote totals released Wednesday showed a huge lead for passage the ballot measure.

The new measure reclassifies some crimes as felonies and creates a new category of crimes – “treatment-mandated crimes” – that allows addicts convicted of certain crimes to undergo rehabilitation or spend up to three years in prison.

The vote reflects widespread frustration over spikes in shoplifting and car burglaries during the pandemic and an apparent realization among some criminals that stealing goods worth less than $1,000 won’t land you in jail. A study shows that shoplifting incidents involving property valued at $950 or less increased by about 28% over the five-year period ending last year.

Supporters of Proposition 36 link the law to homelessness, saying the spike in the number of people struggling to find housing involves people who are also struggling with addiction.

Opponents say the bill would likely refill jails and prisons that have become less crowded since the passage of Proposition 47, something that would cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.