Proposition Ballots

Chijioke Onyeagucha, Staff Writer

Prop. 2 Illustration. (Finn Atkin)

Prop. 2:

Authorizing Bonds for repairing Public Schools and Community College Facilities:

Authorizes $10 billion worth of bonds to be used for the refurbishment and construction of California schools with $8.5 billion being allocated to K-12 public schools and $1.5 billion to community colleges. Would require annual audits to ensure funds are being properly used to address safety concerns and classroom conditions. Due to interest, it would cost taxpayers $18 billion over 35 years, a high concern for opponents of the measure along with the distribution of funds

Our choice: Vote YES

Investment into the California education system remains a critical issue as it is imperative for us to prioritize the growth of our students
Prop. 3 Illustration. (Finn Atkin)

Prop. 3

Constitutional Right to Marry Regardless of Sex or Race:

Prop 3 is proposed to repeal Prop 8 from 2008, which banned same-sex marriage in California. Rulings from the US Supreme Court have made Prop 8 unenforceable since then, however, the text still states that marriage is only between a man and a woman. If passed, Prop 3 would remove this language and define marriage in California as a fundamental right. Opponents of the measure believe that the new language in the constitution would be too vague and allow for incest, polygamy and child marriages.

Our choice: Vote YES

The outdated and unenforceable language in our state’s constitution is problematic and archaic. We believe that it is important to update the constitution to more progressive language
Prop. 4 Illustration (Finn Atkin)

Prop. 4

Authorizing bonds for safe drinking water, wildfire prevention and protection of lands:

Prop 4 would approve another $10 billion in bonds to be used for environment protection such as safe drinking water, clean air, wildfire prevention and protecting coastal areas from sea level rise. Opponents of the prop argue that funding for important climate projects should be in the California budget instead of using bonds, applying less stress on taxpayers. Supporters believe that the prop would save money, repairing climate change sooner rather than later.

Our choice: Vote YES

We believe that it is so important for Californians to protect our climate. Prioritizing the environment now will help us all in the future.
Prop. 5 Illustration. (Finn Atkin)

Prop. 5

Allows approval of local bonds for affordable housing and public infrastructure for low and middle income Californians:

Lowers the threshold for local governments to pass bond measures from two-thirds of the vote to 55 percent. Measures that focus on affordable housing and public infrastructure bonds would likely pass easier. Supporters argue that the current high threshold stifles progress, making important projects hard to approve. Opponents make the case that bond debt will only rise if Prop 5 were to pass as local governments borrow more money.

Our choice: Vote NO

Two-thirds of the vote is an appropriate majority to achieve for important bonds. Making it easier to approve bonds will create more bond debt and harm our local communities.
Prop. 6 Illustration. (Finn Atkin)

Prop. 6

Amends CA constitution that allows jails and prisons to impose involuntary servitude to punish a crime:

Prohibits involuntary servitude from being used as punishment from a crime in jails and prisons. Inmates would still be able to voluntarily accept work in exchange for credits that would reduce their sentences. Minimum wage may be required to be paid to inmates who do choose to work on such assignments. Supporters argue that forced labor is inhumane to enforce. No formal opposition to the proposition has been submitted.

Our choice: Vote NO

It remains true that our prisons system needs serious reform, however, we believe that paying wages to inmates may create strain on the budget and cause excess financial burden.
Prop. 32 Illustration. (Finn Atkin)

Prop. 32

Raises Minimum Wage to $17 immediately, and to $18 Jan. 1, 2025:

If Prop 32 passes, the CA minimum wage would rise to $17 immediately for employers who have 26 or more employees, and to $18 on January 1, 2025, while employers with 25 or less employees would raise their wages to $17 on January 1, 2025 and $18 in 2026. Supporters argue that the prop would help workers afford basic needs while opponents make the case that the rise in wages would increase state and local deficits and fails to make California more affordable.

Our choice: Vote YES

We support raising the minimum wage because we believe that it is important to help make affording basic needs in California possible for everyone.
Prop. 33 Illustration. (Finn Atkin)

Prop. 33

Expands local governments’ authority to enact rent control on residential property:

Aims to repeal the Costa Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995, a current state law that prohibits cities and counties from regulating rent increases in their area. Supporters argue that Prop 33 keeps renters in their homes and helps pacify California’s housing crisis. However, opponents say that the new rent control that the prop would approve, would deter investment into new housing developments. Prop 33 is part of California’s efforts to address affordable housing challenges.

Our choice: Vote NO

Local Rent control fails to directly address the housing crisis. Discouraging investment into housing development that would more effectively fix the problem.
Prop. 34 Illustration. (Finn Atkin)

Prop. 34

Restricts spending of drug revenue by certain healthcare providers:

If passed, Prop 34 would require specific healthcare providers to spend 98% percent of their drug revenue on patient care. The measure aims to guarantee that at-risk and low income patients receieve the help they need. Supporters believe that the measure will ensure that revenue made will be spent in the interest of at need patients while opponents say that Prop 34 is being used by landlords to attack non-profit organizations that have supported the rent control initiative.

Our choice: Vote NO

Prop 34, supported by many politicians and housing groups, weaponizes the ballot to hurt their opponents who have supported propositions that work to take away rent control.
Prop. 35 Illustration. (Finn Atkin)

Prop. 35

Provides permanent funding for medi-cal:

Prop 35 would require that the state spends more money on Medi-cal which has been expanded in recent years but failed to keep up with payments to doctors. Projected to make around $35 billion over the next four years, while revenue would go to important forms of care for patients such as emergency services, family planning and mental health. Supporters believe that the measure empowers California healthcare while there has been no formal opposition to the proposition Submitted.

Our choice: Vote YES

Supporting our healthcare system enables professionals to be able to take care of all of their patients. The money put into supporting Medi-cal would be a lifeline for those in need.
Prop. 36 Illustration. (Finn Atkin)

Prop. 36

Allows felony charges and increased sentencing on drug and theft crimes:

Reclassifies certain misdemeanor drug and theft crimes as felonies and increases the punishment for repeat offenders while people who do not contest charges will have the opportunity to complete drug treatment instead of going to prison. Supporters believe that the measure will help deal with California’s spike in shoplifting and drug trafficking. Opponents argue that the proposition will lead to more crime as a war on drugs measure that wastes money and hurts the state.

Our choice: Vote NO

Prop 36 supports another war on drugs that would prove to be unnecessarily costly and unfairly target specific communities.

Experience

Experience

Experience

Experience