Our editorial board’s endorsements in California’s 10 state propositions on the 2024 ballot.

Statewide propositions in California are often lauded as the one of the highest and best versions of participatory democracy. The initiative process grants the power directly to the people to propose statutes and/or amendments to the California Constitution. The requirements to get an initiative on the ballot are intentionally uncomplicated: Proponents write and title a single topic proposition and submit it to be vetted by the state Attorney General. If that is successful, then they must gather enough signatures (approximately 550,000 for new laws and 875,000 for constitutional amendments) within six months to place it on the ballot. In addition, top donors must be declared.

Statewide props are also often decried as an incredibly ineffective way to make public policy. Almost always the simple language on ballot measures disguises very complex legislative and legal requirements that lead to unintended consequences. Routinely, state propositions face legal challenges up to and after they are on the ballot (which is not necessarily different than laws delivered from the Legislature). Sometimes the threat of a statewide proposition is used by well financed special interests as a cudgel to force lawmakers to act—a kind of blackmail in democratic clothing.

Both of those positions are valid. 

Our research on the 10 propositions this year included the Secretary of State’s official voter information guide, which in addition to the official language of the measures includes an estimate from Legislative Analyst’s Office of fiscal impact, as well as links to major supporters and opponents. CalMatters’ 2024 Voter Guide provides a nonpartisan deep dive by professional journalists into each of the initiatives. 

With that backdrop, below are our endorsements for the initiatives on the Nov. 5, 2024 ballot. 

Prop. 2, a $10 billion bond for K-12 schools and community colleges: YES

Investment in school infrastructure has been lagging for decades since Prop. 13 was passed in 1978, limiting property tax increases. Property taxes were the major funding source for schools, and the state's investment hasn’t backfilled to cover the need. 

If approved, Prop. 2 will funnel $8.5 billion to TK-12 schools and $1.5 billion to community colleges to renovate, repair and construct facilities. 

Prop. 3 enshrines the right to marriage, regardless of sex or gender, in the state Constitution: YES

Prop. 8, the constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage which passed in 2008, was declared unconstitutional by the courts and overturned. But that exclusionary language still made it into the constitution and this measure would fix that with a simple strikethrough, and add the affirmative language: “The right to marry is a fundamental right.”

It’s as clear an initiative as we’ve seen, and easy to support. 

Prop. 4, a $10 billion bond supporting climate and water projects: YES

This would allow the state to float bonds of up to $10 billion to enact policies to improve drinking water across the state and enact climate change resiliency action plans. 

Borrowing the money will be an expensive way to fund needed environmental protections, but as the last budget cycle showed, if climate change funds are not protected, they will be poached to fund social programs when the budget compromises happen.

Prop. 5 changes the threshold for local infrastructure bond measures from 66.6 percent of the vote to 55 percent: YES

The most immediate local implication of this measure would be in Marina, where voters are set to decide this Nov. 5 on Measure U, a $50 million bond. Under current law, such a measure requires two-thirds of the vote to pass—an admittedly high threshold. If Prop. 5 passes, it would require 55 percent of the vote—still a high bar, but much more manageable for small communities in need of infrastructure dollars. 

This proposition would take effect immediately, with consequences for Marina—and for other California municipalities in 2024 and beyond. 

Prop. 6 eliminates a constitutional provision allowing involuntary servitude for people who are incarcerated: YES

On its face, it should be clear: Prisoners are not slave labor. Prop. 6 would change the state constitution and codify that California can’t punish inmates by forcing them into prison jobs, and that it won’t be able to retaliate against those who refuse. In its place will be a volunteer work assignment program. This is a clever way to allow for prison labor to continue—which can be a productive opportunity—without paying inmates minimum wage.  

Prop. 32 raises the minimum wage to $17 in 2025 then to $18 in 2026: YES

It’s expensive around here. There is lots of data that shows that raising the minimum wage is good for the overall economy; employees with disposable income buy goods and services. 

Today, fry cooks at McDonald’s are making $20 an hour. Good for them. One of the unintended consequences, however, is that now kids who used to get their first job at fast food joints are being squeezed out by existing workers transferring from retail and service sectors. Raising the minimum wage in these two steps would level the playing field. It is a good policy that benefits workers. 

Prop. 33 repeals a 1995 law that restricts what type of residential units local rent control ordinances can be applied to: YES 

By endorsing yes on Prop. 33, we are not necessarily endorsing rent control, a complicated and flawed method to protect tenants from extravagant increases in rent—if they live in a rent-controlled unit and don’t move. Places with rent control have also experienced skyrocketing prices (landlords can hike the rent when tenants move out), and it can lead to incredibly uneven pricing and challenges for property owners to make their balance sheets work out. 

But we think local jurisdictions should at least have a chance to try rent control, if constituents ask for it. This measure would repeal the 1995 Costa-Hawkins Act, which prohibits rent control on units built after Feb. 1, 1995 and single-family homes. That means when cities do pass rent control measures—like Salinas, which last month approved a 2.75-percent cap on annual rent increases—the measure applies just to some rental units (older, multi-family buildings), not all. 

City governments must still decide if such ordinances are good policy in their cities, based on the needs of tenants and property owners. They can still define carve-outs that make sense to them (like Salinas exempting buildings that are designated as historic, in addition to the Costa-Hawkins Act exceptions). 

Existing law (ending in 2030) prohibits annual rent increases of more than 5 percent plus inflation—up to 10 percent—but local cities can go further, as have Salinas, Los Angeles and San Jose. 

Prop. 34 requires health care providers to spend 98 percent of federal discount drug programs directly on patient care, specifically affecting the AIDS Healthcare Foundation: NO 

This is a classic example of manipulation via the initiative process. Prop. 34 is so narrowly constructed that the reality is that it will affect very few health care providers. It is, however, a direct attack on AIDS Healthcare Foundation—an advocacy group that has blocked development in some cases—by the property management industry.

Prop. 35 extends an existing tax on managed health care plans: YES

Since 2009, California has charged a Managed Care Organization Provider tax on certain health plans, generating roughly $7.5 billion annually to the state. That revenue in turn goes to reducing certain health care costs by doing things like increasing compensation to providers for Medi-Cal patients. 

This tax has resurfaced in various ways at various points, most recently in 2023 and is set to end in 2026. This proposition would make the current tax permanent. 

Prop. 36 increases penalties for crimes of possession of certain drugs and for theft under $950: NO

An obvious example of when legislation-by-ballot doesn’t work well is in the realm of criminal justice, where a pendulum tends to swing back and forth, over-correcting each time. Prop. 36 is one such overly aggressive tough-on-crime push against reforms of recent years (namely Prop. 47 of 2014) that would enable prosecutors to charge certain drug possession crimes and thefts of property valued at less than $950 as felonies. It also lengthens some felony sentences for theft or property damage, and requires sentences connected to certain drugs to be served in prison, rather than county jails. 

Instead of ballot box legislation, legislators did their job. Led by Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, D-Hollister, lawmakers announced a series of 10 bills in the last session that address different elements of crime, with special attention on a growing problem of retail theft with specificity, compromise and the intent of real change. A bipartisan process resulted in a legislative package that we hope and think will work—but only if we give it a shot. Prop. 36 would undermine those efforts.

The Editorial Board comprises Weekly Founder & CEO Bradley Zeve, Publisher Erik Cushman and Editor Sara Rubin. The judgments of our editorial board are made independently of the Weekly’s news team.

For our endorsements in other elections this year, including local city councils, click here.