Golden State voters find common ground on areas like Proposition 36—a huge victory for public safety which may pass by a staggering 40% threshold.
This cycle, California’s statewide ballot measures covered everything from affordable housing to public education, crime, the economy, climate change, and even same-sex marriage. These propositions saw unique coalitions of unlikely alliances—in some cases, a union of Republicans and Democrats—and also showcased fierce rivalries. A proverbial mixed bag, this cycle brought victories for big government advocates and fiscal watchdogs alike.
Just over 79% of ballots have been counted, meaning that while results are not yet final, there’s enough data to glean key insights from the 2024 general elections. We offer this post-election recap to discuss outcomes, detail the history leading to the various initiatives, and explore the key factors that influenced the results as they stand.
Proposition 2
California voters are used to seeing bonds for public schools on their ballots. In that sense, Proposition 2 came as no surprise: the CTA-sponsored initiative, if passed, would authorize $10 billion in general obligation bonds for the repair and construction of public school facilities.
Unions and union-backed politicians made their usual appeals to think of the children. “Students need safe spaces to learn if they’re going to reach their full potential,” argued Salinas City Elementary District Superintendent Rebeca Andrade. Fiscal watchdog groups, on the other hand, were quick to sound the alarm.
“[Prop 2] is almost certain to result in higher property tax bills, because school districts must provide a ‘local match’ of funds in order to receive money from the Prop 2 state bonds,” read the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association statement. “That will lead to districts issuing new local school bonds, which are paid for by adding new charges to property tax bills. Enrollment is declining in both K-12 district schools and community colleges and the declines are projected to continue. But Proposition 2 commits California to pay an estimated $18 billion, including interest, for school buildings that may not even be necessary.”
Prop 2 leads by 16% with roughly 20% of ballots to count. It is almost certain to pass.
Proposition 3
Despite California’s reputation as a deep-blue progressive state, its voters never elected to recognize the legality of same-sex marriages. That would only come by judicial fiat and the 2015 landmark SCOTUS case Obergefell v. Hodges, which declared same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states.
California’s last statewide ballot measure on the subject was Proposition 8, which was approved by voters in 2008 and provided that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” While the amendment’s constitutionality would be challenged, the language it added to the state constitution is still on the books to this day—although it’s effectively null and void. Thus, we arrive at Prop 3.
The primary aim of Proposition 3 was to remove the outdated language and, in so doing, effectively reaffirm the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. There was little doubt at any point that it would pass. With about 80% of votes counted, it’s on track to do exactly that—by a margin of 25%.
Proposition 4
Prop 2 wasn’t the only $10 billion bond on the ballot this cycle. Proposition 4, if passed, would authorize that amount for “for water, wildfire prevention, and protection of communities and lands,” and would require annual audits. It was championed by progressives as an effort to hinder the effects of climate change.
“We need to be not only helping communities adapt to climate change right now, but we also need to be reducing our climate pollution. This is not a problem that can wait until it’s convenient to fund in the budget,” said California Environmental Defense Fund State Director Katelyn Roedner Sutter.
“This is the $10 billion ‘climate bond’ that state politicians have long planned,” wrote representatives from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. “California already has too much bond debt, over $78 billion outstanding as of January 1… It’s reckless to use borrowed money, an estimated $18 billion with interest, to pay for ‘programs,’ including salaries for all the groups that receive the money.”
“Bond financing only makes sense for necessary projects that will last more than the 30 years it takes to repay the debt,” their statement continues. “The governor has already declared a budget emergency because the state spends more than it takes in.”
The “yea” votes ahead by just under 20% with just over 20% of ballots remaining. As such, Prop 4 has effectively been decided.
Proposition 5
It is difficult to describe Proposition 5 without also describing 1978’s Proposition 13. Prop 13 established the basis for property tax assessments in California and —for example—limiting taxes on property to 1% of the property’s assessed value. It accounted for inflation and put a stop to subjective approaches to property tax assessment. As such, it remains quite popular and has withstood various forms of scrutiny and numerous attempts to combat its protections.
Critics argue that 2024’s Proposition 5 is just the latest attempt to erode Prop 13. If passed, it would lower the vote threshold from two-thirds to 55% for local bond measures to fund housing projects. It’s the next step in the evolution of ACA 1, which passed in the State Senate last year.
Prop 5 has the support of the California Democratic Party and most of the state’s major public sector unions. It’s being opposed by the California Republican Party and the state’s business coalitions and taxpayer advocacy groups.
“More than four decades ago, prompted by years of rising taxes, Californians resoundingly approved Proposition 13 to provide a check on local governments’ taxing authority, and to ensure a greater representative voice for those who would be taxed… Reducing the vote threshold would diminish the people’s voice on tax increases and would erode property tax safeguards,” wrote the California Chamber of Commerce.
According to the data currently available, Prop 5 should fail. Its supporters are down by 10% with only one-fifth of ballots remaining. The odds aren’t insurmountable, but it would be a long shot.
Proposition 6
Currently, the state constitution includes “involuntary servitude” as a legitimate form of punishment for crime. This typically translates to forced labor as a part of criminal sentencing. A coalition of criminal justice reform activists called End Slavery in California led the campaign for Proposition 6, which would involve amending the state constitution to remove any mention of servitude as punishment and “award credits to incarcerated persons who voluntarily participate in work assignments.”
There was not an organized opposition to the campaign, beyond the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association releasing a statement arguing that “it doesn’t seem fair to further increase the burden on taxpayers by creating the conditions to negotiate higher wages for inmates who are paying off their debt to society by serving their sentences in state prison.”
The “no” votes currently lead by 7%. It’s technically too close to call, but it suggests the ballot is more than likely to fail.
Proposition 32
Proposition 32 is a fairly straightforward attempt to raise the statewide minimum wage to $18 per hour by 2026. As of January 1, 2023, California’s minimum wage is $15 per hour with no mechanism in place to increase that rate. Proponents claim it will combat the rising cost of living. Opponents argue it will only contribute to worsening inflation and further strain the state budget.
“The time is now, because the pandemic has heightened the people’s understanding of the realities so many Californians face,” argues Joe Sanberg, who filed the initiative. “Cost of living is rising faster and faster… but wages haven’t increased commensurately.”
“Market, not politicians and bureaucrats, ought to be dictating the financial growth and success of working men and women in California,” replied National Federation of Independent Business State Director John Kabateck. “Let the market dictate this and let’s stop sending the message that mediocrity is a pathway to professional success in California.”
It would seem—at least as of now—that most Californians are voting in accordance with the latter argument. The “no” votes enjoy a very modest 2.2% lead, but there are enough uncounted ballots for that to change.
Proposition 33
Rent control continues to be a contentious issue in California politics, especially amid record housing unaffordability. But, in the same way that many Californians have come to realize price floors (i.e. minimum wage) do little to solve the problems they are intended to solve, the same can be said for price ceilings (i.e. rent control).
That hasn’t stopped rent control advocates from enlisting support from heavy-hitters like U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders and the ACLU to back their initiative aimed at repealing the 1995 Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act. This existing legislation bars cities and counties from implementing rent control on any housing built after the year it was passed.
Its advocates, like AHF President Michael Weinstein, blame the California exodus not on the state’s fiscal irresponsibility, rising crime, or one-party supermajority rule, but on “billionaire landlords [controlling] our fate.”
“[Prop 33] will not increase funding for affordable housing. It will not force local governments to build more affordable housing. It will not provide any immediate relief to people facing homelessness,” retorts Californians for Responsible Housing, an organization which has called Prop 33 a “deeply flawed scheme that will increase housing costs.”
The measure is now assuredly slated to fail, as it’s behind by 20% with hardly 20% left to count.
Proposition 34
Many of the ballot measures this cycle come down to affairs of left versus right; public sector versus private sector; and increased government spending versus fiscal restraint. Proposition 34 is something of an outlier. In this case, the two entities that are deeply embattled are the California Apartment Association (CAA) and the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF).
If passed, the measure would require certain health care providers to spend 98% of their taxpayer-generated revenues on direct patient care. Proponents like Protect Patients Now argue that this will reinstate accountability and ensure that these institutions accomplish their “original mission to provide healthcare to low-income patients.”
“For years, corporations have misused billions in taxpayer funds meant for patients to fund pet projects, wasting it on things like luxury condos, naming rights on sports stadiums, and political campaigns,” said CAA’s CEO Tom Bannon after Election Night. “Millions of California voters have taken action to close the loophole that allows for this abuse. Our state has taken a stand against this blatant misuse of public dollars and voted to ensure these public healthcare dollars are used to protect patients and provide care.”
Prop 34’s opponents, like Housing is a Human Right, have called the measure a “a wolf in sheep’s clothing” meant to crack down on the political activities of the AHF.
“Don’t be fooled: The Patient Protection Act targets one organization, AHF, the largest HIV/ AIDS organization in the world, and the leading organization working to expand rent control for the most vulnerable in our society,” claims Susie Shannon, policy director of Housing is a Human Right.
The margins are quite tight: the “yea” votes are a mere 1.6% ahead with millions more ballots to count. That could be enough to win it all—but however the chips may fall, it’s going to be a close one.
Proposition 35
Over the years, Medi-Cal has expanded drastically. Doctors and hospital workers formed a coalition—dubbed the Coalition to Protect Access to Care—to qualify an initiative which would make permanent a tax on managed care health insurance plans. Such a tax already exists, but was set expire in 2026. Proposition 35 is the result of their effort.
In an interesting twist of fate, the Republican Party of California would join forces with both the Democratic Party of California and Planned Parenthood in supporting Prop 35. Even more interestingly, progressive Governor Gavin Newsom broke ranks with his base and indicated he would oppose it.
“This initiative hamstrings our ability to have the kind of flexibility that’s required at the moment we’re living in,” said Newsom back in July. “I haven’t come out publicly against it. But I’m implying a point of view. Perhaps you can read between those many, many lines.”
In contrast, California Medical Association President Donaldo Hernandez, M.D. has argued the measure would “improve access to health care, reduce emergency room wait times for all Californians, make prescription drugs more affordable and expand our health care workforce.”
With a broad coalition of support, the measure will pass. The exact margins are yet to be determined, but the current standing is an impregnable 35.2% advantage.
Proposition 36
Proposition 36 is a direct response to California’s smash-and-grab problem as well as a refutation of progressive District Attorneys’ attempts to reform the criminal justice system by being more lax on crime. Prop 36 establishes new penalties for certain drug crimes and increases sentence lengths for both theft and drug-related crimes by treating them as felonies. A “no” vote supported treating the aforementioned crimes as misdemeanors.
The only bipartisan coalition of both Republicans and Democrats—from U.S. Rep. Ken Calvert to San Francisco Mayor London Breed—was found on the side of support, while the opposition came almost entirely from left-wing personalities and institutions arguing that the new measure will, in the words of the Vera Institute of Justice, “reverse the state’s gains in reducing the dangerous, racially unequal, and unconstitutionally crowded prison population.”
“We continue to see an outcry of overwhelming support from Californians of every political affiliation and geographic region across the state demanding for change that will improve community safety and hold repeat offenders of theft and serious drug crimes including those involving fentanyl accountable,” said California District Attorneys Association CEO Greg Totten. “Californians want to feel safe in their neighborhoods and when they shop.”
To that point, the tough-on-crime Prop 36 is set to pass by the most definitive margins of any measure this cycle, with nearly 70% in favor against 30% in opposition. It’s a major win for Californians who for years have felt the state’s public safety slowly eroding as DA’s fail to prosecute felons for their crimes.
Conclusion
When looking at the results of the statewide ballot measures, most Californians—progressive or conservative—will walk away from this election cycle with at least something to celebrate. Far from a clean sweep for either side, California saw a mix of expanded taxes for public services in addition to several key instances where existing law limiting government overreach was upheld. In some ways, it feels like a referendum on California’s more liberal tendencies while also more or less upholding the status quo.
And, while several of the measures are still too close to call, that sense of limited, mutual victories for both sides is unlikely to change.
