While Consumer Watchdog doesn’t have any measures on the ballot this year, we’ve gotten lots of requests for our initiative picks. If you haven’t yet returned your ballot, here are our thoughts on the 2024 state propositions. Wherever you land, make sure to vote!
PROP 2 – YES – The schools bond
$10 billion bond to pay for repairs, upgrades and construction at K-12 public schools ($8.5B) and community colleges ($1.5B). The money is distributed as matching funds, with a limited possibility of grants for the least-wealthy school districts. There’s no question the schools need the money. This measure’s controversy stems from those lower-income school districts and advocates for their communities who say the funding formula will continue an inequitable distribution formula that guarantees wealthy districts always get the most money. Prop 2 takes a step toward addressing equity concerns by proposing a slightly higher match for lower income districts. Advocates say it’s not enough. Still, only anti-tax groups outright oppose Prop 2.
For: Sponsored by the Legislature. Teacher, builder, labor orgs
Against: Anti-tax groups
PROP 3 – YES – Right to marry
Protects the right of every Californian to marry by adding that right to the state constitution. Deletes overturned Prop 8 language that limited marriage to a man and woman.
For: Sponsored by the Legislature, Equality California
Against: Religious conservatives
PROP 4 – YES – The climate bond
$10 Billion bond to address climate risks and environmental infrastructure. Much of the money would be given as grants and loans to local governments, and 40% is reserved solely for the most disadvantaged communities in the state. The bond includes $1.5 billion in funding to protect Californians against the risk of wildfires, from controlled burns in our forests to grants for individual homeowners who need assistance clearing brush or hardening their homes against wildfire. The billions California has already invested in reducing the risk of harm from wildfire were credited by county fire officials and academics for saving structures in the recent Bridge, Line and Park fires. We need to continue that investment to protect against the increasing risk of fire, and keep California insured. The other largest chunk of the money, $3.8 billion, goes to water projects focused on improving the supply of safe drinking water and reduce the risk of flooding. Prop 4 would also fund: extreme heat mitigation; restoring coastal areas and protecting against sea rise; protecting parks and wildlife; supporting the state’s shift to renewable energy; and help farms respond to climate change.
For: Sponsored by the Legislature. Environmental, labor orgs
Against: Anti-tax orgs
PROP 5 – YES – Less votes needed to pass local bonds
Makes it easier for voters to pass local bonds for affordable housing or infrastructure — including transportation, parks, wildfire resilience and other public projects — by lowering the vote threshold from two-thirds to 55%.
For: Sponsored by the Legislature. Housing, labor organizations
Against: Anti-tax groups
PROP 6 – YES – Ends forced prison work
California law allows prisons or jails to force incarcerated people to work, often for less than $1 an hour. Slavery by another name has no place in California. Prop 6 ends this by banning involuntary servitude – forced work – as punishment. People in prisons and jails may choose to work, but can’t be punished if they don’t.
For: Sponsored by the Legislature. Everyone
Against: No one we can find
PROP 32 – YES – Raises minimum wage
Increases the statewide minimum wage to $18/hour, with annual inflation adjustments starting in 2027.
For: Sponsored by Joe Sanberg. Labor orgs
Against: Business orgs
PROP 33 – YES – Rent control
Rent control helps tenants stay in their homes, and few things should be a bigger priority in the state today as rising rents force dislocation that feeds the unhoused crisis. Prop 33 would empower local governments to decide whether to create rent control in their own jurisdiction, or to update existing rent control laws that were frozen in time decades ago. It repeals a state law that currently prohibits cities and counties from enacting any new rent control laws. Contrary to the No advertising, Prop 33 does not repeal existing affordable housing or rental protections.
For: Sponsored by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, tenant and economic justice orgs
Against: California Apartment Association, real estate and business orgs
PROP 34 – NO
Prop 34 is the California Apartment Association’s attempt to ban the AIDS Healthcare Foundation from funding a tenant – or any other – ballot initiative ever again. Cloaked in a bunch of health care language, Prop 34’s only real purpose is retribution. The initiative process isn’t for silencing political opponents, no matter how much you loathe them.
For: Sponsored by the California Apartment Association
Against: AIDS Healthcare Foundation
PROP 35 – Toss-up – Medi-Cal funding
Prop 35 would require revenue from a state tax on health care organizations be dedicated to specific health care spending by Medi-Cal, including primary and specialty care doctors and emergency services. That’s important because Medi-Cal covers health care for Californian’s most in-need residents, including more than a third of the state, and patients can’t get the care they need when there’s not money to pay the people who provide it. Lack of doctors has become a major impediment for Medi-Cal patients seeking health care. Opponents object because Prop 36 throws out funding priorities carefully negotiated by health equity groups with the legislature this year. Money will be diverted from spending priorities including coverage programs for kids under 5, community health workers and facilities that serve seniors and people with disabilities. Others are concerned with how it limits budget options in the legislature, no matter the critical public need that may arise, by locking in another chunk of spending that can only be changed with a ¾ vote. Dedicated funding for Medi-Cal doctors and work to make health care more equitable are both priorities. We’re still making up our minds.
For: Sponsored by the California Medical Association. Many health care organizations including: California Hospital Association, community clinics, Planned Parenthood
Against: Health equity and other community organizations, including: Children’s Partnership, California Pan-Ethnic Health Network, Courage California, California Alliance for Retired Americans
PROP 36 – no position – Increased penalties for drug crimes
Ten years ago, California voters passed Prop 47 to reduce sentencing for crimes including low-value theft and drug possession, with the aim of reversing tough on crime policies including ‘Three Strikes’ penalties that could land someone with a long prison sentence for petty theft or being caught with drugs for personal use. The proponents of Prop 36 argue that Prop 47 went too far, and that weakened sentencing laid the path for the wave of smash-and-grab retail theft businesses have suffered in recent years, as well as increased drug offenses. The measure seeks to charge such crimes as felonies again and reverse these trends. Opponents say there is no connection, and new laws are in place to address the retail theft problem. They say the measure will also divert much-needed funding for behavioral health services that can help keep people out of prison.
For: Law-enforcement groups including district attorneys and prison guards, along with major retailers and business organizations.
Against: Criminal justice and civil rights organizations, the ACLU and labor organizations.
