13

2024 ELECTION:2024 ELECTION: STATEWIDE PROPOSITIONS STATEWIDE PROPOSITIONS

Mountain Views-News Saturday, September 21, 2024 

VOTER INFORMATION FROM THE CALIFORNIA SECRETARY OF STATE

https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions

November 5, 2024, General Election

• The last day to register to vote for the November 5, 2024, General Election is October 21, 2024.

• All California active registered voters will receive a vote-by-mail ballot for the November 5, 2024, General Election.

• Your county elections office will begin mailing ballots by October 7, 2024.

• Ballot drop-off locations open on October 8, 2024.

• Vote-by-mail ballots can be returned by mail, at a drop-off location, or your county elections office.

• Vote centers open for early in-person voting in all Voter’s Choice Act counties beginning on October 26, 2024.

• Vote-by-mail ballots must be postmarked on or before Election Day and received by November 12, 2024.


PROPOSITION 2 Authorizes Bonds for Public School and Community 
College Facilities. Legislative Statute.

• Authorizes $10 billion in general obligation bonds for repair, upgrade, and construction 
of facilities at K–12 public schools (including charter schools), community colleges, and career 
technical education programs, including for improvement of health and safety conditions and 
classroom upgrades. Requires annual audits. Fiscal Impact: Increased state costs of about $500 
million annually for 35 years to repay the bond. Supporters: California Teachers Association; 
California School Nurses Organization; Community College League of California Opponents: 
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

• WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS

• YES: A YES vote on this measure means: The state could borrow $10 billion to build 
new or ren-ovate existing public school and community college facilities.

• NO: A NO vote on this measure means: The state could not borrow $10 billion to build 
new or renovate existing public school and community college facilities.

• ARGUMENTS

• PRO Many schools and community colleges are outdated and need basic health and safety 
re-pairs and upgrades to prepare students for college and careers and to retain and attract quality 
teachers. Prop. 2 meets those needs and requires strict taxpayer accountability so funds are spent 
as promised with local control.

• CON Proposition 2 will increase our bond obligations by $10 billion, which will cost 
taxpayers an estimated $18 billion when repaid with interest. A bond works like a government 
credit card—paying off that credit card requires the government to spend more of your tax dollars! 
Vote NO on Prop. 2.

• 

PROPOSITION 3 Constitutional Right to Marriage. Legislative Constitutional 
Amendment.

SUMMARY - Put on the Ballot by the Legislature

Amends California Constitution to recognize fundamental right to marry, regardless of sex or 
race. Removes language in California Constitution stating that marriage is only between a man 
and a woman. Fiscal Impact: No change in revenues or costs for state and local governments. 
Supporters: Sierra Pacific Synod of The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; Dolores Huerta 
Foundation; Equality California Opponents: Jonathan Keller, California Family Council; Rev. 
Tanner DiBella

WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS

YES A YES vote on this measure means: Language in the California Constitution would be 
updated to match who currently can marry. There would be no change in who can marry.

NO A NO vote on this measure means: Language in the California Constitution would not be 
changed. There would be no change in who can marry.

ARGUMENTS

PRO Proposition 3 protects Californians' freedom to marry, regardless of their race or gender. 
Proposition 3 removes discriminatory language from the California Constitution stating marriage 
is only between a man and a woman. Proposition 3 reinforces California's commitment to civil 
rights and protects personal freedom. Vote YES! YesonProp3CA.com

CON Proposition 3 removes all rules for marriage, opening the door to child marriages, incest, 
and po-lygamy. It changes California's constitution even though same-sex marriage is already 
legal. By making moms and dads optional, it puts children at risk. This careless measure harms 
families and society. Vote No on Proposition 3.

PROPOSITION 4 Authorizes Bonds for Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, 
and Protecting Communities and Natural Lands from Climate Risks. Legislative 
Statute.

SUMMARY Put on the Ballot by the Legislature

Authorizes $10 billion in general obligation bonds for water, wildfire prevention, and protection 
of com-munities and lands. Requires annual audits. Fiscal Impact: Increased state costs of about 
$400 million annually for 40 years to repay the bond. Supporters: Clean Water Action; CALFIRE 
Firefighters; National Wildlife Federation; The Nature Conservancy Opponents: Howard Jarvis 
Taxpayers Association

WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS

YES A YES vote on this measure means: The state could borrow $10 billion to fund various 
activities aimed at conserving natural resources, as well as responding to the causes and effects of 
climate change.

NO A NO vote on this measure means: The state could not borrow $10 billion to fund various 
activities aimed at conserving natural resources, as well as responding to the causes and effects of 
climate change.

ARGUMENTS

PRO Yes on 4 for safe drinking water, wildfire prevention, clean air, and protection of 
natural resources. California firefighters, conservation groups, clean water advocates urge 
YES. Accountable, fiscally re-sponsible, with independent audits, strict transparency. Proactive 
approach saves money and prevents the worst impacts of devastating wildfires, smoke, droughts, 
and pollution.

CON Bonds are the most expensive way to fund government spending. Water and wildfire 
mitigation are necessities, not luxuries. They should be budgeted for, not bonded. Mismanagement 
led to this crisis. This $10 billion bond will cost taxpayers almost $2 to repay for every dollar spent. 
Vote NO on Prop. 4.

PROPOSITION 5 Allows Local Bonds for Affordable Housing and Public 
Infrastructure with 55% Voter Approval. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.

SUMMARY Put on the Ballot by the Legislature

Allows approval of local infrastructure and housing bonds for low and middle income Californians 
with 55% vote. Accountability requirements. Fiscal Impact: Increased local borrowing to fund 
affordable housing, supportive housing, and public infrastructure. The amount would depend on 
decisions by local governments and voters. Borrowing would be repaid with higher property taxes. 
Supporters: California Professional Firefighters; League of Women Voters of California; Habitat 
for Humanity California Opponents: California Taxpayers Association; California Hispanic 
Chambers of Commerce; Women Veterans Alliance

WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS

YES A YES vote on this measure means: Certain local bonds and related property taxes could 
be ap-proved with a 55 percent vote of the local electorate, rather than the current two-thirds 
approval requirement. These bonds would have to fund affordable housing, supportive housing, 
or public infrastructure.

NO A NO vote on this measure means: Certain local bonds and related property taxes would 
continue to need approval by a two-thirds vote of the local electorate.

• 

PROPOSITION 6 Eliminates Constitutional Provision Allowing Involuntary 
Servitude for Incarcerated Persons. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.

SUMMARY Put on the Ballot by the Legislature

Amends the California Constitution to remove current provision that allows jails and prisons to 
impose involuntary servitude to punish crime (i.e., forcing incarcerated persons to work). Fiscal 
Impact: Potential increase or decrease in state and local costs, depending on how work for people 
in state prison and county jail changes. Any effect likely would not exceed the tens of millions of 
dollars annual-ly. Supporters: Assemblymember Lori Wilson Opponents: None submitted

WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS

YES A YES vote on this measure means: Involuntary servitude would not be allowed as 
punishment for crime. State prisons would not be allowed to discipline people in prison who refuse 
to work.

NO A NO vote on this measure means: Involuntary servitude would continue to be allowed as 
punishment for crime.

• 

PROPOSITION 32 Raises Minimum Wage. Initiative Statute.

SUMMARY Put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures

Raises minimum wage as follows: For employers with 26 or more employees, to $17 immediately, 
$18 on January 1, 2025. For employers with 25 or fewer employees, to $17 on January 1, 2025, $18 on 
January 1, 2026. Fiscal Impact: State and local government costs could increase or decrease by up to 
hundreds of millions of dollars annually. State and local revenues likely would decrease by no more 
than a few hundred million dollars annually. Supporters: None submitted Opponents: California 
Chamber of Commerce; California Restaurant Association; California Grocers Association

WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS

YES A YES vote on this measure means: The state minimum wage would be $18 per hour in 
2026. After that, it would go up each year based on how fast prices are going up.

NO A NO vote on this measure means: The state minimum wage likely would be about $17 per 
hour in 2026. After that, it would go up each year based on how fast prices are going up.

ARGUMENTS

PRO YES on Proposition 32 raises the minimum wage to $18 so more SERVICE, ESSENTIAL, 
AND OTHER WORKERS, and SINGLE MOMS can AFFORD the state’s COST OF LIVING. 
CORPORATE PROFIT MARGINS INCREASED 100% since 2000 because CORPORATIONS 
SPIKED the PRICES OF GOODS. YES on PROP. 32 so workers can afford life’s basic needs.

CON Prop. 32 was written by one multimillionaire alone, and he wrote a horribly flawed measure. 
Prop. 32 increases the cost of living, eliminates jobs, makes our state and local government budget 
deficits worse, and makes California’s complex minimum wage laws even harder for businesses 
and workers to understand. No on 32!

 

PROPOSITION 33 Expands Local Governments' Authority to Enact Rent Con-
trol on Residential Property. Initiative Statute.

SUMMARY Put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures

Repeals Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995, which currently prohibits local ordinances 
limiting initial residential rental rates for new tenants or rent increases for existing tenants in 
certain residential properties. Fiscal Impact: Reduction in local property tax revenues of at least 
tens of millions of dollars annually due to likely expansion of rent control in some communities. 
Supporters: CA Nurses Assoc.; CA Alliance for Retired Americans; Mental Health Advocacy; 
Coalition for Economic Survival; TenantsTogether Opponents: California Council for Affordable 
Housing; Women Veterans Alliance; Califor-nia Chamber of Commerce

WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS

YES A YES vote on this measure means: State law would not limit the kinds of rent control laws 
cities and counties could have.

NO A NO vote on this measure means: State law would continue to limit the kinds of rent 
control laws cities and counties could have.

ARGUMENTS

PRO The rent is too damn high. One million people have left California. Rent control in America 
has worked to keep people in their homes since 1919. California’s 17 million renters need relief. 
Homeowners and taxpayers benefit from stable communities. The California dream is dying. You 
can help save it.

CON Don’t be fooled by the latest corporate landlord anti-housing scheme. California voters 
have rejected this radical proposal twice before, because it would freeze the construction of new 
housing and could effectively reverse dozens of new state housing laws. Vote No on 33 to protect 
new affordable housing and California homeowners.

• 

PROPOSITION 34 Restricts Spending of Prescription Drug Revenues by Certain 
Health Care Providers. Initiative Statute.

SUMMARY Put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures

Requires certain providers to spend 98% of revenues from federal discount prescription drug 
program on direct patient care. Authorizes statewide negotiation of Medi-Cal drug prices. Fiscal 
Impact: Increased state costs, likely in the millions of dollars annually, to enforce new rules on 
certain health care entities. Affected entities would pay fees to cover these costs. Supporters: The 
ALS Association; California Chronic Care Coalition; Latino Heritage Los Angeles Opponents: 
National Org. for Women; Consumer Watchdog; Coalition for Economic Survival; AIDS 
Healthcare Foundation; Dolores Huerta

WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS

YES A YES vote on this measure means: Certain health care entities would have to follow new 
rules about how they spend revenue they earn from a federal drug discount program. Breaking 
these rules would result in penalties (such as not being able to operate as a health care entity), 
generally for a ten-year period.

NO A NO vote on this measure means: These new rules would not go into effect.

ARGUMENTS

PRO Proposition 34 will protect patients and ensure public healthcare dollars actually go to 
patients who need it. Prop. 34 will close a loophole that allows corporations to spend this money on 
things like buying stadium naming rights and multi-million dollar CEO salaries. Protect Patients 
Now. Vote Yes on Proposition 34.

CON Prop. 34—The Revenge Initiative. California Apartment Association, representing 
billionaire corpo-rate landlords, doesn't care about patients. Their sole purpose is silencing AIDS 
Healthcare Foundation, the sponsor of the rent control initiative. 34 weaponizes the ballot, is a 
threat to democracy, and opens the door to attacks on any non-profit.

PROPOSITION 35 Provides Permanent Funding for Medi-Cal Health Care 
Services. Initiative Statute.

SUMMARY Put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures

Makes permanent the existing tax on managed health care insurance plans, which, if approved by 
the federal government, provides revenues to pay for Medi-Cal health care services. Fiscal Impact: 
Short-term state costs between roughly $1 billion and $2 billion annually to increase fund-ing for 
certain health programs. Total funding increase between roughly $2 billion to $5 billion annually. 
Unknown long-term fiscal effects. Supporters: Planned Parenthood Affiliates of CA; American 
College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists; American Academy of Pediatrics, CA Opponents: None 
submitted

WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS

YES A YES vote on this measure means: An existing state tax on health plans that provides 
funding for certain health programs would become permanent. New rules would direct how the 
state must use the revenue.

NO A NO vote on this measure means: An existing state tax on health plans would end in 2027, 
unless the Legislature continues it. The new rules would not become law.

ARGUMENTS

PRO Yes on 35 addresses our urgent healthcare crisis by securing dedicated funding—without 
raising taxes—to 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. Supported by Planned Parenthood, pediatricians, California Medical 
Association. www.VoteYes35.com

CON No argument against Proposition 35 was submitted.

PROPOSITION 36 Allows Felony Charges and Increases Sentences for Certain 
Drug and Theft Crimes. Initiative Statute.

SUMMARY Put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures

Allows felony charges for possessing certain drugs and for thefts under $950, if defendant has 
two prior drug or theft convictions. Fiscal Impact: State criminal justice costs likely ranging 
from several tens of millions of dollars to the low hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Local 
criminal justice costs likely in the tens of millions of dollars annually. Supporters: Crime Victims 
United of California; California District Attorneys Association; Family Business Association of 
California Opponents: Diana Becton, District Attorney Contra Costa County; Crime Survivors 
for Safety and Justice

WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS

YES A YES vote on this measure means: People convicted of certain drug or theft crimes 
could receive increased punishment, such as longer prison sentences. In certain cases, people who 
possess illegal drugs would be required to complete treatment or serve up to three years in prison.

NO A NO vote on this measure means: Punishment for drug and theft crimes would remain 
the same.

ARGUMENTS

PRO Prop. 36 makes California communities safer by addressing rampant theft and drug 
trafficking. It toughens penalties for fentanyl and drug traffickers and "smash-and-grabs" while 
holding repeat offenders accountable. It targets serial thieves and encourages treatment for those 
addicted to drugs, using a balanced approach to fix loopholes in current laws.

CON Don't be fooled. Proposition 36 will lead to more crime, not less. It reignites the failed war 
on drugs, makes simple drug possession a felony, and wastes billions on prisons, while slashing 
crucial funding for victims, crime prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation. This puts prisons first 
and guts treatment. Vote No.


Mountain Views News 80 W Sierra Madre Blvd. No. 327 Sierra Madre, Ca. 91024 Office: 626.355.2737 Fax: 626.609.3285 Email: editor@mtnviewsnews.com Website: www.mtnviewsnews.com