Election officials certified the results for California’s ballot measures today, allowing voters to take a look at what measures will be enacted in the following months. 

   According to the website for the California Secretary of State, a little bit over a month ago, Californians got to decide on a number of referendums, ranging from raising the minimum wage to increasing sentencing for drug and theft crimes. In the voting booth, voters were given an unbiased guide to what each measure entails, what it would mean to vote for the measure, and how it would be implemented. In addition, voters were provided with small statements advocating both for and against those measures, as written by specific people or organizations (electionresults.sos.ca.gov).

   Prop 2 passed with 58.5 percent of the votes and authorizes bonds for public school and college facilities (electionresults.sos.ca.gov). These bonds will help raise short-term funds that would go to repairing, upgrading, and constructing new k-12 and community college facilities. The organization Californians for Quality Schools argued for the amendment, and said that many schools are outdated and need to be upgraded to satisfy health and safety standards and to better prepare students for college (californiansforqualityschools2024.com). California State Legislature Assemblyman Bill Essayli argued against the measure saying, “Proposition 2 will increase our bond obligations by $10 billion, which will cost taxpayers an estimated $18 billion when repaid with interest.”

   Proposition 3 passed by a large margin of 62.2 percent of votes and amends the California Constitution to recognize the right to marry, regardless of gender or race (electionresults.sos.ca.gov). The Yes On Proposition 3 campaign advocated for the measure and said that it would uphold civil rights and personal freedoms (yesonprop3ca.com). President and CEO of California Family Council Jonathan Keller argued against the measure on behalf of the California Family Council, and said that, among other things, it “Removes all rules for marriage, opening the door to child marriages, incest, and polygamy” (electionresults.sos.ca.gov).

   One of many bond-related measures, Proposition 4 passed with nearly 60 percent of the votes and would authorize bonds to fund safe drinking water, community protection against climate risk, and wildfire prevention programs. Advocates of the bill, such as the organization Californians forSafe Drinking Water and Wildfire Prevention argued that it would save money and help prevent the worst impacts of wildfires, floods, droughts and pollution (cayeson4.com). The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association argued against the measure, and said that budgeting would be the preferable method of  funding for these programs, as opposed to government bonds (hjta.org). 

   Another such bond measure, Prop 5, did not pass, as 55.3 percent of voters voted against the proposition (electionresults.sos.ca.gov). It would have allowed the selling of bonds to be used to fund affordable housing and public infrastructure projects. Detractors, such as the organization Protect Local Taxpayers argued that selling such bonds would shift costs to homeowners, renters, and consumers alike (votenoprop5.com). 

   Proposition 6 failed with voters and would have abolished involuntary servitude for incarcerated people. Anti-Recidivism Coalition Representative Esteban Nunez argued for the proposition. “Proposition 6 ends slavery in California and upholds human rights and dignity for everyone. It will prioritize rehabilitation, lower recidivism, and improve public safety, resulting in taxpayer savings,” said Nunez. No organization or person made an official argument against the  measure on the ballot itself (electionresults.sos.ca.gov).

   Another failed measure, Prop 32, would have raised the minimum wage in California to 18 dollars per hour on January 1, 2026 (electionresults.sos.ca.gov). The organization Californians Against Job Losses and Higher Prices argued that the measure would increase the cost of living, worsen state government budget deficits, and make minimum wage laws more complex. By a very slim margin, the measure failed, garnering only 49.2 percent of the vote (electionresults.sos.ca.gov).   

  Proposition 33 did not pass, with more than 60 percent of voters against expanding government control over housing rent rates (electionresults.sos.ca.gov). Renters and Homeowners for Rent Control Representative Susie Shannon argued that government rent control could limit and lower rental rates, providing relief for families struggling with high rent costs (yeson33.org). The organization Californians for Responsible Housing argued that enacting rent control would hurt homeowners and would disrupt the construction of new affordable housing (electionresults.sos.ca.gov).

   Proposition 34 passed by the slimmest majority of all 10 measures, with 50.7 percent of the vote, and will force prescription drug providers to spend revenues generated by discount drug prices on patient care (electionresults.sos.ca.gov). The Yes On 34 campaign argued that this proposition would ensure public healthcare dollars go towards patients who need it (yesonprop34.com). 

   Proposition 35 passed by a very large margin of 67.8 percent (electionresults.sos.ca.gov). It offers permanent funding for Medi-Cal health care services. Supporters of the measure, such as the Yes On 35 Campaign, said that it would “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” (voteyes35.com).

   Prop 36 did not pass, with 68.5 percent opposed. It would have increased sentences and allowed felony charges for certain drug and theft crime offenders. Advocates such as the organization Californians for Safer Communities, argued that it would have made communities safer, toughen penalties for drug traffickers, and would hold criminals accountable. On the other side, the Stop Prop 36 campaign argued that increasing charges would lead to more crime, wasted money in prisons, and would have slashed treatment and rehabilitation programs (electionresults.sos.ca.gov).

(stopprop32.com)